Historically The Ultimate Proof For Jesus Being God

[Guest churchworker]

Let's summarize (in very short fashion) to stay on topic, because I know how much obfuscation can spin around in peoples' minds and how people like to jump off the beaten path of the Minimal Facts Approach in the video (arguments off the track are irrelevant, but can be tackled later).

 

1. Scholars agree 95 to 99.9% that 1 Cor. 15 and Gal 1 & 2 are really Paul's writings and he really believed what he wrote. Not because the Bible says so, but because scholars say so.

 

2. In these three books (as well as others), he writes he met with James, Peter and John on several occasions, and they agreed to why they saw Jesus resurrected.

 

3. People do not go to their deaths as they were martyred (only John was not martyred) believing in what they knew to be a lie.

 

4. If no naturalistic theory can account for witnessing the bodily of resurrection, very probably it is true then they saw Jesus resurrected.

 

The only reasonable explanation then is since man does not have this power, but God would (elsewhere we have shown why God must exist), then Jesus is God.

 

http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/video.htm

Lecture at UNC Chapel Hill - April 11, 2007 (latest video just added by the leading scholar on resurrection)

 

Watch Part I to Part VII and if you cannot overturn specifically the argument by Gary R. Habermas, then what are you going to do?

 

In all my years of study and the past two millennia, the argument presented by Habermas has always remained the ultimate proof for Christ.

 

Once you reach the point of realizing nothing in nature happens all by itself, there is always a cause in the physical universe to everything and there cannot be an eternity of the past, then you are left with the only possibility the uncreated created. By realizing the proof for Jesus in the video and knowing there must be an uncreated creator, by putting these two facts together, you know with certainty Jesus is the uncreated creator and savior.

[Guest churchworker]

You can be ex-anything, but the one thing you can't be according to the Bible is an ex-Christian.

 

It is impossible.

[HoustonHorn]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this thread's probably going to get moved

 

You can be ex-anything, but the one thing you can't be according to the Bible is an ex-Christian.

 

It is impossible.

So, just to play along and feed the troll... what would you consider me?

 

I was born atheist, as we all are. I grew up moderately Christian in the sense that I believed there was a God but didn't follow a specific doctrine. I began going to church regularly and was "saved" at a Baptist church. For about 3 years I was absolutely sure that the Baptist doctrines were the only truth and that anyone who believed anything else, including other denominations of Christians, were wrong and going to hell. Then it just fell apart, which is a longer story then I'll write here, and while I still believe there may be some sort of entity above all of us, I know that no man made religion, Christianity included, is right and none have any more claim to be the truth than any other.

 

To me that sounds like I'm an ex-atheist, ex-liberal Christian, ex-fundamental Christian, current agnostic who may become atheist again. What I do know is that the only thing that could possibly bring me back to Christianity is the fear of death. But it's just as likely that that fear would bring me to any of the other religions that try to sell an afterlife. The only reason Christianity would have a leg up on the other man made religions is that I live in a primarily Christian area. Were I in the middle east I would think that Islam would be more likely as a solution to the fear of death.

 

The problem with what you said in the quote above is that you're trying to convince a group of people using a book that most of us believe to be at least partially fictional. Sure, there may be some historically accurate parts. But some accurate history does not make the whole thing valid.

 

1. Scholars agree 95 to 99.9% that 1 Cor. 15 and Gal 1 & 2 are really Paul's writings and he really believed what he wrote. Not because the Bible says so, but because scholars say so.

Source please.

 

3. People do not go to their deaths as they were martyred (only John was not martyred) believing in what they knew to be a lie.

People go to their deaths all the time thinking they know the truth. The people that flew planes into the Twin Towers about 5 years ago "knew" they would soon be in Heaven with Allah. Maybe they know something you don't.

 

4. If no naturalistic theory can account for witnessing the bodily of resurrection, very probably it is true then they saw Jesus resurrected.

No naturalistic theory can account for Santa Claus flying a sleigh pulled by reindeer. But it says that happens in a book so it must be true, right? Same logic. The Bible says = The Night before Christmas says.

 

My question to you is this. Why do you base your entire belief system on one book and why should anyone consider that book to be any more true than any of the other works of fiction that have come out since Man started writing?

[Deva]

Sorry churchworker, insufficient evidence for the resurrection much less Jesus is the uncreated creator. If 50 people say they saw something and believe it, even if they die for it, is that good enough for you? Does that make the event true?

 

Definition of ex-christian - someone who once believed in the doctrines of christianity, but does not any longer. What is so hard about that?

 

 

How do you know nothing in nature "happens by itself?"

 

Yeah Houston, sounds like Lion's Den material to me.

[Guest churchworker]

Horn,

 

Forgive me if I don't respond to your mistaken assumptions in the various beliefs you hold even now as it would better serve you to help you walk through the Proof first.

 

The source you requested is noted by Gary in the video which you would have to request from him. It's over 500 pages of tables. He is the one who counted all the scholars in the past half century and what they believed. I don't know if he charges for it or not. He said there are many free things on his site which this may be one of though I doubt it.

 

I am glad you accept the apostles believed they really saw Jesus bodily, now you have to account for what they really believed and explain it away. If you can't then know that it is probably true.

 

A naturalistic explanation can account for Santa. Santa was invented by a Roman Catholic and has always been accepted as a fairy tale-that is the naturalistic explanation. It was never considered as real. Whereas Christianity is intended to be real and the whole Bible as real. Never is it claimed to be fictional as with Santa.

 

The question you need to ask yourself is since 95 to 99.9% of all scholars agree that Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 is what Paul really wrote then that is your point of entry of understanding why Jesus is God, so why don't you begin there? Don't jump around, but stay focused on this.

 

Using the Minimal Facts Approach, no comment is made about any other part of the Bible, so that is not the argument being used; therefore, only deal with this specifically, and then you will come to the truth.

[Guest churchworker]

Deva,

 

95 to 99.9% of scholars believe there is sufficient evidence Jesus walked the earth and the apostes truly believed they saw Him bodily in His resurrection.

 

If 50 people die for something it says they truly believed it. I don't know what they died for so I can't comment on that, but I can comment on what the apostles died for; they died for seeing Jesus resurrected bodily which only God could do. If you can't account for this, then realize Jesus is God.

 

Ex-Christian cannot mean someone who believed in the doctrines of Christianity, because deep down inside if you did, you would still be a Christian, because the Bible says once-saved-always-saved. Never even once in the Bible did someone leave the faith once they entered into it. What's so hard about that to realize there can be no such thing as an ex-Christian?

 

Scientists can probably count more than a trillion things with a cause to them in nature, but nobody has found evidence for something that happens all by itself, therefore you are playing the worst lottery ever known.

[Deva]

Deva,

 

95 to 99.9% of scholars believe there is sufficient evidence Jesus walked the earth and the apostes truly believed they saw Him bodily in His resurrection.

 

If 50 people die for something it says they truly believed it. I don't know what they died for so I can't comment on that, but I can comment on what the apostles died for; they died for seeing Jesus resurrected bodily which only God could do. If you can't account for this, then realize Jesus is God.

 

Ex-Christian cannot mean someone who believed in the doctrines of Christianity, because deep down inside if you did, you would still be a Christian, because the Bible says once-saved-always-saved. Never even once in the Bible did someone leave the faith once they entered into it. What's so hard about that to realize there can be no such thing as an ex-Christian?

 

Scientists can probably count more than a trillion things with a cause to them in nature, but nobody has found evidence for something that happens all by itself, therefore you are playing the worst lottery ever known.

 

 

So what? At most that only proves that some people said they saw something and believed they saw something. Just because some people "truly believe" they saw something impossible, incredible, and contrary to all the laws of nature does not establish the truth of the thing.

 

The once-saved-always saved baloney. If that were true, this site would not exist. I rest my case.

 

What about the universe itself? Maybe it happened by itself. Who really knows, and quite frankly, I don't care. You have an incredibly arrogant and self-righteous tone.

[perianwalsh]

wron g forum.can any moderator moves it to arena?

[HoustonHorn]

The source you requested is noted by Gary in the video which you would have to request from him. It's over 500 pages of tables. He is the one who counted all the scholars in the past half century and what they believed. I don't know if he charges for it or not. He said there are many free things on his site which this may be one of though I doubt it.

Fair enough. I don't really want to go through 500 pages of tables to challenge it so for now I'll just take your (and his) word for it. But I still have doubts, so I may go and watch the video and see if I can follow along. My guess is the scholars he's using as examples are Christian and therefore biased just like if I were trying to prove that the Koran was true I would use Muslim scholars as my source.

 

I am glad you accept the apostles believed they really saw Jesus bodily, now you have to account for what they really believed and explain it away. If you can't then know that it is probably true.

I'm curious where in my response you got this idea. Sure, there may have been a person named Jesus. From what I understand it was a fairly common name. And he may have even been a spiritual leader. But that is a big jump from being a spiritual leader to being the son of God. And while I don't discount that a guy named Jesus may have existed about the right time, I don't believe that he was the son of god any more than I believe that Zeus sent down the lightning bolts in the thunderstorm that just passed my house.

 

Santa was invented by a Roman Catholic

I'm going to have to go look up the history of this because the irony of a Roman Catholic making up Santa Claus is just too great too pass up.

 

1. Scholars agree 95 to 99.9% that 1 Cor. 15 and Gal 1 & 2 are really Paul's writings and he really believed what he wrote.

95 to 99.9% of scholars believe there is sufficient evidence Jesus walked the earth and the apostes truly believed they saw Him bodily in His resurrection.

You are making an enormous jump between these two quotes.

 

Ex-Christian cannot mean someone who believed in the doctrines of Christianity, because deep down inside if you did, you would still be a Christian, because the Bible says once-saved-always-saved. Never even once in the Bible did someone leave the faith once they entered into it. What's so hard about that to realize there can be no such thing as an ex-Christian?

How dare you be so self-righteous. Have you lived through it? Do you know anyone who has? Read through some of the deconversion stories here. Read about wives leaving their husbands. Read about parents refusing to talk to their children. Read about former friends turning on us. Until you've gone through it you have no idea what it's like.

 

And I guarantee that there are ex-Christians on this site that believed at least as strongly as you do that Christianity is the "truth" before their deconversions. We have people here that were "true Christians" for decades. Heck, there are ex-pastor ex-Christians here.

 

What about a Christian who converted to Islam? Would you say the same to them? Or were they never a "true Christian" either? You must know that you're not the first person to come to this site and spout that nonsense.

 

And if once saved always saved is correct, then who really gives a shit what we're talking about here? I was saved. At the time I really believed that Jesus came into my heart and saved me from sin. Now I believe that Jesus is just another myth that people use to teach their version of morals.

 

Using the Minimal Facts Approach, no comment is made about any other part of the Bible, so that is not the argument being used; therefore, only deal with this specifically, and then you will come to the truth.

I've never heard of the Minimal Facts Approach, so I had to go and Google it. Sure enough, the first thing that came up is Dr. Gary R Habermas's home page. And results 3 & 4 are both from you posting about it on Internet Infidels. So I'm guessing that there's not much mainstream support for this approach.

 

Using the same approach, couldn't I take any verse out of the Bible and tell you that it's the truth without looking at any other part? Isn't that what non Christians are accused of - taking the Bible out of context?

 

Hopefully this gets moved soon, although I'm sort of in rant mode so maybe it fits

[Guest churchworker]

Deva,

 

If the Bible says once-saved-only-saved and the site exists, then isn't the site wrong as far as the Word of God goes?

 

If people agree they saw something, which they could touch, talk to and eat with, and they died for their testimony of seeing Him resurrected, then how do you explain it away?

 

How can the universe happen all by itself if everything in nature always has a cause? Therefore, the resurrection cannot happen all by itself, for it happened in nature.

[HoustonHorn]

If the Bible says once-saved-only-saved and the site exists, then isn't the site wrong as far as the Word of God goes?

Then why do different Christian denominations not agree on OSAS? If the Bible says it's true, then why wouldn't all those that follow the Bible agree?

 

And this site doesn't claim to be inerrant, nor do we base our lives on it. And we sure aren't making any supernatural claims.

[♦ nivek ♦]

quoth churchworker:

 

95 to 99.9% of scholars believe there is sufficient evidence Jesus walked the earth and the apostes truly believed they saw Him bodily in His resurrection.

 

Which scholars are these? Feel free to name the, oh say top 10 or so if you have them in your handy-dandy cut'n paste files.

 

While you are there, what kind of scholars are you referring to, what particular direction of study do they schol with?

 

Kinda curious what scholars, what discipline studied and where these folks ahve dropped their written works are at.

 

"Show me DA MONEY!" Errr... "Show me the EVIDENCE!"

 

Not good enough to drop in, take a theocyberexcitementshit on the carpet, sans proof and expect this mean_old_man to get excited.

 

I *will* get the seagull spray and fire for effect at page after page of gibberish and cut'n pasted bullshavings..

 

k, cleaner of carpets and hauler of bullshit, FL

[Deva]

Deva,

 

If the Bible says once-saved-only-saved and the site exists, then isn't the site wrong as far as the Word of God goes?

 

If people agree they saw something, which they could touch, talk to and eat with, and they died for their testimony of seeing Him resurrected, then how do you explain it away?

 

How can the universe happen all by itself if everything in nature always has a cause? Therefore, the resurrection cannot happen all by itself, for it happened in nature.

 

The ignorant theory is "once-saved-always-saved", not "once-saved-only-saved". I have no idea what you mean--cite your source from the Word of God that prohibits the existance of this site or says it is "wrong". This site plainly does exist, and we have every reason to believe that we are ex-christians, unless you are living in some other dimension or want to redefine "christian" or "ex". Really, how dare you disregard and trash the feelings of all the people on this site who have suffered in many and various ways because of christianity.

 

You are wrong -- what happend was that some people wrote something in a book at least 50 years after the purported event in which they claimed to have touched, talked with etc., a book where there is no consistent timeline for said events and in which the accounts contradict each other. You think that is sufficient evidence, I do not.

 

Establish that everything in nature has a cause.

[perianwalsh]

about ex -christian,I would like to clarify about your views for others:

1.because if you are a christian,then you must be god-guided,therefore it is impossible to left out the faith

2.or once saved,always saved.

3.4.others,please site them.

 

And other thing,do you intend this to be missionary,debate,or discussion?

 

according to the literal -bible doctrine,yes,this is a worse lottery.in my opinion i think pascal wage is not a much better lottery either

that's just my opinion anyway-i dont meant to atttack,an open discussion about what we feel about our beliefs will be fine,anyway i just past by and saw the topic in wrong forum and post something on it.sorry for intrusion

[Guest churchworker]

Horn,

 

Gary uses all the scholars that discuss the subject, so it would include from any field of study. How silly to think it was mostly just Christians as that would make no sense, lol.

 

Since you nor I can explain away reasonably the resurrection of Jesus, then is it not probably true? Zeus is disproven isn't he since he makes no claim of being uncreated and gods are just idols of mythology. Zeus had sex, the uncreated does not have sex.

 

What 95 to 99.9% of scholars agree on (they do) is that Jesus walked the earth because of Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 and the apostles truly believe they saw Jesus resurrected bodily due to what Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15. These are the most trustworthy sources of the whole Bible. All these items are included in the Minimal Facts Approach. All these items are part of those 500 pages of tables of scholars for the past half century.

 

In terms of what the Bible teaches, OSAS, you cannot be an ex-Christian, because OSAS means once-saved-always-saved. It then would be impossible to be unsaved no matter what your experience was in the complexity of life. Our assumptions about our experiences can be wrong.

 

Anybody who calls himself an ex-Christian does not have what I have which is eternal life. That which is eternal is eternal and can never be lost, so it would not be true others truly believed as I do if they call themsevles ex-Christians now.

 

I am sure my brothers and sisters in Christ have come here before me and said the same thing.

 

Just know that you never believed to begin with, you never were a Christian, but you were only lying to yourself at the time, and selfishly did not fill the condition God requires to be born-again. But know through the grace of God nobody has blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and you yet can still be saved by authentically coming to the cross and receiving Jesus as your Lord and Savior. It is most wonderful! Nothing can be better.

 

The Minimal Facts Approach has been known for almost 2000 years and still remains the best proof for Jesus being God. Maybe it had other names along the way, but it remains the quagmire for all scholars and the pressing issue.

 

Using the same approach, couldn't I take any verse out of the Bible and tell you that it's the truth without looking at any other part? Isn't that what non Christians are accused of - taking the Bible out of context?

That is not the approach of the Minimal Facts Method. Rather, it uses just those verses most scholars agree. 95 to 99.9% of scholars agree on lots of Scripture, but we are still only focused on Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 to make it easy for you to come to Christ.

 

Yes, Christians are accused of all kinds of things, but isn't it the Christians preserving the Word of God in agreement (by the complete Word of God in 66 books) rather than many various other views that don't agree with the basic tenents of Christianity?

[Llwellyn]

If the Bible says once-saved-only-saved and the site exists, then isn't the site wrong as far as the Word of God goes?

 

 

If we disagree with the Bible about whether or not we once were Christians, this wouldn't be the first time we disagreed with the Bible! Why expect any of us to agree with the Bible on anything? This site is happy to be "wrong as far as the Werd of Gawd" on every point. If the Holey Babble says that we were never Christians, then so be it! This is one more point where the Bible enters into fantasy-land. I once sincerely believed in Nicene Creed Trinitarianism. I believed in the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. I believed in the atonement. I structured my life around the Christian faith.

 

But you know what? I'm flattered when people tell me I was never a Christian. It is an honor to tell me that I never had the kind of corrupt moral sensibility that it takes to subscribe to this religion of divine curses and vengeance. My greatest shame and regret is that I ever buyed into the Christian religion. And for you to tell me that I was never a Christian is the greatest compliment you could ever give me. It's like telling a conscience-wracked murderer that they never deliberately chose to kill. It would be a great relief to me if I could believe you that I never accepted Jesus and his idea of "justice" into my heart! But I did accept Jesus into my heart. And for that sin, I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to completely repent. Forgive me!

[Guest churchworker]

HoustonHorn,

 

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand" (Matt. 10.27-29).

 

Eternal life is given at new birth and can never be lost for we can never perish. If a denomination disagrees, that is their error, so know they are wrong.

[♦ nivek ♦]

churchworker..

 

Not another forking post until you show your supposed scholarshipping. It is now 1745 PDT, which is your local time.

 

You WILL take the time to show a direction, URL, or a short cut'n paste of your reference materials which you have ALREADY claimed exist.

 

Any more unweighed/-tested/-proved bullshit and I'll toss you our front door soon after you've been debunked like the thousand other folks with your E X A C T message prior..

 

kFL

[I Broke Free]

Scholars agree 95 to 99.9% that 1 Cor. 15 and Gal 1 & 2 are really Paul's writings and he really believed what he wrote. Not because the Bible says so, but because scholars say so.

 

 

95 to 99.9% of scholars believe there is sufficient evidence Jesus walked the earth and the apostes truly believed they saw Him bodily in His resurrection.

 

I am 95 to 99.9% certain that you believe it too. Do I get a prize or something? Are you bringing this up for your benefit or ours?

 

If you want to believe there is a creator of the universe that thinks humanity is worthy of eternal torture then be my guest. Just stay away from my kids; they don’t need to be worshiping imaginary demons.

 

The only reasonable explanation then is since man does not have this power, but God would (elsewhere we have shown why God must exist), then Jesus is God.

 

I could think of a dozen more reasonable explanations, but I would be wasting my time.

[Guest churchworker]

Deva,

 

Where did I say the Word of God prevents the existence of this site? The site can exist, but its premise is wrong, since OSAS is taught in the Word and Christian is defined by the Word.

 

Just realize the Bible does allow such a thing as an ex-Christian, so you can call yourself this, but the Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved.

 

Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 scholars agree were completed within 20 years after Jesus died and in it scholars agree Paul said he met with James (brother of Jesus) and Peter within 5 years after Jesus died, and John later. Paul says they agreed on the matters of the resurrection of seeing Jesus bodily.

 

It is all about these 3 chapters, though many other chapters agree, we only need focus on these 3 chapters which most scholars agree, and I tell you this for your sake. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach.

[♦ nivek ♦]

5

[HoustonHorn]

You probably should pay attention to the count down that Skip started. There have been enough drive by postings here that he doesn't put up with shit for long.

 

And as you've no doubt noticed we're not quite the sheep like you've got on your forum who will just follow along with whatever you say. We've heard it before, researched it, and debunked it.

 

we only need focus on these 3 chapters which most scholars agree

But you can't do that. You're using a verse outside of those 3 chapters to try and prove OSAS. So are you saying that most scholars don't agree with OSAS? When I was still going to church every time that I brought up a verse that seemed to show God to be evil or two verses that seemed to conflict I was told that I couldn't pick and choose what verses to use. The Bible must be taken as a whole. But now we have a Christian here telling us that we should only focus on 3 chapters.

 

Gary uses all the scholars that discuss the subject, so it would include from any field of study. How silly to think it was mostly just Christians as that would make no sense, lol.

Until you start listing who these scholars are you're not going to convince anybody. All that the statistic says right now is that he looked at 1,000 people. I live in an area with churches that have 20,000 plus in the seats each week so I'm pretty sure that if I asked the right 1,000 people I could get a 99.9% agreement on some tenant of Christianity.

 

If a denomination disagrees, that is their error, so know they are wrong.

With the thousands of denominations, how do you know that yours is the right one? You can't answer with "the Bible says so" because they will all make the same claim.

 

Since you nor I can explain away reasonably the resurrection of Jesus, then is it not probably true? Zeus is disproven isn't he since he makes no claim of being uncreated and gods are just idols of mythology. Zeus had sex, the uncreated does not have sex.

Zeus is a myth because he had sex? Are you kidding with this?

 

So, gods are idols of mythology but God isn't? You don't see a problem with that statement?

 

But you know what? I'm flattered when people tell me I was never a Christian. It is an honor to tell me that I never had the kind of corrupt moral sensibility that it takes to subscribe to this religion of divine curses and vengeance.

I like that a lot. And I agree with it. I am much more accepting of other people since I left Christianity. I like that I can now look at someone for who they are rather than having to assume that they are a sinner because a mythical woman ate an apple about 6,000 years ago.

[Guest churchworker]

Llwellyn,

 

It may help you to know why Hell is needed which is an eternal separation from God and His children. Because God created us to walk with us out of His glory like a parent who has a child and wants to do things with her children, we can discover why hell is needed.

 

With no sin in eternity future in the new city and new earth, a loving God cannot let in rapists, murderers or even those who still call His Son a liar or refuse to accept Him being God and dying on the cross for our sins.

 

That's why we have such things as detention in school or jails, even detention camps for the worst of child offenders.

 

Hell is the place for your eternal choice and you get this one life now to choose the cross. After that you don't get another chance, because even if you did, you would not change your mind. That is how you are designed.

[Deva]

Deva,

 

Where did I say the Word of God prevents the existence of this site? The site can exist, but its premise is wrong, since OSAS is taught in the Word and Christian is defined by the Word.

 

Just realize the Bible does allow such a thing as an ex-Christian, so you can call yourself this, but the Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved.

 

Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 scholars agree were completed within 20 years after Jesus died and in it scholars agree Paul said he met with James (brother of Jesus) and Peter within 5 years after Jesus died, and John later. Paul says they agreed on the matters of the resurrection of seeing Jesus bodily.

 

It is all about these 3 chapters, though many other chapters agree, we only need focus on these 3 chapters which most scholars agree, and I tell you this for your sake. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach.

 

Churchworker, you said "If the Bible says once-saved-only-saved and the site exists, then isn't the site wrong as far as the Word of God goes?"

 

Pardon me for misunderstanding the crucial difference between existance and premise. Your statement was confusing.

 

I am long past caring whether the Bible says this, that or the other or whatever. As the moderator says, cite your references for scholars agreeing that Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. were completed 20 years after Jesus died. You can't just throw out statements with no proof.

 

I will thank you not to tell me anything "for my sake." Keep your arrogance and conceit to yourself.

[Japedo]

HoustonHorn,

 

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand" (Matt. 10.27-29).

 

Eternal life is given at new birth and can never be lost for we can never perish. If a denomination disagrees, that is their error, so know they are wrong.

 

 

 

Hmmm...

 

 

Dear God, Can you please come into my heart and soul and fill my life with meaning. I ask that you fill me with your spirit. In Jesus Name I pray...

 

Amen!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Father God and his holy spirit, his son christ never existed.... never was and never will be....

 

 

Wow I committed the ultimate unforgivable sin after asking for Christ to come into my life... Guess you lied

 

Your book of contradictions is the furthest thing from the "truth"