Questions Your Pastor Will Hate -- Part2

By Dennis Diehl

Thanks for letting me ask my questions Pastor. I know I'm just a kid but these are just a few things I have noticed in the Bible about the Birth Narratives of Jesus in Matthew and know, the Christmas story.

Question. Pastor...What difference does it make for Matthew and Luke to show us Jesus family connections from Mary and Joseph back to King David and Adam, when God was his real Father? Aren't genealogies meaningless since Joseph was a stop father, and all coming before him would be step ancestors to Jesus. So Jesus can't be connected back to King David as the line breaks between Jesus and Joseph. Right?

Question. Pastor... If the Holy Spirit, which I think you said was a person in the Trinity, begot Mary, isn't the Holy Spirit really Jesus literal father?” Would this not then make God Jesus uncle of sorts, or Jesus his own Father, since they are three in one, coequal and co...oh you understand. This is a mystery isn't it?

Question. Father... Why do I have to call you Father, when Jesus said to call no man “Father” except his?

Question. Pastor... Matthew 1: 17 says that Jacob was Joseph's father, but Luke 3:23 says that Heli was Joseph's father. Was Joseph's father Jacob Heli Rubinstein or something?

Question. Pastor...Why does it always seem that women in the Bible who give birth to important men, like Elizabeth being John the Baptist's mom, are always barren and really old. (Luke 1:7). But then, women who give birth to gods are never barren but always pure virgin, and really young like her relative Mary.

Question. Pastor... Why in Luke 1:18-20 does the Angel make the old husband of Elizabeth unable to speak for not believing that he would have a son? Seems like a normal thing not to believe at his age. And yet, in Luke 1: 34 Mary tells the Angel she can't believe that she will have Jesus the King because she doesn't even have a husband. At least Zechariah had an old wife. Yet, the angel doesn't make her mute for not believing him. Do you think the Angel had a quota on how many people a day he could make blind and mute?

Question. Pastor... In the same story, in verse 41, old Elizabeth praises Mary for being the mother of her Lord. How did she find out that Mary was going to give birth to a god? Is that the kind of story you think the family passed on to her prior to Mary coming for a visit? And pastor, do you think it is strange that an old woman who is just now in life having her first son would instinctively praise a young virgin for being pregnant? Just a thought.

Question. Pastor... In that same account in Luke 1:46, “and Mary said, 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden,'” sound more like something that Elizabeth would say since she was doing all the talking up to that point? And don't you think it amazing that this bursting into song of Mary is so much the same as the story of Hannah, an old barren woman in I Samuel 1, who gave birth to Samuel? And isn't it interesting that a razor was not to come on Samuel just like Elizabeth's baby John? And how about that part where Hanna can't speak either, just like Elizabeth's husband Zechariah? Oh and how about when Elizabeth said in verse 18, “Let your maidservant find favor in your eyes.” Wow, sounds a lot like what Mary just said about herself in Luke. Could it be that Luke is using the Hannah story to tell the Mary and Elizabeth story. And could it be that it was really Elizabeth, the old barren woman, still speaking in Luke and not Mary at all about her joy like the old barren Hannah, but someone attributed what Elizabeth was more like to say to Mary? Know what I'm sayin?

Questions. Pastor... See in Luke 1:56 where it says that “and Mary stayed with her about three months,” and then Elizabeth had John in vs. 57? Since the whole chapter is really about Elizabeth and Zechariah, doesn't it sound like that when it says “Mary stayed with HER” that the “her” is the one who just got done speaking what Mary is said to have said? You know, Elizabeth really and not Mary...really? Editors did stuff like that right?

Question. Pastor... Why do you think that no other Gospel or really anyone in the New Testament ever mentions this story again? Do you think it is here to be sure that everyone understood John was second to Jesus no matter what anyone else might think?

Question. Ok, these birth stories are great, but I have a lot of questions about them. Are you up for this? Great!

Question. Pastor... Since Matthew and Luke read just as well without the birth stories of Jesus, do you think they might have been added much later to the books? I mean really we don't go to the hospital to see a famous person born and the exciting special birth stories aren't usually written until after the baby grows up and becomes famous right? Like Yassir Arafat always saying he was born in Jerusalem, because that's the great place to be born, but in fact he was born in Cairo. Or like politicians who are born somewhere else, but need to be from a certain place to run for office. Just a thought.

Question. Pastor... Why doesn't Mark know anything about Jesus birth stories?

Question. Pastor... Why , in the Gospel of John , in chapters 7 and 8 is there this big argument of how Jesus is a born of fornication (8:41) and Jesus tells a story about a woman taken in adultery and forgiven (8:1) which lies right between a big argument over knowing that Jesus is from Galilee and not Bethlehem as the scripture says? (7:41) and Jesus exploding and telling them they are all sons of the devil. Wow, seems not everyone knew anything about what Matthew and Luke had to say about Jesus birth!

Question. Pastor... Why does Matthew say that Isaiah 7:14 predicts the Virgin birth of Jesus when the story of Isaiah has absolutely nothing to do with a virgin giving birth to a son that was really God? “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.'” ( Matthew 1:22-23). Isn't Isaiah talking about a baby born as a sign to Ahab, king of Israel, that some northern invasion back then would not be the end of them? And what's with that same story in Isaiah saying, that the boy baby would eat butter and honey and BEFORE he knew to refuse the evil and choose the good, the bad guy would be beaten? (Isaiah 7:15-16) Does this mean that Jesus did evil too before he was prophesied to do good? What parts of this are prophecy and what parts are just history that has nothing to do with Jesus? And no one ever called him Emmanuel. They called him Jesus. I can see where the Israelites might call him “God with us,” meaning “God was with us in the defeat of our enemy,” but I can't see it meant the baby of Isaiah was God in the flesh. Any comments?

Question. Pastor... In Matthew 1:1-4 it says that the Wisemen came asking about where Jesus was because they had seen his star in the East. First of all, if they came from Persia, which is East of Jerusalem, how do you see a literal star in the East and then follow it West where it turns south and stops over a house in Bethlehem? I mean if they saw his star in the East, why go West, why not East? Maybe it's just me.

Question. Pastor... In the same place it says Herod seems not to know anything about this Jesus or his star. Could he not see it and if he could, could he not follow it himself? Then it says Herod got together all the helpers on such topics and I wonder, could they not see it either?

Question. Pastor... In reading the story of this star, it also says that it reappeared to the Wise men to continue to show them the way. Was this a star that only they could see and could stop and go until the Wise men were reading to keep moving?

Question. Pastor...How does a moving star, stop over a specific house?

Question. Pastor...While we are at it, how come Matthew tells us Jesus was born in a house that Mary and Joseph seemed to already own in Bethlehem (Matthew 1:11). I thought they lived in Nazareth and came had to have Jesus in a manger in Bethlehem? You know, no room at the Inn and all. Well, at least that is what Luke 2 says where he doesn't mention the home in Bethlehem, just as Matthew doesn't mention the worldwide tax that brings Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem to begin with from their home in Nazareth. So which is it...home in Bethlehem as Matthew says, or in Nazareth as Luke says and moving from manger to home won't cut it.

Question. Pastor...Matthew 1:12-16 says that an Angel warned Joseph to flee to Egypt from Herod who was going to kill all the babies under two years old to get at Jesus. Wow, lots of questions here! Does this mean that in order for Jesus to die for us, the babies in Bethlehem had to die for Jesus?

Question. Pastor...Do you think Mary, being a typical mother left town in a hurry telling her friends, “I know something you don't know. I wish you and your babies a good Sabbath?” I don't think mothers really think that way.

Question. Pastor...Matthew 1:17-18 fulfills Rachel weeping for her children in Rama, but from what I can tell, again Matthew is making this up. That story in Jeremiah 31:15 has nothing to do with the women weeping for their dead babies. I believe the Jeremiah story took place during the trek into captivity as they passed through Rama, not Bethlehem. Kinda stretching the point isn't it?

Question. Pastor...After Herod dies, the family comes back from Egypt and Matthew says this fulfills Hosea 11:1. But I looked at that, and “Out of Egypt I have called my son,” is talking about the exodus story, not Jesus. Is it just me again misunderstanding? How comes Matthew gets to make things mean in the Old Testament what they never meant?

Question. Pastor...In Matthew 1:19-22 an Angel gives the all clear to go back home, to Bethlehem and the house, I assume. But then Joseph finds an even more evil bastard lives there so has another dream to head to Nazareth where it was evidently safer. Did the Angel screw up and send them into harms way and God had to give Joseph a dream to save them from the Angel not knowing what was going on in Judea? Don't they have briefings for Angels for stuff like this?

Question. Pastor...In Matthew 1:23 we see that Matthew says since they went to Nazareth, there is some place that says this fulfills “He shall be called a Nazarene.” But no one seems to know where the Bible says that. I know it means “branch” such as in Isaiah 11:1, but again, those are not stories or prophecies about Jesus. So isn't Matthew reaching again? Did Matthew think a Nazarite, was the same as a Nazarene maybe? You know, no razor, no haircuts, no wine. Kinda like Hippie Baptists. But then Jesus wasn't that way either. Oh well. Any thoughts?

Question. Pastor...How come only Matthew mentions Wisemen, wandering stars, killing the babies and fleeing to Egypt when Luke, in his account, mentions none of this. In fact, Luke just says that after eight days Jesus was calmly, well i don't know about calmly, circumcised and then Mary did the 40 days of purification after the birth while meeting Simeon and Anna who blessed Jesus in the Temple, and then calmly walked back home to Nazareth. No run for your life from Herod story here, and right where you 'd expect it. Did Luke never hear about Matthew's “thus it was fulfilleds,” and simply have the family go back home to Nazareth? Can't both be true, right?

Question. Pastor...As long as I am at it, can you tell me why the Apostle Paul only knows that Jesus was born of a woman in Galatians 4:4. Nothing special really. Did Paul not know that Jesus, Mary and Joseph had all these wonderful birth adventures? Maybe he didn't care.

Question. Pastor...I guess what I am asking here is how come history knows of no tax and certainly no tax where all had to leave home and move around the empire to be taxed in that way for Luke to get Mary and Joseph down to Bethlehem? I won't even ask if you knew Cyrenius, depending on how you spell it, was not Governor of Syria until ten years later than the events of Herod in Matthew. Seems like Luke may have not gotten the history right here.

Question. Pastor...Do you think it was responsible and necessary for Joseph, who I suppose had the property in Bethlehem, hey the house!, to take a very pregnant Mary on a hundred mile donkey ride through the wilderness of Judea? Was that necessary. And if he had a house there, why did they not live there to begin with. Well actually Matthew said they did, but in Luke it says no. I'm confused.

Question. Pastor...Why would all the Angels and Heavenly hosts go out and sing this “glory to God in the highest and peace on earth, goodwill to men,” to a few shepherds in the field. How about a bigger audience, like Jerusalem or at least the whole town of Bethlehem?

Question. Pastor...How come Luke says Mary kept all these wonderful things and pondered them in her heart, and yet in Mark, she and Jesus brothers come down to Jerusalem to take Jesus home as an adult because they thought he was insane? (Mark 3:21). Did Mary forget all the things that the Angels had said and all the miracles of Matthew and Luke at Jesus birth? And why was this one lone account in Mark edited out of Matthew and Luke. Was it embarrassing? It seems Mary knew Jesus was special at least to age 12 (Luke 2:51) when he wandered and was found debating in the temple. Hey, and what's with that? It even says his parents “sought him sorrowing,” so they were pretty afraid for him. Did Jesus not think to honor his parents with telling them he was at the temple and not to worry? Or did he just think they'd say “no you can't go,” and he'd have to not obey them and break another commandment? END PART TWO

Questions Your Pastor Will Hate -- Part 1

Authors Bio:

Dennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years, who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism. He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors.

To monitor comments posted to this topic, use .


Anonymous said...


For a former pastor, you sure do ask a bunch of stupid questions. You have a couple of good questions that I will address.

Why do old, barren women give birth to important figures in the Bible and why was Jesus born of a young virgin?

The simple answer is that in both cases God's hand in the event was evident.

Why is Zechariah made mute, but Mary not?

Zechariah is a made to be an example to the people. Remember, he was the high priest, so everyone was paying attention to him. And Mary didn't say she didn't believe, but she did wonder how her pregnancy would be possible. That's different.

Regarding the parallels between Samuel's gestation and life and John the Baptist's.

The entire Old Testament is a shadow of things to come (says so in Book of Hebrews and other places), so why would it be surprising that some of the stories would have similarities? Samuel and John the Baptist were both under the Nazarite vow from birth, so they both had long hair.

There are a couple of example of how, if you open your eyes just a little bit, the answer to you questions are right in front of you.

I don't mean to be rude, but if you can't answer some of the questions you laid out, it's no wonder you failed as a pastor. Feel free to contact me through my blog if you would like me to answer any of you other questions.

Unknown said...

You may talk a big talk Jerry, but its clear that you avoided most of the hardest questions he asked.

Plus, and I do mean to be rude here, your answers are stupid and fairly unbelievable.

Zechariah doubted but Mary didn't? splitting hairs much?

Anonymous said...

"... The simple answer is that in both cases God's hand in the event was evident. ..."

The key word here is "simple." Any question can be answered with the equivalent of "goddidit, end of discussion."

No wonder that people who are not so simple-minded keep asking those pesky questions.

Spirula said...

Nice dodge Jerry.

Oh, and thanks for spouting off those convoluted and canned church-way-back-machine answers to the "prophecies".

Anonymous said...

Because you do not believe that my responses were sufficient, I have started answering them more completely on my blog,

As I have been accused in the comments of dodging, I just needed some time to write a bit more without monopolizing the comments section here. Enjoy!

Anonymous said...

Ahh, Jerry, you don't have to spend any time writing broader explanations - just cut-and-paste from any christian apologist site you like, as do most of the evangelizers who stop by here. It's all the same warmed-over poop anyway, just excuses for why god can't or won't do anything.

RSM said...

Okay here's a cut and paste from Jerry's blog:

Q: What difference does it make for Matthew and Luke to show us Jesus family connections from Mary and Joseph back to King David and Adam, when God was his real Father?

A: The genealogy of Jesus is important to demonstrating that Jesus could meet that aspect of the OT prophecies. For the Jews of the 1st century, this was paramount to identifying the Messiah. The Messiah had to come from the House of David. If Jesus was not of David’s lineage, he could not be the Messiah prophesied about.
If God was his real father then King David and his loins had nothing to do with it. Jesus was not the son of David no matter how you twist things.

Q: Aren’t genealogies meaningless since Joseph was a step father, and all coming before him would be step ancestors to Jesus. So Jesus can’t be connected back to King David as the line breaks between Jesus and Joseph. Right?

A: According to the Mosaic Law and from the perspective of the Jews, Jesus was the rightful son of Joseph. Lineage was passed down through the male, and so as long as Jesus had been afforded every right as a son, then according to the law He was Joseph’s son.
That doesn't work. Maybe it worked for the first century Jews but it doesn't work for 21st century exchristians. An eternal word of God that applies to all humans of all times has to do better than measure up to first century Jews. Your answer doesn't cut it.

By the way, I won't bother going over the rest of his answers. These two are cookie-cutter predictable, why waste the time?

gramercypreacher said...

1. For the Jews, and Jesus' ministry was first to the Jews, it was necessary to show the lineage of Jesus from David. Because the Messiah was to come from the line of David.

2. I am assuming that it is a Catholic idea that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus. However this is not evident in Matthew chapter 2 nor Luke chp.1:26-38 details that the Holy Spirit will come upon Mary but does not say that the Holy Spirit "fathered Jesus."

3. You do not have to call priests and pastors father. As we are brothers and sisters in Christ. Colossians 3:11 helps with this.

4. Matthew give the genealogy through Joseph. Luke, which most miss, give the genealogy through Mary.

5. Dont really understand the question. Are you saying that young women should birth important people also?

6. Not a question of theology but of jest.

7. Zachariah and Elizabeth understood that their son John would be a "voice crying out in the desert preparing the way of the Lord." Also Luke 41 says "When Elizaeth heard Mary's greeting" this probably included news of her divine conception. Also the leaping of John the Baptist in her womb was an affirmation for Elizabeth.

8. Could it also be true that Mary was well aware of the OT psalm of Hannah and used it as a model for her prayer?

There are a lot of questions here... some of substance some not. So I will continue my discourse later.

sixoverme said...

Josh...crack your bible open and go to luke and show me where there is a geneology for jesus through wont find it...there are two contradicting geneologies in the bible and they are both thru joseph...explain pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease

gramercypreacher said...

My NKJ Bible entitles Luke 3:23 as "The geneology of Christ through Mary." Luke also notes in his geneology that Jesus was the son of Joseph (as was supposed). The Greek NT uses the word "considered." Why would Luke include this? Many Scholars say that this is because Luke is in fact tracing the genealogy of Mary and not Joseph.

Anonymous said...

Dennis, I understand where you are coming from. The only one who can help you is God himself. Where you are is a very dangerous position. You are in a position of being lost for all eternity. I don't want to scare you. I know that you have been a pastor - I don't know what made you become one in the 1st place, but for Satan to play such a terrible number on you like this, there must be something about you. It's not too late though. I won't waste my time trying to clear up those descrepancies that you think are in the bible, but I will say that God gives revelation. If you ask him, he will show you - I have seen to much to turn from Jesus - Don't you remember the Love you felt from him? How can you go back into despair? For sure, you are not happy right now, and you have no peace. Finally, I repeat, Satan has got you in this state. Only the Lord can save you now. Pray, and I guarantee, he will hear you.

Come Home Soon!

Anonymous said...

Jewish law required that genealogies were to be through the line of the males, and not the females, so mary's lineage means squat. Also, there are key elements missing from mary's line, namely the SPECIFIC "begat" bloodline where Solomon had to be included all the way down to Jacob, who begat Joseph - "father" of jesus. Mary's line does not include Solomon but instead (if memory serves) Nathan - Solomons brother.

When it comes down to it, as per the bible these points were also VITAL for JC to be considered "the messiah"

According to the bible, Jesus has to satisfy all the following conditions at birth:
-Be Joseph's biological son, to be a descendant from David, Solomon etc;(of the seed)
-Be born of a virgin mother;
-Be fathered by the Holy Spirit;
-Be God.

They cannot ALL "fit".

huesnlight said...

hahahah i like all this b.s. apologetics and false pity coming from all of the theists.

really, stop copying and pasting and develop answers from the logic within yourself rather than what has been bestowed upon you by someone on a pulpit or a baseless book.

if it doesn't make sense, why should you fight to try to answer it? it's like when i took higher mathematics; if i had garbage lemmas, i had a garbage proof.

hey, maybe yall should take higher mathematics to learn proofs; maybe then you'll realize: 'oh shit, i've been spouting bull shit this whole time, wtf have i been doing?'

gramercypreacher said...

Another look at the genealogy of Luke gives some interesting ideas for us. In Jeremiah 22:30 God placed a blood curse on Jehoiachin who was of the lineage of David. This curse detailed that "none will sit upon the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah." This effectively eliminated the lineage of David. Chuck Missler did an excellent study on the genealogy of Luke (although i disagree with Missler on some passages) and the second surviving son of Bathsheba, rather than Solomon, the first surviving son of Bathsheba, we trace the genealogy of Mary. Thus through Nathan, as the poster mentioned correctly above, leads us through Mary to Jesus completing the Davidic heritage.

gramercypreacher said...

For huesnlight, it would not be a logical necessity that all theists that post here are not using their own logic. As for me, I use my own logic interweaved with my life's education, circumstance, existence and world view. Now it might be a logical possibility that all are copying and pasting. But, it is not a logical necessity.

Anonymous said...


You seem to be ignoring that lineage through the maternal side means squat in Jewish law. (see Josephus writings detailing this), meaning mary could have been the DAUGHTER of David, but there would have been no actual recognition OF it. There were even cases (Ezra 2:61-63, and Neh 7:63-65) where some priests were rejected because they could not prove their Levitical ancestry, so if they are going to be that nitpicky as to mere priests, they would insist ON the standard re JC. It is the SEED from the male loins which matters, which would have discounted the "virgin" aspect as well, hence.. hey-zeus ain't NO messiah...period, but a damned good myth none the less! :-)

Oh here is another question too... off on a tangent, but no pastor I know has been able to answer it.

How could Noah have "held together" the Ark with pitch, when pitch didn't actually exist, nor COULD exist until POST flood?

gramercypreacher said...

Hmmm. I have never been asked that question about pitch. Let me research it for myself and see. Thanks for the insight.

gramercypreacher said...

As for the paternal bloodline. It is true that the Jewish culture only allowed for paternal inheritances... except one instance detailed in the book of numbers. Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12; Joshua 17:3-6; 1 Chronicles 7:15. Help clarify this.

Also... Matthew pens the legal lineage through Joseph (the father) as Matthew was concerned more with the royalty of Christ. Luke, showing the humanity if Christ, showed Jesus as the son of man through Mary.

There is a discrepancy between the genealogies of Matt. and Luke. I must concede that. But I am suggesting that these can be reconciled through good exegesis and hermeneutics.

Once again, thank you all.. for sharpening my thoughts with your questions.

webmdave said...


You can replace the words exegesis and hermeneutics with one word: baloney.

Here's a few links for you. If you haven't read anything outside your religion on this topic, you might find the information interesting:

The "mother's side" thesis contradicts the plain statement in the Greek that both geneologies trace the birth of Joseph, and do not connect the lines with Mary: Matthew says, translating literally, "Jacob generated Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was generated Jesus the one called Christ" (1:16), he does not say Jacob generated Mary; and Luke doesn't even mention Mary, but says "Jesus himself was about thirty years old when starting out, being the son, so it was thought, of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi..." (3:23-4). There is thus no support for that conjecture.

We have no evidence at all that Luke the physican even knew Jesus, much less Mary when she was pregnant. Indeed, the latter is almost certainly impossible. This Luke, mentioned by Paul, is not likely to have ever wrote anything that survives--the Gospel of Luke is by a much later person, and the book remained anonymous for decades. It was only attributed to an unknown "Luke" in the 2nd century.
-- Richard Carrier

More: Link, link, link, link, link.

I challenge you to actually read the articles linked above. You may not agree with them, but at least you'll understand that we're not really asking these questions to read the apologist answer. We already know those answers. We already know your side of the issue. Do you know ours?

gramercypreacher said...

Thanks for the links. I have read articles outside my realm of thought. Your presumption was correct, I disagree with most if not all that were written in the above linked articles. They expanded my thoughts. However, I likewise challenge anyone to earnestly seek the truth. Contrary to popular belief, I have not come to win arguments but to become more read and learned through conversations and for that I thank you. I affirm that as many of you offer opinions contrary to the Word of God, I am many others offer opinions on the opposite spectrum.If there are any questions you have for me I would gladly try my best to answer them, as I am ignorant on much more subjects than I am learned.

Peace be with you,

Always seeking the truth

Anonymous said...

Josh wrote:"Hmmm. I have never been asked that question about pitch. Let me research it for myself and see. Thanks for the insight."

Reply: You are welcome, but if/when you DO come back with what apologists deem as an explanation, please don't come back with "god is capable of anything as he is almighty" or words to that affect. That is merely a copout, considering the bible went to great lengths to tell the cubit size of said ark, x clean and x unclean also etc...
Also sus the definition of what pitch IS and you too will see it IS only a post flood resource.

In my search to check this out today, I came across an apologist site.. truly..Josh...look if you like, but the site is I am assuming done by a SERIOUS christian trying to reason away all the ARK stuff, but frankly, I think even YOU as a christian will laugh at the attempt I cannot even call it pseudo logic it is so pathetic... anyway... for the sake of a laugh... here it is!

(^ be sure to check out the hyperlink to check out what this nong considers "biblical kinds") LMAO

As to the lineage re JC, still it does not ring true as Luke if I recall claims joseph was "begat" by Heli anyway, hence no mention of mary in HIS geanology? So, who was right? Luke or Matthew? Neither? Again though, a NON "virgin" birth would have made Mary and the unborn "unclean" (she was not married to joseph when jesus was born remember) so as per the law back then, mary would have been stoned to death also through her pregnancy and any unclean offspring would not be recognised or accepted as davidic heir apparent.

No matter how you TRY to figure it, or how certain scholars try to reason it all away, with their 'what THIS or THAT really means" rhetoric, by the guidelines DICTATED within the bible, JC could NOT, no matter which way you cut it could possibly be "the messiah" as christianity spouts.


webmdave said...

" I disagree with most if not all that were written in the above linked articles."

But why? What points? What makes those things invalid? Be specific, Josh.

"I disagree with these things because they disagree with my religion!" is a rather unsatisfying response.

gramercypreacher said...

First, in the above posts, what is the issue with pitch as I am not familiar this problem at all. (sorry I have to claim ignorance on this).

Secondly, it will take me a while to go back through all the links provided but I will choose some of the thoughts which I find non logical.

Anonymous said...

Josh - The type of pitch that shipbuilders would have used is a naturally occurring petroleum product (like tar). It takes a good 2000 years or more to form. The problem is that many young-earth-creationists say that all the world's petroleum deposits were formed as a result of (i.e., AFTER) the flood.

Of course, they try to get around the question of where Noah got his pitch before such a substance existed by saying that the pitch Noah used was actually some other substance, such as "wood pitch" (resin from the gopherwood that Noah used to construct the Ark).

When one points out how unlikely it was that Noah and sons could have collected enough resin to coat the Ark inside and out (even allowing for their impossibly long lives) and that, in any case, wood pitch would not have held a sizeable boat together for very long, you get some variation of the excuse that "with God all things are possible" or "the Bible says so, so it must be true."

So. Round and round we go.

gramercypreacher said...

Thanks for the information Thackerie,

As I said I am ignorant when it comes to this dilemma. I would ask though, how do we know pitch which comes from petroleum deposits takes thousands of years to form? This is by observation of how many years? Maybe several hundred. So are we necessarily sure that the formation of petroleum deposits have been uniform from their origins? Of course, (as i now show my cards) I would affirm that these deposits may have been formed already by the hand of God. Can I explain everything? certainly not. But I am content not knowing all. Just as I am content on my ignorance of every mechanical detail of my car... as long as it starts when I crank it. (of course... every analogy falls short as this one does)

Thanks Again
learning from you,


Tim said...

I have a question. When the ark landed, where did the carnivores get their food?


Steven Bently said...

I have a question. When the ark landed, where did the carnivores get their food?

Answer: When the carnivores got off the boat, they prayed to God for food, "With God, all things are possible!" Except, he can't write his own book, nor save souls, he has to invite outside help from the wicked mortals that he regreted creating in the first place. Gen: 6:5

Anonymous said...

Given that the Isaiah passage is "virign" in the Septuguant, and "young women" in the original Hebrew, the writer of the NT was using a flawed copy, making it doubly nonsense that it referred to a Messiah.

For some of the others, there are references within the OT that point towards a matrilineal part of ancient Isrealite culture, but that seems to have died out by the post-Exilic period, if not several hundred years prior. The old woman/miraculous birth narrative is found repeated numerous times in the OT, as well as in other mythology of the cultures of the region - it's a failry common motif, similar to the virign birth narrative, and from what I gather, fairly well known among scholars of the ancient mideast.

An interesting book that mentions some of the above is Tim Callahans "Secret Origins of the Bible". He rather adroitly shows the multiple threads and traditions that were compiled during the creation of the text, including showing many of the contradictions that believers write off (although, I think he goes a bit farther in his ideas of what is historical than the evidence suggests).

Pageviews this week: