A few questions on Christianity

[Byblos]

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Byblos, I don't mean this in an argumentative way but I can't get around this verse. It seems like it is saying that we need to be right with God before we die. What do you think?

No worries. It really is ok to disagree.

This verse tells me nothing more than that we die once and judgment will come after death. I agree. Does it say anything about not being able to pray for those who died in between death and judgment? The answer is no. But the verses I quoted above most certainly do. What do you think they mean?

[bluesman]

Seeker Of Truth wrote

Did Moses live about 1400 B.C (conforms with Biblical literalism) or about 1200 B.C (conforms with history and archeology and a Bible reference)?

Ancient Egypt and the Bible.

According to the Bible, the Israelites were a few families, and then became about two million (or was it 600.000?) in a few generations, and according to the numbers, they would have been the majority in Egypt, which is unlikely. This is for obvious reasons strange. Also some Muslims claim that the Bible is in error when it names the ruler of Egypt during the time of Joseph as Pharaoh, because the word "Pharaoh" originally meant "great house" and was used about the ruler's palace, only during the New Kingdom it became the epitet of the Egyptian ruler, whereas Joseph lived (if he was a historical person) during the time of Hyksos.

Please see their article: Qur'anic Accuracy Vs. Biblical Error: The Kings & Pharaohs Of Egypt

So, how did the Qur'an avoid the error but not the Bible?

Your assuming the Bible is in error is not correct.
First I will deal with your questioning of Joseph being a real historical person. Not only was he real, but his statue has being found.
There is much new information becoming available that is changing our understanding of history. One piece is that the Hyksos came after Moses and the Exodus. Egypt was ripe for the invasion after the Pharaohs Chariot force was wiped out by the Red (Reed Sea) Sea.

In the rush to tie Bible history to Egyptian history critical mistakes were made.
I suggest if you can to read "A Test of Time" the bible from myth to history by David Rohl and
"From Eden to Exile" the epic history of the people of the bible by David Rohl.
In these books he explains his evidence for New Chronology and new understanding of Egyptian history and its relation to the Bible.
Now David Rohl is from my understanding not a christian and doesn't argue for the exsistence of God. He only supports the Bible as being historically accurate.

Now he is not the only one to support a new understanding of history.
Simcha Jacobovici, an award-winning documentary director and producer, and a well published writer and lecturer, supports a new timeline for Moses. He did a documentary on it and I believe is writing a book on it.

Ramses is not the Pharaoh of the exodus. Ramses is the Pharaoh who destroyed the temple. Dudimose is the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
Khanefferre Sobekhotep IV is the pharaoh at Moses birth.

I myself had serious doubts about the Old Testament. After reading these books and watching Jacobovici most of thoses doubts are gone. Its amazing how evidence for the Bible falls in place when the Egyptian Chronology is adjusted.

Now just because the Bible is accurate to history doesn't mean God exists.
However, one argument against him is being quietly, but throughly dismissed.

Michael Thomas
Bluesman

[bluesman]

I did a quick check of that Islamic website and I think I found the answer.

The Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary agrees with modern linguist research and states concerning "Pharaoh":

the title of the kings of Egypt until 323BC. In the Egyptian language the word Pharaoh means "great house." This word was originally used to describe the palace of the king. Around 1500 BC this term was applied to the king.[58]

The above is from your cited website.

Moses "step-father" Khaneferre Sobekhotep started his reign in 1529 BC.
So Moses knew him a Pharaoh. Who wrote the first books of the Bible?
A lot of Biblical scholars would say Moses wrote them. Even if Moses didn't write these first books then it was someone after him. Do you get the point I am making here?

According to the Bible, the Israelites were a few families, and then became about two million (or was it 600.000?) in a few generations, and according to the numbers, they would have been the majority in Egypt, which is unlikely

I believe it was 600,000 for the Israelites and 2 Million for the Egyptians.
So not a majority. From Jacob's loins the original number is 70, I believe.
Now from Jacob coming to Egypt to the Exodus was I believe 215 or so years. So a little more than a few 20 year generations.
Now where it says 70, I believe this refers to males only. So add on top of that sister,wives, and daughters. This is something that Rohl does touch on in his books, but I would have to search through them to really try and explain this. Anyways the math would go say something like 220 divide by 20 = 11 generations. However, I think women back then had children at about 14 or 15? Now I imagine most had big families. Maybe 8 to 10 kids. Half were maybe girls. So start at 70 women times 4 for girls.
280! then 280 x 4 =1120 x4 =4480!
Get the picture. Now do that 7 or 8 more times.
Now some may have died, but how long did Moses live?
I don't know if I am going in the right direction on this. I will do so more research. Whats everybody's thought on this.

Michael
Bluesman

[bluesman]

Sorry for a third post

here is a website with an answer similar to the one I gave, but its better than mine.

http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/20 ... page20.htm

Not sure how I figured that Egyptians only numbered 2 million, though?

Michael
Bluesman

[Seeker of Truth]

Thank you for your answers!

I know that we can't prove nor disprove everything in the OT. I'm just curious how you view the Muslim claims. Their claim was basically, that the Bible calls the ruler during the time of Joseph for Pharaoh, even though the ruler during that time wasn't called Pharaoh by his contempories. Only during the New Kingdom (i.e same time as Moses), the term Pharaoh was applied to the ruler of Egypt. Joseph lived before the New Kingdom, either during the reign of the Hyksos (most probable) or even earlier around 1800 B.C. They further claim that the Qur'an avoids this.

Now this could be a proof for Islam, but the Qur'an and Hadith collections contain many ridiculous statements and many error (I'm an ex-Muslim btw so if you have problem combat any Muslim claim then I'll gladly help you) that this hardly helps it.

Now let's turn back to the subject. I've already found a Bible online in my language, so that isn't a problem anymore.

I'm mainly concerned with the evidence for Christianity. Christianity is interesting in the aspect that it doesn't demands blind submission. Rather, Paul wrote something like "Examine everything. Hold on to the good.", I'm unsure about the exact quote. Anyways. As said, the evidence most often presented is the Resurrection and the fulfillment of prophecies. As for the Resurrection, one Christian told me that only God could give life to the dead, and that means that the Resurrection couldn't be a miracle of a false Prophet. So if the Resurrection is true then it is proof for Christianity.

On Wikipedia they have listed some evidence for the Resurrection and some evidence against it, as well as some alternative theories (which some are pretty ridiculous). What also make me doubt Christianity is the writings of the Internet Infidels such as Richard Carrier's Why I Am Not a Christian especially the (sarcastic) parable of "Hero Saviour" and Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story. Why I doubt the fulfillment of prophecies I've stated, i.e I don't know for certain that those parts aren't inventions to give Jesus credibility. A Christian recommended me to read them myself, which I'll try to do soon.

Still Christiabity is interesting, especially that Paul write (the quote above).

Another thought is, when is it most probable that the Gospels were written? Everyone seem to agree that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the Gospel of John last. Some say that the Gospel of Mark was written about 50 A.C, which is incredibly early. Others say that since it also portrays events from some Jewish revolt is must have been written 70 A.C earliest.

I've heard about christians who "speak with Jesus" and he tells and comments about recent world affairs. This sounds wonderful! But how does one know that it isn't just one's imagination who "speaks", and not Jesus? How does one distinguish?

[bluesman]

Seeker of Truth Wrote

Joseph lived before the New Kingdom, either during the reign of the Hyksos (most probable) or even earlier around 1800 B.C.

Joseph was appointed vizier of Egypt around 1670 BC and Early Hyksos period didn't start till after 1450 BC. The date you give of 1800 BC is the time of Abraham.

Not sure where your getting your information from, but your biblical dates are wrong. As far as where the Hyksos fit in that is debatable. I lean to what people like David Rohl teach. The old school of archaeologists will just need to learn to adjust or be left behind.

As far as the other topics you mention I would read "A Case for Christ" and "A Case for Easter" by Lee Strobel.

You have to realize that there are many "anti-christs" who for whatever reason teach the bible being false with much incorrect information.
You need to at least balance your time searching and reading the christian side. Please don't rely on this forum for that.

Michael Thomas
Bluesman

[bluesman]

Another thought is, when is it most probable that the Gospels were written? Everyone seem to agree that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the Gospel of John last. Some say that the Gospel of Mark was written about 50 A.C, which is incredibly early. Others say that since it also portrays events from some Jewish revolt is must have been written 70 A.C earliest.

The dates I have from Blomberg is late 50's and no later than 60 AD for the writing of Gospel of Mark.
Now there is evidence that Matthew, wrote in Hebrew first, before his Greek gospel. It appears any copies of this are lost. Maybe this is the lost Q or saying of Jesus? Thats just a theory though.
Matthew, was pick by Jesus partly for his ability to write. I would have to think he maybe kept some notes.

Jesus went to the cross around 33 AD, then were talking not a lot of space in time after the events. The writing then being done in the lifetimes of eye witnesses that were christians and enemies of Christ too.

Also you must realize that most of the Letters of Paul, were written before Mark . The letters being written in 40's and 50's AD. Contained within is sources and creeds dating back to maybe 35 AD.

Papias around 125 AD affirmed Mark and Matthew as writers of their Gospels. Irenaeus, 180 AD wrote that he believed the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

Now why would another writer pick the names of Mark, Luke and even Matthew. They would have pick Gospel of Peter or Gospel of Paul or Gospel of James. Mark was just an assistant to Peter and Luke the same to Paul. Matthew, was the hated tax collector.

Hope this all help in your search for the truth.

Michael
Bluesman

[FFC]

Romans 3:23 wrote:
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

This one says we are all born sinners and no matter what we do can never attain God's standard on our own. Thank God that we don't have to. Jesus is the only way right? I'm not sure what you think it has to do with the afterlife but I would be interested to hear it.

Mat 12:32 wrote:
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This verse to me seems to be talking about someone who willfully rejects Christ and attributes His works to the devil. This is a hard verse to me but once again I'm not sure where you're going with it.

Byblos, what do you think about the story of Lazarus and the Rich man? I know the point is not that rich people go to hell and the poor go to heaven but the point about your fate being sealed either way after death seems to be clear. What do you think?

[Byblos]

Let's start with this one first:

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This verse to me seems to be talking about someone who willfully rejects Christ and attributes His works to the devil. This is a hard verse to me but once again I'm not sure where you're going with it.

The verse says that a sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come. Now we know we have forgiveness of sins in this world but why do you think we would need forgiveness of sins in the world to come? It's because nothing imperfect shall enter heaven and because:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Therefore, it follows that there's a transitional period in between death and heaven where forgiveness of sins is possible. It also follows that the same way we pray for our living brothers and sisters, we can also pray for those who passed on so that are prepared in perfection and purity to enter the gates of heaven.

Byblos, what do you think about the story of Lazarus and the Rich man? I know the point is not that rich people go to hell and the poor go to heaven but the point about your fate being sealed either way after death seems to be clear. What do you think?

It is a parable about fate but I do not see it as being sealed immediately after death. I see it as being sealed at judgment day. You will note that when Lazarus died he wasn't carried to heaven, but rather to Abraham's bosom, a further indication that there is such a transitional place in between death and heaven.

In Christ,

Byblos.

[Fisherman]

Let's start with this one first:

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This verse to me seems to be talking about someone who willfully rejects Christ and attributes His works to the devil. This is a hard verse to me but once again I'm not sure where you're going with it.

The verse says that a sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come. Now we know we have forgiveness of sins in this world but why do you think we would need forgiveness of sins in the world to come? It's because nothing imperfect shall enter heaven and because:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Therefore, it follows that there's a transitional period in between death and heaven where forgiveness of sins is possible. It also follows that the same way we pray for our living brothers and sisters, we can also pray for those who passed on so that are prepared in perfection and purity to enter the gates of heaven.

I'm sorry to disagree again but it doesn't follow. I don't see how you made that giant leap. I know that we have all fallen short but when Jesus forgives us, He clears our record so that we can get into Heaven. He forgives us here in this life so that we don't go to Hell.

Praying is a good thing and God misses His time with us when we don't but I still don't see how a person can pray a dead person out of Hell. Isn't salvation a personal thing between God and the "savee"?

[Byblos]

I'm sorry to disagree again but it doesn't follow. I don't see how you made that giant leap. I know that we have all fallen short but when Jesus forgives us, He clears our record so that we can get into Heaven. He forgives us here in this life so that we don't go to Hell.

Praying is a good thing and God misses His time with us when we don't but I still don't see how a person can pray a dead person out of Hell. Isn't salvation a personal thing between God and the "savee"?

No need to be sorry. This is a gray area topic that has been debated literally for ages. One thing I believe we can agree on (I hope) is that the notion of soul sleep is not supported in scripture. So what we're left with is either souls go to heaven or hell immediately after death, or they languish somewhere for some time in preparation of.

You keep saying that I'm trying to get someone out of hell. That is not the case. You believe that because you believe souls will go to either heaven or hell immediately after death. I agree to a certain extent, but not in all cases. I believe if a person dies in a state of grace with God, they go to heaven immediately after death. If they die in a state of mortal sin, they go to hell. If they die somewhere in between, they were sinful against God but not in a mortal state, they go to a place we call purgatory so that they are cleansed before entering heaven.

This stems from the fact that we can have forgiveness in the world to come. It's not a giant leap; that's what scripture says. If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit your sin will not be forgiven in the world to come. This clearly implies sins can be forgiven in the world to come. Now if all souls go to heaven or hell, why do we need forgiveness in that world? You are not answering this question.

The question then becomes, if I'm wrong, what would be the consequence of my prayers? Well, they would be nothing more than time waisted. But what if I were right? What if you could have helped someone by praying for them and didn't?

In Christ,

Byblos.

[FFC]

This stems from the fact that we can have forgiveness in the world to come. It's not a giant leap; that's what scripture says. If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit your sin will not be forgiven in the world to come. This clearly implies sins can be forgiven in the world to come. Now if all souls go to heaven or hell, why do we need forgiveness in that world? You are not answering this question.

Byblos, I suggest that you may be reading into the phrase "in this world and the world to come". I have always thought that Jesus just said it that way to emphasize the idea that this kind of sin would never be forgiven. I like your interpretation better though. I wish it were true.

[Byblos]

This stems from the fact that we can have forgiveness in the world to come. It's not a giant leap; that's what scripture says. If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit your sin will not be forgiven in the world to come. This clearly implies sins can be forgiven in the world to come. Now if all souls go to heaven or hell, why do we need forgiveness in that world? You are not answering this question.

Byblos, I suggest that you may be reading into the phrase "in this world and the world to come". I have always thought that Jesus just said it that way to emphasize the idea that this kind of sin would never be forgiven. I like your interpretation better though. I wish it were true.

But what if it is? You gotta have faith my friend, you gotta have faith.

If we are to start labeling 'reading too much into' scripture we'd never end. I could say the same thing about being 'born again', or 'sola scriptura', 'sola fide', OSAS, etc. etc. Bottom line is, there's no such thing as objective, literal interpretation of scripture. It is all subjective, all what you interpret from it (individually or collectively).

In Christ,

Byblos.

[FFC]

But what if it is? You gotta have faith my friend, you gotta have faith.

If we are to start labeling 'reading too much into' scripture we'd never end. I could say the same thing about being 'born again', or 'sola scriptura', 'sola fide', OSAS, etc. etc. Bottom line is, there's no such thing as objective, literal interpretation of scripture. It is all subjective, all what you interpret from it (individually or collectively).

But, Byblos, isn't the bible our final authority? Being the inspired inerrant word of God? It's not up to private interpretations. Granted there are enough of those to make our heads spin but everybody can't be right. So what do we do?

[Seeker of Truth]

Hmm... I don't think we need to discuss the OT too much, except a few things, because much of old history is lost. In fact, we can't even read all the hieroglyphs yet, and the placement of vocals in modern transliteration from hieroglyphs to the Latin alphabet are there more for ease in pronounciation than real transliteration. While there are many interesting ideas and interpretations on the stories in OT, it is doubtful that mankind will ever be able to find outside Biblical references. Further, if I've got it right, the NT is more important than the OT to Christianity. In fact, according to Christianity, one becomes saved by believing in the Resurrection, not by believing in the Exodus (note that I don't mean that you can skip believing in that, just that the NT is more important, if I've got things right).

There is just one thing in the OT I wonder about, and that is Noah's flood. I've seen different interpretations on this:

1. The flood was global and covered all of the earth. Everyone perished except Noah and his family. Something they use for support for this view (apart from the Bible) is that in almost all cultures' folklore and mythology you find a flood legend (Sumerian, Norse, Indian, Native American etc).

2. The flood was not global but destroyed all of humanity except Noah and his family. According to this view, humanity has yet to settle beyond the Middle East, and the flood only covered the Middle East, thus all of humanity was destroyed anyways.

3. The flood was local (should this be merged with 2?). Perhaps this is the same as number 2. Though I've never seen the supporters of this view go deeper. Anyways, the flood was local and destroyed all of humanity close to Noah except him and his family. I don't know if they mean that those close to Noah was the only of humanity then or not.

4. The Black Sea hypothesis. This view is hold by some historians. It says that the Black Sea was a valley and then a lot of water from the Mediterranean flowed over to the valley which became the Black Sea, and that this is the historical background of the flood described in many cultures. How do Christians view this hypothesis? Though it has not been established that the Black Sea emerged so dramatically, there are historians who propose and more gradual emerge.

5. That the whole event is a myth. Few Christians would hold such a view.

Which view do you hold? From what I've read at the original site here, the author of this site holds to either 2 or 3. Also about when did this flood occur?

Now onto the NT. First there is a thing which I've wondered about. According to the Gospels, there was an eclipse close to Jesus' death. One critic said that eclipses can't occur during that time (i.e Easter) of the year and that this eclipse isn't noted anywhere else in any ancient writings. How come?

Then there are the Gospel manuscripts. What do they say? Some people say that the Gospel manuscripts point towards that the three first Gospels were written about 50 A.C and the Gospel of John at the end of the first century. Yet some people say that them all were written at the end of the first century. They point to that Mark had a reference to the the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem 70 A.C, but they are hesitant to assign it to a later date than 73 A.C, when whole Jerusalem was sacked (which Mark has no reference too, as I understand it). So 70-73 A.C. Yet some people believe it to be earlier, ad some people believe it to be later. What do the manuscripts really tell? As there are such disputes, I dount there is an entire Gospel dated from earlier than 70 A.C, as no one would dispute it then.

And what is your view concerning God's involvement when it comes to the Bible? I've seen two views proposed by Christians:

1. The Bible is the word of God to the letter. It was revealed by God and written down letter by letter.

2. The Bible is inspired by God. The authors of the Bible were inspired by God when it comes to the content, but the writings are their own works and their own language.

Or is there any other view?

Finally, for a new-comer like me, what Gospel would you recommend starting with? The four Gospels were obviously written by different persons:

The Gospel of Matthew: Was written primarily to a Jewish audience.

The Gospel of Mark: Primarily for a Hellenic public. Jewish terms are explained by the author.

The Gospel of Luke: Written primarily for gentile Christians, or those non-Christians who already know about Christianity, rather than a general public.

The Gospel of John: I was not able to find out who this Gospel was directed too. It seems that this Gospel has less similarities to the Synoptic Gospels than what they have to each other.

So which would you suggest? Which Gospel did you yourself start reading?

And there is another thing. One Christian site tried to explain the Trinity and how Jesus is God, by explaining how he manifested himself. And he quoted the Bible as saying that Jesus was "the seed of a woman". But women don't have seed, have they?