Jesus Christ

Page 3 of 5 First 12345 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr View Post
    So he decided where he would be born and whom he would be a descendant of? Do you realize how many prophesies there were regarding his ancestry, birth, ministry, death burial and resurrection? If you did, I don't think you would really pose that argument.

    Besides, what would one have to gain even if this ruse was possible? No wealth, no women, torture and finally crucification.

    And what of His followers who Proclaimed to be eye witnesses of the resurrected Christ? What did they have to gain for lying? Every one of his disciples were martyred. A man might die for something he believes to be true but certainly not for something he knows to be a lie.
    firstly I think you need to understand that there is a lot to gain. Look at his legacy after death and those of his direct followers. I mean lets be serious

    Also, you need to understand the importance of pagan beliefs here. There are many ties from the origins of christianity (son of god and virgin birth) in other beliefs. It just makes you wonder


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Believers, on the other hand, mistakingly take the bible for a pretext which is without historicity, which is simply not the case.
    There are plenty of believers that fall outside of this generalization.

    Firstly, the bible has contradictions, both intra- and inter-'canonly'. Whether they are of any significance is a personal distinction I am not qualified to make for anybody, but they are there.
    Bahhh. These "contradictions" are mostly perspective and interpretation. I think it would be more appropriate to say "the Bible appears to have contradictions..."

    Secondly, the bible, despite its religious importance, is a historical text. This means that this book was written by real people, at a concrete place and time, with its own political, social, and economic agenda, which not more than likely, but most definitely, affected which canons became apocrypha.
    Well said.

    Thirdly, the Judaic intention of the Torah, was not to create a book which would be later used in conjunction with any religious text, let alone form the basis of a new religion. This is an accepted historic 'fact' (fact in quotations, because any aspect of knowledge which presents itself as 'fact' as it pertains to the operations of individuals is a load of bull****) by historians and theologians alike. Once again, whether an individual of faith chooses to accept this or not is of little importance to me.
    Generally and as I am sure you know, Believers accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. As a Believer, the Judaic intention of the Torah, though a ‘fact’ you say, is irrelevant compared to God’s intention.

    In my eyes, accepting the fact the bible is a historical document affected by historical factors does not diminish the veracity of your faith.
    Could not agree more…
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Fujitsu View Post
    There are plenty of believers that fall outside of this generalization.
    True, however, I think it not a stretch to subsume most under that authority. When the predominant vestige of Christianity falls under the moniker of 'papal authority', I do not feel it was an overstatement. I am not generalizing all Christian action upon Catholic lines, but, in my experience, the majority of believers believe in the universality of the bible


    Bahhh. These "contradictions" are mostly perspective and interpretation. I think it would be more appropriate to say "the Bible appears to have contradictions..."
    I take it you have some theological interest, and as such I do not feel I have to spell out the more real than perceived contradictions of the bible. A tangible disjunction, in my opinion, exists inter- and intra-canonly, in both New and Old Testament apocrypha. The contradictions are there, in plain English (ironic, as they would have been in plain Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc., ).


    Generally and as I am sure you know, Believers accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. As a Believer, the Judaic intention of the Torah, though a ‘fact’ you say, is irrelevant compared to God’s intention.
    I made a point to expose its illegitimacy as a true 'fact' as most would interpret it, and rather categorize it as an elucidation, for the time being. With that being said, your 'gods' intention is irrelevant to the fact real, living human beings transcribed, altered, and shared the bible of their own free-will. Whether or not you choose to accept such a fact is irrelevant as well.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    True, however, I think it not a stretch to subsume most under that authority. When the predominant vestige of Christianity falls under the moniker of 'papal authority', I do not feel it was an overstatement. I am not generalizing all Christian action upon Catholic lines, but, in my experience, the majority of believers believe in the universality of the bible
    Fair enough.

    I take it you have some theological interest, and as such I do not feel I have to spell out the more real than perceived contradictions of the bible. A tangible disjunction, in my opinion, exists inter- and intra-canonly, in both New and Old Testament apocrypha. The contradictions are there, in plain English (ironic, as they would have been in plain Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc., ).
    Hmmm. Well, just for fun, maybe you could direct me to your most juicy ‘more real than perceived’ contradiction. I know we could go round and round about this until the rapture (or lack of), but I can’t resist.



    I made a point to expose its illegitimacy as a true 'fact' as most would interpret it, and rather categorize it as an elucidation, for the time being.
    In my original quote, I kept ‘fact’ quoted to acknowledge your explanation of the use of the word fact. All I was saying is that even if Believers accept that Moses did not intend for the Torah to be the beginning of the Bible, it does not mean a Believer must accept that the NT and OT were not meant to be together (as Irish Cannon said).

    With that being said, your 'gods' intention is irrelevant to the fact real, living human beings transcribed, altered, and shared the bible of their own free-will. Whether or not you choose to accept such a fact is irrelevant as well.
    I think this brings us to our key difference in opinion. I think the Bible we have today is the Bible exactly how God wanted us to have it. Differences of interpretation are man’s doing, not God’s. Also, I think most Believers feel that how God used 'real, living human beings' to bring us from the Torah to the Bible of today is….. oh, yes one more time….. irrelevant!

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Fujitsu View Post
    Hmmm. Well, just for fun, maybe you could direct me to your most juicy ‘more real than perceived’ contradiction. I know we could go round and round about this until the rapture (or lack of), but I can’t resist.
    Genesis I and II disagree on the creation order.

    All the Apostles disagree on specific aspects of Jesus' live, including, though not limited to: his last moments and resurrection, and the amount of time he spent in Jerusalem (or is it Bethlahem? nevertheless, the point remains).

    Gospels disagree on the hierarchal order of Kings Jesus himself descended from.

    As well as many other discrepancies which invariably lead to a downward spiral of solipsism and circular logic between you and I. I.e., I claim that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have necessitated the 'fixing' of certain elements in the Genesis story (such as 'forgetting Adam needed a woman, and not having the Sun or Moon on the first few days), to which you counter that these were 'tests', and around we go. These types of disjunctions continue right down to Jesus' last words and where he died (cross, stake, or tree). Now, admittedly so, these have equally plausible 'explanations' to validate these discrepancies as they do to invalidate then; regardless, I am afraid, of one's stance on them, they exist.



    In my original quote, I kept ‘fact’ quoted to acknowledge your explanation of the use of the word fact. All I was saying is that even if Believers accept that Moses did not intend for the Torah to be the beginning of the Bible, it does not mean a Believer must accept that the NT and OT were not meant to be together (as Irish Cannon said).
    Truth, and I am not about to incite a millennium old religious debate on the convergence (unwanted, albeit, on one side) of Judaism and Christianity. Suffice to say I see the historicity of such an event, and you view the divinity.

    I think this brings us to our key difference in opinion. I think the Bible we have today is the Bible exactly how God wanted us to have it. Differences of interpretation are man’s doing, not God’s. Also, I think most Believers feel that how God used 'real, living human beings' to bring us from the Torah to the Bible of today is….. oh, yes one more time….. irrelevant!
    Exactly, and your faith in god is once again irrespective of the manner in which his word was transcribed, shared, and altered. Whether intended or not, for better or for worse, the inspired word of god and his disciples was altered by real men and women (though, admittedly, predominantly men [sign of the times and what have you]). So, I suppose that arrives us at an equal point of irrelevancy. I do not take into account the legitimacy of your opinion, nor do you mine.

    EDIT:

    As a final note, I think the most glaring difference between you and I is even as I type this I am fully prepared to admit all the things I am espousing here may be completely wrong. I am rather sure, you are not. And that in itself reveals the fundamental difference of in-belief as opposed to non-believing individuals. A great quote in that regard is as follows:

    I do not pretend to know where ignorant men are sure. That is all an Agnostic is.
    •   
       


  6. Genesis I and II disagree on the creation order.

    All the Apostles disagree on specific aspects of Jesus' live, including, though not limited to: his last moments and resurrection, and the amount of time he spent in Jerusalem (or is it Bethlahem? nevertheless, the point remains).

    Gospels disagree on the hierarchal order of Kings Jesus himself descended from.

    As well as many other discrepancies which invariably lead to a downward spiral of solipsism and circular logic between you and I. I.e., I claim that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have necessitated the 'fixing' of certain elements in the Genesis story (such as 'forgetting Adam needed a woman, and not having the Sun or Moon on the first few days), to which you counter that these were 'tests', and around we go. These types of disjunctions continue right down to Jesus' last words and where he died (cross, stake, or tree). Now, admittedly so, these have equally plausible 'explanations' to validate these discrepancies as they do to invalidate then; regardless, I am afraid, of one's stance on them, they exist.
    And none of this begins to mention the massive issues of translating symbolic, conceptual languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) into denotative, letter based ones (French [admittedly less baron than English], English, etc.,)

    In Hebrew and/or Greek and/or Aramaic, single symbols can constitute rich poetic descriptions and concepts which get, to use a cliche, 'lost in translation'. Obviously, such is not the case as our symbols are in fact arbitrary letters which merely represent irreduceable sounds.

    However, even moreso what is being lost, is the fact I do not give a ****! I have written way too many essays in the past few days to be arguing about this. Sorry bud. Haha.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    firstly I think you need to understand that there is a lot to gain. Look at his legacy after death and those of his direct followers. I mean lets be serious

    Also, you need to understand the importance of pagan beliefs here. There are many ties from the origins of christianity (son of god and virgin birth) in other beliefs. It just makes you wonder
    So you are saying that it would be totally worth it to live a life of servitude which also consisted of regular beatings ending in a horrible death simply to have your name go down in the History books? Not even knowing for sure if you WOULD even be remembered and all the time knowing that you are lying about the resurrection and this life is all there is? DO you not see the absurdity of that claim?

    The New Testament writers believed what they were saying was true. Christ believed He was God. That is the only reasonable explanation IMO.

    Could I be wrong about all this? Sure, and I freely admit it. If I KNEW it I wouldn't describe it as BELIEVE. I know my brother but I don't say I 'believe' in my brother. (unless of course we are talking about something like character where of course I couldn't be certain and know but believe he may be efficacious or upstanding in that regard)
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  8. Genesis I and II do not give separate accounts or stories. The second is merely a more in-depth explanation. Jesus’ family tree is another that I can offer an explanation for if given more time, but I think that is beside the point. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide different accounts with different perspectives, each experiencing different parts of the life of Jesus. To me, these are not disjunctions, but rather, just a different side of the story.

    You are a well spoken fellow, and I respect your views and opinions. And you are right – I am not willing to admit that I could be wrong, at least not on this: that Jesus’s life and resurrection happened as the Bible says.

    And I pass no judgment to anyone who disagrees.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Fujitsu View Post
    Genesis I and II do not give separate accounts or stories. The second is merely a more in-depth explanation. Jesus’ family tree is another that I can offer an explanation for if given more time, but I think that is beside the point. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide different accounts with different perspectives, each experiencing different parts of the life of Jesus. To me, these are not disjunctions, but rather, just a different side of the story.

    You are a well spoken fellow, and I respect your views and opinions. And you are right – I am not willing to admit that I could be wrong, at least not on this: that Jesus’s life and resurrection happened as the Bible says.

    And I pass no judgment to anyone who disagrees.
    I would add: the validity of an account of various witnesses is typically invalidated by exact rendering of the events. It suggest collusion.

    To say that the various books of the Bible are corrupted from translation or even intentional alteration indicates a very limited amount of research on the subject. These books have been thoroughly scrutinized for ages by scholars from both the believing and skeptic point of view. Aramaic and Hebrew texts dating back thousands of years verify that what you read today is as it was then. The differences in the languages themselves can not be discounted but when studying them in the original language and comparing to the English translations they are in essence the same. Yes different strings of words are used to describe what in Hebrew may be just one word but that does not necessitate that they are incompatible to translation.

    This is simplified and I am myself no scholar but I have spent countless hours comparing the various arguments from both sides. If it were really that simple to discount, I would have done so and gone on living a life for myself certain that once I am in the grave, there is nothing more; so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

    I may be wrong ... but I sure hope that I am right!
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  10. NSCA - CSCS

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Fujitsu View Post
    Genesis I and II do not give separate accounts or stories. The second is merely a more in-depth explanation. Jesus’ family tree is another that I can offer an explanation for if given more time, but I think that is beside the point. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide different accounts with different perspectives, each experiencing different parts of the life of Jesus. To me, these are not disjunctions, but rather, just a different side of the story.

    You are a well spoken fellow, and I respect your views and opinions. And you are right – I am not willing to admit that I could be wrong, at least not on this: that Jesus’s life and resurrection happened as the Bible says.

    And I pass no judgment to anyone who disagrees.
    I never claimed they gave different stories, the story is the same, the order is different. Look closely, the discrepancy is there.

    As it pertains to Jesus, there is also incredibly clear discrepancies. Which, as stated, range from the amount of time he spent in Jerusalem (3 days, or a year?) or upon which object he died (on the cross and carried off? on a stake? or on a tree?) which go beyond the offering of alternate perspectives of the same phenomena. They are describing different events. Now, and also as stated, this does not take away from the bible's validity as a whole, but, merely, means that the bible is not from without disjunctions, mistakes, and inter-author divergence. I.e., it has historicity

    Quote Originally Posted by Bpmartyr
    I would add: the validity of an account of various witnesses is typically invalidated by exact rendering of the events. It suggest collusion.

    To say that the various books of the Bible are corrupted from translation or even intentional alteration indicates a very limited amount of research on the subject. These books have been thoroughly scrutinized for ages by scholars from both the believing and skeptic point of view. Aramaic and Hebrew texts dating back thousands of years verify that what you read today is as it was then. The differences in the languages themselves can not be discounted but when studying them in the original language and comparing to the English translations they are in essence the same. Yes different strings of words are used to describe what in Hebrew may be just one word but that does not necessitate that they are incompatible to translation.

    This is simplified and I am myself no scholar but I have spent countless hours comparing the various arguments from both sides. If it were really that simple to discount, I would have done so and gone on living a life for myself certain that once I am in the grave, there is nothing more; so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

    I may be wrong ... but I sure hope that I am right!
    As have I, and I am honestly a little surprised you implied my view stems from a lack of research. I've spent more time than I would care to mention studying the bible (as both a theological work, and a work of fiction). I can chronologically tell you which canons made it into the apocrypha and why, can you? It seems your idea of 'research' is applying your biased view of the bible to further reaffirm your reading of a primary text. If that's 'research', friend, we're all in trouble.

    You are exactly right though, this book has been scrutinized by a vast number of people, stemming from vast religious backgrounds, who have purported the very points I was espousing in the first place. I choose to represent those views as closely as possible, using my intuition and predisposition towards skepticism, though I am quite sure you take the same approach when reading the bible.


  12. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post


    As have I, and I am honestly a little surprised you implied my view stems from a lack of research. I've spent more time than I would care to mention studying the bible (as both a theological work, and a work of fiction). I can chronologically tell you which canons made it into the apocrypha and why, can you? It seems your idea of 'research' is applying your biased view of the bible to further reaffirm your reading of a primary text. If that's 'research', friend, we're all in trouble.


    Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

    Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

    I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

    That being said, I still do not agree with you.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  13. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr View Post
    Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

    Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

    I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

    That being said, I still do not agree with you.
    Word
    NSCA - CSCS

  14. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr View Post
    Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

    Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

    I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

    That being said, I still do not agree with you.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bpmartyr again.

  15. "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them."

    -George Orwell

    I understand that George Orwell was not a spiritual man, and this quote doesn't necessarily pertain to any of this, but I always think of it when theology is discussed.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr View Post
    Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

    Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

    I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

    That being said, I still do not agree with you.
    Sorry, I had not slept that day and the order was reversed. It was to be

    I can chronologically tell you which apocrypha made it into canons and why, can you?
    Which, that challenge would still remain. Questioning the caliber of my statements is fine, but, then, refute them. Pretty simple task. If they are of such a low caliber and lacking validity, then preparing a counter-argument would be quite easy, no? More rhetoric on your part in this department than objective knowledge.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Sorry, I had not slept that day and the order was reversed. It was to be



    Which, that challenge would still remain. Questioning the caliber of my statements is fine, but, then, refute them. Pretty simple task. If they are of such a low caliber and lacking validity, then preparing a counter-argument would be quite easy, no? More rhetoric on your part in this department than objective knowledge.

    Naw, I'm out. This subject is too deep and I don't have the time. Your too smart for this old man anyway. The fight is yours!
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  18. Haha, you're right.


    My MulletSenses began getting the best of me. Sorry Snugglepuss.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr View Post
    Naw, I'm out. This subject is too deep and I don't have the time. Your too smart for this old man anyway. The fight is yours!
    That's not conceeding to a loss, that's called good character. Props to martyr
    NSCA - CSCS

  20. Just a thought ....


    Ever wondered if religions were created to control the people, or are reglions created to give people hope in times or hardship?

    Either way most religious point to the same belief system

    1) There is an all might god(s)
    2) There is also a bad "god(s)" (for those who dont obey the laws of the land).
    3) There is a book/set of "rules and stories", all of which are taken as given fact. (now im not saying non of them are true etc, just questionning why we demand evidence for everything else in life (i.e flaming someone who posts a fact on here with no evidence), yet are happy to accept at book as the given truth .... based on no hard evidence, per say.

    Cant we all just have a religion that teaches us to be kind and moral for the sake of being kind and moral?

    Just a thought.

    Im not a religous man, and i do belive in a higher power (reminds me of another thread not long ago... ), and i also celebrate christmas, not because of the religious reason, but rather because i love seeing people get along and giving. Why cant we all be nice all year round, give for the sake of giving, not just for christmas.

    My 10 cents ramble.

    Last edited by MashedPotato; 12-09-2007 at 03:12 AM.

  21. I like to picture Jesus as a 3 layer chocolate cake with a jetpack. Cus then he'd be really cool, but also extremely delicious.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by MashedPotato View Post
    Just a thought ....


    Ever wondered if religions were created to control the people, or are reglions created to give people hope in times or hardship?

    Either way most religious point to the same belief system

    1) There is an all might god(s)
    2) There is also a bad "god(s)" (for those who dont obey the laws of the land).
    3) There is a book/set of "rules and stories", all of which are taken as given fact. (now im not saying non of them are true etc, just questionning why we demand evidence for everything else in life (i.e flaming someone who posts a fact on here with no evidence), yet are happy to accept at book as the given truth .... based on no hard evidence, per say.

    Cant we all just have a religion that teaches us to be kind and moral for the sake of being kind and moral?

    Just a thought.

    Im not a religous man, and i do belive in a higher power (reminds me of another thread not long ago... ), and i also celebrate christmas, not because of the religious reason, but rather because i love seeing people get along and giving. Why cant we all be nice all year round, give for the sake of giving, not just for christmas.

    My 10 cents ramble.


    Religions were man made. They were created by humans and not by God. Basically any particular religion take a piece of the bible. torrah, etc and chooses to worship in a particular way to a particular passage. Not one will follow the entire book of stories and follow the worship in totality. Although I do find Pentecostals to do this in the closest way intended by God.

    Now as for the book having evidence. Of course it does! most prohecy's of the old told about hte new Testament and about 2300 have come to pass so far which is a little past half that were prophesized.

    1. There is an almighty GOD not plural
    2. There are people who worship false Gods (Lucipher, Buddha, Alah, etc) whcih in turn are presumed to be bad spirits
    3. Leading with Faith and not by human intellect is what is intended by the almighty father to make us sinners worthy enough to have eternal life with him. The first Adam messed that up by choosing Eve over God so ALL were born into sin from there on out. Except Jesus who was born of the Virgin Mary so that he could be WITHOUT sin and live a perfect life in order to teach us how to worship, pray, and praise God. There are reasons why we are baptized more than just at birth becuase there are a series of steps one must take to become cleansed and filled with the Holy Ghost which is the ultimate task in getting Right with God.

    Lots of things and other religions make sense and have logic but God is not a logical God because logic is to easy for one to comprehend and would not make Him unique if we totally understood Him. If you really look at the religions and how most are the "I'm right your wrong attitude" You'll really see that religion was formed by the enemy called Satan to cause strife and lead us away from God.

    All we are.......pawns in a Chess match between Satan and God

  23. Quote Originally Posted by BLADE74 View Post
    Religions were man made. They were created by humans and not by God. Basically any particular religion take a piece of the bible. torrah, etc and chooses to worship in a particular way to a particular passage. Not one will follow the entire book of stories and follow the worship in totality. Although I do find Pentecostals to do this in the closest way intended by God.

    Now as for the book having evidence. Of course it does! most prohecy's of the old told about hte new Testament and about 2300 have come to pass so far which is a little past half that were prophesized.

    1. There is an almighty GOD not plural
    2. There are people who worship false Gods (Lucipher, Buddha, Alah, etc) whcih in turn are presumed to be bad spirits
    3. Leading with Faith and not by human intellect is what is intended by the almighty father to make us sinners worthy enough to have eternal life with him. The first Adam messed that up by choosing Eve over God so ALL were born into sin from there on out. Except Jesus who was born of the Virgin Mary so that he could be WITHOUT sin and live a perfect life in order to teach us how to worship, pray, and praise God. There are reasons why we are baptized more than just at birth becuase there are a series of steps one must take to become cleansed and filled with the Holy Ghost which is the ultimate task in getting Right with God.

    Lots of things and other religions make sense and have logic but God is not a logical God because logic is to easy for one to comprehend and would not make Him unique if we totally understood Him. If you really look at the religions and how most are the "I'm right your wrong attitude" You'll really see that religion was formed by the enemy called Satan to cause strife and lead us away from God.

    All we are.......pawns in a Chess match between Satan and God
    I gotta say, without trying to disrespect you, but some of your info is wrong.

    The oldest religions were all polytheistic. If you read the OT the term elohim is in fact plural, which makes you wonder about OT tradition and polytheism. Also, when you look at the 10 commandments, "you are to worship no other god but me", sort of leads us to believe there are others.

    Also, the Buddha was never a god, and never claimed to be.

  24. Although I do find Pentecostals to do this in the closest way intended by God.
    If it were as simple as knowing what God intended then we would not have the splits in religions like we do.

  25. No disrespect taken. Some do worship the idols who weree prophets which in turn makes then "like" a God. My statement is based on that none of the biblical stories mention a particular religion as being CHOSEN. Now Jewish in Christian views are considered the "chosen people" of God but in new Testament the mentiuon in Rev of 7 churches is actually 7 holy cities and the real church would be considered Jesus the body of the church per sei.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Jesus Christ...
    By dertynasty in forum Get Diesel Nutrition
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 09:00 PM
  2. "Jesus Says" Avatar
    By Viking22 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-07-2006, 09:44 AM
  3. Dear christ, I wish I didn't own a Truck
    By Spectre32 in forum Politics
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 04-26-2006, 02:38 PM
Log in
Log in