Part 30 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity>>>MOD ALERT<<<

You are incorrect. Can you honestly provide evidence that supports your case?

You didn't provide any information that the Bible contradicts itself, which it doesn't.

At any rate, the Canaanites didn't worship the same God as the Jews.

 

God is all-powerful which means He can do anything but He does have limitations in the sense that the only thing that God cannot do is act contrary to His own character and nature. For example in Hebrews 6:18 it says that God cannot lie, that does not mean He lacks the power to lie, but that He chooses not to lie in accord with His own moral perfection.

In the same way, despite His being all-powerful and hating evil, He allows evil to happen, according to His good purpose. He uses certain evil events to allow His purposes to unfold, such as when the greatest evil of all occurred...the killing of the perfect, holy, innocent Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) for the redemption of mankind.

No, He wouldn't create multiple religions because then He would have to act contrary to His own character and nature. He would be inconsistent, He would contradict Himself.

What purpose would it serve for Him to confuse the masses by telling one group He is a Trinity of 3 persons, then turn around and tell another group He is not a Trinity of 3 persons? Or anything else for that matter that He would purposely contradict Himself? Essentially then it would mean He would be spewing out lies and not truth and that would cause Him to act contrary to His own character and nature. God is perfectly holy and He will not do anything to act contrary to His own character and nature.

God doesn't have conflicting messages for people, in that He'll say something to one group and then say a whole completely opposite thing to another group. What purpose would that serve?...that doesn't make sense.

Basically He has one important message for all of us and that message that He reveals to us through the Holy Bible is that He loves every single one of us and has a plan to save us from the destructive power of sin.

I am not confining Him to my logic, it is His logic that He revealed to us through His book the Holy Bible. Maybe you should read it sometime to learn about Almighty God the Creator!

 

Jesus didn't need to be educated by anyone. He was God, so are you telling us God the Creator who created us needed to be educated by us?

There is absolutely no where in Scripture where it is written that Jesus was educated by anyone. There is one passage in Scripture where as a young boy Jesus is speaking with the Teachers. Note that He is not being educated by them but rather it shows He already knew the Scriptures by His understanding of them. Below is that passage:

Jesus Speaks with the Teachers

41 "Every year Jesus&#8217; parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover festival. 42 When Jesus was twelve years old, they attended the festival as usual. 43 After the celebration was over, they started home to Nazareth, but Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents didn&#8217;t miss him at first, 44 because they assumed he was among the other travelers. But when he didn&#8217;t show up that evening, they started looking for him among their relatives and friends.

45 When they couldn&#8217;t find him, they went back to Jerusalem to search for him there. 46 Three days later they finally discovered him in the Temple, sitting among the religious teachers, listening to them and asking questions. 47 All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

48 His parents didn&#8217;t know what to think. &#8220;Son,&#8221; his mother said to him, &#8220;why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been frantic, searching for you everywhere.&#8221;

49 &#8220;But why did you need to search?&#8221; he asked. &#8220;Didn&#8217;t you know that I must be in my Father&#8217;s house?&#8221; 50 But they didn&#8217;t understand what he meant.

51 Then he returned to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. And his mother stored all these things in her heart.
52 Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and all the people."---Luke 2:41-52 NLT

 

All Jewish boys were educated. Read your history. They had to know the Tanakh almost by memory by the age of 12. The bright ones could go on further after that. Jesus could read and write. If he wasn't educated how did he pick up the scroll and read from it in another place. (Luke 4:16-17) You know nothing of Judaism, or the past culture.
It doesn't have to say that Jesus was educated, if you read and study it's obvious he must have been. I just don't understand why you can't see the obvious.

 

- - - Updated - - -


The same God they worshiped from the beginning. They simply don't accept that
the Messiah has come and will come again. They wanted an all powerful King and
not a humble servant.[/QUOTE]

Luke tells us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and on the 8th day was taken to Jerusalem to be circumcised and redeemed. After the ceremony and Mary's purification he was taken home to Nazareth and 'Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man'.
According to Matthew Jesus was taken from Bethlehem to Egypt. Apparently never fulfilled the Jewish requirements of circumcision and redemption.

Who is right?

If you think all the 'contradictions' have been discredited you're dreaming.

 

Correct, there is no contradiction, in fact these are complimentary passages. How many other
towns did they pass through before arriving in Egypt?Just because one passage doesn't
mention Nazareth doesn't mean there's a contradiction, which there isn't.

No, they've all been discredited, just as yours was.
Try again?

 

No you're not, you're a human being...there is no such thing as a human ape.

 

That is not a fact it's just a theory/guesswork/speculation. The reality is no one knows for sure how long we've been on God's green earth, except of course Almighty God the Creator knows!

So it has no purpose then, so we can say it's meaningless/senseless. So the theory of evolution is senseless. That is why it shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone!

 

The irony here is that you see evolution as "theory/guesswork/speculation", to which I would agree... but I also see Christianity as "theory/guesswork/speculation" as there is no empirical proof of said theological intangible nor is there any proof that the Bible contains the word of said theological intangible.

Why is it that some birds cannot fly? I think evolution would have a better answer for this than the Bible. What if the purpose is hidden to us? Does that mean that there is no purpose. Does purpose have to be observed for it to exist? Go back far enough on an evolutionary or theological timeline and one will inexorably reach a place where they must admit that they do not know... this is the point where reason ends and faith begins... whether it is faith in evolution or God.

 

Try again. Read the stories through. Jesus remained in Nazareth after Luke put him there.
And if your ridiculous excuse is right what were they doing going through Nazareth as they fled Herod. Nazareth is 90 miles north of Bethlehem and Egypt is south of Bethlehem. They would have to pass through an area being searched for them.

There is no way you can bring the 2 stories together. Now if Jesus had been born in Bethlehem in Zebulon then you idea might work. Oh dear, Matthew and Luke say Bethlehem Ephrata - or David's birthplace.
Roman censuses recorded in Luke never required people to travel to the city of their birthplace. They were done 'in situ'. A why go for tax purposes? Roman taxes were on property, and Josephs property was in Nazareth.
Why did Mary go? She was not needed. Would you take a 9 month, heavily pregnant woman 90 miles walking, or on a donkey. Probably, given her condition, a weeks journey. If every member of the Roman Empire were to be 'censused' as Luke says, that would mean absolute chaos in the Middle East. Millions of North Africans, Egyptians, Greeks, Italians, Jews, etc. etc. would be on the move to their birthplace.
David had numerous sons and over the 1000 years since his life they would have multiplied to a vast number - and they suddenly descend on Bethlehem? It would not only be Bethlehem but much of the surrounding area inundated with David's descendants. Hordes of people would be on the roads because all the sailors would be heading for their own homes. No planes, no boats, no trains and no cars.

Matthew has no idea there's a census. Mary is simply in Bethlehem. Oh, don't quote Matthews OT references to me Hosea Micah and Jeremiah. They're simply was to enhance his idea of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. They refer to OT events-people.

There are other contradictions in the date of Jesus birth. Luke tells us it was during a census which Josephus dates to 6CE (good old Jo. so beloved by Christians to argue their case)
Matthew tell us it was before Herod the Great died. So before 4BCE.

Who knows?

 

There are several things the bible gets right that no other religion gets correct. As a matter of fact, it has a 99.98% accuracy rating, which is pretty astounding for a religious text that is as old as it is.

If there's a piece of text that's so accurate to the point that archaeologist use it as a road map to discover archaeological artifacts.... Then that should say enough.

 

How do you equate religious 'theory' with historical facts. There should be no surprise that the Bible is correct in many archaeological facts. The writers of the OT were closer to the old towns, cities and places both in geological terms and terms of time. The fact that they knew these place, or of their previous existence should make the Bible fairly accurate. It still gets things wrong when weaving stories about places. The 5 cities of the plain were destroyed long before Lot's supposed existence. The fire and brimstone came from the earth - not heaven. Ai was destroyed 1000 years before Joshua 'destroyed' it. The archaeology for his shouting and broken pitchers bringing down Jerichos walls is a bit dodgy too.
Abraham may have come from Ur. But it was not Ur 'of the Chaldees'. The Chaldeans weren't around for another 700+ years in that area.
The Bible's accuracy rate is nowhere near your figure. As has been discussed here or on another thread its accuracy in numbers is horrendously out. Anyone who can believe 600,000 men of arms and all their families (around 2m people) and goods, herds etc could leave Egypt and survive 40 years in the wilderness wants their head testing. Moses strikes a rock and water comes out - and 2 million people have sufficient water for themselves and their cattle. I should have hated to have been last in the queue. Exaggeration is the norm.

 

What you're doing right now is comparing what the bible says to theories we have on history that have not been confirmed nor denied. So, if you're claiming the bible's accuracy is "horrendously out", then you shouldn't compare it to guesses and hunches of things unconfirmed. What you need to do to prove the bible is wrong, is to find confirmed data that, without a shadow of a doubt, prove the bible to be totally incorrect. Don't go off and say, "Well, this part here doesn't make sense, so therefore it didn't happen!" Because its unsubstantiated and you're accusing the bible of doing something you yourself are doing.

Anyway, so, go ahead and do that. I'll wish you luck!

 

It's obvious that I read the passages and you didn't. You're trying to make a contradiction
that doesn't exist.

Yes, try again.

Oh dear,Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The idea works perfectly. Your knowledge of
the event is remarkably lacking.

Good grief, you answered your own question and didn't know it. Joseph went to the
town of his birthplace. NOT the town where he had property.

To fulfill prophecy. You should argue something you understand. It's apparent that you
don't understand the Bible.

Irrelevant.

Look, it's obvious you don't understand this.

Thanks for showing us that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Can
you provide more evidence that the Bible doesn't contradict itself?

 

No I'm not. I said that numbers were out and anyone who has studied the Area in those times will know that.
These so-called theories you mentioned are nearly all confirmed by archaeology or ancient artifacts. The Egyptians destroyed Ai 1000 years before Joshua. The cities of the plain were destroyed long before Lot supposed time.

The number of men leaving Egypt is in the Bible, add to that their families etc,etc. It is estimated that at 8 abreast the line of Hebrews leaving Egypt would have stretched from Egypt to Canaan.

Substantiation and knowledge of the area is what I use.

The Ark of the Covenant is at Keriath Jearim for 20 years the Bible says. But if you study the life of Saul and David it's has to be more like 40 years.

The Bible tells us that Israel finds 800,000 men to fight Judah, who has 400,000 men. If you study enough you'll find that's probably more than the total population of both states. This gives us 2 armies of comparitively small states that have more men than any Empire of the time can muster. In this battle 500,000 men of Israel are supposed to have been killed and we are not told how many of Judah. Frankly if 500,000+ men are killed in one place you'd have thought there would have still been some sign of mass - even buried - skeletons and weapons. The place is known today.

I don't. I research it.

 

That's still called speculation.

It's still speculation. None of this is factual.

Speculation...

You're just speculating. You don't have empirical data.

 

I showed you contradictions but you obviously 'misunderstood'. Try reading and taking in what I said.

1. Which Bethlehem was Jesus born in? Matthew gives us Bethlehem Ephrata because it fits in with his purpose.
What about Bethlehem in Zebulun? A few miles from Nazareth.

2. Good grief. Joseph was from Nazareth. Is this not the Carpenters son from Nazareth was said about Jesus. Joseph went to Davids birthplace - Bethlehem Ephrata. 'Because he was of the house and lineage of David'. But he had no need to under Roman Law. He had no need to go anywhere. He could have stayed in Nazareth where he was. He went because he was of the house and lineage of David says Luke - but poor Luke got it all messed up.

Wherever you were 'in situ' you were counted. You didn't need to go anywhere. In a Roman census in Egypt we have a document in a museum somewhere which tells the people to stay where they were for the Census.

I suggest you study the stories (Matthew and Luke) and Roman laws carefully. Nothing about Luke's story makes sense.

Good stock answer. There is no prophecy concerning Mary. There is no prophecy concerning Jesus. The prophecies claimed by Christians in the OT have nothing to do with the NT. They are fulfilled in the OT history of the Jews.

No man would subject his 9 month pregnant wife to such a journey even if she were capable. 90 miles walk. Would you have subjected any woman to that. She could have, and probably would have, given birth in the way. Customs of the day would not have allowed it anyway. You have your head in the clouds man. The journey would have been intolerable.

The contradiction lies between Matthews account and Lukes account. And you haven't told me why they went north in their hurry to get to Egypt.

For anyone reading my post and your reply it must seem you're the one confused.

 

OK. You don't accept Archaeology - which is what most of your 99.80% historical accuracy is based on. You tell the archaeologists this is not factual.

I suggest you start studying before commenting. Try this for starters The Ark of the Covenant is at Keriath Jearim for 20 years the Bible says. But if you study the life of Saul and David it's has to be more like 40 years.
Right or wrong?

 

Oh, but I do accept archaeology. What you're saying isn't archaeological. What you're saying is speculation.

 

But most of your Biblical history can only be confirmed by Archaeology, and Archaeology sometimes proves the Bible wrong.

How many times have I seen this and similar comments

It's simply another excuse for not studying.

 

You claim archaeology proved the bible wrong. Well, where's the evidence?

 

I see the claim but see no source supporting it.

Again I see the claim but see no source supporting it.

 

Bible says God told Cyrus what to do.
Archaeology found the Cyrus cylinder. Cyrus tells us Marduk told him what to do.

If et-Tell is indeed Ai, this poses a problem for defenders of the literal historicity of the biblical accounts concerning the origin of ancient Israel; the reason for this is that traditional dating schemes place the Exodus from Egypt in 1440 BC and Joshua's conquest of Canaan around 1400 BC, a time at which the archaeological evidence shows et-Tell to have been completely unoccupied, as it had been for almost 1000 years. The later Iron Age I village appeared with no evidence of initial conquest, and the Iron I settlers seem to have peacefully built their village on the forsaken mound, without meeting resistance.[1] In addition Ai, meaning Ruin is a particularly strange name for a city to have, while it is a quite ordinary name for a pile of rubble to have; Ai would only really be expected to become Ai after it had been destroyed not before[citation needed].

It has been suggested that this battle may never have taken place, and that its narrative might have "preserved some remote echoes of wars conducted in these places in early Iron Age I." [2] Some archeologists and biblical scholars have suggested that the biblical account of the conquest of Ai derives from an etiological myth [3] - a type of tale which "explains the origin of a custom, state of affairs, or natural feature in the human or divine world."[4] Ancient folk lore contained tales of impressive ruins as well as vague details of their destruction. The destruction of Ai could have been one of these tales which was retold to fit with the Israelite invasion and conquest. Since the ruin was a ruin since c. 2400 BC, a time when Canaan was under Egyptian control, and it remained uninhabited until about 1000 B.C. when the Israelites are thought to have settled there, this means that Ai would have been in ruins for over a thousand years before the biblical account of its destruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_(Bible)

Around 1990 archaeologists found tombs of Egyptians slaves which shewed that the slaves were well respected and looked after. Not beaten slaves as the Bible says. That came in under Ptolomeys (Roman) rule.

For over 70 years the Israel archaeologists searched the Negev for signs of 2m people having lived in it for 40 years. NOTHING.

Archaeology shews that Solomon could not possible have housed the amount of Chariots and horses at Megiddo as told in the Bible.

Ahab rebuilt Megiddo after it was destroyed and he had an impressive array for the time, but even his stables could not accomodate Solomons proposed amount.

David, with all his supposed vast kingdom, has gone missing. A small tablet with a reference to the house of David. And that could be anybody.

Bother it. I'm off to bed.

 

Sorry but you're wrong. Apes ARE animals...they are not humans. But you are free to believe in any nonsensical theories that appeals to you.

Sorry but you're wrong again.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/theory

 

Well not exactly, gravity is also a law, and so it's not JUST A THEORY.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law/