Do YOU believe in God?

[Brinner]

meh well im not very religous....

[the_blob23]

 

 

 

Wow, man, I don't know what your problem is, but you need to calm down and take a breather. Just because we disagree doesn't give you the option to come in and start flaming every Christian comment. Grow up.

 

 

 

I don't see how my remarks constitute some particular flame of Christian comments--I simply pointed out to you the fact that you have made dubious claims at best, and unlike insane, haven't substantiated anything you've actually said or responded adeptly to criticism of your points. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[pianofrieak2]

 

 

 

Wow, man, I don't know what your problem is, but you need to calm down and take a breather. Just because we disagree doesn't give you the option to come in and start flaming every Christian comment. Grow up.

 

 

 

I don't see how my remarks constitute some particular flame of Christian comments--I simply pointed out to you the fact that you have made dubious claims at best, and unlike insane, haven't substantiated anything you've actually said or responded adeptly to criticism of your points. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

 

 

OK, we're having a miscommunication here. Godzira quoted some people and I responded with my own commentary on their quotes. Nothing wrong there that I see. Insane just merely pointed out how Godzira's quotes and my comments were both equally worthless, the entire reason why I posted what I said.

 

 

 

Then you come in here and say "So you made completely unsubstantiated claims that have been repeatedly smacked down to paradoxically prove your point? Or is it because you've been beaten up badly in your previous post and now need a statement to save face?"

 

 

 

That's called flaming because you slam me as a person in an unecessary way.

 

 

 

haven't substantiated anything you've actually said or responded adeptly to criticism of your points. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen

 

 

 

And what, exactly, points did you make? Also, since when did I claim to make any point besides the fact that my comments on Godzira's quotes were completely worthless. Your entire comment to me says it's "unsubstantiated" and "not responsive to criticism."

 

 

 

I purposely didn't. :roll:

 

 

 

Since we're on the verge of flaming each other, I'm going to quit having this conversation with you.

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

As for Godzira, I would ask, as someone pointed out, why you choose the anti-religious side. Christians burn books which I don't agree with. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "burn all books contrary to what you believe." If I were in the situation, I would have said, "Don't buy the book."

 

 

 

Still, your side has interesting comments too. Nero would burn Christians at the stake, have them get mauled by wild animals, get slaughtered by gladiators, and have them burned as torches for his palace. As I believe you pointed out, young Spartan men were forced to commit homosexual acts. In almost all pagan temples, prostitutes abounded.

 

 

 

I just fail to see why atheism has such a better track record than Christianity.

[Godzira]

Romans were not atheist. They killed Christians because Christians threatened their religion. My argument is against religion not just Christianity. It just so happen that the people I am debating are Christian so I am using Christian examples and critiques. Ironic though that after the Romans became Christian they started throwing the Jews and other non-Christians to the lions.

 

 

 

DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget that those Romans that you criticize are the ones that compiled the bible you cherish.

[insane]

Romans were not atheist. They killed Christians because Christians threatened their religion.

 

 

 

It is entirely unknown who or what actually was the cause of the fire. Ancient sources and scholars favor Nero as the arsonist, but massive accidentally started fires were common in ancient Rome and this is probably no exception.

 

 

 

At the time, the confused population searched for a scapegoat and soon rumors held Nero responsible. The motivation attributed to him was intending to immortalize his name by renaming Rome to "Neropolis". Nero had to engage in scapegoating of his own and chose for his target a small Eastern sect called the Christians. He ordered known Christians to be thrown to the lions in arenas, while others were crucified in large numbers.

 

 

 

It would appear that Romans killed Christians because Nero was a loser :P not because it threatened their religion.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Godzira: Why wouldn't we need missionaries? I'm confused. Also, since when do Christians burn books? I've only heard of a practice similar to that in communist China which is staunchly atheistic. But I'd love to look at your source.

 

 

 

Is there any evidence that China burns books because it goes against their religious belief (more likely due to political repression)? China maintains a "freedom of religion" viewpoint and has been doing so for decades, they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have an official religion. There are no statistics for the number of atheists in China so they are lumped in the non-religious category. Having 60% non religious and 30% traditional practices shows in my mind that religion is a social practice rather then a universal truth. People continue to practice traditional beliefs because they are passed down from generation to generation, when someone finds it to be a little too quaint for their liking they become non-religious. You sure do tell some giant whoppers :^o

[cooljavi]

Romans were not atheist. They killed Christians because Christians threatened their religion. My argument is against religion not just Christianity. It just so happen that the people I am debating are Christian so I am using Christian examples and critiques. Ironic though that after the Romans became Christian they started throwing the Jews and other non-Christians to the lions.

 

 

 

DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget that those Romans that you criticize are the ones that compiled the bible you cherish.

 

 

 

 

Well first of all Your right Romans were not athiest they belive in false gods for things much like the Greeks. Second the Romans didi not compile the Bible. It was moslty compiled by The followers of Jesus (Matthew,Mark,Luke,John) not by Romans. The only Roman i can think of is Paul.

[Tigra00]

Romans were not atheist. They killed Christians because Christians threatened their religion. My argument is against religion not just Christianity. It just so happen that the people I am debating are Christian so I am using Christian examples and critiques. Ironic though that after the Romans became Christian they started throwing the Jews and other non-Christians to the lions.

 

 

 

DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget that those Romans that you criticize are the ones that compiled the bible you cherish.

 

 

 

 

Well first of all Your right Romans were not athiest they belive in false gods for things much like the Greeks. Second the Romans didi not compile the Bible. It was moslty compiled by The followers of Jesus (Matthew,Mark,Luke,John) not by Romans. The only Roman i can think of is Paul.

 

 

 

What makes them false God's? They are just as real as yours.

[Godzira]

Romans were not atheist. They killed Christians because Christians threatened their religion. My argument is against religion not just Christianity. It just so happen that the people I am debating are Christian so I am using Christian examples and critiques. Ironic though that after the Romans became Christian they started throwing the Jews and other non-Christians to the lions.

 

 

 

DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget that those Romans that you criticize are the ones that compiled the bible you cherish.

 

 

 

 

Well first of all Your right Romans were not athiest they belive in false gods for things much like the Greeks. Second the Romans didi not compile the Bible. It was moslty compiled by The followers of Jesus (Matthew,Mark,Luke,John) not by Romans. The only Roman i can think of is Paul.

 

 

 

I was reffering to those that decided what the bible would contain, not those to whom the writings are attributed

 

 

 

The following was taken from a website on bible history. Now in the interest of full disclosure, which is only fair to all involved, I will say that this comes from a secular website. However, I have just spent a good deal of time in my own copies of religious history books, most Christian and some secular, verifying the large majority of the facts presented. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m just honestly too lazy tonight to type something so lengthy.

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThe stories of the Bible evolved slowly over centuries before the existence of orthodox religions. Many belief cults spread stories and myths probably handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation before people wrote them down. Many of the stories originally came from Egyptian and Sumerian cults. All of these early religions practiced polytheism, including the early Hebrews. Some of the oldest records of the stories that later entered the Old Testament came from thousands of small cylinder seals depicting creation stories, excavated from the Mesopotamia period. These early artifacts and artworks (dated as early as 2500 B.C.E.) established the basis for the Garden of Eden stories a least a thousand years before it impacted Hebrew mythology.

 

Virtually every human civilization in the Middle East, before and through Biblical times, practiced some form of female goddess worship. Archeologists have confirmed that the earliest law, government, medicine, agriculture, architecture, metallurgy, wheeled vehicles, ceramics, textiles and written language had initially developed in societies that worshiped the Goddess. Later the goddesses became more war-like with the influence of the northern invaders who slowly replaced the goddesses with their mountain male war gods. So why doesn't the Bible mention anything about the Goddess? In fact it does, but in disguise from converting the name of the goddesses to masculine terms. Many times "Gods" in the Bible refers to goddesses. Ashtoreth, or Asherah, named of masculine gender, for example, actually refers to Astarte- the Great Goddess. The Old Testament doesn't even have a word for Goddess. The goddesses, sometimes, refers to the Hebrew word "Elohim" (masculine plural form) which later religionists mistranslated into the singular "God." The Bible authors converted the ancient goddess symbols into icons of evil. As such, the snake, serpents, tree of knowledge, horns (of the bull), became associated with Satan. The end result gave women the status of inferiority, a result which we still see to this day.

 

The Old Testament consists of a body of literature spread over a period from approximately 1450 B.C.E. to 200 B.C.E. There exists no original writings of the Old Testament. There does exist, however, hundreds of fragments from copies that became the old testament. These fragments consist of Cuneiform tablets, papyrus paper, leather etchings and the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. The scribes of the old testament wrote in classical Hebrew except for some portions written in Aramaic. The traditional Hebrew scribes wrote the texts with consonants but the Rabbis later added vowels for verbal pronouncing. Of course the Rabbis did their best in choosing the vowels that they thought gave the words their proper meaning and pronouncement. In the second century C.E., or even earlier, the Rabbis compiled a text from manuscripts as had survived the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and on this basis they established the traditional or Masoretic text, so called from the Hebrew word Massorah. This text incorporated the mistakes of generations of copyists, and in spite of the care bestowed on it, many errors of later copyists also found their way into it. The earliest surviving manuscripts of this text date from the ninth to eleventh centuries C.E. It comes mostly from these texts which religionists have used for the present Old Testament translations.

 

The New Testament has even fewer surviving texts. Scholars think that not until years after Jesus' alleged death that its authors wrote the Gospels. There exists no evidence that the New Testament came from the purported original apostles or anyone else that had seen the alleged Jesus. Although the oldest surviving Christian texts came from Paul, he had never seen the earthly Jesus. There occurs nothing in Paul's letters that either hints at the existence of the Gospels or even of a need for such memoirs of Jesus Christ. The oldest copy of the New Testament yet found consists of a tiny fragment from the Gospel of John. Scholars dated the little flake of papyrus from the period style of its handwriting to around the first half of the 2nd century C.E. The language of most of the new testament consists of old Greek.

 

Interestingly, there existed many competing Christian cults in the early years after Jesus' alleged death. Some sects saw the universe in dualisms of goodness and sin, of light and darkness, God and the Devil. Other Christian sects performed odd rituals, some of which involved the swallowing of *****, thought of as a sacred substance. Many other Christians also wrote mystical stories and by the second century there existed more than a dozen Gospels, along with a whole library of other texts. These include letters of Jesus to foreign kings, letters of Paul to Aristotle, and histories of the disciples. In one of these secret Gospels, it describes Jesus taking naked young men off to secret initiation rites in the Garden of Gethsemene. There lived Christian Gnostics (knowers) who believed that the church itself derived from the Devil to keep man from God and from realizing his true nature. In those first centuries of Christianity orthodoxy did not exist and when an organized orthodox church finally came, it got defined, almost inadvertently, in argument against many of the Gnostic sects.

 

So the idea of the Bible as a single, sacred unalterable corpus of texts began in heresy and later extended and used by churchmen in their efforts to define orthodoxy. One of the Bible's most influential editors, Irenaeus of Lyon, decided that there should only exist four Gospels like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures - the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, and the eagle of John. In a single stroke, Irenaeus had delineated the sacred book of the Christian church and left out the other Gospels. Irenaeus also wrote what Christianity did not include, and in this way Christianity became an orthodox faith. A work of Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, became the starting point for later inquisitions.

 

There has existed over a hundred different versions of the Bible, written in most of the languages of the time including Greek, Hebrew and Latin. Some versions left out certain biblical stories and others contained added stories. The completed versions of the old and new testament probably got finished at around 200-300 C.E. although many disputed the authenticity of some books which later ended up as Apocrypha (uncanonical or of questionable authorship). For example, the book of Ecclesiasticus appears in the Catholic Bible but not in Protestant versions.

 

At around 405 C.E. Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymous) finished translating all the Old and New testament books into Latin (Vulgate Bible) which provided the Roman Catholic church added power. The Vulgate Bible went through several revisions up until the early 1900s!

 

The salvation doctrines of Christianity survived and flourished because they afforded the priesthood considerable power. The priests alone held the keys to salvation and could threaten the unbelievers with eternal punishment. Hence, in the evolution of Christianity in the last two thousand years with priests preying on human fears, the religion has demonstrated extraordinary powers of survival. Even without the priests, the various versions of the Bible have had more influence on the history of the world, in the minds of men than any other literature.

 

Unfortunately, the beliefs in Scripture produced the most violent actions against man in the history of humanity up to that time. The burning of competing Christian cults (called heretics) by early Christian churches acted as the seeds of violent atrocities against man. There later followed the destruction of Rome by the Christian Goths, and the secret pagan sacrifices consented by the Pope, the Vandals that had the Bible with them as they destroyed imperial North Africa, the crusades in the eleventh century fighting in the lands around the eastern Mediterranean, Palestine and Syria, capturing Jerusalem and setting kingdoms from Anatolia to the Egyptian border. In 1204 the Fourth Crusade plundered Constantinople the most holy city at that time, with Christians fighting Christians. And the slaughters continued (and continues to this day). According to Romer, "More heretics and scholars were burned in the Middle Ages than were ever killed in Carolingian times. For at this time the Inquisition came into its own, and torture, largely unused as an instrument of government since Roman days, was reintroduced."

 

In the 1380s, John Wycliffe translated the first English Bible which inspired an English religious revolution which caused persecutions against him by the Catholic Church.

 

In the early 1500's the German heretic, Martin Luther, almost single handedly caused the final split from the Roman Catholic church and created the beginnings of the Protestant revolution. This split still influences violence to this day. He translated the Bible into German which further spread Protestantism. Luther also helped spread anti-Semitism with his preaching and books such as his "The Jews and their lies," all supported through his interpretation of the Bible. One should not forget that Hitler (a Christian and great admirer of Luther) and his holocaust could not have occurred without his influence and the support of Bible believing German Christians.

 

In the 1530s William Tyndale completed his version of the English Protestant Bible (probably with the aid of Luther) and the first to print the English Bible. He too felt the persecution of the Church and he spent his last days in imprisonment and exile. His enemies finally caught him and burned him at the stake, but because of his celebrity, they strangled him first (what nice guys!).

 

After Luther's German Bible, others followed suit by translating the Bible into their native languages including Dutch and French. Not until 1611 C.E. did a committee of translators and interpreters complete the most popular Bible of all time, the King James Version.

 

Today we still have dozens of Bible translation versions, with Bible scholars still arguing over the meaning and proper translations of words and phrases.

 

No doubt that future versions of Bibles will surface in the future: revisions of previously revised Bibles and newer revisions of new versions. The history of the many versions of the Bible stories, from the ancient Mesopotamian myths to the varied interpretations, interpolations, and versions of the Bible speaks volumes about the reliability of their interpretations and the alleged "truth" they claim the Bible holds, because it shows that the Bible comes not from supernatural agents but rather from human imagination. We have not one shred of evidence for the supernatural influence on human written works (and mostly from unknown authors), but we do have an abundance of evidence for human recorded beliefs and myths. This shows a marked difference between those of scientific works and those deriving from religious minds. For example, Euclid's Elements written around 300 B.C.E. has changed little since its inception. Scientists don't argue and debate about its meaning because they know it doesn't represent an absolute or fixed work. It only provides a step in the understanding of geometry. Most Christian apologists, on the other hand, view the Bible as fixed and absolute, if only they could only just get the interpretation correct. But regardless of how much the want the Bible to reflect their particular beliefs, they can never dislodge the violence and atrocities described and condoned by their God in the stories in the Old Testament. Nor can they dismiss the even more horrific result of the horrors of Hell as amplified by the words of the Jesus in the New Testament where almost everyone on earth ends in eternal fire.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Godzira]

sorry double post

[bjbj1991]

Romans were not atheist. They killed Christians because Christians threatened their religion. My argument is against religion not just Christianity. It just so happen that the people I am debating are Christian so I am using Christian examples and critiques. Ironic though that after the Romans became Christian they started throwing the Jews and other non-Christians to the lions.

 

 

 

DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget that those Romans that you criticize are the ones that compiled the bible you cherish.

 

 

 

 

Well first of all Your right Romans were not athiest they belive in false gods for things much like the Greeks. Second the Romans didi not compile the Bible. It was moslty compiled by The followers of Jesus (Matthew,Mark,Luke,John) not by Romans. The only Roman i can think of is Paul.

 

The Romans believed their god(s) were as real as your's(asuming your a theist).

 

It is also a well known fact that the Bible has been cencored over the ages. Around 300 CE(AD) Constinople I believe had noticed many diffrent variations of Christianity, each one using it's own gospil (their where 40 acording to history channel). A Cardinal from the Vatican had stated that their should be 4 Gospils because there are 4 corners to the Earth :roll: , and a meeting was held that many church leaders chose the books to be enterd into their Bible. These books where based on the majory, and the ease of transition so many OT books like the lives of Adam and Eve were excluded. Considering Constinople was Roman teritory, I say the Romans compiled to Bible together, but the follows of Jesus part, that was likly corect (I am saying likly because to call oneself a Christian nolonger makes you one (they get mad when Hitler said he was one)).

 

 

 

Note: I had watched the History Channel program so the following link is as acerate as that program asuming it is not vandalised in the time between now and you clicking on it. I sugest watching the program next time it comes on or buying the DVD if you want a better source.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible

 

 

 

PS: I like your sig Godzira.

[Godzira]

Romans were not atheist. They killed Christians because Christians threatened their religion. My argument is against religion not just Christianity. It just so happen that the people I am debating are Christian so I am using Christian examples and critiques. Ironic though that after the Romans became Christian they started throwing the Jews and other non-Christians to the lions.

 

 

 

DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget that those Romans that you criticize are the ones that compiled the bible you cherish.

 

 

 

 

Well first of all Your right Romans were not athiest they belive in false gods for things much like the Greeks. Second the Romans didi not compile the Bible. It was moslty compiled by The followers of Jesus (Matthew,Mark,Luke,John) not by Romans. The only Roman i can think of is Paul.

 

The Romans believed their god(s) were as real as your's(asuming your a theist).

 

It is also a well known fact that the Bible has been cencored over the ages. Around 300 CE(AD) Constinople I believe had noticed many diffrent variations of Christianity, each one using it's own gospil (their where 40 acording to history channel). A Cardinal from the Vatican had stated that their should be 4 Gospils because there are 4 corners to the Earth :roll: , and a meeting was held that many church leaders chose the books to be enterd into their Bible. These books where based on the majory, and the ease of transition so many OT books like the lives of Adam and Eve were excluded. Considering Constinople was Roman teritory, I say the Romans compiled to Bible together, but the follows of Jesus part, that was likly corect (I am saying likly because to call oneself a Christian nolonger makes you one (they get mad when Hitler said he was one)).

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible

 

 

 

PS: I like your sig Godzira.

 

 

 

I'm glad you like the sig. thank you.

 

 

 

However, not picking on anyone including the above post, I would like to request that people stop using wikipedia as a referance for this thread. Wikipedia is not a reliable resource as it is little more than a big blog. If you must quote wikipedia please fact check the information first. This is just to avoid a "wiki-war".

 

 

 

Thanks!

[havesometea1]

 

Godzira: Why wouldn't we need missionaries? I'm confused. Also, since when do Christians burn books? I've only heard of a practice similar to that in communist China which is staunchly atheistic. But I'd love to look at your source.

 

 

 

Is there any evidence that China burns books because it goes against their religious belief (more likely due to political repression)? China maintains a "freedom of religion" viewpoint and has been doing so for decades, they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have an official religion. There are no statistics for the number of atheists in China so they are lumped in the non-religious category. Having 60% non religious and 30% traditional practices shows in my mind that religion is a social practice rather then a universal truth. People continue to practice traditional beliefs because they are passed down from generation to generation, when someone finds it to be a little too quaint for their liking they become non-religious. You sure do tell some giant whoppers :^o

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the Falon Gong ppl would like to talk to you about that comment

[havesometea1]

Romans were not atheist. They killed Christians because Christians threatened their religion. My argument is against religion not just Christianity. It just so happen that the people I am debating are Christian so I am using Christian examples and critiques. Ironic though that after the Romans became Christian they started throwing the Jews and other non-Christians to the lions.

 

 

 

DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget that those Romans that you criticize are the ones that compiled the bible you cherish.

 

 

 

 

Well first of all Your right Romans were not athiest they belive in false gods for things much like the Greeks. Second the Romans didi not compile the Bible. It was moslty compiled by The followers of Jesus (Matthew,Mark,Luke,John) not by Romans. The only Roman i can think of is Paul.

 

 

 

They believed in false gods? How so?

[Not]

Romans were not atheist. They killed Christians because Christians threatened their religion. My argument is against religion not just Christianity. It just so happen that the people I am debating are Christian so I am using Christian examples and critiques. Ironic though that after the Romans became Christian they started throwing the Jews and other non-Christians to the lions.

 

 

 

DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget that those Romans that you criticize are the ones that compiled the bible you cherish.

 

 

 

 

Well first of all Your right Romans were not athiest they belive in false gods for things much like the Greeks. Second the Romans didi not compile the Bible. It was moslty compiled by The followers of Jesus (Matthew,Mark,Luke,John) not by Romans. The only Roman i can think of is Paul.

 

 

 

They believed in false gods? How so?

 

 

 

They were polythiestic, aren't most of the planets named after one of their gods?

[laker_fan77]

I'm a christian, and of course I believe in God. He created everything.

 

If you're bad....you go to hell.....

[insane]

I'm a christian, and of course I believe in God. He created everything.

 

If you're bad....you go to hell.....

 

 

 

In that case... we're all going to hell. According to the Bible we're all sinners.

[d-von]

pretty ironic some dudes walk like behind some dude who got betrayed by his follower... or if these new documents are real then he asked one of his friends to betray him :?

 

 

 

a: i aint trusting a relegion whos big boss got backstabbed

 

 

 

b: i aint trusting a relegion where friends ask u to betray them so they get killed and u feel bad

 

 

 

im talking about judas...

[laker_fan77]

I think i put it the wrong way, Insane. I mean If you don't go to church

 

and kill people and stuff like that you go to hell. Sorry about that...

[cyco]

FOUND HIM.

 

 

 

[Godzira]

pretty ironic some dudes walk like behind some dude who got betrayed by his follower... or if these new documents are real then he asked one of his friends to betray him :?

 

 

 

a: i aint trusting a relegion whos big boss got backstabbed

 

 

 

b: i aint trusting a relegion where friends ask u to betray them so they get killed and u feel bad

 

 

 

im talking about judas...

 

 

 

You think those illogical bits are good? Check this out.

 

 

 

2CH 21:20, 22:1-2 Ahaziah was forty-two when he became king by succeeding his father. His father who died at the age of forty. So, Ahaziah was somehow two years older than his father.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmmmm.

[the_blob23]

Another apparent contradiction is the fact that Jesus is not of David's bloodline. The Bible says that the messiah will be from the bloodline of David, but Jesus was born to a virgin.

[insane]

Another apparent contradiction is the fact that Jesus is not of David's bloodline. The Bible says that the messiah will be from the bloodline of David, but Jesus was born to a virgin.

 

 

 

Of course Mary didn't have ancestors.

[Godzira]

Another apparent contradiction is the fact that Jesus is not of David's bloodline. The Bible says that the messiah will be from the bloodline of David, but Jesus was born to a virgin.

 

 

 

Actually, the claim that Marry was a virgin is not correct. The bible never claims that she is a virgin. The problem is that people in modern times have confused ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åimmaculate conception ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ conception without intercourseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Godzira]

Another apparent contradiction is the fact that Jesus is not of David's bloodline. The Bible says that the messiah will be from the bloodline of David, but Jesus was born to a virgin.

 

 

 

Of course Mary didn't have ancestors.

 

 

 

You both have a point. Mary could have been a descendant of David. However, the bible almost exclusively follows male bloodlines, not female bloodlines.