Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[Cyberman]

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? If it is, I can type slower. If you had third-party sources contemporaneous with the alleged events, independent of the single biased source that you do have, it would be reasonable to suppose that those events might actually have taken place. Got any?

(I sense the Fab Four - Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Ringo - are about to enter the conversation.)

[Mr. Moncrieff]

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? If it is, I can type slower. If you had third-party sources contemporaneous with the alleged events, independent of the single biased source that you do have, it would be reasonable to suppose that those events might actually have taken place. Got any?

(I sense the Fab Four - Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Ringo - are about to enter the conversation.)

It is extremely odd that a figure with such societal, political and theological significance would have no supporting account of any description outside that of the Bible. There are figures in history of much lesser contextual importance (everyone) who are documented with far greater consistency and prevalence.

Odd that.

[truthBtold]

One of the problems I have with the bible is the "dog that barked in the night" thing.

For eg, Matthew 27:52-53. Now I know that this was before twitter, but you'd think that if a significant number of people came back from the dead and started walking about, and indeed were "seen by many" it would get at least a mention in contemporary records. The Romans were an organised bunch, the expected dead people to stay dead. Failure to do so may have reasonably be expected to cause comment.

In other news, It must have made for some awkward "honey I'm home" conversations.

Why think the Roman historians would record such an event?

The Romans in general despised the Jews and more or less tolerated their existence. They were also proud people. Why would they record something that would bring their credibility and judicial practices into question? If Roman historians recorded this occurance, they would be lending credibility to the testimony of Jesus' followers that Jesus was divine afterall. For the death of Christ and the resurrection of the dead bodies occured simultaneously. Many of His followers would have argued that the supernatural occurance was directly related to Christ's death, which is the last thing the Romans would have wanted to allow to happen.

You also assume that these resurrected individuals appeared to Romans. But the scripture is silent on the issue. It is not unreasonable to think that these resurrected people appeared to them that knew them even as you yourself alluded to. If this indeed was the case, it is more probable that these resurrected individuals were seen by Jews not Romans.

Even if some Romans in the holy city saw these resurrected individuals, it does not follow that Roman historians would have recorded this. If some Romans did claim to see resurrected people they were probably ridiculed and dismissed as crazy decieved individuals not unlike many of you here would dismiss such a claim if it was made to you.

So it seems to me that your argument is simply unpersuasive. It does not follow that just because some people were resurrected that therefore it would be recorded by Roman historians.

I just fell off my rocker,, and I believe u did to!. Are u dumb. Serious, stop the bullshit.. read what u just typed..

[Mr. Moncrieff]

Jews can see dead people.

All around them.

Walking around like regular people.

But not Romans.

Maybe the Romans don't realise THEY'RE dead?

Maybe they have to drop a wedding ring first.

[discipulus]

If you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as both Matthew and Luke assert, then it must be admitted that Jesus himself has no connection to either geneology.

Incorrect. Jesus was the physical (biological) descendant of David through his mother Mary. He was the legally adopted son of David through His earthly father Joseph. In this fashion, He fulfills both prophecies i.e the prophecy regarding His virgin birth and the prophecy of Him coming from the line of David.

That makes them rather a moot point since the whole point of these things is to show Jesus' descendancy from David. It's a contradiction in itself to say that Jesus was "born of a virgin" and then try to prove a Davidic lineage through Joseph. Luke and Matthew disagree on that very genealogy though.

It is not a contradiction at all. As I stated previously, both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. Matthew records Jesus' geneaology through Joseph, who was the legal guardian of Jesus via adoption, and Luke records Jesus' geneaology through Mary, who was Jesus' mother.

Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the magi visit them in a house. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were only in Bethlehem to register for a census.

Clearly the city of Jesus’ birth was Bethlehem as Micah 5:2 prophesied and as the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John confirm. (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 15; John 7:42) Luke proclaims the birth place as Bethlehem, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” 1 Samuel 17:15, confirms Bethlehem as the City of David, “But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.”

Matthew records that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. That is all he says. He does not say that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem or that they were residents of Bethlehem so you are simply wrong.

The Magi do indeed visit Jesus, but notice what Matthew writes. He states that: "AFTER Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King......"

Here, Matthew mentions only that the Magi visited Jesus sometime after He was born. Not that they visited Him while He was lying in a manger as a newborn babe. This is simply a common misconception. It was the shepherds who visited Jesus while lying in a manger. So there is no conflict between Luke and Matthew's accounts. The family lived in Nazareth, journeyed to Bethlehem to be counted and while there, Jesus was born.

Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born and then moved to Nazareth only after they had returned from Egypt and an angel told them to move to Galilee.

You think that Matthew here is saying that the family first lived in Nazareth after returning from Egypt which indeed would contradict the account Luke gives of them living in Nazareth and then going to Bethlehem to be counted.

But Matthew never says this. So there is no contradiction. Once again, these objections have been raised by many who have come before you and they are not really objections but rather, misunderstandings of the text.

Notice that both authors are only reporting some of the events—they share the key elements (i.e., Jesus born in royal city of Bethlehem, Jesus ends up in a despised town of Nazareth), and they each select a subset of the history for their particular point (e.g., Luke has the ritual-trip to emphasize the law-biding character of the family and the acceptance of Jesus by godly Jews; Matthew has the Flight/Secret-Return story to emphasize the early rejection of—or indifference to-- Jesus by the Jewish leadership)

Luke says nothing about Herod's "slaughter of the innocents" or a flight to Egypt. He explicitly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to be circumcised eight days after he was born and then immediately returned to Nazareth.

This is correct. As I stated previously there is no contradiction in the accounts unless you READ INTO the texts words that are not there. In hermeneutics this is called exegeting the text and is one of the main reasons the Bible is misinterpreted.

Luke also says nothing about the magi, or about a star or about the house where the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem.

So?

These are completely different stories and it seems that neither author has any awareness of the other.

As I stated earlier, both authors are only reporting some of the events—they share the key elements (i.e., Jesus born in royal city of Bethlehem, Jesus ends up in a despised town of Nazareth), and they each select a subset of the history for their particular point (e.g., Luke has the ritual-trip to emphasize the law-biding character of the family and the acceptance of Jesus by godly Jews; Matthew has the Flight/Secret-Return story to emphasize the early rejection of—or indifference to-- Jesus by the Jewish leadership)

We could go on - the last words of Jesus, the last supper discussions, the death of Judas, the details of the resurrection, the account of Jesus' baptism, the beginning of his ministry...

I am anxious to help you better understand the New Testament writings. I enjoy doing so. So yes, let us do go on!

[truthBtold]

If you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as both Matthew and Luke assert, then it must be admitted that Jesus himself has no connection to either geneology.

Incorrect. Jesus was the physical (biological) descendant of David through his mother Mary. He was the legally adopted son of David through His earthly father Joseph. In this fashion, He fulfills both prophecies i.e the prophecy regarding His virgin birth and the prophecy of Him coming from the line of David.

That makes them rather a moot point since the whole point of these things is to show Jesus' descendancy from David. It's a contradiction in itself to say that Jesus was "born of a virgin" and then try to prove a Davidic lineage through Joseph. Luke and Matthew disagree on that very genealogy though.

It is not a contradiction at all. As I stated previously, both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. Matthew records Jesus' geneaology through Joseph, who was the legal guardian of Jesus via adoption, and Luke records Jesus' geneaology through Mary, who was Jesus' mother.

Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the magi visit them in a house. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were only in Bethlehem to register for a census.

Clearly the city of Jesus’ birth was Bethlehem as Micah 5:2 prophesied and as the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John confirm. (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 15; John 7:42) Luke proclaims the birth place as Bethlehem, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” 1 Samuel 17:15, confirms Bethlehem as the City of David, “But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.”

Matthew records that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. That is all he says. He does not say that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem or that they were residents of Bethlehem so you are simply wrong.

The Magi do indeed visit Jesus, but notice what Matthew writes. He states that: "AFTER Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King......"

Here, Matthew mentions only that the Magi visited Jesus sometime after He was born. Not that they visited Him while He was lying in a manger as a newborn babe. This is simply a common misconception. It was the shepherds who visited Jesus while lying in a manger. So there is no conflict between Luke and Matthew's accounts. The family lived in Nazareth, journeyed to Bethlehem to be counted and while there, Jesus was born.

Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born and then moved to Nazareth only after they had returned from Egypt and an angel told them to move to Galilee.

You think that Matthew here is saying that the family first lived in Nazareth after returning from Egypt which indeed would contradict the account Luke gives of them living in Nazareth and then going to Bethlehem to be counted.

But Matthew never says this. So there is no contradiction. Once again, these objections have been raised by many who have come before you and they are not really objections but rather, misunderstandings of the text.

Notice that both authors are only reporting some of the events—they share the key elements (i.e., Jesus born in royal city of Bethlehem, Jesus ends up in a despised town of Nazareth), and they each select a subset of the history for their particular point (e.g., Luke has the ritual-trip to emphasize the law-biding character of the family and the acceptance of Jesus by godly Jews; Matthew has the Flight/Secret-Return story to emphasize the early rejection of—or indifference to-- Jesus by the Jewish leadership)

Luke says nothing about Herod's "slaughter of the innocents" or a flight to Egypt. He explicitly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to be circumcised eight days after he was born and then immediately returned to Nazareth.

This is correct. As I stated previously there is no contradiction in the accounts unless you READ INTO the texts words that are not there. In hermeneutics this is called exegeting the text and is one of the main reasons the Bible is misinterpreted.

Luke also says nothing about the magi, or about a star or about the house where the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem.

So?

These are completely different stories and it seems that neither author has any awareness of the other.

As I stated earlier, both authors are only reporting some of the events—they share the key elements (i.e., Jesus born in royal city of Bethlehem, Jesus ends up in a despised town of Nazareth), and they each select a subset of the history for their particular point (e.g., Luke has the ritual-trip to emphasize the law-biding character of the family and the acceptance of Jesus by godly Jews; Matthew has the Flight/Secret-Return story to emphasize the early rejection of—or indifference to-- Jesus by the Jewish leadership)

We could go on - the last words of Jesus, the last supper discussions, the death of Judas, the details of the resurrection, the account of Jesus' baptism, the beginning of his ministry...

I am anxious to help you better understand the New Testament writings. I enjoy doing so. So yes, let us do go on!

mat 2:5-6 claims a prophecy, but you cant compare "Bethlehem of Ephrath" with the city of Bethlehem (that Jesus was supposedly born in). Bethlehem of Ephrath was a clan within the tribe of Judah not a place. In fact, the verse in Micah 5:1 (in the hebrew bible) it clearly states that it was LEAST AMONG THE CLANS of Judah.

But in mat 2:5-6 (KJV) it states: art "NOT" THE LEAST AMONG THE PRINCES of judah. Also the (KJV) of mic 5:1-2 states: (though thou be LITTLE among the thousands of judah), there was not thousands of clans of judah as we can see from Mic 5:1-2 in the hebrew bible it just states: least among the clans of judah. You can just add words to original scripture/prophecy. Mic 5:1-2 refers to King David. David was of Bethlehem of Judah, (1 sam 17:58) and was the least of the clans, and did indeed come forth to rule Israel.

This was a very real threat during the reign of King David. Micah 5 reiterates, “Thus he will deliver us from Assyria, should it invade our land, and should it trample our country.” Again, there was no threat of Assyria invading during the lifespan of Jesus, although David did fit this description quite well.

It is also important to note that Jesus did not deliver anyone from any armies, while King David did.The writer of Matthew altered/didnt understand the wording of Micah 5:2 and made it look like the Messiah was to be born in the town of Bethlehem in Judah? The son of Caleb's second wife was Ephratah, see (1 Chr 2:18),(1 Chr 2:50-52) & (1 Chr 4:4). Funny why you see the name Ephratah after the word Bethlehem in Micah 5:2 but in Matt.2:6, he leaves out the word Ephratah and substitutes the word Juda to make it appear it is about the town of Bethlehem and not about the clan of Bethlehem Ephratah.

---

(Matthew 2:15) is the most blatantly misused verse of the Old Testament passage in the Bible, is the verse quoted by Matthew from Hosea. Hosea never intended this verse as a Messianic prophecy. Hosea was written prior to Matthew, so why would Hosea use the past tense to call? “Out of Egypt I CALLED my son.” If Hosea were prophesying Jesus being brought out of Egypt, wouldn't Hosea have written:. “Out of Egypt I will call my Son.”? why would (Hos 11:1) be speaking of Israel as a child and God's love for him (him being Israel) and talking about bringing Jesus out of Egypt all in the same sentence and verse, and then go on in (Hos 11:2) to say that Israel just “went”.

Matthew does not quote the whole verse just, "Out of Egypt I called my son" in (Hosea 11:1). Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy in (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus. (Exodus 4:22) states: Israel is my first born son. As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened.

[discipulus]

Jews can see dead people.

All around them.

Walking around like regular people.

But not Romans.

Maybe the Romans don't realise THEY'RE dead?

Maybe they have to drop a wedding ring first.

Matthew did not say zombies got up and started walking around eating people.

He said :

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

These people would have looked like ordinary people. They were not ghosts or floating white sheets with holes cut out for eyes or flesh eating zombies.

This zombie apocalypse that you seem to be envisioning would probably have been recorded by historians but alas, it never happened.

But I want to point out something to all of you that I find ironic.

I find it ironic that you all sit up here and laugh at the mention of the supernatural and poke fun of it and ridicule Christians for speaking of the supernatural, and yet you want to be incredulous because I say that if indeed some Romans had spoken out about seeing people resurrected to life that they were more than likely dismissed as superstitious fools!!!!

I just find that ironic. Time and time and time again I am branded a fool and a superstitious idiot by atheists for mentioning the supernatural, and yet atheists act like I have said something completely off the wall when I posit that those who claimed to have seen resurrected people would have more than likely been disregarded!

You all cannot have it both ways. hock:

---

The gospel accounts, though differing in certain respects, never contradict one another.

You can't be serious.

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm

I am serious.

---

You are right they don't all match up. Each writer recorded certain specific details of Jesus' life and each writer, though inspired, retained their own individual and unique style of writing. Each gospel writer was inspired to portray Jesus in a particular light. For example, Matthew's style was geared more towards a Jewish audience while John was writing of Jesus as the Logos, or The Word of God. John focuses on the divinity of Christ while Luke emphasizes His humanity.

When taken as a whole we have more of a complete picture than what we would have if we were to take them individually.

News reporters covering the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, though reporting on one terrorist attack, each recorded different things depending on their vantage point. Taken together the accounts of the reporters provide us with a more complete picture of the attack.

The gospel accounts, though differing in certain respects, never contradict one another.

Except where they do and one has to take a stretch to make them fit.

For eg, you would think that if they were writing down the last words of the living god they would all hear the same words, instead of which we have 3 different last words. And wearing a robe which was purply red. Or red. Or purple.

Of course one can, at a stretch, find a way in which they are all true. But why is it reported that way? Like and John both have a phrase followed by "and then he gave up the ghost? Did he use both? If so, why does neither report record all of the words. It's not a long speech.

Hermeneutics is a marvelous discipline I suggest you look into.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

Jews can see dead people.

All around them.

Walking around like regular people.

But not Romans.

Maybe the Romans don't realise THEY'RE dead?

Maybe they have to drop a wedding ring first.

Matthew did not say zombies got up and started walking around eating people.

He said :

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

These people would have looked like ordinary people. They were not ghosts or floating white sheets with holes cut out for eyes or flesh eating zombies.

This zombie apocalypse that you seem to be envisioning would probably have been recorded by historians but alas, it never happened.

But I want to point out something to all of you that I find ironic.

I find it ironic that you all sit up here and laugh at the mention of the supernatural and poke fun of it and ridicule Christians for speaking of the supernatural, and yet you want to be incredulous because I say that if indeed some Romans had spoken out about seeing people resurrected to life that they were more than likely dismissed as superstitious fools!!!!

I just find that ironic. Time and time and time again I am branded a fool and a superstitious idiot by atheists for mentioning the supernatural, and yet atheists act like I have said something completely off the wall when I posit that those who claimed to have seen resurrected people would have more than likely been disregarded!

You all cannot have it both ways. hock:

---

You can't be serious.

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm

I am serious.

If it was documented by Roman scholars and consistently backed up by corroborating evidence within various historical contexts then no. No I wouldn't dismiss it.

Unfortunately, very little of what occurs in the New Testament is historically documented. Even though a great amount of things that happened before that period are.

[truthBtold]

Jews can see dead people.

All around them.

Walking around like regular people.

But not Romans.

Maybe the Romans don't realise THEY'RE dead?

Maybe they have to drop a wedding ring first.

Matthew did not say zombies got up and started walking around eating people.

He said :

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

These people would have looked like ordinary people. They were not ghosts or floating white sheets with holes cut out for eyes or flesh eating zombies.

This zombie apocalypse that you seem to be envisioning would probably have been recorded by historians but alas, it never happened.

But I want to point out something to all of you that I find ironic.

I find it ironic that you all sit up here and laugh at the mention of the supernatural and poke fun of it and ridicule Christians for speaking of the supernatural, and yet you want to be incredulous because I say that if indeed some Romans had spoken out about seeing people resurrected to life that they were more than likely dismissed as superstitious fools!!!!

I just find that ironic. Time and time and time again I am branded a fool and a superstitious idiot by atheists for mentioning the supernatural, and yet atheists act like I have said something completely off the wall when I posit that those who claimed to have seen resurrected people would have more than likely been disregarded!

You all cannot have it both ways. hock:

---

You can't be serious.

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm

I am serious.

Yeah ok u where there to see these dead people looking like normal people.. assuming makes an ass out of u.

[discipulus]

You are right they don't all match up. Each writer recorded certain specific details of Jesus' life and each writer, though inspired, retained their own individual and unique style of writing. Each gospel writer was inspired to portray Jesus in a particular light. For example, Matthew's style was geared more towards a Jewish audience while John was writing of Jesus as the Logos, or The Word of God. John focuses on the divinity of Christ while Luke emphasizes His humanity.

When taken as a whole we have more of a complete picture than what we would have if we were to take them individually.

News reporters covering the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, though reporting on one terrorist attack, each recorded different things depending on their vantage point. Taken together the accounts of the reporters provide us with a more complete picture of the attack.

The gospel accounts, though differing in certain respects, never contradict one another.

Yes they contradict each other. That's what I meant about the accounts not matching up. It's not just telling the same story from different perspectives. It's telling stories with important details being different from each other.

Accounts may not match up. That does not mean they contradict each other. A contradiction would be:

Matthew saying "Jesus was crucified by Himself" and Luke saying "Jesus was crucified with two thieves".

That would be a contradiction.

Matthew could say "Jesus was crucified with two thieves" and Luke could say that "Jesus was crucified".

That is not a contradiction. Luke not mentioning the two thieves is him not mentioning the two thieves. That is it.

Of course I used those as examples and in no way intend for them to accurately represent scripture.