LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

How To Get To Heaven When You Die

DO YOU ACCEPT JESUS GIFT OF SALVATION BELIEVING HE DIED N ROSE AGAIN FOR YOUR SINS?

  • YES

    Votes: 48 16.4%

  • NO

    Votes: 148 50.5%

  • I ALREADY ACCEPTED JESUS GIFT OF SALVATION BEFORE

    Votes: 62 21.2%

  • OTHER

    Votes: 35 11.9%
  • Total voters
    293
Status
Not open for further replies.
xfrodobagginsx said:
That's false. There are a few books that are in question about who the author is, but most of them are known and written by the eyewitness or prophet with it's name. The gospels were written by the people who's name they bear, but they weren't necessarily penned by them. They had scribes who worked for them. BTW I don't follow the Catholic Church. The book of Acts is not a fake. The transcripts go all the way back to the beginning of the Church. There was really a Jesus. That's easily provable. No doubt there. Did Jesus say all that He purported to say? Absolutely. The eyewitnesses attest to this in their writings. On one hand you say that the Bible is fake and on the other hand you say believe the Bible? I scratch my head on that one.
Click to expand...

What eye witnesses? The earliest of the gospels is Mark, written at least eighty years after Jesus supposedly lived. Matthew and Luke are just cheap rip offs of Mark. John's gospel is at least two hundred years later. None of them are contemporary with Jesus.
 
Sean said:
What eye witnesses? The earliest of the gospels is Mark, written at least eighty years after Jesus supposedly lived. Matthew and Luke are just cheap rip offs of Mark. John's gospel is at least two hundred years later. None of them are contemporary with Jesus.
Click to expand...

The most specious of arguments attacking scriptural fidelity is the time lag between New Testament events and the year their telling was finally committed to print. Compared to much of recorded ancient history, the passing of a matter of decades is truly insignificant.

Besides, the precise literal accuracy of specific quotes and various miracles which may or may not have occurred is unarguably subordinate to the simple question of why a group of people, the disciples, who are known to have lived and associated directly with the individual known as Jesus shared a belief about the divine nature of that individual?

That which they believed can certainly be disputed as hallucinatory fiction. But the substantive picture of who they were and the fact that they believed it cannot be so easily dismissed. First and foremost, that is the story which the New Testament accurately reports.

Both ardent critics and evangelical proponents of Christianity do their theological debates a grave disservice by minimizing the impact and context of "the forest" by unduly focusing on the alleged texture of "tree bark."
 
Hard_Rom said:
Was it the Jews or the Jewish church leadership who wanted Jesus of Nazareth dead?
Click to expand...

It was the Jews and the Religious Leaders of His day because they didn't believe that He was the Messiah in spite of His Miracles and fulfilling hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth.
 
Noor said:
Eyewitnesses? Possibly one at best. Paul wrote his first part 50 or 60 years after Christ's death. Pretty amazing given the life expectancy of the time.

We know knowing for certain except both the old and new testament are a collection of writings that a small group of people decided to include. There are many other written that were left out probably for political reasons.
Check out the recently published dead sea scrolls sometime if you want your mind blown about "the bible."

If you want to actually talk theology with sources and serious academic discussion, let us know, otherwise you are just evangelizing your particular spin of born again rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Paul's writings were at different times during his life. The Old and New Testament books were already accepted as scripture when they were put into the canon. They were just recognized by the Council of Nicea. The Dead Sea Scrolls affirm the preservation of scripture. Liberal Scholars aren't going to believe no matter what is shown to them and Fundamental Scholars are the one's who actually believe what the Bible says. So, which type of "Scholar" are you referring to?
 
Colonel Hogan said:
The most specious of arguments attacking scriptural fidelity is the time lag between New Testament events and the year their telling was finally committed to print. Compared to much of recorded ancient history, the passing of a matter of decades is truly insignificant.

Besides, the precise literal accuracy of specific quotes and various miracles which may or may not have occurred is unarguably subordinate to the simple question of why a group of people, the disciples, who are known to have lived and associated directly with the individual known as Jesus shared a belief about the divine nature of that individual?

That which they believed can certainly be disputed as hallucinatory fiction. But the substantive picture of who they were and the fact that they believed it cannot be so easily dismissed. First and foremost, that is the story which the New Testament accurately reports.

Both ardent critics and evangelical proponents of Christianity do their theological debates a grave disservice by minimizing the impact and context of "the forest" by unduly focusing on the alleged texture of "tree bark."
Click to expand...

There was a time when I was almost a rabit Christian, such was the belief that was instilled in me, and that I dearly wanted and believed. That, boviously, is not so today, and the reason is, in fact, right out of the so-called mouth of Jesus:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. (John, 8:32, KJV, but others say the same thing).

Jesus, it is said, demanded a rigid following of the way which he is said to have taught. That is similar to Yahweh/Jehovah/the Lord, just not as condeming. That was not what I saw in a multitude of churches over decades of looking and searching. The details of that aren't important for this post though.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone believing as they will as long as they don't push it on me, or unduly on ohter as openly as they have been doing these last few years.

In that vein, this response is to openly conotradict your post simply because it is attached to the original poster's post. While definitely not saying that you believe as that poster stated in all of it's inglory, yet there is a connection that you just could not let go of.

Your post is a refutation of much of what I have said, If there is anyone who takes your word, more than subtly put, and very well written, though in error, in this day in our history, I cannot let it stand just as I couldn't let stand the original poster.

The one Catholic Bible did a marvelous job of finally admitting what many researchers have now openly stated in many books (funny how the lack of fear of being roasted makes for more openness).

From Genesis onward, they are admitting openly, if quietly, that the books of the bible are not authored as originally stated through the many centuries.

Genesis: "Stories were gathered from the oral tradition of tribal people in the period around1225 to 1000 BC."

They also admit that there have been several "authors", and or editors, redactors. (Catholic Family Connections Bible mentioned earlier).

From the story of Creation and the two creations of Adam, the second of dust, and then from a rib of Adam came Eve, we now know that this is patently false. How do we know it. DNA double helix that we know is required. Worse, Eve is quoted as "...the mother of all living." in chapter 3, verse 20.

Okay, so Cain did a bad thing and was called on it, and was outlawed from them, and left for Nod, wherever that is, and found a wife.

Again, how could he find a wife elsewhere when Eve hadn't given birth to any others as yet.

It's the little things like this that we've, our of habit, and belief in what our parents taught us, that we never questioned, at least not to where it made a difference.

The bible is replete with such errors, like Joshua and Jerico, which modern methods have led to the knowledge that there was no such battle for Jerico had not been as claimed, but fairly a ruin (see Kathleen Kenyon).

Genesis also claims that Abraham, and later, his son Isaac, both traveled through the land of Philistia. Well, we know that there was a Philistia, but only after the Philstines were defeated by Rameses III in about 1183 BCE, or so, then traveled to the coast of Caanan and settled in the site of present day Gaza.

This points out the fact that one of the writers of Genesis was familiar with the Philistines, thus must have written, or inserted, this take after 1183 BCE.

I won't cite much more of the Old Testament; just a few items. There are two accounts of Noah and his critters, one saying he loaded them by twos, the male and the mate, the other that there were said to be many more pairs (see Chapter 7:3)

Then there's Exodus. Quite a few times we're told that there were 600,000 men of arms, but it is not mentioned that those men, all of marriageable age, of course, had to have wives, which brought the total to 1,200,000 people, but that doesn't include their children, conservatively put a two per copule (there were said to marry girls soon after they menstruated), which then raised their total to 2.4 million, but that doesn't include those over the age of the warrior "From twenty years upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel:..." (Numbers, 1:3) Oh, and in Exodus, 13:38, their "...flocks, and herds, even very much cattle."

Let's see, at least 2.4 million people with flocks, cattle, and herds enough to feed them if necessary, that's a lot of people, etc. In our day and age of modern transpotation, we can't move a large city by our means, much less by land with all of their critters.

This, then, and more, is why the Catholic Church kept a tight lid on the knowledge of the bible (which was not hard since there were no printing presses until about 1400 CE, but also why Zwingle, Calvin, the Puritans, and more, also kept a tight lid on what was to be believed (or the stake).

BTW, have you ever read Deuteronomy, particualarly where Moses supposedly speaks, chapter 32, verses 8 and 9? Very interesting.

8 "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel

9 For the Lord's portion is his people Jacob is the lot of his inheritance"

So who is the Most High that alloted the Lord's portion [Jacob]? Yes, there are other instances where other Gods are mentioned, and whether they were Baal, or some such, it doesn't say, but see Psalm 82, and other such places.

Many churches (I think all) at one time or another, cite Isaiah, 7:14 to have us note that he prophesied "Immanuel" as Jesus being born, for they said that the name means "God is with us," or some such. That's a part of the history of the Catholic Church, and her step children who also never questioned anything much. If one reads the whole of chapter 7, one will realize that he, God, was referring to the next king, Hezekiah, who was a great favorite of God.

Not surprising, that's always trotted out every Dec. 25. Isaiah, we all know, is revered as a major prophet. What they never mention, if they knew it at all, that the book of Isaiah has three Isaiah's rolled into one. How about that?

The real clincher is in the bood of Daniel. Here, along with Abraham, Moses, the Exodus, is a major part of all of Christianity--in fact, probably the lynchpin: the idea of the Resurrection. Daniel was the first to note a Resurrection. Speaking of the End times (maybe), in chapter 12, verse 2 (par ticularly, but see verse 1 also), the resurrection is spoken of, though not by that name.

The problem with that is that there was no Daniel, and he didn't author that book. The real writer of the Book of Daniel is unknown, and written about the year 164 BCE, right in the time of Judah's (the Maccabees) fight with Antiochus the IV Epiphies, a desendant of Alexander's general, Seluecus, most likely to prop up the spirits of the Jews who were outnumbered, and their war was long.

To make matter worse, prior to that, there had never been a belied mentioned in the Old Testament, but no matter, no one apparently knew that, and Jesus made it the keystone of his gospel (or the words were put in his mouth by the writers of the gospels. Then again, the Pharisees took up a belief in it, but not the Saducees.

And that brings us to: Is what we're told in the New Testament "accurately" reported as you say?

Let's see just how accurate it is, inot in detail, of course.

The first so-called gospel is listed as Matthew, though most think that Mark came first. Regardless, Matthew starts out by itemizing Jesus' geneology, and names Solomon as one of the decendants, as most of us have been taught.

Oops! Luke, in his writings, says that it is not Solomon, but Nathan, one of David's other sons (chapter 3:31). Minor thing though, you might say, However, Luke also gives a geneology, but it is much different than Matthew's (see the beginning of Luke also).

Another minor discrepancy, you say? The try this one, and see if it is minor too.

Matthew says in 2:23 that [he, Jesus] was to be called a Nazarene as was spoken by the prophets. and that has not been questioned until lately.

Can you find Nazareth in the Old Testament? That is not a minor discrepancy, and attests to in lack of validity of your post, which states in part:

"But the substantive picture of who they were and the fact that they believed it cannot be so easily dismissed. First and foremost, that is the story which the New Testament accurately reports."

The facts are that the so-called fact that they believed ...cannot be so easily dismissed." It's "Accuracy," as you say, is laid to shreds.

Frankly, you come off sounding like a spin doctor, which from other of your posts, takes away from your believeability. Far too much spin, I say.

Normally, as I said, your beliefs are your business, but when you openly seem to pay homage to what was originally posted, then you have to have it pointed out openly.

According to the bible (Solo Scriptura), the god of the Old Testament is not true in any fashion, and the same is said about the resurrection.

You're too good to associate yourself, in my opinion, with those crazies in Kentucky who say we had dinosaurs living amongst us, and that thew were a part of the critters that were in the so-called ark either by two or in pairs of seven polus one not so good of a pair. Noah wasn't on the ark, according to the bible, for 40 days and nights and had provisions for all, they were on the ark for about a year, if not a little more. In that tiny boat, with or without dinosaurs?

Peace, and may the truth of the lies be known by you.

w

PS: I could cite a lot more, but enough is enough, or you can see my essays.
 
Shooting all the wannabes who go to such ridiculous lengths dismissing the Bible word-for-word and all their cousin wannabes who go to equally ridiculous lengths defending the Bible word-for-word...

...would make this world a more pleasant place.
 
eyerami said:
Shooting all the wannabes who go to such ridiculous lengths dismissing the Bible word-for-word and all their cousin wannabes who go to equally ridiculous lengths defending the Bible word-for-word...

...would make this world a more pleasant place.
Click to expand...

Why are you always threatening violence? And why do you like little boys?
 
xfrodobagginsx said:
It was the Jews and the Religious Leaders of His day because they didn't believe that He was the Messiah in spite of His Miracles and fulfilling hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth.
Click to expand...
That's because Jesus was given the opportunity to perform a miracle in front of them, and failed. He did this several times in the Gospels.

Moses did miracles in front of the Pharaoh. Moses had the power of Jehovah backing him. What did Jesus have?
 
wistfall1 said:
There was a time when I was almost a rabit Christian, such was the belief that was instilled in me, and that I dearly wanted and believed. That, boviously, is not so today, and the reason is, in fact, right out of the so-called mouth of Jesus:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. (John, 8:32, KJV, but others say the same thing).

Jesus, it is said, demanded a rigid following of the way which he is said to have taught. That is similar to Yahweh/Jehovah/the Lord, just not as condeming. That was not what I saw in a multitude of churches over decades of looking and searching. The details of that aren't important for this post though.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone believing as they will as long as they don't push it on me, or unduly on ohter as openly as they have been doing these last few years.

In that vein, this response is to openly conotradict your post simply because it is attached to the original poster's post. While definitely not saying that you believe as that poster stated in all of it's inglory, yet there is a connection that you just could not let go of.

Your post is a refutation of much of what I have said, If there is anyone who takes your word, more than subtly put, and very well written, though in error, in this day in our history, I cannot let it stand just as I couldn't let stand the original poster.

The one Catholic Bible did a marvelous job of finally admitting what many researchers have now openly stated in many books (funny how the lack of fear of being roasted makes for more openness).

From Genesis onward, they are admitting openly, if quietly, that the books of the bible are not authored as originally stated through the many centuries.

Genesis: "Stories were gathered from the oral tradition of tribal people in the period around1225 to 1000 BC."

They also admit that there have been several "authors", and or editors, redactors. (Catholic Family Connections Bible mentioned earlier).

From the story of Creation and the two creations of Adam, the second of dust, and then from a rib of Adam came Eve, we now know that this is patently false. How do we know it. DNA double helix that we know is required. Worse, Eve is quoted as "...the mother of all living." in chapter 3, verse 20.

Okay, so Cain did a bad thing and was called on it, and was outlawed from them, and left for Nod, wherever that is, and found a wife.

Again, how could he find a wife elsewhere when Eve hadn't given birth to any others as yet.

It's the little things like this that we've, our of habit, and belief in what our parents taught us, that we never questioned, at least not to where it made a difference.

The bible is replete with such errors, like Joshua and Jerico, which modern methods have led to the knowledge that there was no such battle for Jerico had not been as claimed, but fairly a ruin (see Kathleen Kenyon).

Genesis also claims that Abraham, and later, his son Isaac, both traveled through the land of Philistia. Well, we know that there was a Philistia, but only after the Philstines were defeated by Rameses III in about 1183 BCE, or so, then traveled to the coast of Caanan and settled in the site of present day Gaza.

This points out the fact that one of the writers of Genesis was familiar with the Philistines, thus must have written, or inserted, this take after 1183 BCE.

I won't cite much more of the Old Testament; just a few items. There are two accounts of Noah and his critters, one saying he loaded them by twos, the male and the mate, the other that there were said to be many more pairs (see Chapter 7:3)

Then there's Exodus. Quite a few times we're told that there were 600,000 men of arms, but it is not mentioned that those men, all of marriageable age, of course, had to have wives, which brought the total to 1,200,000 people, but that doesn't include their children, conservatively put a two per copule (there were said to marry girls soon after they menstruated), which then raised their total to 2.4 million, but that doesn't include those over the age of the warrior "From twenty years upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel:..." (Numbers, 1:3) Oh, and in Exodus, 13:38, their "...flocks, and herds, even very much cattle."

Let's see, at least 2.4 million people with flocks, cattle, and herds enough to feed them if necessary, that's a lot of people, etc. In our day and age of modern transpotation, we can't move a large city by our means, much less by land with all of their critters.

This, then, and more, is why the Catholic Church kept a tight lid on the knowledge of the bible (which was not hard since there were no printing presses until about 1400 CE, but also why Zwingle, Calvin, the Puritans, and more, also kept a tight lid on what was to be believed (or the stake).

BTW, have you ever read Deuteronomy, particualarly where Moses supposedly speaks, chapter 32, verses 8 and 9? Very interesting.

8 "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel

9 For the Lord's portion is his people Jacob is the lot of his inheritance"

So who is the Most High that alloted the Lord's portion [Jacob]? Yes, there are other instances where other Gods are mentioned, and whether they were Baal, or some such, it doesn't say, but see Psalm 82, and other such places.

Many churches (I think all) at one time or another, cite Isaiah, 7:14 to have us note that he prophesied "Immanuel" as Jesus being born, for they said that the name means "God is with us," or some such. That's a part of the history of the Catholic Church, and her step children who also never questioned anything much. If one reads the whole of chapter 7, one will realize that he, God, was referring to the next king, Hezekiah, who was a great favorite of God.

Not surprising, that's always trotted out every Dec. 25. Isaiah, we all know, is revered as a major prophet. What they never mention, if they knew it at all, that the book of Isaiah has three Isaiah's rolled into one. How about that?

The real clincher is in the bood of Daniel. Here, along with Abraham, Moses, the Exodus, is a major part of all of Christianity--in fact, probably the lynchpin: the idea of the Resurrection. Daniel was the first to note a Resurrection. Speaking of the End times (maybe), in chapter 12, verse 2 (par ticularly, but see verse 1 also), the resurrection is spoken of, though not by that name.

The problem with that is that there was no Daniel, and he didn't author that book. The real writer of the Book of Daniel is unknown, and written about the year 164 BCE, right in the time of Judah's (the Maccabees) fight with Antiochus the IV Epiphies, a desendant of Alexander's general, Seluecus, most likely to prop up the spirits of the Jews who were outnumbered, and their war was long.

To make matter worse, prior to that, there had never been a belied mentioned in the Old Testament, but no matter, no one apparently knew that, and Jesus made it the keystone of his gospel (or the words were put in his mouth by the writers of the gospels. Then again, the Pharisees took up a belief in it, but not the Saducees.

And that brings us to: Is what we're told in the New Testament "accurately" reported as you say?

Let's see just how accurate it is, inot in detail, of course.

The first so-called gospel is listed as Matthew, though most think that Mark came first. Regardless, Matthew starts out by itemizing Jesus' geneology, and names Solomon as one of the decendants, as most of us have been taught.

Oops! Luke, in his writings, says that it is not Solomon, but Nathan, one of David's other sons (chapter 3:31). Minor thing though, you might say, However, Luke also gives a geneology, but it is much different than Matthew's (see the beginning of Luke also).

Another minor discrepancy, you say? The try this one, and see if it is minor too.

Matthew says in 2:23 that [he, Jesus] was to be called a Nazarene as was spoken by the prophets. and that has not been questioned until lately.

Can you find Nazareth in the Old Testament? That is not a minor discrepancy, and attests to in lack of validity of your post, which states in part:

"But the substantive picture of who they were and the fact that they believed it cannot be so easily dismissed. First and foremost, that is the story which the New Testament accurately reports."

The facts are that the so-called fact that they believed ...cannot be so easily dismissed." It's "Accuracy," as you say, is laid to shreds.

Frankly, you come off sounding like a spin doctor, which from other of your posts, takes away from your believeability. Far too much spin, I say.

Normally, as I said, your beliefs are your business, but when you openly seem to pay homage to what was originally posted, then you have to have it pointed out openly.

According to the bible (Solo Scriptura), the god of the Old Testament is not true in any fashion, and the same is said about the resurrection.

You're too good to associate yourself, in my opinion, with those crazies in Kentucky who say we had dinosaurs living amongst us, and that thew were a part of the critters that were in the so-called ark either by two or in pairs of seven polus one not so good of a pair. Noah wasn't on the ark, according to the bible, for 40 days and nights and had provisions for all, they were on the ark for about a year, if not a little more. In that tiny boat, with or without dinosaurs?

Peace, and may the truth of the lies be known by you.

w

PS: I could cite a lot more, but enough is enough, or you can see my essays.
Click to expand...

You spent an awful lot of time refuting an argument I was NOT making. I was merely taking issue with Sean's earlier post where he questioned the presence of eyewitnesses to the teachings and acts of Jesus and then pointlessly linked that assertion to the time lag between those acts and when the Gospels were first written later in the first century and beyond. The TRUTH of the latter has nothing to do with the TRUTH or FALSITY of the former.

In my opinion, the most self-destructive thing evangelical Christians have done to their own evangelism is to insist that the Bible is the literal word-for-word communication from God to man. That is patently not true and all it does is open them up to the scorn and detailed corrections in the historical record such that you have made. Because of that, I would never "pay homage" to the OP or others who insist upon shooting themselves in the foot by embracing such historical distortions.

The greater tragedy, however, MAY BE what such a foolish "theological" position does to the skeptics. It is tempting to assume that one who is wrong about so many things MUST BE wrong about every single thing, including the most over-arching significant thing -- whether there is a God at all.

I submit that none of us can know that until such time as God, if he does exists, reveals himself to us in a most unmistakable way. The default position of the agnostic seems reasonable to me.

But the Bible is most certainly correct about the historical FACT of the existence of the man called Jesus and the 12 disciples/apostles who followed him, as it is most certainly correct about the FACT OF THEIR BELIEF (or at least 11 of them) in him to be divinely resurrected from the dead. Please don't confuse my conviction of the fact of their belief with the wholly different issue of whether the substance of their belief was/is factual. I am not making that representation.

I am simply observing that a handful of eyewitnesses that we know to have lived in history have told a story about their beliefs, the major elements of which (as opposed to every minute detail) can reasonably be believed to have fairly accurately survived 20 centuries of retelling in the same way we reasonably assume we have a similar reliable picture of what Aristotle and Plato taught and believed.

Again, I can only repeat what I closed with earlier: Both ardent critics and evangelical proponents of Christianity do their theological debates a grave disservice by minimizing the impact and context of "the forest" by unduly focusing on the alleged texture of "tree bark."
 
xfrodobagginsx said:
Paul's writings were at different times during his life. The Old and New Testament books were already accepted as scripture when they were put into the canon. They were just recognized by the Council of Nicea. The Dead Sea Scrolls affirm the preservation of scripture. Liberal Scholars aren't going to believe no matter what is shown to them and Fundamental Scholars are the one's who actually believe what the Bible says. So, which type of "Scholar" are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Ones with advanced theological degrees from major accredited institutions.
How you seen the latest released translations on the dead sea scrolls?
 
phrodeau said:
That's because Jesus was given the opportunity to perform a miracle in front of them, and declined. He did this several times in the Gospels.

Moses did miracles in front of the Pharaoh. Moses had the power of Jehovah backing him. What did Jesus have?
Click to expand...

FYP. You have evidence he actually made the attempt?

And yet you believe Moses succeeded? Can we assume, then, you are an orthodox Jew?
 
Moses would have said any miracles came from G-d. As a good Jew, I would assume Jesus would have too. Anything else would have been considered hubris.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sister jenny
Mary Shelley
Replies
11
Views
941
shewantsmore
shewantsmore
MusicForTheDeaf
If you don't go to college, then you will be stuck working menial jobs for the rest of your life, and that's if you're lucky?
Replies
9
Views
213
TrailerHitch
T
E
FUCKING DICK SIZE
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
LMWM321
L
G
How to end blackmail?
Replies
0
Views
73
Ghostriderrecovery
G
No_Innocence
What is the best way to masturbate?
Replies
8
Views
205
ALovelyNudist
ALovelyNudist
Back
Top