Part 3 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Thank you for answering. My next question is, 67 years is a very long time, why did it take so long to put the word of god on paper? Why didnt it happen right after the resurrection?

 

1st off you're confusing me with another. I didn't have the discussion with you about who did or did not survive.
You don't see the confusion of your claims? The bible clearly states the GLOBAL Flood killed every human but what was on the ark.

 

The words of God was already on paper especially the Old Testament, the New Testament begun after Jesus resurrected. The NT started to written down after Jesus Christ resurrected because IMO they were not sure if Jesus was indeed God especially after they witness his crucifixion. Remember they were all afraid they went into hiding in fact St. Peter deny Jesus Christ 3x because he was so afraid.

But after Jesus resurrected they believe and were no longer afraid, they gave up all their lives, all their earthly belongings they got nothing to gain to believe and preach about Jesus and yet they sacrifice everything because Jesus Christ proof that He is God when He resurrected. That is why the NT started to be written down after Jesus resurrection because they now believe.

If Jesus Christ have not resurrected, there will be no Christianity, no Bible no New Testament only a man name Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion for blasphemy.

 

Why do you keep bringing up Charles Darwin? He may have come up with the basis for the theory of evolution, but he got many things wrong and the theory has advanced far beyond him because of discoveries like genetics.

Hmmm, I diasgree and I have provided evidence of that. Can you provide evidence that modern science doesn't consider humans to be apes?

The problem with his opinion is that linguistics and terms change. Who cares how common people used the word ape two hundred years ago? Has absolutely no bearing on the current usage of the word.

"It is not possible to stem the tide of linguistic change, as the Académie Française has found out repeatedly. If experts can redefine terms influentially, then there is nothing wrong with that so long as it doesn’t confuse the experts. Using paraphyletic terms (that is, group names that denote what is left of the group once a subset has been removed) is a Very Bad Idea that hangs on in science, but it need not hang on in folk usage. And there’s nothing wrong with saying “humans are apes”, because, on the best construal of what those terms denote, they are.

Neil Shubin’s excellent book Your Inner Fish makes a similar point. Where once a “fish” was anything that lived in water (including swans, geese, alligators and crocodiles, whales, and water snakes), it came to mean a vertebrate that had gills and fins and scales. Shubin shows how the Gnathostomes (jawed fishes) includes land vertebrates, including mammals and ultimately us, as well. Language can change…"

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/03/we-are-all-apes.html

 

The poster, not I, put passage right out of the bible stating how God would harden pharoah's heart. There is nothing to deny or lay claim to. It is written in black and white.

 

Nobody actually believes that Jesus was for certain born in 1ad. I have seen figures that have ranged from 6bc-6ad. Christianity did not start with his birth, but with his death.

 

According to Acts, it wasn't until well after Jesus' death in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.

 

Only Matthew and Luke say anything about the origins of this jesus birth.

Matthew: 6-4 BCE based on Herod's death 4 BCE

Luke: 6 CE based on a census in Judea.

 

How did the Resurrection prove he was God?

 

Putting a title on the followers of disciples at Antioch didn't change what they already believed.

 

John does as well, but in a more spiritual way, referring to him as the word in his first chapter.

 

You most assuredly do get my apology. I was wrong.

But that is the difference between us. I humbly admit it when it happens. I don't argue foolishly when I have been proved to be in error. It just compounds it.
You may want to give it a shot. Humility is good for the soul.

 

Say what! Give me a break will ya!

 

So why does scripture specifically state the exact opposite?

 

Why Charles Darwin because back then you speak highly of him and now that he has refuse to say that humans evolve from apes you are now saying he got it wrong?

The wrong linguistic usage has a big effect that is why it is now being rectify because back then they got it wrong. Why use ape why not use the term human? If human can evolve from single ancestor that according to you is an ape, why can't we also claim that the common ancestor was actually a human-primate and apes evolve from that? And ape somehow split from primate-human to become apes and primate-humans continue to evolve to become modern human?

I have provided you links to proof first that science are divided there are one group who continue to follow the old order that humans evolve from apes and there is the other group that believe humans evolve from a primate that is not an ape as we know it the traditional monkey.

This is just one link, I have provided you with several links back then.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans-arent-apes-%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E2012.html

I found it, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) he was the one who introduce the theory that humans evolve from apes.

The idea of ape to human evolution found its original spark in the 18th century. The voyages of discovery had revealed the existence of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons (the gorilla remained unknown to European science until the 1840s, and the bonobo, until the 1920s).

Anatomical comparisons soon suggested these animals were somehow connected with human beings. As the Comte de Buffon put it, an ape "is only an animal, but a very singular animal, which a man cannot view without returning to himself" (Histoire naturelle, vol. 14, p. 4, 1766).

The fact that humans and apes share many anatomical traits did not escape Linnaeus, who is often cited as the first classifier to assign the two to a single taxonomic order. In the first edition of Systema naturae (1735), he placed both in Order Anthropomorpha, which he later renamed as Order Primates (10th ed., 175. He said nothing about ape to human evolution, but his categorization of humans with the apes certainly encouraged later naturalists to think of the two as related by descent. As early as 1794, the philosophe Delisle de Sales (Histoire philosophique du monde primitif) commented that the apes "seem to form an intermediate line between animals and human beings."

Early scientist were mostly racist or racially motivated,;
Read this links and you will be surprise and hopefully understand why the word ape was use, in fact the word ape was originally imply to none whites especially to natives of the Pacific, and Africa even the great explorers such as Capitan Cook hold the same view.

These are consider scientific racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Charles_Darwin

 

Yes it is written in black and white and here it is again:
Exodus 7:
1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.
2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.
3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt,
4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.
5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”

And this is what it means, that the Pharaoh will not listen even if God has harden the Pharaoh's heart because the Pharaoh is so too arrogant and the reason why God will harden the Pharaoh heart is actually mean to destroy the Pharaoh not as what you understand that God actually colluded with the Pharaoh not to let the Hebrews go. Notice the succeeding words "and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment"

That is why it is important to read the whole text and to have a deep meditation to understand the Bible.

 

I think you are right, I am confusing you with some body else, with so many of you and majority sharing the same anti Christian ideology it is difficult to remember who is saying or claiming what.

I have already presented the logic of the Noah's flood. Anyway here is short summary, the Bible said the whole earth and then it concentrated its entire story to Noah and to where Noah is and that is in the Middle East or Mesopotamia region, the flooding lasted for 40 days what ever was happening outside of Noah's world the Bible did not went into specific it just generally said great flooding, and after 40 days God made a promise that He will no longer destroy humanity.

Exodus 8:21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

We know that weather condition in the Pacific are very harsh, with super typhoons, earthquakes and volcanic islands that can easily wiped out an entire village, cities or civilization. While in Europe and North America winter condition can be very harsh. I believe that after 40 days of flooding there were survivors from other parts of the world that is why why according to the Bible, God made a promise that He will no longer destroy humanity even how evil they become.

What was on the Ark, are Noah and his family and animals that are within Noah's reach.

One thing to remember human population was not huge as we know it toady also there are no modern technology that can save any regional or local weather disaster from destruction. A volcanic eruption in the Island of Hawaii can easily be receive by the locals as the end of the world. Same thing in other parts of the world.

 

As far as the term Before Christ (BC) and After Christ (AC) is concern, 1st AC starts with the birth of Jesus Christ. Other calendars have peg Jesus birth about 20 years before 1 C.E.

Here is a link that can help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

If some Christians consider the death of Jesus Christ as the start of Christianity that is their own opinion and practice, me I believe it start with the birth of Jesus Christ.

 

No opposite statement from scripture just wrong way of interpretation by those who fail to understand or misunderstood it:

Exodus 7:
1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.
2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.
3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt,
4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.
5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”

And this is what it means, that the Pharaoh will not listen even if God has harden the Pharaoh's heart because the Pharaoh is so too arrogant and the reason why God will harden the Pharaoh heart is actually mean to destroy the Pharaoh not as what you understand that God actually colluded with the Pharaoh not to let the Hebrews go. Notice the succeeding words "and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment"

That is why it is important to read the whole text and to have a deep meditation to understand the Bible.

 

I was only pointing out that Darwin was not omniscient and he was working with a limited amount of data, which makes his conclusions ever more incredible. Honestly, have you ever read any of Darwin's books?

I have no idea what you're asking. Why use ape and not human? You can call humans human if you want, but we are also apes. A round red ball may be a ball, but it is also round and red. Things can be described with many classifications.

[quote[I have provided you links to proof first that science are divided there are one group who continue to follow the old order that humans evolve from apes and there is the other group that believe humans evolve from a primate that is not an ape as we know it the traditional monkey.[/quote]

And now you're mincing words of people. The only issue here is whether or not to apply the term "ape" to humans. There is absolutely NO question that we evolved from a common ancestor and no scientist would seriously question that considering the vast amount of evidence from DNA and morphology comparisons.

Mm, no, you've provided me exactly one link from that guy. You don't even seem to be grasping what is being said by anyone here or by anything you read online.

Except, you know, we aren't saying that certain races evolved from apes, we are saying that ALL races of Mankind evolved from apes and that was what early scientists said as well. I'm sure there were some racists two hundred years ago who were weary of calling themselves apes, but had no problem calling other races apes... but that has no bearing on how the term is used today in modern science.

 

Looks like there will be a #4 soon./post limit reached

Shangrila
Site Moderator