Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?


Monday, February 18, 2013

Answering a Skeptic PART 1: From Adam to Hell!

PFROM BOB: A Posting reply to my page on , it was both improperly stated and improperly posted on the wrong page of my site. Guess he really didn't know the answers to his 'Logicly Lacking" questions were on the other pages.

I thought it wise to post it here as a teaching on just how illogical Atheistic thought is and how to rebut it in simple formats!

What transpires here is a muddled mess of what he thinks disproves the bible and thus God, and while ON THE SURFACE it seems logical at least to him....IT IS AS FAR FROM THE CONTEXT AS IT COULD EVER GET!

I will rebut each misunderstanding one at a time in continuing blogs as it will take awhile to do, but the entire mess of illogical "Buckshot" will be answered, probably not to HIS satisfaction but to any thinking persons mind. Christianity has been attacked by much worse criticism by far smarter people for centuries and has NEVER BEEN DEFEATED BY IT; BUT MADE STRONGER, this will be no different.

Bob says many things here, on many subjects from vast points of view...seems like he's trying to be his very own scripture but the problem is clear, he never nails down his true point once, he attempts too but fails.

Towards the bottom of this RANT he quotes many sources from Jewish history to prove they are Racist in their bottom line beliefs and are as bad as Hitler himself.

Funny how these people are constantly trying to vindicate Hitler or some other despot isn't it? This is the Progressive Liberal idea of getting to the facts, mixing actual history with false context to better their outcome to the public mind who seldom check the facts against the context.

 This of course is simply a contextual mess which he ether purposely made or just doesn't understand context in the first place, but either way it is just not truth.

Atheists and Skeptics always do this concerning scripture, THEY MUST, if they are to make any form of sense from their so-called logic.

What all their skepticism amounts to is always putting the cart before the horse, always forcing the puzzle together into an improper configuration just to "Create the illusion of Logic", asking wrong questions to apply the wrong answers, to come to a wrong conclusion!

"If the Foundation is built on Sand,
the whole structure will collapse."

This would be funny if it were not sad, this quote is VERY, VERY TRUE but not for the reason he thinks. If it applies to anything it applies to Evolutionary thought not Christian thought. But that being what it is we shall deal with his absurd reasoning concerning this!

"The whole of Christian theology is based on a conversation between a Man, a Woman and a Snake. Straight off one would be saying, “This is a MYTH, right”?"

The whole of his problem is a false narrative built upon false context and misapplied scripture. One could build a similar issue with ANY atheistic thought by taking an out of context statement and putting it into another context thereby changing the idea originally made and making it appear to be something different. This approach is common practice for those who LIE to protect a belief or cover a crime.

What he fails to see, on purpose or by ignorance is the simple fact that the story he tells is only half the story, the back story of the serpent, the women and the man in question is much different than his assertions.

He asserts that :

"The Canons of Dordt

Article 1:

God’s Right to Condemn All People

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin."

BUT the fact is HE DIDN'T leave us in that state when he had the full right to do so, he sent his Word (Jesus) to heal us and set us free.

The point here is simple...The death here is DISOBEDIENCE, not the conversation. Adam was IN CHARGE of all of God's creation, its protection, its upkeep and its outcome. Anyone who understands 'Chain of Command' can see what happened here in plain English. God gave Adam and by extension his wife Eve complete control of creation as God's representatives in the Earth.

God invested in Mankind EVERYTHING and in one act of disobedience EVERYTHING was lost, and to get back to the original intent of creation SHORT OF DESTROYING IT AND STARTING OVER God had to start a process of Re-creation in the earth though the sacrifice of Jesus.

"As the apostle says:

 The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)"

These statements have been removed from surrounding context on purpose to greater influence our ignorance concerning the intent of God. They manipulate the words to misinform us of God and make us doubt his intent towards us. Its the same old story, man can't be to blame for his state of being so it must be something or someone else, but if God doesn't exist....WHO'S TO BLAME BUT MAN?

This is the great issue that is created by Atheistic reasoning, IF God doesn't exist and according to him he CANNOT EXIST then how can they prove it by using the bible against itself? Is this not simply circular reasoning of the sort they accuse us of?
"Original Sin

Original Sin– In the fifth chapter of Romans Paul created a concept–Original Sin–that is crucial to Christianity. He alleged humanity is under a curse because of Adam’s failings in the Garden of Eden.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Romans. 5:12).

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians. 15:22).”(Also note Rom. 5:17-19).

This is a self created 'Issue' that doesn't exist, its making a problem where none is necessary. He assumes that Paul has ADDED what was not there to reinvent a doctrine to captivate mankind in a kind of 'Catch 22' damned if we do and damned if we don't. This could not be further from the truth, every word of Paul's doctrine is found in Genesis as the cause of mankind's problem's IF RIGHTLY DIVIDED from the context.

Yet, despite Paul’s assertions it’s difficult to see ( But not impossible) how the condemnations pronounced upon Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the third chapter of Genesis (Genesis 3:14-19) condemned all mankind to eternal punishment. Paul’s interpretation is just not warranted by the narrative.

Not warranted by the Narrative? What he means is the Narrative AS I SEE IT not as it really is. He has reconstructed Paul's meaning so as to make it appear different from the meanings in Genesis, but they really are the same; its just that Paul reveals a deeper understanding of the curse and its implications to us. He added NOTHING but expanded everything to get a better understanding.

He seems to be the victim of bad reasoning skills, since he doesn't have the ability to PROVE what he's saying is true, he simply adds doubt instead of evidence to the narrative.

What happened to Adam, Eve and the Serpent has NOTHING to do with the DEATH of sin except in SMALL WAYS. This was never meant to explain the vast and far-reaching effects of sin in the future, only to give a picture of how it started. Anyone with a brain to think can conceive that Sin didn't start as it is now, it progressed to this point.

Death didn't start out killing everyone instantly, it progressed over time to kill in shorter and shorter increments. The Bible has NEVER indicated anywhere that things have instantly happened or that doctrine of Sin was a simple subject.

Because Atheists CANNOT prove that God doesn't exist, they resort to OVER SIMPLIFICATION OF DEEP DOCTRINAL SUBJECTS, such as 'Original Sin', the Resurrection of Christ or the Doctrine of Salvation by making improper connections and insinuating warped reasoning ending in wrong conclusions.

Genesis 3:14, for example, says:

“And the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life”.

Clearly this bestows no curse upon Adam and doesn’t materially affect the serpent. How did the serpent move before, if not upon its belly?

 It’s difficult to imagine a serpent walking upright or finding one that eats dust. Even if he had walked on legs, the alteration is not relevant to the issue. It is the curse on Adam that matters.

It would seem more a diversion is in play here by the Atheist who admits it matters not at the end of his sentence. So what matters to him he says is the curse upon Adam not the curse upon the serpent, what is his real point? In the end there is none, its all a matter of misdirection with Atheists. What he's doing here is a game of questions to straw men he can easily knock down and say 'there, see it's as I said no mention of Adams curse!'

Death entered man at the moment of disobedience and began its SLOW progress of eating away at God's perfection within us, changing the very DNA in us to accept death rather than renewal.

Genesis 3:15 says:
“And I will put enmity (Meaning WAR) between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers (her seed- KJV, RSV); he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.”

These curses sound ominous but are of little consequence for several reasons. In the first place, the serpent, i.e., the Devil, didn’t have offspring.

This is absurd, the serpent which was possessed by Satan as the physical snake had billions of offspring since the fall, Satan being the spiritual representation of evil produced billions of his own kind through mankind. Of course evil reproduced throughout history, this is the Devil's offspring and those who sin are HIS SPIRITUAL CHILDREN.

 According to Christianity the battle between good and evil is between the Devil and all others.

Wow, talk about missing his own point! Satan is against all of God's creation, why? Because of jealousy of former position with God, this is not in dispute. What is being said is clearly not what he thinks is going on.

Nothing is said about the Devil’s children. Secondly, if “the woman” refers to Eve, then her offspring could refer to any person who lived.

Now he's on to the real point.......ANY MAN, ANY WOMEN of Eve's children are ALL THE CHILDREN OF SIN and ALL MEN, and ALL WOMEN have the same exact chance to be saved. Sin is no respecter of persons and nether is God who Judges and Redeems.

When he states that 'nothing is said of the devil's children' he is so wrong as I have already proven it so but in their blindness they cannot see. The Bible here is referring to the seed of Adam through Eve BOTH PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY.

Adams physical seed produced all mankind on earth but because Adam disobeyed God's direct command NOT TEST HIS WARNING ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN (Meaning experiencing sin's practice) the spiritual seed of sin was to be passed on to all his physical seed.

 By what rationale can Paul say this verse is referring to one specific individual, Jesus, who lived thousands of years later in another part of the world? Her seed (RSV) must be referring to one person.

If not, if it is referring to all of Eve’s descendants, then to whom does “he” refer?

Thirdly, the waters are muddied even further by the fact that the KJV and the RSV say “her seed” and seed is always plural in the Old Testament. It’s never used to refer to a single individual, such as Jesus.

The verse refers to ALL but specifically to the ONE MAN who could reverse the problem caused by the ONE MAN ADAM. Jesus came through the physical seed of women and thereby through EVE but his Father wasn't tainted by the spiritual seed of Adam....SIN DID NOT HAVE ITS HOLD UPON HIM so he fulfilled this verses prediction to the letter. Though ALL MEN are from Eve's physical seed ONLY one man was ever of God's spiritual seed which Satan would bruise upon the cross and by that death Jesus would CRUSH SATAN'S HEADSHIP over mankind!


And lastly, the “he” couldn’t be Jesus, as Paul contends, because Jesus never crushed the head of Satan. If he had, then how could there still be “sinners” and how could the Serpent still be doing injury?

This argument sounds reasonable until one understands the nature of God's salvation, Jesus DID defeat Satan on the CROSS SPIRITUALLY but all the physical defeat comes one soul at a time as men repent and accept what he accomplished for them.

This has never been an issue nor a dispute in the true church, but false religions have truly muddied the water concerning Jesus and his sacrifice. Satan's injury is ONLY to God's creation not directly to God. God could never be defeated by so weak an enemy as Satan. Salvation coupled with Obedience shows Satan's defeat moment to moment before God.

Romans 16:20, which says:
“And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” and 1 Thessalonians. 2:18, which says:

“Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us” show that even after the death of Jesus, Satan still lived and exercised control over people.

The best Christians can do with this problem is allege Jesus will destroy Satan when Christ returns.
Really? I think not, the bible said NOWHERE that the death of Jesus KILLED SATAN. What his death accomplished was to TAKE BACK what Adam lost and since what Adam lost DID NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT but took generations to take root the same is true of God's cure, Salvation doesn't happen in a instant physical way, it BEGINS in the spirit and spreads to the mind and body over time. The best Satan can do to the believer is to hinder their connection to their true home, he cannot stop them from getting there!

Genesis 3:16 says:
“Unto the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee’.”

Even if this verse were true, it would not mark the establishment of Original Sin, but only explain why women have pain during childbirth and have been dominated by men. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband” doesn’t sound like a curse or punishment.

Did you hear him? 'Even if' 'Dosen't sound like' he bases his conclusions upon his feelings about scripture not upon what scripture acually says. Well weather or not it sounds like it or not to his reasoning or not these announcements by God are not THE CURSE but only a few of the results of the curse of separation from God which not only cursed mankind but the entire earth as well.
Genesis 3:17 says:
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life(RSV).”

This verse does little more than condemn man to work for a living and curse the ground upon which he labors.

Genesis 3:18 says:
“…thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field (RSV).”
Listen to the context he avoids getting into, he then uses a verse from BEFORE THE CURSE WAS INSTITUTED to prove the curse isn't a real curse, sounds like he's afraid to admit to admit his reasoning is all over the place. The Curse contains multiltple areas of cursing, like of mankind, the ground, relationships, work, this is obvious to any thinking person!
The Curse extends out from man to all creation and Jesus took back the right through God to have dominion again but only if we obey the way of salvation. WHY? Because in order to gain what Jesus purchased you must enter through him, he is the doorway of escaping the curse. 

According to Genesis 1:29: Please note that this verse was given BEFORE Adam sinned and thus doesn't count as an argument to prove the curse isn't real!
“And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food’,”
The plants of the field were already bestowed upon man for food. It’s difficult to see this as a curse, in any event.

What he fails to understand is that the Curse was not having to work the land but how the land itself was cursed and in turn cursed man. The land produced weeds and harness as a result of man's fall. Before the fall the earth wasn't cursed because of sin and therefore man who was in charge of its care tended the Garden east of eden, but ease was soon to give way to hard, toil and sweaty labor under the curse of sin and death!

Genesis 3:19 says:
“In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground…(RSV).”

Eating bread in the sweat of his face or working to produce food partly explains why man was created in the first place.

Genesis 2:5 says: “…and there was not a man to till the ground (RSV)”
Another epic failure in reasoning, man's original WORK was not hard to do because God was blessing his work, blessing the ground to produce, sin did not exist until the fall.

Genesis 2:15 says:

“And the Lord took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it (RSV)”

This shows man was put into the Garden of Eden to work and keep it up– a blessing of healthful work instead of idle existence. Except for having to work for a living, this is no curse upon Adam or mankind.
In summary, much of the “Curse” is upon the helpless earth which God had just created. There is not a single word or remotest hint at sin, at death, or eternal damnation.

Every clause of the “curse” is no curse at all. God told Adam that because of what he did the ground is cursed, he must toil for food, thorns and thistles shall be brought forth to him, and he must eat the plants of the field.
Where is the curse of Original Sin?

From the first curse in Genesis 3 to the end of Malachi, amid all the ravings threatening death upon the Chosen People, there is not the remotest reference in all the Old Testament to the Snake Story, the Curse of Adam, the Fall of Man, or the necessity of Redemption from “Original Sin” and the fires of Hell.

Hell and its fires are totally non-existent in the Hebrew scheme. All the furies of God are temporal terrors and end with death of the accused.

Jesus never once mentioned Adam or the pretended curse and fall. He never implied his mission was to undo what Adam had done. Not one of the gospel writers uttered anything about Adam, the Curse, or Redemption.

Original sin WAS and IS NOW simply disobedience to the commands of God, it was not obeying God that released sin into the world through the first sinner Satan, known then as Lucifer the light bearer. Atheists do not conceive of SIN as the bible presents it therefore they cannot see it where its presented differently.

His failure here is not in what he sees as obvious interpretation of the text but in his failure to dig a little under the surface of the obvious. It is obvious that much of the concept of hell was developed over time from the pictures of its existence through descriptive ideas in the Hebrew bible to the set in stone biblical teaching that Christ preached!

This Athiest cannot correctly interpret the idea of hell because he doesn't fully comprehend how God revealed the afterlife to those who had little understanding of theological concepts. Just because he'll is only spoken of in terms that the non theological mind can understand does not mean that he'll was not a real place. That would be like saying that because science did not reveal at the time in question ALL it's many facets that, that particular area of science wasn't in existence.

Hell as a theological concept wasn't known as such YET, but was developing through the mental pictures the Prophets and teachers were telling as God revealed it to them just as all knowledge was gradually delivered over time, no one ever got all their was to know all at once.

Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.