What Bible passage most worries atheists?

[TRANSPONDER]

What Bible passage most worries atheists that they might be wrong?

This is one that bothers me most:

Romans 1.3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

line 3, not 4 which isn't a problem. My theory really supposes that Jesus was never of the line of David, as nobody knew by then their genealogy, which is why we get two contradictory genealogies in Luke and Matthew (and none in Mark, so they are not Original material) and the son of David thing was acquired by Jesus along with Messiahship (and concurrently High Priestship) through the order of Melchizedek, which is to say, because God said so, not because anyone elected him or that he was born with a genealogical claim. But here, Paul. who at least should have known something about Jesus through James, seems to be saying that the Davidic descent was true.

This bothers me more than anything else in the Bible, which is pretty clearly tall tales, rubbish and nonsense all the way through.

What Bible passages (if any) give doubters and Bible critics the most pause and think 'maybe what seems to be a fairy story could be true, after all'?

[Difflugia]

What Bible passage most worries atheists that they might be wrong?

That's a tough one. Which verse would be most challenging if it were true and also has a reasonable chance of being true?

Probably that the James that Paul knew was an actual brother of an actual Jesus. I guess that could pretty much be broadened to, "anything in the New Testament is historically accurate." For all that, it doesn't really challenge my atheism as such, but my overall synthesis of the New Testament. Currently, my view is that it's allegory all the way down. If Jesus was a real guy or Acts is even coarsely historical, then somewhere there's an interface between an actual history and that allegory. That would be a challenge to me personally.

Romans 1.3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

line 3, not 4 which isn't a problem. My theory really supposes that Jesus was never of the line of David, as nobody knew by then their genealogy, which is why we get two contradictory genealogies in Luke and Matthew (and none in Mark, so they are not Original material) and the son of David thing was acquired by Jesus along with Messiahship (and concurrently High Priestship) through the order of Melchizedek, which is to say, because God said so, not because anyone elected him or that he was born with a genealogical claim. But here, Paul. who at least should have known something about Jesus through James, seems to be saying that the Davidic descent was true.

For me, this one fails the "chance of being true" criterion. On the whole, I don't even think there was a David, let alone an accurate genealogy having been retained through the years. King David seems to have been a King Arthur figure retained in the form of Canaanite boogeyman stories and Israelite apologetic reactions to them. While it's remarkable that even these may have been retained, the suggestion that a real Jesus was descended of the real David is equivalent to a real Pinocchio descending from the real Romulus.

What Bible passages (if any) give doubters and Bible critics the most pause and think 'maybe what seems to be a fairy story could be true, after all'?

The Patriarchs were real? The Exodus was historical? Moses was a real guy? If any of the Old Testament stories before 1 Kings have even a kernel of historicity, it would be on the order of a miracle and a similar level of intellectual challenge. Probably the best Old Testament intersection between challenging if true and the possibility of being so is the historicity of King Solomon.

[Miles]

As much as I like participating in discussions about atheism I can't think of a darn thing in or out of the Bible that even inclines me to worry about my position. Now, if some evidence or argument came along that looked promising I'll be all ears, but until then I'm quite content with my atheism.

.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #1]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Leviticus 19:19

19 "Keep my decrees.

"Do not mate different kinds of animals.

"Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

ME: Sheepishly looks at tag on underwear and up to see veritable garden of different weeds growing in the backyard. Well at least the squirrels are keeping to themselves.

On a serious note, the following passage probably worries me the most IF and ONLY IF the rest of the descriptions of the God in the Bible are factual:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Genesis 1:27

So God created mankind in his own image,

That means God is just as bad as us and there's little hope.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure the God of the Bible is more aptly described by my own scripture:

BW 1:1

So man created God in his own image,

[Tcg]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #1]

I can only answer for this atheist. None. Nothing in the Bible worries me. There is no reason to take any of it seriously and thus no reason to worry about any of it.

I certainly worry that others take it seriously. I can't think of much of anything else more worrisome than that.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

What Bible passage most worries atheists that they might be wrong?

That's a tough one. Which verse would be most challenging if it were true and also has a reasonable chance of being true?

Probably that the James that Paul knew was an actual brother of an actual Jesus. I guess that could pretty much be broadened to, "anything in the New Testament is historically accurate." For all that, it doesn't really challenge my atheism as such, but my overall synthesis of the New Testament. Currently, my view is that it's allegory all the way down. If Jesus was a real guy or Acts is even coarsely historical, then somewhere there's an interface between an actual history and that allegory. That would be a challenge to me personally.

Romans 1.3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

line 3, not 4 which isn't a problem. My theory really supposes that Jesus was never of the line of David, as nobody knew by then their genealogy, which is why we get two contradictory genealogies in Luke and Matthew (and none in Mark, so they are not Original material) and the son of David thing was acquired by Jesus along with Messiahship (and concurrently High Priestship) through the order of Melchizedek, which is to say, because God said so, not because anyone elected him or that he was born with a genealogical claim. But here, Paul. who at least should have known something about Jesus through James, seems to be saying that the Davidic descent was true.

For me, this one fails the "chance of being true" criterion. On the whole, I don't even think there was a David, let alone an accurate genealogy having been retained through the years. King David seems to have been a King Arthur figure retained in the form of Canaanite boogeyman stories and Israelite apologetic reactions to them. While it's remarkable that even these may have been retained, the suggestion that a real Jesus was descended of the real David is equivalent to a real Pinocchio descending from the real Romulus.

What Bible passages (if any) give doubters and Bible critics the most pause and think 'maybe what seems to be a fairy story could be true, after all'?

The Patriarchs were real? The Exodus was historical? Moses was a real guy? If any of the Old Testament stories before 1 Kings have even a kernel of historicity, it would be on the order of a miracle and a similar level of intellectual challenge. Probably the best Old Testament intersection between challenging if true and the possibility of being so is the historicity of King Solomon.

Thank you. That is possible, though debatable. After all some early kings or rulers are debated as to whether they are real or not. Arthur is attested in Glidas, as I recall, though 95% of the stuff about him is surely fiction. Robin Hood, on the other hand is more likely all fiction, though some have argued for a real person. The house of David was attested in the Moab stone wasn't it? But what he did is not so sure. It's shown by archaeology that Jerusalem wasn't the important city that was so significant a capture, even though it became the capital city of the Hebrews later on.

But maybe you can answer this one, if I am right in thinking that 'Son of David' was no more than a messianic title that came with God (supposedly) fingering Jesus as the Messiah, what did Paul mean by 'according to the flesh' as distinct from the Son of God (messiah) according to the spirit, because my Thesis argues that the Messianic spirit descended on Jesus at the baptism, making him son of God and Messiah, by the spiritual imprimatur and all the heavenly declarations were concocted to have God confirm it, verbally.
If being Son of David was not acquired that way, according to Paul, what could Paul have meant other than Jesus claiming to have a Davidic lineage? Any suggestions?

Oh, a p.s your last point. Supposing that Jesus actually did have (or claimed) a Davidic lineage, that just tells us something about his planned Messianic mission. If that claim is historical (which isn't the same as being true) it doesn't mean that I'm saying that it validates the Patriarchs, Exodus, the walking snake or the mobile star along with it.

[wannabe]

What Bible passage most worries atheists that they might be wrong?

This is one that bothers me most:

Romans 1.3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

line 3, not 4 which isn't a problem. My theory really supposes that Jesus was never of the line of David, as nobody knew by then their genealogy, which is why we get two contradictory genealogies in Luke and Matthew (and none in Mark, so they are not Original material) and the son of David thing was acquired by Jesus along with Messiahship (and concurrently High Priestship) through the order of Melchizedek, which is to say, because God said so, not because anyone elected him or that he was born with a genealogical claim. But here, Paul. who at least should have known something about Jesus through James, seems to be saying that the Davidic descent was true.

This bothers me more than anything else in the Bible, which is pretty clearly tall tales, rubbish and nonsense all the way through.

What Bible passages (if any) give doubters and Bible critics the most pause and think 'maybe what seems to be a fairy story could be true, after all'?

The only thing that should be taken seriously in the bible are the words of Jesus.
Everything else just nestles the words within the book.
But the nest has lasted and more so Jesus's words.
They are basically delivered to the world as a gift from God. (The dictator,for his own purpose)
Take them or leave them. I suggest the former.

[TRANSPONDER]

What Bible passage most worries atheists that they might be wrong?

This is one that bothers me most:

Romans 1.3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

line 3, not 4 which isn't a problem. My theory really supposes that Jesus was never of the line of David, as nobody knew by then their genealogy, which is why we get two contradictory genealogies in Luke and Matthew (and none in Mark, so they are not Original material) and the son of David thing was acquired by Jesus along with Messiahship (and concurrently High Priestship) through the order of Melchizedek, which is to say, because God said so, not because anyone elected him or that he was born with a genealogical claim. But here, Paul. who at least should have known something about Jesus through James, seems to be saying that the Davidic descent was true.

This bothers me more than anything else in the Bible, which is pretty clearly tall tales, rubbish and nonsense all the way through.

What Bible passages (if any) give doubters and Bible critics the most pause and think 'maybe what seems to be a fairy story could be true, after all'?

The only thing that should be taken seriously in the bible are the words of Jesus.
Everything else just nestles the words within the book.
But the nest has lasted and more so Jesus's words.
They are basically delivered to the world as a gift from God. (The dictator,for his own purpose)
Take them or leave them. I suggest the former.

I see it differently; though I think there is a good case for a real, historical Jesus, and I suspect that a surprising amount of his deeds in the gospels may be true, I am here to tell you that i reckon that none of the words or teachings ascribed to Jesus are true. You will disagree; fine. but you are advised that making claims about 'Jesus words' are totally without force, for me.

[wannabe]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #8]

I see it differently; though I think there is a good case for a real, historical Jesus, and I suspect that a surprising amount of his deeds in the gospels may be true, I am here to tell you that i reckon that none of the words or teachings ascribed to Jesus are true. You will disagree; fine. but you are advised that making claims about 'Jesus words' are totally without force, for me.

My words have no force at all compared to the power of Jesus's Wisdom.
Your Loss
BUT God Loves you anyway, at which one time you will understand.

[Tcg]

BUT God Loves you anyway, at which one time you will understand.

Please provide verifiable evidence to support this argument of the future. In doing so, don't forget to explain how it is you know the future which of course is impossible given that it hasn't yet happened.


Tcg