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'?

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

No, pal; it is your loss that you have tossed your powers of reasoning aside for Godfaith.Oh, by the way, when and how, according to you, will I 'Understand'?

[AquinasForGod]

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'?

You should read this short article to see why although the genealogies
seem conflicting, those conflicts are resolvable. BTW, I do not think all bible contradicts can be resolved, but this is not even a contradiction.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -of-christ

[AquinasForGod]

For me it was the possibility that God incarnated and resurrected. Nothing prevents this being possible.

It made sense that a transcendent God would incarnate so we can relate to the transcendent in a real way. So God would be immanent in the world.

If God incarnated, then the resurrection is easy to accept. In fact, it seems that is exactly how it would go down.

Then there was the idea: Why did the disciples risk their lives preaching the resurrection of the dead? They knew Rome was persecuting Christians. They knew they could be killed.

No one risks their life for something they believe to be a lie.

So something convinced them he rose.

It is rather certain they believed he rose because the Corinthians Creed dates to 4-7 years after Jesus died and it states clearly that Jesus died and rose and was witnessed by Peter and the 12 then to 500 people.

But for those that think God doesn't exist, then yeah, nothing in the bible should mean anything to them. They shouldn't even care about discussing it.

There are many people that believe they were abducted by aliens. They share their stories publically, but I don't find threads full of anti-aliens trying to convince abductees they are wrong. They truly do not care because they truly do not believe in abductions.

[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.

No, pal; it is your loss that you have tossed your powers of reasoning aside for Godfaith.Oh, by the way, when and how, according to you, will I 'Understand'?

I think we can all agree there is such a thing as the future, or at least until death.
This is where we differ, so unless you believe of God you may never understand his presents in this lifetime.(logic)
However it is not according to me but Jesus.(that you will understand)
Rev:1:1:7-8
7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

[brunumb]

Rev:1:1:7-8
7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

On the other hand,
"But he that sows lies in the end shall not lack of a harvest, and soon he may rest from toil indeed, while others reap and sow in his stead."
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion

[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'?

You should read this short article to see why although the genealogies
seem conflicting, those conflicts are resolvable. BTW, I do not think all bible contradicts can be resolved, but this is not even a contradiction.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -of-christ

It's ingenious but also dubious, even though Africanus who claimed to have been born in Jerusalem but was actually a Lybian, claims to be writing from extant records. Apart from why, if the records explain the adoption, don't Mathew and Luke both explain it, Africanus must have the two contradictory accounts in front of him and that is why he sought to reconcile them. Ingenious but dubious as I say. It relies on this Estha, wife of Matthan marrying, after Matthan died, Melchi who was two generations earlier. Is that credible? I suppose one could try to explain it,perhaps with marital practices that ought to have been illegal, but the fact that both accounts are clearly different (as least he dismissed the 'line of Mary' excuse) and there is no attempt to explain the adoption suggests to me at least, that some clever fellow tried to explain it, but rather clumsily with this Estha after her husband had died, supposedly marrying someone old enough to be her husband's grandfather. Doesn't any of that give you cause to wonder?

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

No, pal; it is your loss that you have tossed your powers of reasoning aside for Godfaith.Oh, by the way, when and how, according to you, will I 'Understand'?

I think we can all agree there is such a thing as the future, or at least until death.
This is where we differ, so unless you believe of God you may never understand his presents in this lifetime.(logic)
However it is not according to me but Jesus.(that you will understand)
Rev:1:1:7-8
7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Perhaps it's you who does not understand the presents of Allah, or Shiva or just natural good fortune (along with the less good). But if Jesus is going to turn up and explain everything fine. I won't be holding my breath, he's over thousand years too late already. In the meantime I see no loss in remaining an atheist.