Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Geneology?


crazy-tiger

Recommended Posts

Since he was born of the virgin birth, he never recieved the royal blood from Joseph

 

Geez, you guys seriously need help if that's how you convince yourselves to dismiss the virgin birth. Yes God helped Mary to miraculously conceive...and you know how he did it? Gee I don't know maybe he used Joseph's seed to do it? If God planted Joseph's seed in Mary's womb then obviously that explains how Jesus is both the divine son of God, and also heir to the throne of David.

 

If God planted Joseph's seed in Mary, than Jesus really isn't anything more than a glorified and utterly and completely human test tube baby. He really has nothing to do with your God at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • crazy-tiger

    18

  • Mythra

    12

  • SkepticOfBible

    12

  • daniel_1012

    12

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest TruthofChrist (Rameus Spoof)
Being wrong? Pardon me, dumbass - but where in the Bible do you get your information from? Where's your proof of what you claim?

101648[/snapback]

 

Oh gee I don't know, where it says that he is simultaneously the son of God and an of the seed of Joseph. There is only one way that can be possible with Mary remaining a virgin, and that's if God endowed Joseph's seed with his divine essence, and placed it in Mary's womb so she would conceive. And not one of you here can disprove that, so keep reaching for more reasons to be skeptical.

 

Joseph was thinking about renouncing Mary, why should he've thought such things if he was the one that had sex with Mary? Come on, we'll need a better explanation than that one.

 

You’re not even listening. JOSEPH DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH MARY. God placed his seed in her womb after endowing it with his divine essence. This explanation fits the facts perfect, which is why it is the correct one. And it’s also why so many of you are hurling insults, curses and blaspheming God by insinuating that he "jerked off" into Mary. And by the way that is such a disgusting scenario it makes me wonder about the mental health of the person who wrote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And not one of you here can disprove that, so keep reaching for more reasons to be skeptical.

102478[/snapback]

Hmm..... Heh... So....... You are saying that we don't have proof that it didn't happen that way, therefore, our skepticism is invalid.

 

Wow... I'm not sure I heard that one before..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait a minute.....

 

 

Maybe I have.

 

 

burden_of_proof.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JOSEPH DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH MARY.
Ever? Not even after her duties as divine incubation were done?

 

God endowed Joseph's seed with his divine essence, and placed it in Mary's womb so she would conceive. And not one of you here can disprove that, so keep reaching for more reasons to be skeptical.
Good guess. But which part of the bible says that? And if god placed his divinity into the seed of Joseph, and then placed it into Mary, why, that's pretty much the same as if they had got to it, or perhaps it was some sort of divine in-vitro. Which begs the question: What was the point of Mary being a virgin?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TruthofChrist (Rameus Spoof)
And not one of you here can disprove that, so keep reaching for more reasons to be skeptical.

102478[/snapback]

Hmm..... Heh... So....... You are saying that we don't have proof that it didn't happen that way, therefore, our skepticism is invalid.

 

Wow... I'm not sure I heard that one before..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait a minute.....

 

 

Maybe I have.

 

 

burden_of_proof.jpg

102481[/snapback]

 

Yeah exactly, burdon of proof. It rests on you. We have the historical accounts in the gospels. I have shown you a scenario where Jesus is both the son of Joseph, and the divine son of God, that matches up perfectly with the Gospel accounts. You are the one that is trying to throw out the historical accounts, therefore the burdon of proof rests with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TruthofChrist (Rameus Spoof)
JOSEPH DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH MARY.
Ever? Not even after her duties as divine incubation were done?

 

God endowed Joseph's seed with his divine essence, and placed it in Mary's womb so she would conceive. And not one of you here can disprove that, so keep reaching for more reasons to be skeptical.
Good guess. But which part of the bible says that? And if god placed his divinity into the seed of Joseph, and then placed it into Mary, why, that's pretty much the same as if they had got to it, or perhaps it was some sort of divine in-vitro.

102482[/snapback]

 

Good lord. THE WHOLE STORY SAYS IT. If Jesus is the divine son of God then why would they list off his genealogy through Joseph? God doesn't have to go into the nitty gritty details of precisely how the miracle was done. Did he get into the nittle gritty details of how the miracles were done during the old covenant? Then why should he do so with the new covenant miracles?

 

Which begs the question: What was the point of Mary being a virgin?

 

So you haven't read the book of Leviticus then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah exactly, burdon of proof.  It rests on you.  We have the historical accounts in the gospels.  I have shown you a scenario where Jesus is both the son of Joseph, and the divine son of God, that matches up perfectly with the Gospel accounts.  You are the one that is trying to throw out the historical accounts, therefore the burdon of proof rests with you.

102486[/snapback]

Oh really? Let's take a look at all your posts. Upon closer inspection, I have yet to see you link to a single historical account. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, your assertion that you have such historical accounts have about as much weight as empty space. And even if you do provide historical accounts, how do you know they are not revisionist? The burden of proof still lies on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you haven't read the book of Leviticus then?
Umm... I meant what was the point of the immaculate conception, if your unsupported claim is true that it was Joseph's seed. Why couldn't god simply have endowed said seed with the essense and let...nature... :shrug: take it's course?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TruthofChrist (Rameus Spoof)
Yeah exactly, burdon of proof.  It rests on you.  We have the historical accounts in the gospels.  I have shown you a scenario where Jesus is both the son of Joseph, and the divine son of God, that matches up perfectly with the Gospel accounts.  You are the one that is trying to throw out the historical accounts, therefore the burdon of proof rests with you.

102486[/snapback]

Oh really? Let's take a look at all your posts. Upon closer inspection, I have yet to see you link to a single historical account. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, your assertion that you have such historical accounts have about as much weight as empty space. And even if you do provide historical accounts, how do you know they are not revisionist? The burden of proof still lies on you.

102490[/snapback]

 

"The burdon of proof" really is the rallying cry of deluded skeptics all around the globe isn't it? I've given you guys a reasonable explaination for the Gospel accounts (which by the way are the historical accounts I've been referring to :Doh: ) and your responses basically consist of:

 

1. Your stupid TruthofChrist.

2. God did X into Mary's Y.

3. :Doh: Uh.....prove it TruthofChrist.

 

If my explaination must be wrong, then tell me why its wrong. Otherwise, admit that it's at least possible. And if it's possible, then I'll just play it safe and take this one on faith if that's alright with you fellas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The burdon of proof" really is the rallying cry of deluded skeptics all around the globe isn't it?  I've given you guys a reasonable explaination for the Gospel accounts (which by the way are the historical accounts I've been referring to  :Doh: ) and your responses basically consist of:

 

1.  Your stupid TruthofChrist.

2.  God did X into Mary's Y.

3.  :Doh: Uh.....prove it TruthofChrist.

 

If my explaination must be wrong, then tell me why its wrong.  Otherwise, admit that it's at least possible.  And if it's possible, then I'll just play it safe and take this one on faith if that's alright with you fellas.

102507[/snapback]

Hmmm... I may have used a graphic to add some color to this debate, but last time I checked, I didn't call you stupid. Furthermore, I find it ironic that you should describe skeptics as being deluded.

 

As far as the Gospel accounts are concerned, you are the one asserting that they are historical accounts. As far as I am concerned, that is an assertion that requires proof. Until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I will remain skeptic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making broad assumptions on why the geneology of both is listed. You're assuming that since it includes the lineage of both parents then your explanation must be correct. That's a huge leap of faith, since the Bible never says that.

 

Since you ARE making the assumption < A positive position, and we're the ones saying "But that's not shown anywhere" < A negative position, the burdon of proof DOES rest on you. To claim that your theory is correct, and it is a theory as the Bible doesn't get into specifics as to how the 'virgin conception' took place, you'll need to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TruthofChrist (Rameus Spoof)
As far as the Gospel accounts are concerned, you are the one asserting that they are historical accounts. As far as I am concerned, that is an assertion that requires proof. Until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I will remain skeptic.

102514[/snapback]

 

Great. So obviously we need to prove that every ancient writing ever discovered is historical. How do we "prove" that? Don't we take a lot of it on faith? Explain to me how we prove that what Tacitus wrote is historical. Prove to me that what Herodotus wrote is historical. What about Plutarch? What about Suetonius, and Livy, and others? Prove they are historical accounts. If you can't then we need to throw out 99% of what we know about Roman history.

 

Historians tend to take what is written as historical, unless they can come up with sufficient cause not to do so. So, if the gospels are not historical, then let's see some sufficient cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TruthofChrist (Rameus Spoof)
You're making broad assumptions on why the geneology of both is listed. You're assuming that since it includes the lineage of both parents then your explanation must be correct. That's a huge leap of faith, since the Bible never says that.

 

Since you ARE making the assumption < A positive position, and we're the ones saying "But that's not shown anywhere" < A negative position, the burdon of proof DOES rest on you. To claim that your theory is correct, and it is a theory as the Bible doesn't get into specifics as to how the 'virgin conception' took place, you'll need to back it up.

102516[/snapback]

 

The rallying cry of skeptics everywhere. Prove it! Prove it! I thought you guys were oh so enlightened, that those of us who believe in the bible are just a bunch of idiots because we don't know what you know.

 

So far you guys are great at avoiding questions, avoiding having to give any sort of evidence, and being skeptical about everything biblical (while at the same time taking other historical people and events on faith!) Too funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is there that WE have to provide evidence about? (regarding geneology, keep other thread discussions separate please.)

 

You say "Joseph's seed was used" and there's no where in the Bible that SAYS that. The closest thing you can come up with is saying, that THATS the reason there are two geneologies, but once again that's just an assumption, just a hypothesis.

 

You say we're avoiding questions? You can't back up your claim, so you're trying to change the subject.

 

I'll say it again. You're making a rash leap of faith, your logic does not follow, and you'll have to provide more evidence to get anyone here to believe your claim. So yes. PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TruthofChrist (Rameus Spoof)
What exactly is there that WE have to provide evidence about? (regarding geneology, keep other thread discussions separate please.)

 

You say "Joseph's seed was used" and there's no where in the Bible that SAYS that. The closest thing you can come up with is saying, that THATS the reason there are two geneologies, but once again that's just an assumption, just a hypothesis.

 

You say we're avoiding questions? You can't back up your claim, so you're trying to change the subject.

 

I'll say it again. You're making a rash leap of faith, your logic does not follow, and you'll have to provide more evidence to get anyone here to believe your claim. So yes. PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

102538[/snapback]

 

I said in another post that God didn't describe in great detail the miracles from the old covenant, why would he do so with the new convenant. Should we have expected him to write:

 

1. Collected Joseph's seed.

2. Charged Joseph's seed with the spirit of the Holy Ghost.

3. Inserted seed into Mary's womb.

4. Turned on oven, and let rise for 9 months.

 

God isn't in the business of writing recipes folks. He never did miraculous deeds in tremendous detail in the old testament, so its not ridiculous that he didnt in the new testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TruthofChrist (Rameus Spoof)
I'll say it again. You're making a rash leap of faith, your logic does not follow, and you'll have to provide more evidence to get anyone here to believe your claim. So yes. PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

102538[/snapback]

 

Your making a leap of faith that the divine birth didn't happen. Where is your proof that it didn't? Your friends said it couldn't have happened because Jesus could not have been both Joseph's son, and the son of God at once. I've shown how he could have.

 

End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then no one here is going to believe your claim. I certainly don't.

 

It's a hypothesis, nothing more. Nothing backs it up. It's YOUR claim. Not the Bible's, not God's, it's just YOU.

 

Stop expecting people to believe simply because you say 'HEY! WHAT IF THIS HAPPENED!' You're just going to get funny looks.

 

HEY! What if aliens implanted all of us here, pretended to be God and inspired man to write the Bible just to fuck with our heads. They'd have the technology to remove Joseph's seed and place it in Mary, and the technology to perform all the miracles in the Bible! SHAZAM! Aliens are God!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say it again. You're making a rash leap of faith, your logic does not follow, and you'll have to provide more evidence to get anyone here to believe your claim. So yes. PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

102538[/snapback]

 

Your making a leap of faith that the divine birth didn't happen. Where is your proof that it didn't? Your friends said it couldn't have happened because Jesus could not have been both Joseph's son, and the son of God at once. I've shown how he could have.

 

End of story.

102543[/snapback]

 

... You're a fucking retard. NO ONE HERE HAS TO PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THINGS HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO HAVE HAPPENED, NOT THAT THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN. Aliens created the world. Where's your proof that, that didn't happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then no one here is going to believe your claim. I certainly don't.

 

It's a hypothesis, nothing more. Nothing backs it up. It's YOUR claim. Not the Bible's, not God's, it's just YOU.

 

It's my interpretation of what is written in the Gospels. You guys use your interpretations of the Bible to prove contradictions, and historical innaccuracies, and all sorts of other claims. So if my interpretation is just my claim, and therefore does not constitute a resolution of the Son of Joseph / Son of God problem, then why do your interpretations constitute proof of contradictions, impossibilities, historical errors and all that?

 

Stop expecting people to believe simply because you say 'HEY! WHAT IF THIS HAPPENED!' You're just going to get funny looks.

 

HEY! What if aliens implanted all of us here, pretended to be God and inspired man to write the Bible just to fuck with our heads. They'd have the technology to remove Joseph's seed and place it in Mary, and the technology to perform all the miracles in the Bible! SHAZAM! Aliens are God!

102545[/snapback]

 

Aliens created the world. Where's your proof that, that didn't happen?

 

Find me an ancient historical account that says that and I will. We can only deal with the claims that are made in ancient historical accounts, we can't just makes ones up and then try to use them as ethnographic examples. Doesn't work that way, sorry. Don't believe me? Ask any anthropologist in the world about the proper use of ethnographic examples and they will reinforce my statement that we can only use ones that exist in history, not ones that don't exist.

 

You're a fucking retard.

 

More insults from the godless crowd. Big surprise. It's a good thing you guys aren't foregone conclusions or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TruthofChrist:

 

YOU are the one making the claim. YOU are trying to convince US that YOUR claim is valid. Therefore, the BURDEN OF PROOF rests ON YOU.

 

Seriously. Only a complete and utter fucking functionally retarded half-wit couldn't understand that.

 

TruthofChrist, unless you can start backing up your assertions with something other than "I said so, you just don't believe me blah blah blah", you're a liar. WORSE than a liar, even - you're a blasphemer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TruthofChrist:

 

YOU are the one making the claim. YOU are trying to convince US that YOUR claim is valid. Therefore, the BURDEN OF PROOF rests ON YOU.

 

Seriously. Only a complete and utter fucking functionally retarded half-wit couldn't understand that.

 

TruthofChrist, unless you can start backing up your assertions with something other than "I said so, you just don't believe me blah blah blah", you're a liar. WORSE than a liar, even - you're a blasphemer.

102666[/snapback]

The way I see it, he is trying to stir shit up. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he is trying to rile us up to make us look like dipshits. He wants us to ignore him so he can claim victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one way that can be possible with Mary remaining a virgin, and that's if God endowed Joseph's seed with his divine essence, and placed it in Mary's womb so she would conceive.  And not one of you here can disprove that, so keep reaching for more reasons to be skeptical.

JOSEPH DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH MARY.  God placed his seed in her womb after endowing it with his divine essence.  This explanation fits the facts perfect, which is why it is the correct one.  And it’s also why so many of you are hurling insults, curses and blaspheming God by insinuating that he "jerked off" into Mary.  And by the way that is such a disgusting scenario it makes me wonder about the mental health of the person who wrote it.

102478[/snapback]

 

:twitch: Are you... serious?

You are building some improbable theories there, instead of simply having Joseph doing perfectly human and reasonable things, like impregnating Mary with regular sex, or impregnating her, maybe by mistake, with his semen, without penetrating her (thus leaving her a virgin)... and, no, there is nothing wrong about jerking off into mary or any other woman, lots of men are turned on by seeing their women covered up with their semen, you know?

 

Okay, let me figure this out.

You say that god placed joseph's seed inside mary's womb, after "endowing it with his divine essence".

Do you mean that god stretched out his hand to grab a handful of joseph semen?

So Joseph did jerk off at night. And god grabbed a bit of his semen from his nocturnal pollutions?

Or maybe, Joseph didn't jerk off at night, so that leaves the doubt about how did God manage to get a sample of his semen. Did god jerk off joseph with his almighty ethereal invisible hand? Poor Joseph - he was used and didn't even know that... "what's happening? Who's there? Argh! Not only my home is infested by ghosts, they're perverted ghosts too!".

Or maybe god just extended his hand, grabbed one of Joseph's testicles, and then he squeezed it like a lemon's quarter to milk the semen out of it, then he put it back inside the scrotum?

 

I am so fascinated by your hypotesis, I'm thinking about converting back to christianity, this god of yours seems like a good fellow that sure KNOWS how to have fun with people! :lmao:

 

My mental health? I just think that the bible is false, you are the one with invisible imaginary friends that go and jerk off poor carpenters in the middle of the night. So who's the crazy one here? :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great.  So obviously we need to prove that every ancient writing ever discovered is historical.  How do we "prove" that?  Don't we take a lot of it on faith

102525[/snapback]

 

Your words do have some merit, in fact.

Homer wrote a couple books, about 9 or 10 centuries before the gospels were written. Odissey and Iliades. They sure are historical writings.

Sooo does this mean that neptune exist? The gospels are historical, Odissey and Iliades are historical, this means that they are both true?

Either you think that both the gospels and Homer's writings are historical (and thus in your words, TRUE, and so you think that god exists but so do Zeus, Athena, Neptune, the Cyclopes, and so on...), or you believe just the gospels, and you don't believe Homer's writings, and then you reveal yourself for the hypocrite you are. To think that we have proof that Troy was indeed destroyed (and more than once, too), as Homer says in his writings, so he must have the Truth...

You don't believe EVERY ancient writing, no matter how historical they might be, you believe only your bible, because you are brainwashed. I don't expect you to have the gall to admit it, though. :blah:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historians tend to take what is written as historical, unless they can come up with sufficient cause not to do so.  So, if the gospels are not historical, then let's see some sufficient cause.

102525[/snapback]

 

Read Paul Tobin's Central Thesis. He does a good job at reviewing historicity.

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/authornt.html

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html

 

there's enough to get you started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.