Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[Anomalocaris]

Why was there only one Jesus? If Yahweh was trying to save the whole planet, why only send down one guy? Why did he only beget one son, thousands of years after Humans have been around, to teach in some backwater hole instead of the great schools of the more advanced civilizations?

Christianity spread through the Roman empire like a wild fire and was the dominate religion before the Roman empire fell, how's that for getting the message out.

GC

Islam spread through the middle east 10 times as fast to an considerably larger area. I guess lord of all creation just suck next to even a child raping desert goat herder.

---

I've come to notice something about you, you do not have enough brains to bring an argument so you rely on the childish novelty of insulting others.

Considering you don't have any brains, with what organ do you determine if someone else who has some quantity of brain has enough brains?

[Esquilax]

The Bible is fully historically accurate in it's depictions of historical locations, rulers and peoples and their cultures, archaeology and recorded history backs all these details. You would find the events of the Exodus in the archaeological record had it been on the scale the Bible describes but we can say they added to the drama a little and that's not quite what happened. Much of history is vague and lost to us anyway we only have a rough approximation, particularly when you're dealing with pre-literate cultures.

Fully historically accurate? Tell that to the living, thriving cultures that existed before the bible claims the world was created.

The Egyptians kept slaves so the ancestors of the Jewish people may well have been kept as slaves. They may not have been defined ethnic group at this point so no-one at the time will have noticed.

I'm not going to accept "may well haves" as absolute truth statements just because you can't find a source that directly contradicts you, that's not how claims work.

What is the obviously superior alternative and what makes it superior?

Have you not been paying attention? The superior solution would be to have a messiah, a Jesus figure, in every area on the globe, preaching the same message that Jesus did to everyone at once, if god's aim was to convey that message as accurately and quickly as possible. There's simply no reason outside of the geographical limitations of the bible's authors why god couldn't have more than one son operating at the same time.

Do you understand the level of violence and hate and misunderstanding that could have been averted completely had everyone had simultaneous access to this information that you claim to be truthful?

It took time and effort to do as all good things worth doing take.

Is that seriously your answer? Is that something you hold to in your professional life, where you take the most inefficient and time consuming path possible so as to give yourself more work?

Besides, these are people's lives we're talking about, not to mention their supposed immortal souls; is this really the venue for god to be taking this after school special attitude?

In his Earthly life he was confined to his geographical area in his resurrected life he covers the entire world. Christianity began life as a movement within Judaism but the universal nature and importance of the message to all humanity was apparent.

Was god only limited to one earthly life? I would have thought creating additional people was easy for him...

He's convincing enough just not for people like yourself who seek to deny him but you're allowed to due to the fact you have your own freedom of choice.

That doesn't answer my question.

This is only cultural re-appropriation if you don't believe God was a guiding hand in human history and all religious faith was made up bull. But I'm not saying this therefore I'm not appropriating anything I'm saying you will find God speaking to various people throughout history and you can see the common ground between the various world faiths.

... "It's only cultural re-appropriation if you don't agree with me."

Yes, Sword. Yes, that's rather the point. Without evidence to support your claim that the christian god was the source of these specific asian moral messages, then what you are doing is indistinguishable from cultural re-appropriation. Do you have that evidence?

I can back my assertions up with reasoning and evidence you're the one making unfounded assertions. I haven't seen you support anything you say with reason or supply any evidence, you state opinions as fact as atheists do because that's all you have.

When are you going to start backing up your claims with evidence? Specifically, this one that the christian god was responsible for Confucius' teaching of the golden rule?

And why do I need to support anything I say, when the one thing I've had to say here is that you aren't supporting anything you claim? I'm not making any claims that need supporting.

They did the Messiah being Jesus Christ and they're accepting Christianity in ever increasing numbers today, Christianity even spread there in the 7th century. Christianity is for all humanity equally you see it's not a tribal/racial thing. It doesn't mean God ignored them before that though he had a hand in their culture, beliefs and history as he did with everyone else. Find me one atheist culture or civilization.

This is a transparent dodge.

You're the one making bare assertions I'm providing reasoning and historical evidence and facts. You are ignoring it and providing nothing of substance to counter it. I'm open to decent well thought out counter argument presented in a civilized way without ad hominems, accusations of things I'm not doing and name calling. You know you're losing the argument when you resort to that.

So, your response is "no, you are!" followed by more bare assertions, and an accusation of ad hominem attacks... despite the fact that there aren't any in my post. Gotcha.

If you have a genuine debate on some kind of an interesting point that's great but I'm still waiting for you to present this.

What I'd like to do is get you in a structured debate where you can present your evidence for the existence of your god, with supporting references and detailed explanation, so that it can be clearly shown to everyone, and I can present any problems that I have with it. At the moment, all you're doing is making claim after claim, and I'd love to have a venue where you can adequately explain these claims without derailing a thread to do it.

If you're as confident in the content of your position as you appear to be, then this should be an opportunity you'd relish, no? The kind of evidence you claim to have would even convert me, which should be enough of a reason right there.

It's a point of view based on the evidence of human history and the revelation of scripture but you have an objection and an alternative idea with evidence and reasoning to support it in opposition to this feel free to present it. So far you have done no such thing.

I don't need to disprove every claim anyone makes, that's not how this works.

[Minimalist]

Not that this bozo will be impressed but every culture has a creation myth and "Ta-Da" they always put themselves in the center of it.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Plai...oryid=ab83

This article has some particularly cruel things to say about bible bullshit.

This first chapter of Genesis, in which the creation is described, is believed to be the work of priests in the 5th century BC. They give the impression of looking around them - to see what God needed to create - and then devising his programme. Since the sabbath is probably already sanctified as a day of rest, they need to fit the task into a working week of six days.

The resulting programme is eminently practical, from the first moment when everything is void and dark yet also somehow awash with water. Day 1, separate light from darkness, day from night. Day 2, make space among the encircling waters by pushing up the vault of the sky. Day 3, divide the material beneath this vault into earth and sea; and on the earth let there be vegetation. Day 4, attention returns to the vault of heaven; create sun and moon and stars. Day 5, it is time for creatures in water and air; create fishes and birds. Day 6, earth too must be populated; create land animals of all kinds, and man in God's image to supervise the creatures.

Tough shit for the jesus freaks!

[MitchBenn]

May I?

The Bible omits to mention all but a few civilisations because it was written by monocultural mystics with less knowledge of the wider world than modern day kindergarten kids and no more divine insight than your average mumbling bus-nutter.

Now, what else shall we talk about?

[Cyberman]

you guys need to start using the brains you claim to have. I use the word claim with full intent, until you all show us different.

Oh, so now you recognise the value of evidence and the burden of proof?

[Minimalist]

Unlikely, Stim.

[Godscreated]

The angel told Joseph to name Him Jesus, it had nothing to do with Mary's desire.

In a dream! We're not even talking about an account of an actual Angel appearing to Joseph here, but it is true according to the story, that Mary's preference had nothing to do with it.

Yes a dream why does that matter, it is common throughout scripture.

Emmanuel means God with us, it's a prophetic name for Jesus, you guys need to start using the brains you claim to have. I use the word claim with full intent, until you all show us different.

That is the meaning of Emmanuel but it isn't prophetic for Jesus any-more than any other Jewish name. All Jewish names have some meaning or other and most are related to God. As it happens my father's middle name is Emmanuel - its common enough and has been since well before Jesus.

Yes it is a prophetic name it's used in prophecy in the OT and it's used no other way. I usually do not go to Wiki to find answers but, I did this time and Wiki says it is an original Hebrew name that came in the OT, I can find no other references to it being any older than it's first use in the OT. True it's not used as a prophetic name now but, now is not then and in scripture it was always used in prophecy.


All you have said below is easily dismissed by our choice in free will.

On the broader issue of why Jews didn't accept Jesus:

He is an intermediary where none was allowed:

Christianity attempts to bypass this issue with the three in one thing but I've never met a Christian who can explain that one properly and the general ultimate response is "I don't understand it fully either."

Its a fudge.

So I can take it when you say you do not understand something fully you are dodging too.
The Trinity is revealed in Genesis, so it's not a Christian thing it's right out of Hebrew history.
What do you call the Hebrew idea of the Messiah if not intermediary.

His role isn't required:

Essentially Christianity has adopted the scape-goat idea to justify Jesus. The scape goat itself is generally considered by Jewish scholars to be aberrant behaviour that shouldn't be required either.

The scapegoat is the foretelling of Christ, just one of many. Christianity did not adopt it, it was a plan, God's plan.
The Jewish scholars you speak of are ignoring God's requirements, just as the Jews of long ago did, and we see what happened with them. You know God built the nation, so why should their beliefs override what God commanded of them.

In order to pull off this trick Christianity had to disavow itself of the idea that there were sins on one side and good deeds on the other. There is no word in English for the antonym of sin, nor, as far as I am aware in any of the European Languages.

Christianity in no way disavows good deeds, as a matter of fact Christ taught doing good, you must have missed this when you read the NT. Now to be fair we do not believe good deeds will get you into heaven, the grace of God through our belief in what Christ did for us as told in both testaments is the requirement God set forth. Sin the refusal to do God's will, hows that for a definition, yeah it's more than one word, but then many words translates into other languages with many words.

There is a word, however, in Hebrew - Mitzvah (literally commandment - as in Barmitzvah - son of the commandments) which came to mean good deed.

The basic idea of Judaism is that you are judged after death - with good deeds on one side and sins on the other. If the balance of good deeds outweighs bad then you are in. Depending on the imbalance determines how long you spend outside of Heaven (which is conceptually vague in Judaism, as is hell). There is no concept of eternal damnation in Judaism- again that is a uniquely Christian addition.

Seems you're confused, God created hell Christians didn't make it up. Just because the Jewish priest want it their way does not mean they will have it. It seems to me you are forgetting that the Hebrew people abandoned God time and again and He punished them for it, with such a poor track record you would think people would be skeptical of what they see in scripture.

All of this had to be abandoned in Christianity to make room for Jesus who takes responsibility for your sins off you whilst you get away with it scot free as long as you believe in Jesus in the end.

You talk as if Christianity was a plan by man. Sin is paid for here and now, and for non-believers it will continue into eternity.

Aside from the horrific basis for the idea and the licence it provides for behave appallingly throughout your life it has caused innumerable issues and problems.

Man can screw up anything, so it's not been a surprise that some bad things have happened. Christians do not have the license to sin at will and anyone who believes this will find themselves in a bad position come judgement. You like to believe all this stuff you purpose, it makes it easier for you deny the God that loves you.

For example the Catholic belief that an unbaptized child that dies goes to purgatory to wait there till the end of time - as if it wasn't bad enough for the poor grieving parents that a child had died.

The Catholics believe many strange non-Biblical things, doesn't in any way make them right.

At the same time take the worst, most sadistic criminal you can imagine. On his deathbed he recants (genuinely), confesses his sins, is blessed by a priest and skips off into heaven to rub shoulders with the blessed and the meek.

Yes as long as one truly believes, I find it hard to see that many will have that type of heart change after living an evil life for so many years. Remember scriptures say believe not just to speak.

Of course there is also the flip side. A good man - someone who has done wonderful things for his fellow man though-out his life, someone who has held the highest moral standards but just happens not to believe in Jesus, what happens to him?

You don't need too many guesses to you? (Hnt - he will never be cold).

God says there are no good men not one, it's not your definition that counts.

He just wasn't all that convincing:

The only people that met Jesus were the Jews - and they didn't buy it. A few Romans were also exposed to him of course - but they didn't convert either.

Really then I guess the world full of people who are just pretending. In the first two days after Pentecost 8000 people became believers. How many of those do you suppose were Hebrews that had spent time listening to Jesus message. Let me give yo a little info you must have missed, the Holy Spirit was now at work in men's heart. You should reread the NT you will find out that there were many who believed before the death of Jesus.

In fact there is a case to be put that the closer you were to Jesus, the less likely you were to follow him. There are references in the gospel to Jesus visiting his home-town where he was roundly rejected and left gutted and disappointed, if not mystified.

No one was closer to Him than His mother and the other women and His twelve. He definitely was not gutted and disappointed, He foreknew their rejection, yet in His love He gave them a chance to change.

The only exceptions to this are his mother (but not, apparently his brothers and sisters, or father come to that) and the dumb-asses he chose amongst the fishermen and the like that would have been easy to hoodwink.

Really there's books in the NT that disprove what you say, try reading James. It is believed that Joseph died sometime before Jesus started His ministry. Those you would insult became the greatest preachers for Christ, even people that knew them were astounded at their abilities after Pentecost.

Failure by definition:

There is no provision in Judaism for the Messiah to come and fail to convince the people that he is the Messiah. This didn't happen with the prophets and it certainly wouldn't happen with God's chosen Messiah.

Sorry but that made me , The prophets were rejected often, they were even killed by the Israelites, yes their very own people. You seriously need to read the Bible before trying to argue against it.

Jesus clearly saw himself as the Jewish Messiah (and only that till the dubious resurrection). Time and again in both Mark and Matthew he makes it as clear as day that he is here for the "Children of Israel" and not anyone else. How Christians ignore this is beyond me.

You are as blind as mud you are just tossing out junk that's not in the Bible, even the OT tells of the Jewish rejection. Christ said He came to save a world, sounds like He meant more than the Jews, He found the Centurion to have more faith than anyone in Israel.

So Jesus thought he was the Jewish Messiah. He failed to convince the people. Therefore, definitionally, he wasn't. There's no getting out of that for an Omnipotent God who had never failed to get his way before.

Jesus knew He was the savior sent to the entire world, He came to the chosen nation first so they could spread the good news. Like I said earlier this argument fails in many ways and it all comes apart because of the choice through free will.

This is supposedly the same God that appointed Abram/Abraham/Israel, Jacob, Joseph, Saul, David, Solomon etc. etc. (to name just a few). None of them failed in their primary mission, yet Jesus did?

They all failed miserably only through God's work was their missions successful. Jesus on the other hand has saved billions from eternal torment. He willingly gave up His life, and He took it back again, He lived a perfectly sinless life, haven't seen anyone else accomplish those things have you.

Oh screw it - I'm boring myself with this shit. Suffice to say it goes on and on for pages if you want it to.

Please do there are answers from God againist all you say.

GC

[max-greece]

Stole this from another forum but it will do for now. Its almost midnight and I have had a fuck of a day.


Matthew 15:22-24
"And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel".

Matthew 10:5-6
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel".

Matthew 19:28
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel".

Note:
1.) Jesus refuses to attend to a gentile because he was only sent to the Children of Israel.
2.) He warns his disciples not to preach to gentiles.
3.) He said he would judge the tribes of Israel.so who would judge Nigerians?

the christian missionary undoubtedly would conjure up their tricks and bring the below verse as evidence that Jesus said his teachings should be given to all humans:

Mark 16:15-17
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,and preach the gospel to every creature.He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; But he that believeth not shall be damned".

THE BIG PROBLEM OF CONTRADICTION AND EVIDENCE OF INTERPOLATION!

Aside from the fact that Mark 16:15-17 contradicts the three verses in Matthew which explicitly confirm that Jesus was only sent to/for the Jews,there is also the problem of interpolation or fabrication in Mark Chapter 16.

In all bibles you can think of and check by yourself,Mark Chapter 16 ends at verse no.8. Verses 9-20 are not found in all bibles.verses 9-20 are relegated to a footnote because of lack of "authenticity" for it to be part of the "gospel".here is the reason from the "horse's mouth" that the bible authors themselves give:

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

High orangebox

Why do you think he picked just one bloodline to reveal himself to?

Humanly, Jesus could only be descended through one bloodline. When the messiah arrived he was revealed to Jews first, then to the rest of the world. Why he chose the Jews? Who knows.

I know EXACTLY why God chose the Jews: They invented him.

Boru

[Simon Moon]

They had Lao Tzu and Confucius delivered teachings similar to Jesus such as the Golden Rule. So some basic guidance from God was there in ancient China.

"When abroad, behaveto everyone as if interviewing
an honored guest; in directing the people, act as if
you were assisting at a great sacrafice; DO NOT DO
TO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD NOT LIKE DONE
TO YOURSELF: so there will be no murmuring
against you in the country, and none in the family;
your public life will arouse no ill-will nor your private
life any resentment."

No god required for this.

This is the law of reciprocity.

Many other social species have this attribute to some extent.

Bonobo chimps have it in spades.

When a bonobo share their food even if it is in short supply, adopts orphaned bonobo babies, helps protect others of their group from predators even at risk to themselves, etc, did they get guidance from Yahweh?