Jump to content

What Is The Gospel?


Recommended Posts

I'm getting in on this glorious thread really late but... to answer the question about the gospel... it's mythological bullshit.

 

For God so loved the (flat, according to the Bible) world that He sacrificed Himself to Himself that whosoever believes this absurd bullshit can have a second magical life in the sky after this one is over.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi Ben,   I’m usually hesitant to engage in a thread that’s already 10 pages long, especially when one individual is having to respond to nearly every other poster. However, I’m butting in here beca

I know I have come in here late in the game but I wanted to say something to our christian friend who is trying so hard to make us see the truth of his beliefs. Now I love it when I see everyone unite

Ben, you cannot use the Bible as evidence for its own claims. Until you produce non-Biblical, non-apologist physical evidence that people can come back from the dead, all you're doing is asking us to

 

"Eye witness accounts."  That is quite a claim in itself. An author writing on parchment that there were eye witnesses 2000 years ago is not evidence.

Where are the statements by the 500 who say they saw Jesus after his death according Acts?

Alive and available for questioning at the time acts and the epistles were circulating. Paul practically challenges people to go interview them:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.(1Cor15)

 

If this was a challenge it was one based on the playing the odds, those odds being that nobody would bother to personally check the story out.

It certainly would not be practical or feasible for people in Corinth to make a journey by land or sea to hunt down eyewitnesses to an event decades earlier in far away Jerusalem.

There is no confirmation for the figure of 500 eyewitnesses from any other writer.

That figure of 500 also conflicts with Acts, which states that the number of believers shortly after the ascension numbered about 120.

The claim of over 500 comes from Paul, a man that based his knowledge on visions and revelations.

He didn't eyewitness anything about Jesus other than through his visions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No Court would allow testimony of an purported eyewitness without his/her being first put under oath, and a showing of a foundation for his testimony. Where was the witness in relationship to what was seen? Did he/she have a clear view? How far could the witness see? Are the testimonies of the witnesses consistent. What was heard? Nighttime or daylight?  What is the witnesses interest in the matter, whether financial or otherwise? What have they received for testifying? How did they recognize

Jesus? Had you ever seen him before? From how far away? How many times? These are just few of the questions. With answers to these and other questions the "eye witness" testimony is absolutely worthless.

Great questions. You will find the answer to many of them in your bible. While not all the witnesses testified in court, we have some accounts of testimonies in courts and public forums:

 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

...This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.(Acts 2)

 

 

 

Please cite one contemporary author of that time, other than a member of the cult, that first hand records the character "Jesus of Nazareth" as having performed miracles and having risen from the dead.

The biggest problem is that the risen Jesus never appeared to the public, he only appeared to cult members.

 

There is no validation for the tale except from those interested in promoting the tale.

You're trying to use cult propaganda as proof that the cult propaganda is true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Instead of trying a new derivative of the original poison, why not stop drinking the poison altogether?

 

Wrong analogy. The pure doctrine expressed in God's word is like pure unpolluted spring water. False teaching however is like raw sewage. When you add just a little raw sewage to a glass of pure water, it is no longer good to drink. It is nauseating, and can make you sick.

 

If your problem is polluted water, the answer isn't swearing off water all together and drinking only sewage. Instead you should look for unpolluted water, water that is coming from the source.

 

 

Christianity made me sick so I removed it from my life. I think for myself now which makes life so much better. You can continue to believe senseless bullshit if it gives you and your church members a sense of comfort but I would rather not be a part of a senseless bullshit community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times are you going to try to use the bible to prove itself without comprehending that its truth cannot be proved by quoting it?

Just because the bible says there were many witnesses proves nothing. No one claims to have seen Jesus in the process of transforming from dead to alive. Paul could say anything he wanted to about jesus' death and resurrection. But he didn't witness it. What you base every thing on is a mythical book unsupported by any contemporary documents. So why do you keep quoting an unauthenticated anthology of books written by (for the most part) unknown authors? 

 

"Paul practically charges people to go check it out?" 20 years later? Show one person who interviewed the "witnesses" other than the promoters. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder if the apparition of Mary in Fatima or Lourdes arevtrue,,,,

 

oh,,, of course they are true because we have eye witnesses,,,,,,,,,, and it was recorded within the lifetime of the current generation,,,

 

or the beautification or whatever of the saints,,,,, all have been verified by the vatican and properly documented, so they must be true,,,, remembr to pray tp patron saints,,,,

 

also who will be willing to die for a lie,,,,,,, ummmmmm,,,, ask the suicide bombers???????

 

bible is as true as the james bond,,,,,,,,

 

oooops james bond is true because it does record the cold war, the Mi6, and all the current geograhical cties precisely to the dot,,,,, don't forget, james bond wear Rolex and Omega watches,,,,,, and you can definitely buy them in anywhere in the world,,,,, compare to jesus bones,,,,,,, i believe in james bond

Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder if the apparition of Mary in Fatima or Lourdes arevtrue,,,,

 

oh,,, of course they are true because we have eye witnesses,,,,,,,,,, and it was recorded within the lifetime of the current generation,,,

 

or the beautification or whatever of the saints,,,,, all have been verified by the vatican and properly documented, so they must be true,,,, remembr to pray tp patron saints,,,,

 

also who will be willing to die for a lie,,,,,,, ummmmmm,,,, ask the suicide bombers???????

 

bible is as true as the james bond,,,,,,,,

 

oooops james bond is true because it does record the cold war, the Mi6, and all the current geograhical cties precisely to the dot,,,,, don't forget, james bond wear Rolex and Omega watches,,,,,, and you can definitely buy them in anywhere in the world,,,,, compare to jesus bones,,,,,,, i believe in james bond

 

You should believe in James Bond unless somebody can show you the bones of James Bond.  Nobody can show me the bones of James Bond so they can't prove he isn't real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben, just wanted to remind you that I responded to your comments in my post  #117.  No rush in replying though.  I realize you've got other things to do (as do most of us here), and you've received many other responses to your posts.

 

I can sympathize with your position. It is difficult to trust an account that describes events out of our own experience. At the same time I do this all the time. I do not understand exotic dark matter, and it is utterly out of my experience to measure and detect. However, I know that I will never personally measure and detect everything that there is to measure and detect. And so I trust accounts of credible witnesses who have measured and detected these things.

 

Surely, few can match Thomas' skeptism, who despite the testimony of all his fellow disciples would not believe until he touched the wounds.

 

One thing that lends credibility to the Biblical accounts of the miraculous is their nature and people's response to them. None of the miracles are susceptible to vaudeville type trickery. The responses to them is not they they were fraudulent, but that they were demonically achieved. The people healed were not unverifiable. The blind man and his parents in John9 were even brought before the council, and the man was publicly excommunicated.

 

Furthermore, we should be reluctant (as so many modernists have done) to dismiss the supernatural out of hand. We live in a universe that once was not. Our plenum of existence demands a supernatural and uncreated first cause. Jesus Christ broke into human history claiming to be that uncreated, supernatural first cause.

 

 

On the topic of dark matter (or other scientific analogy of your choice), the evidence is a lot more direct than you think.  I'd liken it to seeing the silhouette of a person behind an opaque material.  It's possible that light doesn't work the way you think it does, but it's more likely that there's a person behind the material whose existence you're deducing from a very particular lack of information.  Logically it's very simple and doesn't require a lot of handwaving.  And that's my professional opinion on the topic as an astrophysicist, by the way.  But with all due respect, do you not think that your comment here is somewhat hypocritical?  You believe us when we say that dark matter is real, or - to use an example that may touch you more personally - when your pharmacist tells you to ingest a pill that can restore your health.  But do you believe us when we say that the age of the universe is far closer to 13.7 billion years than 5,700?  Maybe you do if you're an old earth creationist.  But I'll bet you don't believe that humans evolved from earlier lifeforms.  Why appeal to science?

 

Regarding the apostle Thomas, it's interesting you bring him up.  Thomas Paine, one of the central figures in the creation of our great nation, said this in "Age of Reason:"

 

But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

 

I think it's fair point that Mr. Paine brings up.  I'm aware that Jesus said "blessed are those who believe without seeing."  I'm also aware that Peter wrote that the new disciples he made in Rome were inheriting a faith of equal standing to his own (unlike most American Christians, I actually read the Bible during the years that I had converted to Christianity).  I bet Thomas Paine knew the Bible even better than I do.  Why do we have to trust the words of the alleged eyewitnesses when Thomas didn't?

 

Now about the miracles of Jesus I have something crucial to say.  If you can't respond to the rest of my post due to time constraints, please at least read and respond to this.  Let me start out by saying that I am fully open to belief in the supernatural.  But others on this forum have mentioned the recorded miracles of Jesus as proof of his divinity, and I've relayed a certain story from Hinduism to them, as I will to you know.  There was once a man in India named Sai Baba of Shirdi (I encourage you to Google him, but don't confuse him with "Satya Sai Baba," a rather questionable fellow who claims to be his reincarnation).  Sai Baba was born Hindu but raised Muslim, and lived in a Masjid (mosque) in the village of Shirdi.  He practiced a large number of miracles that were witnessed by many and recorded by one of his disciples (sound familiar yet?).  Among other miracles, he knew peoples thoughts, healed the sick, and leviated.  These are all things Jesus did.  This might sound like just another ancient legend to you; just as Jesus sounds like a myth to us.  But here's the real kicker: Sai Baba was born in the nineteenth century and died in 1918, a mere four years before my grandfather was born in India.  And unlike Jesus, you cannot dispute this man's existence because there are at least three photographs of him.  While I'm sure all the people who knew him are dead, I'm sure there are many living people who could relay "eyewitness testimony" from their parents or other older people they knew as children.  I issue you the same challenge: if you doubt what I say, go seek out living people who can tell you these stories.  By your own criterion, if this man did what people say he did, then he is God.  And if he is God, it means Jesus isn't God.  Your other alternative is to say that he is a demon.  But Jesus convicted those who called his miracles demonic of committing an unforgiveable sin, and at that point I would have to say that you are only applying a double standard because you want to believe in Jesus instead of Hinduism, and are ignoring the evidence.  And that would be the point at which your claims of Biblical historicity become impotent, so I hope you won't take this route.

 

Unlike Jesus, Sai Baba demanded that no one convert to any particular religion, and once chastised a disciple for coming to see him before visiting the Shiva temple (the man was a Shiva devotee before meeting Baba).  He preached a God that I can worship, one whom my God-given conscience does not tell me is a demon.  I do consider Jesus to be a demon because he invented a place called hell where he claims to torture innocent souls for all eternity, solely for not believing in him.  Eternal hell is the one thing I can say even Hitler doesn't deserve.

 

I said all this to the last Christian on this forum; the only counterargument he could come up with was that he thought the stories of Baba were fraudulent because one eyewitness claimed he returned three days after his death to save people from a collapsing mosque, and that this story was obviously stolen from Christianity.  That argument isn't sufficiently convincing for me to give up the way I live and condemn everyone I know to hell just to bow before an effeminate, bearded white guy.

 

 

Unlike a novel, many of the Biblical texts are written as historical narrative in order to record actual events. Not only are the scriptures the most ancient texts ever in widespread use, they are the only ancient religious texts which record historical detail as history, including references to real world places, times, people and events.

 

Many of these details been corroborated independently. For example, genetic research of Y-chromosomes from men with the last name Kohain/Cohen/Coen/Kohen (Priest) from around the world have identified a single a common male ancestor approximately 4200 to 3200 years ago, putting Aaron, the originator of the Israelite within the window of the exodus. It also demonstrates an unbroken family line moving out for thousands of years and shows that at least some aspects of the scriptural accounts for the priesthoods origin and ongoing practice was accurately described.

 

To assume that every recorded document is Harry Potter style fiction until absolutely proven otherwise is silly, unserious, and not the way scholars approach human history and historical narrative.

 

 

I don't think anyone here says that the Bible is wholly without truth.  Yes, the Bible records the existence of externally-verifiable people like Pilate, Herod, etc.  Even Paul is widely regarded to be a real person.  But most historical documents don't ask us to change the way we live (and I'm not talking about "giving up sin," my own religion has quite stricter standards than anything Christianity has to offer).

 

Incidentally, do you know which study confirms that Jews named "Cohen" have a common ancestor?  I'm obviously not going to ask that you cite a source on every single claim that you make.  But if we're going to talk about a scientific study, it would be good to have the study handy.  Is it available on PubMed or another such source?  If you can even name the author(s) I'd be willing to try looking for it, since I use these sorts of search tools every day at work.

 

 

If a credible, reliable witness toured an alien spacecraft, and could recount to you in great detail what the bathrooms on the mothership looked like and how they functioned, wouldn't you believe him?

 

 

 

A UFO is precisely something NOT identified. It is a mysterious encounter with something not understood. In contrast, the disciples knew Jesus, they touched him, they ate fish with him. Jesus spoke with them about specific things, including Peter's betrayal.They did not see a hazy apparition from across the sea and decide it was Jesus.

If Peter knew that his testimony about Jesus' resurrection was a lie, why would he volunteer to be crucified due to his hope in the resurrection, rather than just deny him?

 

 

I disagree with the line of reasoning "people won't die for something they know is a lie."  I'm reminded that the week before the 9/11 highjackers destroyed the World Trade Center, they checked into a hotel, covered the classical paintings of women in their rooms with cloth because they were supposedly haram, but proceeded to look at girls at the hotel pool.  While I don't think it's a sin to lust after women, this represents an obvious contradiction between belief and action, and suggests that these Muslims didn't believe what they professed.  And yet they died for their beliefs.  It's entirely possible he didn't believe what he taught, and died for it anyway.

 

And that's assuming that the story of Peter is even real.  Which I think it isn't.

 

Who is delusional? What exactly is the whole thing? Even atheists can walk through most countries in the world and find buildings where people worship a man named Jesus. Going back 2000 years we find an unbroken tradition of people worshiping this same man and documenting how they worshiped him. You couldn't invent enough conspiracy theories to fabricate Jesus as a fictional character. The documentary trail goes all the way back to the beginning. We have the writings of the apostles, we have the external accounts of the apostles, we know who many of the apostle's disciples were, we have accounts of people who were their disciples, we have quotes from the disciples of the apostles. It goes all the way to the present.

 

 

Hinduism is even older than Christianity (by millenia!), and we can trace back unbroken lines of people worshiping in more or less the same way.  I myself belong to the priestly caste of Brahmins (roughly analogous to the Kohanim) and could probably trace my ancestry back to priests who predate Jesus, if I cared about such things.  Why is your religion true and mine false?  Because the Bible says so?  Again, not a good enough answer to make me change my entire lifestyle.

 

You can't call yourself an ex-Christian in good faith if you never believed in what God promised you through Jesus Christ, that would make you a non-Christian, but not an ex-Christian.

 

 

Don't know if this was directed at just Ralet, or all of us.  But I'm actually OK with whichever label you choose.  To me it's artificial.  If you'd like to call me a non-Christian who went to church, Bible studies, and college ministry retreats for a number of years, who professed to believe in Christianity and knows the Bible better than most Christians, this also is acceptable.  I'm not that attached to the label of ex-Christian one way or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

But if you believed Santa was an emaciated, terrifying green witch that stole children's teeth with her needle fingers on Halloween, did you believe in Santa?

 

You can't call yourself an ex-Christian in good faith if you never believed in what God promised you through Jesus Christ, that would make you a non-Christian, but not an ex-Christian.

What Christian belief do you think some people missed so that they were never really Christians?

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh goodness.. not the "no true scotsman' fallacy

 

can anyone here name all the logical fallacies in this (fairly) short thread so far.... I think he's hit on most of the simpler ones anyway... did I miss Pascal's wager? or has it not gotten there yet?

 

sigh... it's all so predictable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It rapidly falls apart. But not so much assumption as instruction from Jesus, the GodMan, through his apostles, via the Paraclete who aided them in recalling to memory all He had taught them: an old book with no supporting evidence.

 

FTFY.

 

You still don't get it, do you, Ben?  We don't accept the Bible as evidence of its own claims.  For all that "Jesus" supposedly did in his lifetime, including inciting a riot in the temple and getting hauled out before a mob by Pontius Pilate, no one else but the Gospel authors seems to have noticed.  One would think that someone literate, either a traveller or one of the intelligentsia in Jerusalem, or someone from among the Roman legions, would have said something about all the divine rowdiness.

 

Ditto for the 3 hours of darkness that supposedly happened during the CruciFiction.  It couldn't have been a solar eclipse, because solar eclipses occur at new moon and Passover at full moon and the totality phase of a solar eclipse is more like 3 minutes, not hours.

 

And beats the heck out of Me why no one but the author of Matthew (Mt 27:51-53) noticed all those resurrected-saint zombies wandering the streets, either.

 

Face it, Ben:  You believe stupid things for very bad reasons.  Why would we want to become like you -- Especially when we've already been there and gotten out?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even when he was on earth he sent out the 72 disciples to proclaim the good news in all the towns and villages.

 

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luke 24)

Just curious, where exactly is it written in the Hebrew scriptures that a king messiah would be killed and rise from the dead on the third day?

Where do the Hebrew scriptures state that a new system of faith in a human sacrifice would replace the law as the conduit for salvation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lord of the Flies? Well, at least you are consistent. You jump from one fiction to another.

Here you are describing what horrible things humans do if god didn't stop them. Apparently, since you are human you would be doing those horrible things if god didn't prevent it. Right? What external restraints are being imposed now?

 

If god can restrain these bad things from happening, why doesn't he do the job right and eliminate these things forever.

Not only that but since god gave us free will he could never stop us from doing evil in the first place. So the argument that god restrains people from evil is false because if he did he would be affecting our free will, which all christians claim he does not.

 

Its all so confusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Lord of the Flies? Well, at least you are consistent. You jump from one fiction to another.

Here you are describing what horrible things humans do if god didn't stop them. Apparently, since you are human you would be doing those horrible things if god didn't prevent it. Right? What external restraints are being imposed now?

 

If god can restrain these bad things from happening, why doesn't he do the job right and eliminate these things forever.

Not only that but since god gave us free will he could never stop us from doing evil in the first place. So the argument that god restrains people from evil is false because if he did he would be affecting our free will, which all christians claim he does not.

 

Its all so confusing.

Actually most Calvinists explicitly DO Not believe in free will. I used to be in this camp. I believed that mankind was subject either to his sinful desires or the righteousness of God. Human free will was never an option.

 

Not all evangelical Christians are Calvinists. But a Lutheran such as Ben may hold similar enough theological views. I'll let Ben clarify if he wishes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Lord of the Flies? Well, at least you are consistent. You jump from one fiction to another.

Here you are describing what horrible things humans do if god didn't stop them. Apparently, since you are human you would be doing those horrible things if god didn't prevent it. Right? What external restraints are being imposed now?

 

If god can restrain these bad things from happening, why doesn't he do the job right and eliminate these things forever.

Not only that but since god gave us free will he could never stop us from doing evil in the first place. So the argument that god restrains people from evil is false because if he did he would be affecting our free will, which all christians claim he does not.

 

Its all so confusing.

Actually most Calvinists explicitly DO Not believe in free will. I used to be in this camp. I believed that mankind was subject either to his sinful desires or the righteousness of God. Human free will was never an option.

 

Not all evangelical Christians are Calvinists. But a Lutheran such as Ben may hold similar enough theological views. I'll let Ben clarify if he wishes.

Whoops, let me rephrase (all the christians I knew said that shit)

 

Still its all so confusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny how christians always drop the E (evidence) and the P (proof word) in these forums when they talk about jesus, god, faith. But when christians are asked for evidence and proof thats not just hearsay and conjecture they can't provide anything reliable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't put the Lord your God to the test! For he will surely fail it. :-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Orrrr......another explanation: Jews were persecuted, were expecting a Messiah, Paul and others went around preaching that there was a savior/son of god (and this was revealed to them by studying scripture), that he died and was resurrected for our sins.  But, not actually on EARTH...since none of the earliest writings (Paul's) indicate that any of these events happened anywhere on Earth (no mention of Jerusalem, Galilee, miracles by Jesus, Golgotha, and on and on...).  Then, a few decades later, someone (Mark) decides to 'flesh out' this story by taking lots of OT tales (virtually nothing Jesus did wasnt' based on an OT story of some sort) and weaving them into the Christ myth to make a tale that happens on a literal Earth.  Then, a decade or two later, Luke and Matthew take THAT story (Mark's) and add to it ass needed to give the story a spin of their own.  Then other gospels start appearing everywhere (non-canonical) and pretty soon everybody and their mother has their own personal story of who this Jesus guy was, and they're all wildly different, from the meek Jesus of the synoptics, to the "I AM THE GREEEAAAATTTEESSSSTTT" Jesus of John, to Velociraptor-Godzilla-shooting laser beams out of his eyeballs Revelation Jesus.  

Yeah, thanks, but I'm not gonna be taking anything the bible says as fact anytime soon.  And by 'anytime soon', I mean, ever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow look at how lost you are.  Some book told you that your ideas are arrogant so you should listen to the Book because it's ideas are the ultimate in arrogance. Do you see the hypocrisy?

And you would prefer that I reject God's word as untrue, and embrace your thoughts as true? Because believing you are the source of truth would make me less arrogant and hypocritical?

BTW "hypocrisy" is a Greek word for "Acting". It is used to convey that you are pretending. In the new testament it specifically is used to convey the idea that you are pretending that you are a good person. I am not pretending to be a good person (aka self-righteousness), no one is good but God alone. I am not sure how you are using the word hypocrisy. What are you accusing me of acting at?

 

Consider the parable of the pharisee and the publican. The pharisee fasts double and tithes on both first fruits and his proceeds, what a noble fellow, the publican has spent his life gaining wealth by seizing people's children and selling them into slavery:

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Lk18)

 

You don't think you are the One.  You don't think you created matter, energy and space.  So you are not arrogant enough to listen to yourself?

No. I am not God. And if I were to invent my own fantasy of what God is or should be like, it would not be an accurate portrayal of who God is. But since God has revealed himself to us through words, I do not have to live in utter darkness about the things of God. But where God has not revealed himself I will remain silent, because these are things I don't understand.

I will follow Job's lead and repent in dust and ashes:

 

Then Job answered the Lord and said:

I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted:

‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’

Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know:

‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’

I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you;

therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (Job42)

 

Instead you should listen to the liars who created the Bible?
Jesus certainly didn't say the things I would say:  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. (Jn6)
 
But I can only respond like Peter:
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”(Jn6)
Link to post
Share on other sites

...

But I can only respond like Peter:

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”(Jn6)

I highlighted that part, because it seems like you are overlooking the importance of experiencing God. Christians are supposed to know God not know about God IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
Consider the parable of the pharisee and the publican.

 

No, consider having an original thought for a change. 

 

You don't seem to understand, though it has been exhaustively explained, that we are Ex-Christians and therefore are quite familiar with your beliefs and we have ultimately rejected them after painful, prayerful consideration. DO NOT continue to reply with quotes from your magic book. Speak freely, make logical arguments, but do not quote Scripture as your argument. DO NOT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why apologize?  There is nothing wrong with homoerotic.

Certainly all forms of lust, fornication, adultery, immodesty, and sexual immorality including unnatural desire are evil. These are transgressions against God, and Santa Claus, Jeffrey Dahmer, and I are all guilty of these sins justly deserving God's eternal wrath. But Jesus, the innocent, took these sins upon himself and bore to the cross.

But he was pierced for our transgressions;

    he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

    and with his wounds we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray;

    we have turned—every one—to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

    the iniquity of us all.(Is53)

 

As for European - Christianity is a Roman religion and Rome is in Italy.  Thus it is a European religion.  Perhaps older versions of the religion existed in the Mideast but they were exterminated by Rome - you know, the Gnostics.

The gnostics were already being opposed when the Apostles were penning the New Testament. They, like Rome, the Mormons, and American Evangelicalism preach gnosis (secret private revelation from God). As in the past, today they should be opposed, because scripture calls us not to look to secret private revelation, but to hold fast to "the faith once for all delivered to the saints".

 

Christianity is not a Roman religion. That is just silly. There are still Christians in Ethiopia from when Phillip baptized the Eunuch in Acts 8. Most of the early prominent doctors of the church came from North Africa. Christianity eventually developed into three divided branches from the three seats of the early church: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. Genocides have occasionally exterminated or driven Christians from various places in the world, such as in North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, Turkey, The American colonies, France, Germany, USSR, China, Southeast Asia, and North Korea. However, Christianity remains a hebrew-catholic(universal) religion, in which all nations become the adopted children of Abraham of Ur in Babylon, through his seed, Jesus the Messiah.

 

It is absurd to suggest that Christianity is Italian, when seven churches founded in India and Pakistan amidst the Jews in diaspora and for the gentiles by doubting St. Didymus remain to this day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.