Disproving Mormonism A few facts that disprove the mormon faith

[iGuest 3]

To the clean living Mormon, please quote a scripture in the real bible where it says not to drink or smoke. The biggest issue we have with most religious groups are they all use man made laws in the era in which it was formed. If you truly believe in Jesus as your savior take the time and read the first half of the new testament. We all have some work to do if we want to walk like Christ.

[iGuest 3]

It always amuses me when the religious start bickering about who's 'truth' is the real 'truth'.

Of course Mormonism is built on a load of old nonsense..do you really have to think about it? Tribes of Israel in the US? Golden plates which nobody is allowed to see? You couldn't write it as fiction because nobody would believe it.

 

If you really think your debating style is so good and your points so convincing then please try me for size - I've been debating the cream of religious apologists (Jesuits) for decades. I'm willing to be convinced, but you have to provide evidence, not assertion.

 

And just for the smug Christians -

Much of Christianity is also myth and invention, so Christians should be wary of throwing stones.

And please don't give me the normal guff about the bible being accurate - it is so full of holes that I'm surprised it isn't used more widely as a strainer. I could take it apart in detail if you like and show you the logical and textual contradictions, the obviously invented parts, the parts that are obviously stolen from other religions...and so on.

 

Here's just 3 simple questions to ask yourself, before attacking the veracity of other beliefs:

1. Where was Jesus born? Who is right and who made it up? Matthew and Luke? Paul? Mark? John? Here's a clue - the nativity is clearly an invention, since the Romans didn't conduct any census around that time and in any case never required men to return to their home town to register - that notion is completely bonkers.

(The same question applies to the date, as well as the place. The reported dates do not hold water).

 

2. Matthew (1:2-17) and Luke (3:23-38) both give the genealogy of Joseph. Both completely different. Which one is right?

 

3. Why is Jesus not mentioned outside the new testament? Why do none of the contemporary historians even mention him? Seneca, Philo, Plutarch - not a word about him - and they all wrote extensively about the goings on in the region at that time. Pliny the elder, Damis, Justus? Nary a mention....odd that! You have to wait for Tacitus in 110CE to see a mention - and even that is about Christians, not Jesus, and is widely believed to be a later Christian forgery....

 

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side?) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

 

There are differences of opinion with two main options being offered. The first is that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

"The second thing is that this genealogy differs in significant ways from the genealogy in Matthew. Why? Most Bible scholars believe that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary (who was also of the royal Davidic line), while Matthew traces the family of Joseph. Thus by both His mother and His earthly father, Jesus had a right to the throne of Israel."

"Luke paused from his narrative to give Christ’s genealogy. While Matthew traced Christ’s lineage through Joseph, his legal father (see Matt. 1:1–17), Luke traced it through Mary, beginning with Mary’s father, Heli. (Men in ancient times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons.) The lineages of Mary and Joseph converge at King David (compare 3:31 with Matt. 1:6).

"Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph—here His real, there His reputed line—explain the statement about Joseph, that hewas “the son of Hell,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported."

 

Some critics may not accept this explanation and it is not without its problems.

"The theory that Luke really gives us the family tree of Mary rather than of Joseph is improbable. The theory with least difficulties is that Matthew gives the descendants of David down the royal line (i.e. who was heir to the throne at any given time), but Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph belonged.

The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

I find it difficult to accept that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies. They must have understood what the historical/cultural context was and had no problem with it. Even though we cannot ascertain at this time a precise explanation does not mean one isn't forthcoming. After all, archaeological discovers clear up Bible "difficulties" on a regular basis. But, back to our discussion.

Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

 

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

[iGuest 3]

Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side?) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There are differences of opinion with two main options being offered. The first is that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

 

The second thing is that this genealogy differs in significant ways from the genealogy in Matthew. Why? Most Bible scholars believe that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary (who was also of the royal Davidic line), while Matthew traces the family of Joseph. Thus by both His mother and His earthly father, Jesus had a right to the throne of Israel.