?

Matthew informs us that Jesus is a direct decendent of David, therefore not devine.

Luke tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin, the Son of God; therefore devine.

We are told that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, year of death 4bc.

We are also told that he was born in Bethlehem because of a census called by Caesar Augustus through the Roman Governor Quinarius. He took over Judea in 5/6ad.

Also in a Roman census people were registered at their place of residence, not their place of birth.

These are just the tip of the iceberg.

I answered a question on a person's religious dilemma in good faith, quoting historical fact; nothing nasty or degrading, just historical fact. My answer has been struck off and I'm deducted ten points. If this is the medium of free speech, and history is deemed not relevent to Christianity, then I have no choice but to answer no more questions.

Any others had the same problem?

Why is it that when someone says they have seen Christ's Stigmata, they usually refer to holes in the palm of the hand, and into the feet presumably where the nails were supposed to be hammered in. How can this be, when in fact during crucifixion the nails are inserted into the wrist. If the nails were hammered into the palm the flesh would not carry the weight and the whole hand would tear free. As to the feet, they were normally placed each side of the upright and nailed through the ankle.

Why is it that those who are against the State of Israel, and those who denigrate Jews are labelled Anti Semitic, surely it should be Anti Zionist. Many inhabitants of the Middle East are Semitic, including a large number of Palestinians and a majority of Arabs.

The world population is soaring out of control, and food production is struggling to keep pace. We are getting better at curing disease, and are increasing longevity, while at the same time destroying the balance between humans and nature. Is there a long term solution or are we closing in on human meltdown.

Why is it that when historical facts that contradict the bible's version of events are given in an answer, that post invariably gets, either many negative scores, or the adherents to that faith are conspicuous by their absence, or their refusal to accept the given historical fact and still quote scripture.

As Wikipedia is a site that anyone can post a supposed fact on, can the information be trusted? There have been many instances where information has been proven incorrect. Opinions please.

Genesis 1; Male and female are created equally and together.

Genesis 3; The female is created after the male and from part of his body.

As it is generally accepted that the second creation myth is the one pertaining to Eve, is it possible that the first is referring to a different woman, namely Lilith whose name appears in the Apocrypha as possibly Adam's first consort?

This is the name often referred to, but as there is no historical evidence that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus - The Romans were very thorough in documenting even the smallest hamlet, and Nazareth does not appear on and Roman documentation at that time - where does the name come from? He is sometimes referred to as Jesus the Nazarene, this is interesting as the Nazarenes were a Jewish sect: Moses was a Nazarene as was Samson, plus many others. Could the two names be linked? Was the man Joshua, known to us by the Greek translation of his name, Jesus, actually of the Nazarene Sect; ie The Essenes of Qumran?

As faith schools by their nature promote a particular point of religious view, and religious education in state schools is not unbiased, is it not time that religion be taught in the home and in places of worship rather than school. Should schools that are state funded be non religious institutions.

If Celtic were accepted into the English Premier League how do you think they would fare with the current squad? Honest sensible answers please.

Why did the copilers of Genesis change the names of Abram to Abraham, and that of his his wife from Sari to Sarah, without any explanation? Was it to make them more acceptable to their audience, given the fact that the original names were more asiatic in nature.

Secondly we are not given any explanation as to why Abraham passed his wife of as his sister . Could the fact that in order to ascend the throne of Egypt one had to marry one's sister, as the legitimacy of inheritance passed through the female line. Interesting in that the percieved timescale of this event coincides with the annexation of Lower Egypt by the Hyksos, those who originated from a similar region as Abraham. Is it possible that the original Abraham a prince of the Hyksos?