God's Plan?
Moderator: Moderators
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1648 times
- Been thanked: 1107 times
God's Plan?
Post #1For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2022 times
- Been thanked: 797 times
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1648 times
- Been thanked: 1107 times
Re: God's Plan?
Post #72Then you are not looking.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8455
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 985 times
- Been thanked: 3649 times
Re: God's Plan?
Post #73Yes. This is blatant denial - not seeing what one doesn't want to see.
Look friends, we know what is going on: the idea that if they deny everything, they win. It is however down to our jury to decide who has the best case, and the argument was always addressed to them not to the advocate to get them to admit where the evidence points. That, they will never do.
Look friends, we know what is going on: the idea that if they deny everything, they win. It is however down to our jury to decide who has the best case, and the argument was always addressed to them not to the advocate to get them to admit where the evidence points. That, they will never do.
- The Nice Centurion
- Sage
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 103 times
Re: God's Plan?
Post #74Was it the god Uranus
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again”
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2022 times
- Been thanked: 797 times
Re: God's Plan?
Post #75Ironically, this is probably a decent answer. Technically, if we believe the stories, Jesus's real father was a god. So another god as a grandfather makes more sense.
A better question for 1213 would actually be "Who was Joseph's father?". That way we can side step the above wrinkle.
However, even if we ignore that wrinkle and swallow the handwaving that will surely ensue about Joseph's father, what use does trying to tie Jesus to any bloodline through Joseph? You guessed it, trying to fiddle the story to line up with prophesies about being a son of David.
The strange thing is that both writers in question use a genealogy through fathers instead of mothers (because women didn't matter as much apparently). If they had gone through Mary's line, it would make more sense to a point. However, that would break the son of A, son of B, .... son of David. Wouldn't want to mention daughters or mothers and break things
Since Jesus was 'born of a virgin', they should be caring about the genealogy back from Mary. That's not what's written though (ignoring the impending failed apologetic that one of them is so they can ignore the contradiction).
This one little thing is itself a house of cards easily blown over by anyone willing to read what's actually written and think about it for a second.
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1648 times
- Been thanked: 1107 times
Re: God's Plan?
Post #76And to think, this is yet another one of those topics in which skeptics and doubters could not so easily bring to light, if God had instead opted to write the book himself. Why leave such publication to obviously flawed human beings?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 3:06 pmIronically, this is probably a decent answer. Technically, if we believe the stories, Jesus's real father was a god. So another god as a grandfather makes more sense.
A better question for 1213 would actually be "Who was Joseph's father?". That way we can side step the above wrinkle.
However, even if we ignore that wrinkle and swallow the handwaving that will surely ensue about Joseph's father, what use does trying to tie Jesus to any bloodline through Joseph? You guessed it, trying to fiddle the story to line up with prophesies about being a son of David.
The strange thing is that both writers in question use a genealogy through fathers instead of mothers (because women didn't matter as much apparently). If they had gone through Mary's line, it would make more sense to a point. However, that would break the son of A, son of B, .... son of David. Wouldn't want to mention daughters or mothers and break things
Since Jesus was 'born of a virgin', they should be caring about the genealogy back from Mary. That's not what's written though (ignoring the impending failed apologetic that one of them is so they can ignore the contradiction).
This one little thing is itself a house of cards easily blown over by anyone willing to read what's actually written and think about it for a second.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11594
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 379 times
Re: God's Plan?
Post #77Obviously, God is the Father of Jesus, and God has no father, which is why Jesus doesn't have a grandfather from his fathers side. But, if we are speaking of his adoption father and his father, there are few possible answers to this:
1. His grandfather had two names, Jacob and Heli.
2. His grandfather was only Heli. Matthew is speaking of the book of generations, which is not necessary the same as the direct family tree of Jesus.
3. Family trees are not necessary complete in the Bible. It is possible that the original scriptures have been damaged so that we don't have all the names and there are missing parts. This doesn't mean Bible has error, only that it is not completely preserved.
All of the tree options are possible, which is why it is not possible to say there is an error. At the best, for your case, you can only say that there may be missing parts in the Bible.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8455
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 985 times
- Been thanked: 3649 times
Re: God's Plan?
Post #79We do not fail; you deny compelling evidence. Just as you deny (or ignore) the obvious reason that the genealogies do not match - they were worked out independently and so contradict, just as the gospels contradict throughout. The excuses are not even too good taken in isolation; considered with the many other and bigger contradictions, the go -to reason is that they are fabricated and not true.
Your 'Faith'manifests in not even considering the best answer but looking for excuses.
But be of good cheer that is what all the others do, too.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2022 times
- Been thanked: 797 times
Re: God's Plan?
Post #80Yes, this is the best answer, though it becomes problematic when trying to fulfill the prophesy of being a son of David (which a son of a God cannot be obviously).
The real error is who is Joseph's father:
If you opt for this answer, then no name given in the Bible can be trusted and the entire thing falls apart. The Bible either has some errors or it doesn't.
Even more damning to this argument is the fact that if you actually read what's written, it's not just one name that's different. In your apologetic, who was Jacob/Heli's father? Woops. Oh, that guy has two names as well. How about the next one. Oops again, two different names.
I think the only people who buy this argument are those who don't want to actually read what's written and just make stuff up to keep their beliefs intact.
Another fail. Please read what's actually written in the Bible. Stop making up stuff to sweep issues under the rug.
It clearly says:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE
andJacob the father of Joseph
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE
You can waffle all you want. It says 'father' and 'son', not relative, book, or whatever else you want to insert into scripture.Joseph son of Heli
This is the worst argument of all of them. Again, read what's written. There's no gap. It doesn't say 'related to through many generations from ...." or something like that. It says plainly either "son of ..." or "father of ...".
All of your options fail on simple reading.
At best, one of the genealogies has some errors in it. More likely, both contain errors. Possibly, both are completely made up to fiddle a fulfilled prophesy into reality.
When apologists claim there are no errors in the Bible and then have to start making up excuses that one name means another name (in multiple spots), there are gaps when none are written about, or the words in one place mean one thing, but in another mean something else I think we all know what's going on.
This is simply faith based denial of hard evidence. What's written is what's written. When you have to pretend that some of what's written doesn't mean what it says, you may as well just toss the entire thing since any word could mean anything (and as we see in apologetics, often does).