Thread: Questions about christianity, I have answers.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

How was Jesus born in bethlehem, raised in Eqypt, but from Nazareth, the question remains

If you had read it, you wouldnt have these questions. The story is all there.

No, you are completely wrong.

And besides you said that "90% is History of the Jews" -- just in case you flunked mathematics 90/100 is most.

Also, like in any book made to be taken literally for ignorant peasents, history only exists to keep a flow going through it.

You start at creation and work your way up, but you could have done it another way to almost the same effect.

No real significance.

Originally Posted by avalonandon

If you had read it, you wouldnt have these questions. The story is all there.

I did not read the entire NT. I read parts of it. After all, 90% of it are letters to different churches.

I did however read the Tanakh, or OT.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

No, you are completely wrong.

And besides you said that "90% is History of the Jews" -- just in case you flunked mathematics 90/100 is most.

Also, like in any book made to be taken literally for ignorant peasents, history only exists to keep a flow going through it.

You start at creation and work your way up, but you could have done it another way to almost the same effect.

No real significance.

Most of the law and theology is contained in Deuteronomy. Most of the rest of the Old Testament is a narrative, historical account of the Jews. I have read it, all of it.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Why is Jesus portrayed as a white man with long flowing hair when the bible says that his hair was like that of a lambs and from Nazareth, which is northern Israel?

The artists who painted pictures featuring Jesus Christ were most likely white, and thus drew him in their image.

In reality he most likely had dark skin.

Originally Posted by avalonandon

Most of the law and theology is contained in Deuteronomy. Most of the rest of the Old Testament is a narrative, historical account of the Jews. I have read it, all of it.

I give up, clearly you didn't actually read what is said. You say you read it, but I don't think you read what was there. Care to continue the topic?

The bible != Histoical account. Why? Because it contains theology. End of discussion.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I give up, clearly you didn't actually read what is said. You say you read it, but I don't think you read what was there. Care to continue the topic?

The bible != Histoical account. Why? Because it contains theology. End of discussion.

Okay when I say theology, I am speaking of the study of God.


Old Testament Survey

The Old Testament is divided into five sections: the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy), the historical books (Joshua through Esther), the poetic books (Job through Song of Solomon), the Major Prophets also history (Isaiah through Daniel), and the Minor Prophets also history(Hosea through Malachi).

The Old Testament deals primarily with the relationship between God and the nation of Israel. The Pentateuch deals with the creation of Israel and God establishing a covenant relationship with Israel. The historical books record Israel's history, its victories and successes along with its defeats and failures. The poetic books give us a more intimate look at God's relationship with Israel and His passion for Israel to worship and obey Him. The prophetic books are God's call to Israel to repent from its idolatry and unfaithfulness and to return to a relationship of obedience and spiritual fidelity.

That has nothing to do with the OP's topic.

So shutup now.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

That has nothing to do with the OP's topic.

So shutup now.

It is on topic because I am arguing for the historical relevance of the Bible...which is part of the OP's attempt to "prove" the Bible. You say it is not historical. Well, it is.

Originally Posted by Grod

The artists who painted pictures featuring Jesus Christ were most likely white, and thus drew him in their image.

In reality he most likely had dark skin.

Actually, I know quite a bit about Roman history. Jesus' image is based off of the old image of Zeus, king of the gods. I'm just wondering why he's still portrayed that way.

Originally Posted by avalonandon

It is on topic because I am arguing for the historical relevance of the Bible...which is part of the OP's attempt to "prove" the Bible. You say it is not historical. Well, it is.

The bible is not a history book. It bears little relevence.

That's what I said. I also said most of it is void because of the Theological teachings and exaggerations of the time, not to mention the hundreds of times it has been re-written.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Actually, I know quite a bit about Roman history. Jesus' image is based off of the old image of Zeus, king of the gods. I'm just wondering why he's still portrayed that way.

Also almost the whole bible is revolved around the Zodiac celestial coordinate systems used in many early religion.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

The bible is not a history book. It bears little relevence.

That's what I said. I also said most of it is void because of the Theological teachings and exaggerations of the time, not to mention the hundreds of times it has been re-written.

Okay...History in the bible... and I can add pages and pages to this:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

t was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

* The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by historians Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
* Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
* Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.
* Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.
* Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.
* Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.
* Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.
* Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.
* Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.
* Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
* Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
* Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I'm just wondering why he's still portrayed that way.

If he had come from the area described in the New Testament, he would have had dark skin, and not lighter skin.

Originally Posted by Grod

If he had come from the area described in the New Testament, he would have had dark skin, and not lighter skin.

Or if he came from the planet Kolub, he might have blue...

avalonandon, I'm not going to reply to all of your ridiculous posts, so I'll sum this up.

The Bible, while it may contain some history, also contains Theology and faith based belief systems. It also contains stories which have no evidence at all. Because there is no physical evidence, or written evidence from any source other than the Bible for nearly all of the stories, they can not be revered as actual history. They can be believed to be history if the interpreter chooses to view them as so, but they can not be historically accurate, scientifically proven, or evidentially verified. This causes the Bible to become in a class called non-fiction. While many people believe it not to be, as of now, it can not be verified in any way possible as anything more.

I'm not condemning the Bible, I am only giving this as an official viewpoint. It isn't logic, it is common sense that this is so.

Now for my views...

If somebody chooses to view the Bible as literal, I find them as an idiot. For one, many of the stories defy science and physics, which are things that can be tested time and time again, always achieving the same result.

Also, the reason given above is enough reason to disregard the Bible as a literal source of history. You get much more out of it as a metaphoric guide to morality and lifestyle than as a historical book documenting how people use magic to escape imprisonment (of which there is also no proof of) and wonder in the desert for 40 years, all while using magic. Then a magic man comes along and preaches about God, who is also his Dad, but is really him, but they're not the same because Jesus says so, but they are the same because Christian and Jewish Theology says so, so they completely contradict.

At least if you interpret it as metaphor, you don't look as stupid, if you look stupid at all.

Originally Posted by StephenT

avalonandon, I'm not going to reply to all of your ridiculous posts, so I'll sum this up.

The Bible, while it may contain some history, also contains Theology and faith based belief systems. It also contains stories which have no evidence at all. Because there is no physical evidence, or written evidence from any source other than the Bible for nearly all of the stories, they can not be revered as actual history. They can be believed to be history if the interpreter chooses to view them as so, but they can not be historically accurate, scientifically proven, or evidentially verified. This causes the Bible to become in a class called non-fiction. While many people believe it not to be, as of now, it can not be verified in any way possible as anything more.

I'm not condemning the Bible, I am only giving this as an official viewpoint. It isn't logic, it is common sense that this is so.

Now for my views...

If somebody chooses to view the Bible as literal, I find them as an idiot. For one, many of the stories defy science and physics, which are things that can be tested time and time again, always achieving the same result.

Also, the reason given above is enough reason to disregard the Bible as a literal source of history. You get much more out of it as a metaphoric guide to morality and lifestyle than as a historical book documenting how people use magic to escape imprisonment (of which there is also no proof of) and wonder in the desert for 40 years, all while using magic. Then a magic man comes along and preaches about God, who is also his Dad, but is really him, but they're not the same because Jesus says so, but they are the same because Christian and Jewish Theology says so, so they completely contradict.

At least if you interpret it as metaphor, you don't look as stupid, if you look stupid at all.

I personally don't take it literally. I do however disagree in that there are ongoing finds involving places and events (several that I listed above - did you read them?) that were thought of as "myth" for centuries...but then were proven through archaeological discoveries. To me, it is incredibly foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water as so many here are doing.

Originally Posted by StephenT

How do you explain, neglect, or nullify the inherent contradictions throughout the Bible and Christianity's Theology.

Jesus being part of God, yet the he and the disciples clearly distinguish themselves from God.

Ok I sense some confusion here, as far as I know the disciples do not claim that they are part of God at all, just that they are his servants and have been given the ability to preform miracles. Jesus does distinguish himself from God in many ways, you just have to think of it like this, Jesus is God incarnate. Jesus is the loving forgiving side of Gods personality which God deposited in a person and then brought to life through mary the Virgin, in this way Jesus was God but not God, seperate but the same. This is an incredibly confusing topic and I am probably not the best person to answer this question. I guess the thing to do would be to look at the three leaf clover, three seperate parts, one whole.

Originally Posted by StephenT

God being omnibenevolent, yet sending people to hell

I am going to take a hit here. This is one of the things where I can explain it to myself and wrap my own mind around it but can't put it into words. I guess I would say that it is because God lets us make our own decisions and live with those choices. I know that this is a BAD answer, give me a bit more time to do some research and I promise I will get back to you with a better answer at a latter time.

Originally Posted by StephenT

God being omnibenevolent, yet creates the possibility of evil and sin.

This question, unlike your last one, has a simple answer. God permitted the possibility for evil and sin because he wanted to be able to experince real love. When he created man he made them free, he wanted beings to associate with that could make their own decisions and have their own feelings, he didn't want puppets he controled. How can you have free people that experince real love without the possibillity of hate. If I was forced to love you all the time with no alternative would that be true love? Sin and evil is just rebellion against gods love, we are saying screw you God we would rather do it our own way, forget your love. It is choosing to hate him through action.

Originally Posted by StephenT

Also, how does Christianity justify or neglect fear tactics that are used as conversion? Christianity claims to be peaceful and just, yet:

9 Crusades, along with a plethora of other crusades which I don't know the names for.

Fire and brimstone preaching to incite fear among listeners.

The use of Hell as a reason to become Christian. (Join or you'll burn in Hell)

These are wrong, it's just that simple. You have to remember that the church and conversion are all human endavours and therefore subject to human flaw, sometimes the wrong tactics get used, just like in a war (not that I'm saying conversion is a war.)

Originally Posted by StephenT

How do you explain the ignorance and uncertainty of representation and interpretations of the Bible and preachings? Such as, some people take the Bible as metaphoric, and some preach that it must be taken completely literally. Whichever way, some passages clearly state out things that must be done, that can not possibly be interpreted as a metaphor. Such as instructing that if a woman has sex before marriage, she must be stoned on her father's doorstep and the approval of slavery.

The uncertainty of intepretation is another human flaw that has harmed religion. You have to remember that the bible was written over 2,000yrs ago and people might have lost track of exactly which parts where literal and which parts metephorical. As for the slavery and the stoning of women both of those things where denounced upon the arival of Jesus as were the food requirements.

Originally Posted by StephenT

Will I go to Hell for being Agnostic and anti-religious? (I would like both your answer, and the prevalent answer of the Church and Christian community as a whole.)


Will a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Taoist, or any other person of a religious descent aside from Christianity go to Hell? (Same)

Both the church/christian community and I believe that both Agnostics/Atheists and people of any other religion will go to hell upon death.

Originally Posted by StephanT

Can morals exist outside of God's command, and is God's word the only source of morality and standard for creation of civilized law?


Did dinosaurs co-exist with humans? If the died because of the flood, why didn't Noah get baby dinosaurs onto the Ark?


Do homosexuals go to Hell?


And finally, Why are you Christian? No bullshit answers.

I believe morality can exsist outside of God's command and that it is not the only source of morality.

I believe that evolution carried on normally outside of the Garden and after Adam and eve commited the first sin he sluaghtered the dinosuars, spread the modern vegitation and then threw them out and killed the garden.

Many people believe that a verse in paul's letter to the romans condemns Homosexuals. I think that being Homosexualy oriented is perfectly ok but actually engaging in homosexual acts is the sin. I think that if one seeks forgiveness and then trys to resist acting on their urges they are going to heaven.

As for your final question, I answered it.

Originally Posted by skysaw

So why don't you find all of the existing texts suspect? Shouldn't all of their authors be held up to the same scrutiny? Is there a reason they are more believable than any new person who might come along?

I guess the reason I don't hold all the exsisting texts to the same scrutiny is because I wasn't there at the time of their writing and just have to trust that my forefathers held them to some standing. No the newbie is not any less believable than the exsisting text wich is why I would carefully scrutinize what they where saying and after much prayer accept or deny it as truth.

Originally Posted by StephenT

Sure, I took the easy cop out, while you are taking the hard, diligent road. Not many are able to do what you do. (Only 90% of people)

This made me laugh The irony I mean.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

What do Christians believe happened to those Before the coming of Jesus? Did everyone go to hell during that time period?

Many Christians disagree about certain interpretations and how they apply to modern day scenarios. It also seems Christianity is growing softer, claiming God does not punish as much as he used to, basically they are becoming more accepting. For my first question, do you believe God has become more accepting, i believe your not supposed to speak for the Lord and yet many seem to say " Oh the Lord will forgive" etc, for something such as homosexuality, which clearly he states he will not in the Bible.

Also why does God not send another messenger to give us an "updated" Holy book? Many people are confused and troubled because they are not sure how to apply the Bible to modern day life and key issues( stem cell research for example), surely it would help the entire human race if God helped settle confusing teachings? Obviously we would not take the word of one man anymore, however if he really did the miracles Jesus did( water to wine, walk to water, heal sick by touching, even raise the dead etc) i think people would listen. I certainly would if i saw such things, visual proof would be oh so useful.

Finally i assume you agree God would like as many of us to go to Heaven as possible, he feels for those in Hell surely? So, let's take me or someone not of the Christian faith as an example. If God actually came to us and explained we were on the wrong( or none) religious path, we would apologize for it and accept him as our God. So why does he not do this, i understand he wants us to make our own decisions. But i have a more scientific mind and after looking at human social dynamics, i believe religions aren't right. However i would obviously be willing to change my ind if i saw a event which to ME, was clear. God knows me from birth and so knows this, to save me from Hell he could help me on to the right path, does he have no power over mankind's thoughts or does he take pleasure in the fact i will suffer after death?

i would really like answers. especially to the final one, but all would be great.

It is really close to twelve thirty in the morning here so I don't think I will get around to answering your question untill tommrow but rest assured that it will be answered in a timely and productive manner.

Lucid_Boy what Christian group are you in? You have a pretty good knowladge on the bible.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Lucid_Boy what Christian group are you in? You have a pretty good knowladge on the bible.

It is not because I am part of a group, it is because I actually read the thing from cover to cover unlike most christians who just get all their teachings from a local pastor. I also had 6yrs of catholic school. I am part of the more modern brand of christianity, rock music, jeans, that kind of stuff. I forget the exact title and I hate the fact that christians create sects and lables for themselves.

Originally Posted by skysaw

So why don't you find all of the existing texts suspect? Shouldn't all of their authors be held up to the same scrutiny? Is there a reason they are more believable than any new person who might come along?

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I guess the reason I don't hold all the exsisting texts to the same scrutiny is because I wasn't there at the time of their writing and just have to trust that my forefathers held them to some standing. No the newbie is not any less believable than the exsisting text wich is why I would carefully scrutinize what they where saying and after much prayer accept or deny it as truth.

Thanks for the answer. This brings us to the crux of what concerns me.

I guess the reason I don't hold all the exsisting texts to the same scrutiny is because I wasn't there at the time of their writing...

This strikes me as a backwards approach. Shouldn't you be more willing to trust someone you can actually meet and talk to? Someone you personally can make contact with and judge what they are saying?

I find it strange that people are more willing to put faith in the writings of people whose names are lost, and whose credentials are completely unknown. They were simply people, and not much different than anyone you might meet today who claims to have been directed by God. And since anyone can make such a claim, it seems to me it would be in your best interest to question the authority of every single individual who may have contributed to the Bible. You know what they say about a single bad apple...

Just one person with a personal secular agenda could lead millions astray in this case. Three or four, and the bible is so entangled with hidden motives that you'd be hard-pressed to sort out God's word from someone who just had something personal against the Romans, for example.