Questions to all Christians

Post your questions here. (It is much better if you enumerate them in one post). Let the christians here answer it.

Here's a few that I have:

Where is the biblical city of Nazareth?

And they led Jesus to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. - Luke 4:29

Where are the corroborative reports and proof of the Massacre of the Innocents?

I have quite a few, but I'd like to start with these for now.

At gethsemane, when Jesus was alone, how did the gospel writers know what he said there. He complained that everybody was asleep and yet somehow the gospel writers left a tape recorder. Pls. explain.

korrill wrote:Here's a few that I have:

Where is the biblical city of Nazareth?

And they led Jesus to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. - Luke 4:29

Where are the corroborative reports and proof of the Massacre of the Innocents?

I have quite a few, but I'd like to start with these for now.

I'll take this one.

The location of Nazareth is known:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Nazareth+israel&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.02306,55.810547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Nazareth,+Israel&ll=32.699489,35.304565&spn=0.136944,0.21801&t=h&z=12



The Bible is the infallible Word of God, so no corroborative reports or proof are needed.

Nevertheless, there is corroboration in that Herod the Great is known to have planned an even greater massacre, one that was averted by providence and grace. When Herod realized that he was dying, and all attempts to be healed by physicians from far and wide failed, he decided upon a plan. (This is described in detail by Flavious Josephus.)

He decided to have all of the most important Jewish leaders throughout the nation brought to him. When they arrived, he had them confined to the hippodrome (a type of sports stadium which the Romans used for horse and chariot races). He gave orders to his sister and brother-in-law that upon his death, before they revealed that he had died, they were to order the soldiers to kill every Jewish leader being held by him at the hippodrome. Herod knew that the Jews hated him. In this way, he had hoped to cause a great mourning throughout the land to coincide with his death, a mourning fit for a king.

But Herod's sister and brother-in-law did not carry out his evil plan to kill all the Jewish leaders being held at the hippodrome. They did not make Herod's death known until they had released the Jews from the Hippodrome and sent them to their homes. After the Jewish leaders were safely away, Herod's death was made public.

This event is corroboration in the sense that it proves Herod the Great was willing to massacre the innocent.

Shad wrote:I'll take this one.

The location of Nazareth is known:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Nazareth+israel&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.02306,55.810547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Nazareth,+Israel&ll=32.699489,35.304565&spn=0.136944,0.21801&t=h&z=12

Please take note of my question:

Where is the biblical city of Nazareth?

And they led Jesus to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. - Luke 4:29

Simply put, that is not the city of Nazareth of today which is located in a valley. As can be seen in the link you gave:

Historic Nazareth was essentially constructed in the valley; the windy hilltops in the vicinity have only been occupied since the construction of Nazareth Illit in 1957.

Shad wrote:The Bible is the infallible Word of God, so no corroborative reports or proof are needed.

Nevertheless, there is corroboration in that Herod the Great is known to have planned an even greater massacre, one that was averted by providence and grace. When Herod realized that he was dying, and all attempts to be healed by physicians from far and wide failed, he decided upon a plan. (This is described in detail by Flavious Josephus.)

He decided to have all of the most important Jewish leaders throughout the nation brought to him. When they arrived, he had them confined to the hippodrome (a type of sports stadium which the Romans used for horse and chariot races). He gave orders to his sister and brother-in-law that upon his death, before they revealed that he had died, they were to order the soldiers to kill every Jewish leader being held by him at the hippodrome. Herod knew that the Jews hated him. In this way, he had hoped to cause a great mourning throughout the land to coincide with his death, a mourning fit for a king.

But Herod's sister and brother-in-law did not carry out his evil plan to kill all the Jewish leaders being held at the hippodrome. They did not make Herod's death known until they had released the Jews from the Hippodrome and sent them to their homes. After the Jewish leaders were safely away, Herod's death was made public.

This event is corroboration in the sense that it proves Herod the Great was willing to massacre the innocent.

[i]
Actually, the bible is presented in a quasi-historical narrative. So, yes. Corroboration is necessary. Simply saying that it is the inspired word of god doesn't count as proof or validation of anything. That's tantamount to a bare assertion fallacy (It's true because it's true).

Furthermore, the narrative you presented shows that Herod was willing to kill for an inconsequential whim. But it does not prove the narrative of the Massacre of the Innocents.

One question raised by your post is this: Josephus wrote of virtually every significant event regarding the Jewish race and, in effect, every brutal act of Herod. Why would he omit this?

korrill wrote:
Please take note of my question:

Where is the biblical city of Nazareth?

And they led Jesus to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. - Luke 4:29

Simply put, that is not the city of Nazareth of today which is located in a valley. As can be seen in the link you gave:

Historic Nazareth was essentially constructed in the valley; the windy hilltops in the vicinity have only been occupied since the construction of Nazareth Illit in 1957.

The ancient cities of Israel were often built on hills, making the city easier to defend. The ancient and modern cities are in about the same location. However, the modern city today is very much larger than the ancient town.

See this relief map showing the elevation of Nazareth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Israel_topo_en.jpg

The green color is low elevation, and the brown color is higher elevation.

korrill wrote:
Actually, the bible is presented in a quasi-historical narrative. So, yes. Corroboration is necessary. Simply saying that it is the inspired word of god doesn't count as proof or validation of anything. That's tantamount to a bare assertion fallacy (It's true because it's true).

Furthermore, the narrative you presented shows that Herod was willing to kill for an inconsequential whim. But it does not prove the narrative of the Massacre of the Innocents.

One question raised by your post is this: Josephus wrote of virtually every significant event regarding the Jewish race and, in effect, every brutal act of Herod. Why would he omit this?

The story of the holy innocents is corroborated by the fact that the early Christians (many of whom were Jews who converted) who read Matthew's account were old enough to have lived through that time. Matthew said that this event was the fulfillment of an OT prophecy. If the story were not true, it would not have been accepted by the faithful, since many of them lived at that time, in that place. No one could tell a story about an horrific event that occurred within the lifetime of his listeners AND say that it was a fulfillment of a prophecy in their religion, IF the story was untrue. The listeners would know better, and they would not accept the story. But this story was accepted the Matthew's audience, and that fact is corroboration.

Josephus was not alive during the time of the holy innocents. Also, he was a Jew who became a Roman historian. The story of the holy innocents implies that Jesus is the Messiah, something that most of the Jews of Josephus' time did not accept. The same story also reflects badly on the Romans, and so would not have been acceptable to Josephus' audience.

Corroboration is different from proof. That Herod was willing to kill many persons on a whim is corroboration.

Faith believes in truths that are not proven, even in truths that are beyond the ability of reason to completely comprehend.

Ateo wrote:At gethsemane, when Jesus was alone, how did the gospel writers know what he said there. He complained that everybody was asleep and yet somehow the gospel writers left a tape recorder. Pls. explain.

After his Resurrection, and before His Ascension, He taught them for forty days:

[Acts of the Apostles 1]
{1:1} Certainly, O Theophilus, I composed the first discourse about everything that Jesus began to do and to teach,
{1:2} instructing the Apostles, whom he had chosen through the Holy Spirit, even until the day on which he was taken up.
{1:3} He also presented himself alive to them, after his Passion, appearing to them throughout forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God with many elucidations.

Enough of this now! if you want to continue open a thread for each discussions. For the mean time Let other christians answers the questions. I have an additional questions coming from kruchev of RFP:


What makes a person a Christian? How do you become one?

Why do Christians place such an emphasis on JESUS CHRIST? Wasn't he just one of many great religious leaders?

How can Christianity claim that JESUS is the only way to GOD? That seems very exclusive and arrogant.

The Christian faith seems very dependent on the Bible, but hasn't scripture been altered over the years? How do we know what it originally said?

Why are there so many branches of Christianity? Which one is right?

Haven't Christians been responsible for a lot of violence and hatred throughout history?

Doesn't becoming a Christian mean adopting a bunch of rules that limit a person's freedom (and fun)?

How does Christianity account for all the suffering and evil in the world?

According to Christianity, what happens to a person after death? Do all non-christians automatically go to HELL?

It seems that Christians believe you can accept Jesus, then be evil, and still go to heaven.

http://relihiyon.10.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=723&start=0


plus the above questions I want evangelicals to put their inputs on those questions. And also I wish someone would post this at the old Barm for evangelicals and catholics to answer.

in the mean time we will have our break see you!


PRAISE BE TO GOD ALMIGHTY FOR ALL ETERNITY!

Yidda wrote:The ancient cities of Israel were often built on hills, making the city easier to defend. The ancient and modern cities are in about the same location. However, the modern city today is very much larger than the ancient town.

See this relief map showing the elevation of Nazareth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Israel_topo_en.jpg

The green color is low elevation, and the brown color is higher elevation.

First off, the biblical description was a city on a hill. And based on the narrative, not merely an elevated area but a place with a cliff. As you can plainly read, the people of Nazareth supposedly tried to throw Jesus off it.

As I pointed out, that does not fit the current area known as Nazareth.

Also, it's an interesting point that you've reminded me. The bible talks of a city (polis), not a town.

Yidda wrote:The story of the holy innocents is corroborated by the fact that the early Christians (many of whom were Jews who converted) who read Matthew's account were old enough to have lived through that time. Matthew said that this event was the fulfillment of an OT prophecy. If the story were not true, it would not have been accepted by the faithful, since many of them lived at that time, in that place. No one could tell a story about an horrific event that occurred within the lifetime of his listeners AND say that it was a fulfillment of a prophecy in their religion, IF the story was untrue. The listeners would know better, and they would not accept the story. But this story was accepted the Matthew's audience, and that fact is corroboration.

That's assuming that they actually read it or that it (narrative) was even known to them.

Of if the gospel of Matthew was even existent or available to them. Or even if this narrative was told to people as a means of converting them.

The bible does not present apostles using such a narrative in their preachings, afterall.

Which is why corroborative documentation is important in this matter.

Yidda wrote:Josephus was not alive during the time of the holy innocents. Also, he was a Jew who became a Roman historian. The story of the holy innocents implies that Jesus is the Messiah, something that most of the Jews of Josephus' time did not accept. The same story also reflects badly on the Romans, and so would not have been acceptable to Josephus' audience.

He may not have been alive at the time, yet his narratives have been shown to contain great accuracy in matters relating to the events he recorded.

The narrative itself does not imply about Jesus's supposed status as the messiah seeing as how the "prophecy" used by Matthew was not generally viewed as such by the Jews - only by christians.

Also, the massacre of the innocents was not perpetrated by Romans. Herod I was a Jew. And if Josephus had the mindset of not wanting to show anyone in a bad light, it does not make sense that he would omit mentioning Herod ordering the death of Jewish children yet recording Herod's murder of his own children, his wife, and the attempted massacre of prominent Jewish citizens.

Yidda wrote:Corroboration is different from proof. That Herod was willing to kill many persons on a whim is corroboration.

Corroboration is synonymous with proof. That is simply evidence that supports a testimony. An example would be if a person testified that Mr. X's car was the one that hit a pedestrian who had a plaid jacket. Corroborating evidence would be Mr. X's car having a dent, blood traces, and plaid fibers consistent with that worn by the victim.

But simply saying Mr. X hit the man because Mr. X drives fast does not prove the Mr. X was even in the vicinity of the accident.

Yidda wrote:Faith believes in truths that are not proven, even in truths that are beyond the ability of reason to completely comprehend.

True, but it does not prove anything other than that a person believes.

And that's not what I'm asking for.

Faith believes in truths that are not there.

Yidda's "proof" of the massacre of the innocents is wrong. Actually, the main proof that it did happen was that when Jesus went back to Israel from their vacation in Egypt, he was enrolled in the kindergarten and he was the only student in his class -- because all the other innocents were killed. His kindergarten class record has been miraculously found.

Seriously, the Romans actually kept administrative records. But the so-called massacre of the innocents is nowhere in the records. The RCC has been reducing the number of innocents from a very large number in the past to a very small estimate now in their New Advent.

korrill wrote:

First off, the biblical description was a city on a hill. And based on the narrative, not merely an elevated area but a place with a cliff. As you can plainly read, the people of Nazareth supposedly tried to throw Jesus off it.

As I pointed out, that does not fit the current area known as Nazareth.

Also, it's an interesting point that you've reminded me. The bible talks of a city (polis), not a town.

Take note ancient city , not a modern day town or cities today. The ancient and modern cities are in about the same location. However,the modern city today is very much larger than the ancient town. The verse in Luke is read incorrectly as implying that the city was built ON the brow of the hill, when it is actually saying that it was built on the hill, and the brow is part of the hill also.

korrill wrote:
That's assuming that they actually read it or that it (narrative) was even known to them.

Of if the gospel of Matthew was even existent or available to them. Or even if this narrative was told to people as a means of converting them.

The bible does not present apostles using such a narrative in their preachings, after all.

Which is why corroborative documentation is important in this matter.

The Birth of Jesus Christ, the massacre of the Holy Innocents, and the eventual death of Herod the great, all occurred during Matthew's lifetime. Matthew could have been anywhere from a young child to a teenager, when Jesus was born. Matthew remembered living in Israel during the reign of Herod the great. He may have heard about the massacre of the Holy Innocents. He may have lived in or near the area where the massacre occurred.When the leader of a country orders infants to be killed, the people talk about and remember such an event. Even the children would have heard about it.Matthew would have remembered this event and it would have made a strong impression on him, a child hearing about the mass murder of children.

korrill wrote:
The narrative itself does not imply about Jesus's supposed status as the messiah seeing as how the "prophecy" used by Matthew was not generally viewed as such by the Jews - only by christians.

Matthew audience are Jews convert to christianity. It happened in Judea, where Matthew grew up. It happened during Matthew's lifetime. It happened in Judea, where Matthew's intended audience lived. Matthew remembered what it was like to live during that time period, during Herod's reign. Matthew had a strong memory of children being killed by Herod, when Herod tried to kill the Christ-Child. And he knew that others in his intended audience also remembered. How could he not write about it?

korrill wrote:
Also, the massacre of the innocents was not perpetrated by Romans. Herod I was a Jew. And if Josephus had the mindset of not wanting to show anyone in a bad light, it does not make sense that he would omit mentioning Herod ordering the death of Jewish children yet recording Herod's murder of his own children, his wife, and the attempted massacre of prominent Jewish citizens.

I have read the post above from Shad written by Josephus

”Nevertheless, there is corroboration in that Herod the Great is known to have planned an even greater massacre, one that was averted by providence and grace.When Herod realized that he was dying, and all attempts to be healed by physicians from far and wide failed, he decided upon a plan. (This is described in detail by Flavious Josephus.)”

and also Herod the great captured Jerusalem for the Romans . Not long before his own death, Herod put to death about forty Jews who studied at the Temple.

“The story of the holy innocents implies that Jesus is the Messiah, something that most of the Jews of Josephus' time did not accept. The same story also reflects badly on the Romans, and so would not have been acceptable to Josephus' audience. “

korrill wrote:
Corroboration is synonymous with proof. That is simply evidence that supports a testimony. An example would be if a person testified that Mr. X's car was the one that hit a pedestrian who had a plaid jacket. Corroborating evidence would be Mr. X's car having a dent, blood traces, and plaid fibers consistent with that worn by the victim.

But simply saying Mr. X hit the man because Mr. X drives fast does not prove the Mr. X was even in the vicinity of the accident.

corroboration means to strengthen , support:

The story of the holy innocents is corroborated by the fact that the early Christians(many of whom were Jews who converted) who read Matthew's account were old enough to have lived through that time. Matthew said that this event was the fulfillment of an OT prophecy. If the story were not true, it would not have been accepted by the faithful, since many of them lived at that time, in that place. No one could tell a story about an horrific event that occurred within the lifetime of his listeners AND say that it was a fulfillment of a prophecy in their religion, IF the story was untrue.The listeners would know better, and they would not accept the story. But this story was accepted the Matthew's audience, and that fact is corroboration

proof - evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true:

The Bible is the infallible Word of God so no proof is needed.

Faith believes in truths that are not proven, even in truths that are beyond the ability of reason to completely comprehend.

I think I've given sufficient explanation and reply to this particular topic.

Yidda wrote:Take note ancient city , not a modern day town or cities today. The ancient and modern cities are in about the same location. However,the modern city today is very much larger than the ancient town. The verse in Luke is read incorrectly as implying that the city was built ON the brow of the hill, when it is actually saying that it was built on the hill, and the brow is part of the hill also.

I understand perfectly. And that's what I'm looking for - a city built on a hill with a brow.

The bible describes Nazareth as being built on a hill - one that had a brow (cliff) wherein they could throw someone off. It was not merely built in an elevated area. If you actually read the wikipedia link posted earlier:

Historic Nazareth was essentially constructed in the valley; the windy hilltops in the vicinity have only been occupied since the construction of Nazareth Illit in 1957.

So, where is the biblical city of Nazareth?

Yidda wrote:The Birth of Jesus Christ, the massacre of the Holy Innocents, and the eventual death of Herod the great, all occurred during Matthew's lifetime. Matthew could have been anywhere from a young child to a teenager, when Jesus was born. Matthew remembered living in Israel during the reign of Herod the great. He may have heard about the massacre of the Holy Innocents. He may have lived in or near the area where the massacre occurred.When the leader of a country orders infants to be killed, the people talk about and remember such an event. Even the children would have heard about it.Matthew would have remembered this event and it would have made a strong impression on him, a child hearing about the mass murder of children.

The argument you are presenting is nice, but as it is, your post still does not answer the question I posted: Why would Josephus write extensively of Herod's life and acts of brutality yet leave this one out?

Yidda wrote:Matthew audience are Jews convert to christianity. It happened in Judea, where Matthew grew up. It happened during Matthew's lifetime. It happened in Judea, where Matthew's intended audience lived. Matthew remembered what it was like to live during that time period, during Herod's reign. Matthew had a strong memory of children being killed by Herod, when Herod tried to kill the Christ-Child. And he knew that others in his intended audience also remembered. How could he not write about it?

The so called "prophecy" in Matthew was not seen as a prophecy by Jews. To them, it was a narrative. It was, afterall, referring to the Jewish captivity in Babylon.

Jeremiah 31:

15 This is what the LORD says:
"A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because her children are no more."

16 This is what the LORD says:
"Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,"
declares the LORD.
"They will return from the land of the enemy.

17 So there is hope for your future,"
declares the LORD.
"Your children will return to their own land.

Tell me, were the Jews away from their lands when it happened?

Yidda wrote:
I have read the post above from Shad written by Josephus

”Nevertheless, there is corroboration in that Herod the Great is known to have planned an even greater massacre, one that was averted by providence and grace.When Herod realized that he was dying, and all attempts to be healed by physicians from far and wide failed, he decided upon a plan. (This is described in detail by Flavious Josephus.)”

and also Herod the great captured Jerusalem for the Romans . Not long before his own death, Herod put to death about forty Jews who studied at the Temple.

“The story of the holy innocents implies that Jesus is the Messiah, something that most of the Jews of Josephus' time did not accept. The same story also reflects badly on the Romans, and so would not have been acceptable to Josephus' audience. “

First: character is not proof of guilt.

A man killing before does not prove that he killed again. In the same manner, Herod killing his wife does not prove that he had Jewish children massacred.

Corroborative accounts is what matters.

Second: Herod was a client king. He had no control over Roman soldiers. All he did was pay a tribute to Rome. Judea was not occupied and directly governed by the Romans until after the time of Herod Archelaus.

Third: As was mentioned, the passage of Jeremiah 31:15 was not seen as a prophecy for the messiah by Jews. Also, Josephus had no aversion to writing about so called "messiahs" who were more in line with the Jewish concept of what the messiah would be such as Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Menahem ben Judah, & Vespasian.

Yidda wrote:corroboration means to strengthen , support:

The story of the holy innocents is corroborated by the fact that the early Christians(many of whom were Jews who converted) who read Matthew's account were old enough to have lived through that time. Matthew said that this event was the fulfillment of an OT prophecy. If the story were not true, it would not have been accepted by the faithful, since many of them lived at that time, in that place. No one could tell a story about an horrific event that occurred within the lifetime of his listeners AND say that it was a fulfillment of a prophecy in their religion, IF the story was untrue.The listeners would know better, and they would not accept the story. But this story was accepted the Matthew's audience, and that fact is corroboration

First: corroboration means to strengthen or support. True. But such support tend to be based on facts, not assumptions based on character or any other reason. Hence, the example I gave.

Another form would be if one witness said that Mr. X killed a man and three other impartial witnesses came forth and said the same thing in virtually the same manner.

Second: That's assuming that they actually read it or that it (narrative) was even known to them.

Of if the gospel of Matthew was even existent or available to them. Or even if this narrative was told to people as a means of converting them.

The bible does not present apostles using such a narrative in their preachings, after all.

Which is why corroborative documentation is important in this matter.

Yidda wrote:proof - evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true:

The Bible is the infallible Word of God so no proof is needed.

Faith believes in truths that are not proven, even in truths that are beyond the ability of reason to completely comprehend.

Forgive me then, but blind faith has never appealed to me.

I prefer to know the truth especially in matters such as historicity where truth can be positively established.

Yidda wrote:I think I've given sufficient explanation and reply to this particular topic.

You've given explanations. But it hardly counts as sufficient or even remotely close to proving the biblical accounts I questioned were true.

Posters:

Please guided too on the thread starter wants. This thread is not made for that single subject.

What makes a person a Christian? How do you become one?

Baptism and faith in Jesus Christ.

Why do Christians place such an emphasis on JESUS CHRIST? Wasn't he just one of many great religious leaders

Humanity has many sins and failings, which have caused great harm to the world. God decided to save us from our sins in the most loving and intimate way possible, by becoming one of us. Jesus is God made man, to be our Savior.

How can Christianity claim that JESUS is the only way to GOD? That seems very exclusive and arrogant.

Very many persons are saved without knowing Jesus explicitly, but they are saved by Him implicitly, because He is God. It is not arrogant for God made man to be the way for man to reach God.

The Christian faith seems very dependent on the Bible, but hasn't scripture been altered over the years? How do we know what it originally said?

God protects the truths of Scripture, so that despite many translations and edits, the truths of salvation are not lost, or altered.

Why are there so many branches of Christianity? Which one is right?
Haven't Christians been responsible for a lot of violence and hatred throughout history?

All Christians on earth are sinners. Sin is the reason that Christianity has split into many branches, and sin is the reason that Christians have committed acts of violence and hatred and other sins. The Catholic Church is the Rock of salvation, established by Christ. The other Christians groups have gone somewhat astray because of sin.

Doesn't becoming a Christian mean adopting a bunch of rules that limit a person's freedom (and fun)?

True freedom means doing good and avoiding evil. Some of the acts that might seem fun in this life lead to Hell. However, good persons can have fun and enjoy life while still following Christ.

How does Christianity account for all the suffering and evil in the world?

Sin.

According to Christianity, what happens to a person after death? Do all non-christians automatically go to HELL?

Very many non-Christians are saved by Christ, even if they did not explicitly accept him in life. By living a life of love of neighbor, they implicitly accepted Christ and were saved by Him.

It seems that Christians believe you can accept Jesus, then be evil, and still go to heaven.

No. Many Christians die and are sent to Hell, because they lived a life of hatred or harm to their neighbor