responding to common objections to bible part 6 final.

[total relism]

Finishing a series responding to the most common objections to Christianity.


How could a loving god send people to Hell?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ell&highlight=

What about those who die without ever hearing about Jesus?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...sus&highlight=

does the bible allow slavery?-why is there death and suffering if god is all loving?/the reason for the gospel-does the bible command rape? was rape allowed?-why does god not show himself today?-has the bible been translated accurately?.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ble&highlight=


Did Jesus claim to be divine?does the bible teach he was god?did man or the councils create Jesus's divinity after he died?-conquest of Canaan, did god order genocide? did god order the killings of entire towns? did god order the killings of woman and children?did god order the death of innocent life?. What was the reason for judgment on the Canaanites?- Did god harden Pharaoh heart? only to punish him for it?.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t-4&highlight=


Sins of the fathers punish the children? are children or later generations punished for the sins of the fathers?-OT death penalty laws-What about the crusades,witch trials,inquisitions and other “crimes” of Christians throughout history-God sent plagues,even ones that killed babies such as the ten plagues of Egypt.How could a loving god do that.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t-5&highlight=





15] Did god create evil? Isiah 45.7

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

some point to this passage to claim god created evil.



King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”


However the proper translation should be calamity, not evil. There are 7 ways to translate the word for evil, i believe the king james is only that translates this way.

calamity, mistranslated,with flow of chapter,calamity 7 ways to translate original word.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...45&version=NIV



The word#ra'#is used throughout the Old Testament with several meanings. It is used many times to mean something morally evil or hurtful (Job 35:12, 1 Sam 30:22, etc.) but it is also used to mean an unpleasant experience (Gen 47:9 and Prov. 15:10). It is used to describe fierce beasts (Lev. 26:6), and even spoiled or inferior fruit (Jer 24:3). Certainly, the figs that Jeremiah was looking at were not evil in the sense of morally reprobate!
In Isaiah 45, the word evil is used in a contrast to the peace and well-being discussed before it. I quote John Haley:
http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi025.asp



#"calamity." Contextually, this verse is dealing with natural disasters and human comfort issues. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc.#
Also, take note that Isaiah is presenting contrasts. He speaks of "light" and "darkness," "well being" and "calamity."# The word "well-being" in the Hebrew is the word for 'peace,' "Shalome."# So, in the context, we are seeing two sets of opposites: Light and dark, peace and non-peace, or well being and calamity. The "evil" that is spoken of is not ontological evil, but the evil experienced by people in the form of calamity.
http://carm.org/does-god-create-evil


The context of Isaiah 45: 7makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context ofIsaiah 45:7is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,”Isaiah 45:7is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Isaiah-45-7.html





"Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no evil dwells with Thee (Psalm 5:4)

"The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His deeds." (Psalm 145:17)

for more read here
#4 https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ble&highlight=

16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There are many claims from many parts of the bible saying it copied or stole or took its info from other religions and changed it to create their own. Generally the only people who claim these anymore are Muslims [ I suggest watching debates with william lane craig and Muslims on topic] and atheist internet websites and documentaries. 90% of the time all you have to do is go to the original read it,you will see there is no connection as claimed. Also check the time, often the supposed similar figure or story, really comes after the bible account,many times as a response or copied from the bible. Than there are just the embarrassing claims of some like many figures were born on december 25th and jesus copied it as birth date. Just let them know jesus was not born december 25 and did not even use our calendar but a jewish calender with no dec, he was born around our sep time. Alot of this will be references with originals for any interested.





Creation account


facts to ignore


simply read them both much different than what brenus claims [he has never read them]

segments of Samaritan

Apsu, the freshwater ocean male deity, mates with Ti’amat, the saltwater ocean goddess, yielding offspring which are a host of lesser deities representing various aspects of nature. However, Apsu becomes irritated with their noise and resolves to destroy them, but he fails, and is killed by Ea the god of wisdom (l.68–69). Ea in turn fathers the god Marduk (figure 4). Ti’amat becomes enraged, and gives birth to a host of dragons to fight Marduk; but Marduk, not intimidated by Ti’amat’s threats, gathers the other gods together in a great banquet, and they resolve on war with Ti’amat, with Marduk as their representative. So a great war erupts, from which Marduk emerges victorious by killing Ti’amat. He first splits Ti’amat’s skull open with his mace, and then splits her whole body. The upper half he makes into the sky; the lower half into the earth. From this chaos comes order: the sun, moon, and stars appear, and the calendar is formed. Finally, there is Qingu, Ti’amat’s general. Marduk speaks to Ea of his desire to make man, who will wait on the gods so that the latter can rest. Marduk addresses both the Igigi (sky gods) and the Anunnaki (underworld gods), and the Igigi reply that since Qingu started the war, he should therefore pay the penalty. Marduk slays Qingu, takes his blood and some earth, and makes man. Then the Anunnaki toil to create Babylon, and the Esagila, one of the prime temples in Babylon. Finally, Tablet VII relates the fifty names of Marduk in order to exalt the patron deity of Babylon:With fifty epithets the great godsCalled his fifty names, making his way supreme


now read Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV


The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, [B]thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous.


-why would jews adopt views of their enemy, when there own history/culture says it wrong? multiple gods etc
-it starts with the assumption, there is no biblical god that could revel his truth of creation to moses and earlier jews [adam,noah abraham etc] so then who even cares, if we start with assumption of no god, than if the jews copied or not does not matter as genesis would not be divinely inspired, the very question at hand.

-the further back to creation you go the more the similarities in creation accounts.Writings from 2600 b c 1,000 years before moses
biblical creation account must have been derived before older and different sources than Sumerians
halloww 1970 antediluvian cities journal of cuneiform studies 23,65,66


- Samaritan copy of jewish Pentateuch is written in ancient form of Hebrew that proceeds exile in 6th century.
-most ancient copy contains over 2,000 corruptions from original jewish manuscript, very unlikely to make copy soon after return.
-unlikely Samaritans would make a copy of Jewish writings at all, hostile between the two.
- Marduk is a fashioner, not a true creator


-The final overall point concerns the chronological setting of what we might call “origins literature” in the Ancient Near East. K.A. Kitchen argues that this is clearly the early 2nd millennium BC, as opposed to later periods of Near Eastern history.He then concludes:

“In short, the idea that the Hebrews in captivity in Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon (6th century BC) first ‘borrowed’ the content of early Genesis at that late date is a non-starter.”
the early second millennium BC (and earlier) is the period for Mesopotamian—and Hebrew—‘origins literature’, and not later.


Battle elements. Genesis does not envision creation as a war of the gods.
Pantheistic elements. Genesis does not talk about natural elements as gods.
Creative activity as sexual activity. Genesis does not describe God’s creation in this way.
Poetic language. Genesis does not have “synonymous parallelism” (restating the same idea in two ways) in every description.
Reference to time. Genesis speaks of creation “in the beginning” and “days,” contrary to myths, which speak more about seasons.

Leroy Waterman, “Cosmogonic Affinities in Genesis 1:2,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43, no. 3 (April 1, 1927): 181. Waterman argues that Genesis is unique in that it depersonalizes all the forces of nature. An easy-to-read reference is John Oswalt’s The Bible among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).
Jakob H. Gronbaek, “Baal’s Battle with Yam-A Canaanite Creation Fight,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 27–44.


-The first observation is that this is a political document, setting forth why Babylon is the pre-eminent city in the world with its pre-eminent deity, Marduk, as opposed to Anu or Ea or whoever. As such it constituted part of ritual for the Akitu new-year festival which re-confirmed the kingship for the coming year. Genesis 1 has no such function, and assertions to the contrary—commonly alleged by critical or secular scholars—are merely circular reasoning.

-Fourth, Enuma Elish has no six-days-plus-one format. The seven tablets of the epic are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with days (or long periods either, for that matter). In this respect (among many others) Genesis 1 stands alone and unique in the ancient world.

-Second, it is a theogony rather than a cosmogony, that is, its basic intent is to explain the origin of gods rather than the origin of the universe, where the latter is more of an afterthought. Thus the major part of Tablets I–V relate the generation of gods and their fierce battles, with a small section at the end of Tablet IV (figure 2) about the creation of the cosmos. The main part of “creation” story occurs in Tablet VI, relating the origin of man and the establishment of the various temples. In fact, Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University argues that the original story was not a creation story at all—that element was incorporated later.
Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford, pp.233–77, 1988.



assuming genesis was written after [ i dont believe so].
Maybe it was done so to correct the false teachings of other nations, to show the correct account.




Great article answering those that say genesis was influenced by other local creation accounts.

The influence of the ancient near east on the book of genesis
bible and spade 23.4 [2010] 95-99


The contrast between Ancient Near Eastern myths and Scripture leaves us with no doubts.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...is-myth-buster


is Genesis 1 Just Reworked Babylonian Myth?
http://creation.com/is-genesis-1-jus...abylonian-myth


creation account from Babylonian myth?
Joc 27 2013 p 99-104 is genesis just reworked Babylonian myth?
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-272
Compares text in whole in context genesis creation has no comparison at all when read in fullyshows the many and vast differences between the two text.




Solomon proverbs stolen from Egyptian proverbs?.
JOC 2012 p 50-56

Was Christianity plagiarized from pagan myths?Refuting the copycat thesis
http://creation.com/was-christianity...om-pagan-myths
Was the story of Jesus stolen from pagan savior figures?
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/pagint.html

The Virginal Conception of Christ Alleged pagan derivation.
http://creation.com/the-virginal-conception-of-christ

Misconceptions in popular media[edit source#|#editbeta]
The documentary movie#Religulous#(2008), the internet movie#Zeitgeist#(2007) and the book#The Christ Conspiracy#claim that Horus was born of a virgin. Egyptian texts demonstrate that Horus’ mother was the goddess#Isis, and not a human virgin. Horus was conceived when Isis resurrected the dismembered god#Osiris#and had intercourse with him, which precludes the idea of virginity, and certainly#parthenogenesis. However, Isis' intercourse with Osiris did not involve the use of Osiris' lost phallus, but, rather, the golden phallus Isis had fashioned. This standing, it may be said that Horus was divinely conceived of a female whom had not had intercourse with a male's organic phallus. So being, the term 'virgin' is debatable in reference to Isis, but Horus' birth by divine intervention (the golden phallus) through a female whom had not had intercourse with a male's organic phallus is not as debatable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus


robert van voorst on bible/pagan comparisons
“contemporary NT scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes or often ignore them completely”.

Any debate with scholars will fast show comparisons arose after jesus as response, or have nothing to offer from original sources.

virgin birth
ABR 26.2 2013 p45

virgin birth pagan vs christian
roman god mithras- sprang fully grown equipped with dagger and tourch from a rock
egytian god horus- clear conseption from sexual union of parents isis and osiris

crucifixion- no mention of a cross or Crucifixion.
p 45-46
Krishna- mortally wounded by hunter
osiris – drowned in nile river
adonis- gored by wild boar
attis- died under a tree after emasculating himself.
Mithras- never dies.

Resurrection
Mithru- never actually died
adonis- remains dead
osiris -never reapers in the land of the living “remains forever connected with the underworld as the lord of the dead”


historian of religion Jonathan z smith on dying and rising gods

“misnomer” “all the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising dutie can be subsumed under two large classes of diapering deities or dying deities. In the first case the deity returns but have not died, the second the gods die but do not return,there is no unambiguous instance in the history or religions of dying and rising deity.
2005 dying and rising gods encyclopedia of religion 2nd edition

baptism
mithras cult- no evidence existed before 2nd century AD, not like baptism bull/blood walk through etc.


Jesus fully in line and taken from old testament of the bible. Fully understood within historic Jewish understanding.


ABR
Flood from Gilgamesh?
Gilgamesh was independent written from genesis account,a account found from area that predates Babylonian legend that agree s and confirms genesis including monotheism.


Were Bible stories and characters stolen from pagan myths?

http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html
8) Alleged pagan derivation

A common objection to the Virginal Conception is that there are supposed parallels in pagan mythology, e.g. the Medusa-slayer Perseus, born of the woman Danaë and sired by Zeus, the chief of the Greek pantheon. Zeus also fathered Herakles from Alkmene and Dionysus from Semele.39 Opponents of Christianity from Trypho and Celsus,44 who was refuted by Origen’s Contra Celsum (Against Celsus), till the present, have used this objection, but it has many flaws:
This objection commits the genetic fallacy, the error of trying to disprove a belief by tracing it to its source. For example, Kekulé thought up the (correct) ring structure of the benzene molecule after a dream of a snake grasping its tail; chemists don’t need to worry about correct snake behaviour to analyse benzene! Similarly, the truth or falsity of Christianity is independent of the truth or falsity of its alleged parallels.
Who derived from whom? Many of the legends like Mithra come after Christianity and were a reaction to it.
The so-called parallels are not parallels at all! Perseus was not really virginally conceived at all, but was the result of sexual intercourse between the lecherous god Zeus and Danaë. Zeus had previously turned himself into a shower of gold to reach the imprisoned damsel. Zeus also fathered Herakles from Alkmene and Dionysus from Semele. Similarly for attempt to assert that the Resurrection of Christ was plagiarised—the death-rebirth-death cycles in paganism have nothing to do with the once and for all resurrection of Jesus, and the pagan gods didn’t die for our sins. And the Osiris legends have him remaining buried in the ground, while it’s a historical fact that Jesus’ tomb was found empty. Other alleged parallels are just as worthless, so it is pointless for sceptical scholars to multiply examples—zero times a hundred is still zero.
Christ was a historical figure written about by people who knew him—quite different from the mythological parallels.
The earliest Christians were Jews who abhorred paganism (see Acts 14), so would be the last people to derive Christianity from paganism.
The existence of counterfeits does not disprove the real thing. No-one claims that real money can’t exist because there is counterfeit money. In fact, it is only valuable things that are counterfeited— who would want to counterfeit something worthless—so the existence of counterfeits is indirect evidence of the real thing. Of course, Satan wants to counterfeit the Word of God. We should know the real thing (God’s Word, and money too although far less important) so well that we can readily discern counterfeits.
Many of these points are covered in more detail in the article ‘Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?’ by the scholar Dr Ronald Nash.

17] Was Jesus a real human that lived in time-space?.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

no historian would claim that the most influancial person to ever live [jesus] never really lived. He is written about from many sources,christian,roman,Jewish etc enemies and those that loved him, there is more info on jesus than any ancient figure to live. Those that claim otherwise do not do so as historians,but because there worldview demands he be made up. As Liberal atheist scholar Bart D. Ehrman says, if you reject jesus what makes you think Abraham Lincoln was a real person?.




Jesus of the bible/historical.
The bible provides the earliest writings of who Jesus was, based on multiple people who were around and closest to him and his life.First why is the bible [even liberal scholars date to within the life time of the apostles and authors] not count as accurate description of his life and who he was?. What evidence [not based on your worldview or biases] can you offer to reject its writings as recording what jesus did and said?. Why would the apostles all be willing to be killed/tortured/beheaded/crusifed upside down etc for someone that they invented? people will die for what they think is true, but not for what they know not to be and a lie. With not one denying jesus as lord while facing death, none said wait guys we took this to far?.

But if you want to deny historical writings about a person from multiple sources, some friend some enemy some unbiased. That what makes you think Julius Cesar was real? or Abraham linclon as bart erman asks?. Why is the most written about most influential to all history person [jesus] not real? you have#unjustified radical unsupported#beliefs#to reject him as a historical person.


some of the references to Jesus outside the bible
For example, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born A.D. 37) made reference to "Jesus, the so-called Christ."

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (born A.D. 52) wrote of "Christus," who was "put to death by Pontius Pilate."

Pliny the Younger (A.D. 112) spoke of the "troublesome sect of Christians."

Suetonius (A.D. 120) spoke of disturbances over "Chrestus" (Christ).

All in all, the "external evidence" for the reliability of the Bible is overwhelming.

#Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and references in the Talmud and other Jewish writings.#Encyclopædia Britannica#sums up the force of the data:

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th#centuries.”

The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant,#The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557)

The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus,#Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.

In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:
"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do."

Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,
“Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death”
Luke Timothy Johnson,#The Real Jesus#(San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.


At the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the Gospels seriously as a source of information on the life and teaching of Jesus.... Indeed many ancient historians would count themselves fortunate to have four such responsible accounts [as the Gospels], written within a generation or two of the events, and preserved in such a wealth of early manuscript evidence. Beyond that point, the decision to accept the record they offer is likely to be influenced more by openness to a supernaturalist world view than by strictly historical considerations

R. T. France, "The Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus, the Founder of Christianity,"#Truth#1 (1985): 86.

liberal atheist scholar (Bart Ehrman admits that no serious scholar believes the person Jesus was not a real person.
Prof. Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDS0Br68OfM


resurrection of jesus
One major difficulty for non-Christian scholars has been to explain what happened to Christ’s body, as a plausible alternative to the Resurrection. Christ’s enemies would not want to steal it, since that would promote the resurrection stories they wanted to quash—and they would have quashed them by simply producing the body. The disciples had no motive to confront a heavily armed Roman cohort and steal the body to promote Resurrection stories. The disciples were tortured and killed, and no-one would die for what he knows is a lie. However, one of the earliest arguments against the Resurrection was the story the Roman soldiers were bribed to say: “His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13). This is absurd: how could they know what happened if they were asleep? Also, any Roman soldier who slept on duty was executed
Paul’s statement of the gospel in#1 Cor. 15#cites an ancient tradition dating back to only a few years after the event. Mark’s account of the empty tomb reflects the Aramaic, pointing to a very early source. Dr William Lane Craig gives much evidence for the reliability of the burial and empty tomb accounts
Craig, W.,#Apologetics: An Introduction, Moody, Chicago, USA, Ch. 5.2, 1984, and lists at least 30 prominent scholars who agree

History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)


I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock#
Professor of Classics#
Auckland University

Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,
“Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death”
Luke Timothy Johnson,#The Real Jesus#(San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.


#"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.”#
atheist scholar #Bart Ehrman

#Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann declares that “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”#

John Dominic Crossan, of the notoriously liberal Jesus Seminar, says that there is not the “slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.” According to Crossan, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”#


who was the real jesus?/worldview.
Albert Schweitzer said scholars failed to reach the historical jesus because they read their own ideas into the sources.
Bible and spade p 33 26.2 2013

“unmistakable resemblance between their portrayal of the religion of jesus and their own personal religious stance” and “they found just about what they were looking for”
Carl braaten Liberal professor at Lutheran school of theology in Chicago history and hermeneutics 1966


“It becomes alarmingly and terrifying evident how inevitably each author brought the spirit of his own age into the presentation of the figure of jesus”
leading NT critical scholar Gunter Bornkamm U of Heidelberg Jesus of Nazareth 1960.



William Lane Craig vs. Reza Aslan on the Historical Jesus
Claims
born in Bethlehem
only child-brothers,yes shows bible is accurate in nt.
12 disciples ,but many more. Yes true,no error in nt. There was a group called “the 12”.
trial before pilot-watch video
Jesus buried in tomb-watch video
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2013...=Yahoo%21+Mail

18] woman in bible


CCC 370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Given this history, let's see how God approaches women in the Bible. The first person to see the resurrected Christ was a woman (John 20:15-18). The first European convert was a woman (Acts 16:14). The only followers of Jesus to stand with Him in his crucifixion were women. There were woman in the upper room and anointed with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 2:1-4). Jesus was born to an earthly mother, but not an earthly father(Matt. 1:18,etc.). Only a woman understood Christ's upcoming death (Mark 14:8). These actions show that women played a part as crucial to Christ's ministry as the men

In Galatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold a position of equal value and importance to men: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).
This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16.
So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
gen 1.27

Eve
she was created in the image of god 100%, created in the image and likeness of god gen 1 26-28 child birth was not punishment but gift,pain in childbirth was punishment#just as adam was punished. That eve was created second means nothing to importance, what is more important NT or OT?. When eve is called a helper, that word is only ever used of god in OT, this in no way means inferior to man, but godlike. God is not inferior to man neither is woman. Sutible helper means "like opposite him" a mirror image.


christian woman pastors from early second century, woman in church had bigger and more roles in church in first century than second, than died off as a response to Gnostic.
in#The Story of Christianity: Volume 1, Justo L. González


men the head of woman/above in charge
mark 10 42-44

read here for pauls letters
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm