Saturday, November 5, 2011

Irrefutable Argument Against Christianity

This is original to me, so if you hear anyone else use it and say they created it, they're frauds and much worse debaters. I came across it while reading the Bible cover to cover the ninth time. Good luck wrapping your head around it, Christians.
First, Christians, I have to verify that you hold standard Christian dogma. You probably believe:
1. The Bible we have today exists in its original form and has not been altered.
2. Every prophecy of the Bible will be fulfilled:
Isa. 55:11 So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, except it accomplish that which I please, and make the thing whereto I sent it prosper.
3. Jesus is the Messiah.
4. Jesus died and was resurrected.
5. Jesus had no literal, physical children.
6. The resurrected do not get married, and therefore do not procreate. For this, pick up your favorite Bible and read Matthew 22:30.

Now turn to Ezekiel 46. Are you familiar with this ten chapter arc? Probably not; anyway it's about the end of the world as we know it and the beginning of the Messianic era. There's a war to end all wars, the ultimate battle between good and evil; Armageddon as it's entered the popular jargon, but Gog and Magog in this passage. That's chapters 38 and 39. The next eight chapters all deal with various facets of the messianic age; all that peace and love and lions lying down with lambs and beating swords into plow-shears stuff. Chances are you don't believe this has happened yet, but on the off-chance you do, don't worry, I'll prove it hasn't in a second.
Now, after the battle of Gog and Magog, there's a giant temple. An angel and Ezekiel measure it. The specific measurements aren't important to this argument; what IS important is that it: a) is a literal, physical temple on earth and b) has not been built yet. If you deny that it is physical and believes it refers to a temple in heaven, I refer you to Ezekiel 42:20--"He measured it by the four sides; it had a wall round about, the length five hundred, and the breadth five hundred, to make a separation between that which was holy and that which was common. " How did something that wasn't holy get into heaven? If you deny that this has not happened yet, just do some basic research into the history of the temples: no temple has been built matching the description provided here; the only temple standing after Ezekiel was Herod's, and it was a rectangle, not a square like this one. Now that you agree to a) and b), refer to point 2, above. If this temple has not been built yet, it must be built in the future; and the time specified is the Messianic era.
To briefly recap, we have now established that this passage refers to the Messianic era, a literal time on earth that has not come yet. Now, who will rule during the messianic era. Obviously, the messiah, right? He's called the prince in this passage.
The prince gets a peice of land from God, so that he doesn't need to take it from the people:
Ezekiel 45:7 And for the prince, on the one side and on the other side of the holy offering [the temple and adjacent housing for the priests] and of the possession of the city, in front of the holy offering and in front of the possession of the city, on the west side westward, and on the east side eastward; and in length answerable unto one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border 8 of the land; it shall be to him for a possession in Israel, and My princes shall no more wrong My people; but they shall give the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes.
What's important here is that this is a physical plot of land, one of several plots specifically defined and bequeathed. Refer back to point a) as necessary if this is not readily accepted.

SUCKER PUNCH: Now here's where it gets really interesting. Read Ezekiel 46:16-18. Should read something like this:
16 Thus saith the Lord GOD: If the prince give a gift unto any of his sons, it is his inheritance, it shall belong to his sons; it is their possession by inheritance. 17 But if he give of his inheritance a gift to one of his servants, it shall be his to the year of liberty; then it shall return to the prince; but as for his inheritance, it shall be for his sons. 18 Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance, to thrust them wrongfully out of their possession; he shall give inheritance to his sons out of his own possession; that My people be not scattered every man from his possession.'

Hang on now. Given point 3 (above), insert Jesus into where it says prince. So, according to this, he's supposed to give some land to his....sons. Refer to point 5. Now you will probably suggest that he'll have sons sometime in the future. Remember that verse in Matthew from point 6? Go back to it. Now refer back to point 4.
By now you should see the problem. The next thing a Christian generally says is something about all of us being sons of God. Clarify the difference between Jesus' "sons" and his "servants." Additionally, refer back to the area of the land in question. It's actually not all that big; it's the same size as the temple, if I remember correctly. Not every Christian who ever lived could stand shoulder to shoulder on it, much less live off it. How does Jesus decide who is his son and who is just a servant? You should now be pretty exasperated, as it should be pretty clear that just like everything else in this passage, this verse was meant to refer to literal physical descendants.

Good luck trying to work out an alternate way to understand this. Should you somehow succeed, do tell me.

12 comments:

  1. Not so good. Just because you read the Bible doesn't mean you understand it. The Bible needs to be properly interpreted. The Bible is a complex collection of books that contains many literary type (poetry, prose, metaphor, parable, allegory, etc.). Without proper interpretation, it can be easily misunderstood. Atheists and other non-believers make the same mistake you're making. They think they're experts on the Bible because they read it. Reading and understanding are often two different things.

    Rather than attempting to tell Christians what they believe, why don't you write blog posts that explain your Muslim faith, and why you are a Muslim? I think that would be much more productive, and promote understanding rather than division.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Paul, having been a devout catholic all my life, i just don't feel contentment inside. Its like a hole in my soul that needs fitting, and no matter how hard i try, i cant fill it. I don't know, but lately, i have started to have some serious doubts regarding faith in the church. Lord help me.

      Delete
    2. Chimbatra: If you have any questions on your journey don't hesitate to ask me. My Google+ profile is linked to the side.

      Delete
  2. ORLY? Paul, I'd LOVE to know how you get around the argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. salam dear sister.im jamilah and really want to ask Allah to put rahman in ur efforts.i want to do dawah and especially compartive religious studies so i can bring more people to light insha Allah.jamilahfadilah@yahoo.com

      Delete
  3. Hi Saffiyya,

    This is a good study, I enjoyed reading it. However, it's important to note that the "prince" can not be the Messiah, because Messiah is King and will sit on the throne. The prince however, does not sit on the throne. Also, the prince only gets a small land whereas the Messiah is Lord of all. A careful study of the word will reveal this.

    Ezekiel 44:2-3 ... indicates that the prince will only enter by way of the porch for example.

    My point is that, this prince (whoever he is, we don't know) can not be considered the Messiah as he does not fit all the criteria. Simply because he is unknown does not mean that he is the Messiah either.

    However, if we assume that this IS the Messiah, just for argument sake... You still can not create a conflict with Matthew because you are basing your conclusion on several assumptions. Marriage nor the act of sexual intercourse are NOT necessarily required for the Messiah to have 'sons' if there was such a need. I am only speculating here, but you should realize that all things are possible for Him. To simplify this, let me give you a very human example just to help you realize that it is possible: adoption. Furthermore, the bride of Christ is the church (symbolic) and any son's conceived may also be symbolic in nature (weather they are actual people or a certain concept that relates to the same).

    Hope this clears things up for you! :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. It's me again. I know this is an old article, I stumbled upon this while doing some research on something else. I hope you don't mind me commenting. - Tony

      Delete
    2. Except that the Prince clearly IS the Messiah, and GOD will be king over all the earth. Zech. 14:9. And God =/= the messiah. :) No matter how much your theology tells you so.

      Delete
  4. You admit the Prince is the Messiah, and you are correct. These words were written 550+ years before Christ, yet you toss this prophecy aside because you see "sons" meaning biological, not spiritual? wow.

    What the Prince gives, he gives from what he has and has been given. It is his to give as he chooses.

    “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father, Who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:28-30)

    Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (John 1:12; Romans 8:17)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has to mean literal sons, because if it didn't there would be too many people for him to give the land to. There isn't enough room on that plot for all the Christians who have ever lived to stand shoulder to shoulder. It's a very small plot of land.
      Additionally, the Hebrew word does not refer to "spiritual" sons but to literal descendants.

      Delete
  5. You got the part about Christianity being a pack of lies right. The problem is that the rest of the Bible is as well. There was no captivity in Egypt, and if you believe the story about Noah's ark that he put all the species in the world into a big boat, I have some land under the ocean I want to sell you.

    Our current version of reality according to falsifiable science is that time goes back infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future. Therefore there was no beginning. If there was no beginning, the first three words of the Bible are false. For that reason, the 'Inerrant Word of God' can be reasonably judged to be a manual for slavery. Seeing as all that religious people do is have wars and enslave other people, I think I may be right about it.

    ReplyDelete

Please comment! Keep in mind to be respectful, though. I don't have enough time in my day to deal with people who are just going to curse.