Originally posted by abelievingskeptic
But to say they all have “spiritual significance” seems a bit of a stretch to me. Also, if these coincidences were of some significance I would
think they would be preached more during church and known more widely.
Churches don't preach a lot of things that should be preached. Fortunately, I attended a church that focused much on apologetics, the study of
evidence concerning Christianity. The symbolism of things in the Bible being one of them. Many churches also ignore prophecy, the Second coming,
apologetics, and many other things that should help people know why they believe. Instead, modern sermons simply consist of telling people what to
believe and not why to believe.
If you are talking about the Jews prophesizing the Messiah....aren’t they still waiting?
Yes they are. But see: The Messianic Prophecies
. The main reason the Jews of
Jesus' day rejected Jesus is because the Messianic prophecies told of two comings: One a suffering servant and another one of glory and authority.
They were expecting a glorious king the first time around who would overthrow the Romans- not be killed by the Romans. Christians believe the first
time it was supposed to be as a suffering servant (this happened) and at the Second Coming is when He will fulfill the "king" prophecies. We get
this because this is how it is explained in the New Testament. But it is prophesied that the Jews will accept Jesus as the true Messiah so God has not
"given up on them" like many Christians like to claim.
Like you said “No one has ever seen God.” So to say he LITERALLY has arms and legs and a mouth comes off as a little naïve. It seems
because you do not know what ‘God’ looks like you are quick to put an image on ‘him’ and personify the whole idea.
We can logically deduce this, though, with the Heavenly descriptions of Jesus after His resurrection and ascension. Not to mention His transfiguration
when He shows the apostles His "glorious form."
now here’s something we agree on...except for the ‘he’ part...lol
No, we can agree on that, too. I don't necessarily think that God is a "He," either. Not that He is androgynous or hermaphroditic but that "He"
has both masculine and feminine traits of protector and nurturer, disciplinarian and mercy, strength and gentleness, etc.
can you source this info? I did a quick wikipedia search and couldn’t find it.
Here is a really even exploration of Mitochondrial Eve: CLICK HERE
. The author admits
what I said: It doesn't prove
the Biblical account but it doesn't conflict with it either.
This is completely irrelevant. Law or no law, incest is one of those things that seems to be wrong at a deeper level, at least in my
See, not really. In our time, it makes us want to puke and rightfully so. But look at some societies in the world today where boys and girls are
getting married at the ages or 10 or 12. It's shocking to us because our society says it is shocking. For societies that marry older, our "adult"
age of 18 is shocking for them. So many things of this nature are a cultural thing (and yes, I know ages of adulthood have little in common with
incest). I'm trying to make the point that cultures differ. Again, the genetic defects had still not surfaced from this and incest wasn't taboo or
vomit-inducing like it is for us today.
Only speculation. This is where your faith takes over your rational. I would recommend taking a second look at this part of your beliefs, and
maybe looking at it a little more objectively.
Again, not really. Secular modern science has proven the law of degeneration both through physics and genetic biology. It has proven this
"dimension" is in a constant state of entropy and when you have two genes from the parents, almost certainly the superior recessive gene is canceled
out for the inferior dominant gene. So, this matches what we are told in the Bible. I assure you, I have taken all of this into consideration
rationally. If this was irrational to my very logical mind, I would not be a Christian today. I researched everything intensely before it became part
of my "belief database." Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for many Christians.
And he is looked at as the head of ALL of Christianity. Why? Because there are more Catholics than any other form of Christianity. And... it was
the first form of Christianity. I believe Paul was the first Pope in like 40 ad?..or something?
No! lol Another common misconception. Contrary to what Catholics like to claim, they were not the "first" but have declared themselves to be "the
first" and claim Peter (not Paul) as the first "pope" even though the office did not even exist at his time. Their church became dominant because
Constantine declared it dominant. However, the "Jesus movement" and Christianity was well under way before a government-sanctioned official church
was created. All Christians, unfortunately, were forced to join this "church system." Look through history- there were still many Christians who
refused to be a part of their corruption. Sadly, many were even killed because they refused to assimilate into the man made system.
Can you give one shred of archaeological evidence that Abraham existed the way the Bible says he did? Seems kind of odd there is none for
someone so important in the Judaic/Christian religion.
Well, some claim
the bones in Israel are his, as well as the other patriarchs and matriarchs. I remain skeptical but there is actually a "tomb
of the patriarchs" in Jerusalem and it is a major tourist attraction. But I remain skeptical until they allow us to examine the bodies with science
to examine their DNA and carbon dating. See: The cave of the Patriarchs in Israel
There is an interesting movie you should watch...
What movie? And please don't tell me Zeitgeist (just assuming). It has been thoroughly debunked. lol
Wow. And this makes a difference how? In my opinion it is ludicrous to insinuate it is completely ok to just dismantle a society where
millions of people and many generations have lived and grown together and just hand it over to someone else.
But you see, that is not how it went. The Balfour declaration mandated that both Palestinians and
Jews live in the land. Not that the
to leave. As to what changed and why, I do not know. But that is not how it originally occurred.
First. The Indians were systematically slaughtered. And I disagree with the way the whole conquering of America happened...
That is exactly what I'm trying to tell you. lol The way America came about was far more terrible and filled with many more atrocities than Israel's
rebirth. So, if Israel has to go, we should too because "we" (as in our ancestor) went about it far more terribly.
Wait. I thought we we’re ALL descendants of Noah?
We are. From Ham (the Hammites), Japeth (Japhethites), and Shem (Semites). Genesis 10 explains the "table of nations" and where these
"forefathers" settled. Semites are only one group.