How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Hard_Rom]

It's not hard for me at all. I just don't believe it. But, if your only explanation is the theory of some, but not most of those who believe in Intelligent Design, I say go for it. Stick around long enough and you just might find yourself loving ya some Jesus!!

The evidence is just as compelling to love Odin as Jesus. If you are of northern European extraction your ancestors worshipped different gods for as long as the Jew worshipped what was initially a Canaanite storm god.

Why is Jesus so much more believable? Because you choose to think so?

 

[Tryharder62]

How does blatant violation of the law mean fulfilling the law?

The fulfillment of the Law means that Christ completed the sacrificial system that became necessary because of sin. In the Old Testament, men lived under the condemnation of the Law. Sacrifices were needed to continually atone for their sins (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). However, since Jesus gave Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, we are no longer condemned. “He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2, NET).

 

[Tryharder62]

The evidence is just as compelling to love Odin as Jesus. If you are of northern European extraction your ancestors worshipped different gods for as long as the Jew worshipped what was initially a Canaanite storm god.

Why is Jesus so much more believable? Because you choose to think so?

No one gives a crap what I think. LOL It is all about the resurrection.

Unique among all religions, Christianity makes several claims that others do not. First, all other religions exhort man to reach up to God and grasp hold of Him through their own efforts. Christianity is the only religion where God reaches down to man. Second, other religions are systems of do’s and don’ts to appease God; whereas Christianity is a relationship with God. Third, Christianity looks to the Bible as the singular source of Truth. Finally, Christianity is based upon truly the most amazing event in all of human history—the resurrection.

 

[Tryharder62]

To my friends of all faiths ~ (or none) ~I wish you peace.

To Jesus: Thank you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHKuFD_Qw44

 

[KingOrfeo]

The evidence is just as compelling to love Odin as Jesus.

Odin ain't about love.

 

[KingOrfeo]

But, if your only explanation is the theory of some, but not most of those who believe in Intelligent Design . . .

All ID theorists acknowledge the existence of speciation, and of evolution, and of a 6-billion-year-old Earth, etc., that's what distinguishes them from Young Earth Creationists. What distinguishes them from mainstream evolutionary biologists is their insistence that a purely blind and random evolutionary process that works like water flowing downhill could not produce certain features of "irreducible complexity" observed in organisms without the occasional direct intervention of an Intelligent Designer. E.g., some microorganisms are propelled by a flagellum, a whiplike tail that rotates in a ball-joint; and -- so ask ID theorists -- how could any intermediate stage leading up to such a thing enhance differential survival and reproductive success? Therefore, it must have been consciously designed.

 

[phrodeau]

The fulfillment of the Law means that Christ completed the sacrificial system that became necessary because of sin. In the Old Testament, men lived under the condemnation of the Law. Sacrifices were needed to continually atone for their sins (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). However, since Jesus gave Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, we are no longer condemned. “He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2, NET).

Jesus wasn't killed by religious people in order to atone their sins. He was killed by the Roman government for being a dissident.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Jesus wasn't killed by religious people in order to atone their sins. He was killed by the Roman government for being a dissident.

See Zealot, by Reza Aslan. His thesis is that Jesus' mission was much more political than spiritual. The people of Judea were being fleeced and bled by the Romans, and the Jewish priestly aristocracy were working hand in glove with them, and the money went to build a lot of splendid monuments and palaces and public facilities and amenities ("What have the Romans ever done for us?!"), but the process left the people hungry; that was what Jesus was opposing (although the later gospels, written at a time when the Christians included Romans and wanted to appeal to potential Roman converts, were edited so as to gloss over all of that, in Aslan's analysis -- e.g., in Mark, Pilate is clearly to blame for Jesus' death, but gospels written down later present him as deeply reluctant, and forced into it by the demands of the mob). And not Jesus alone, in his time there were several rebels claiming to be the Messiah, all for much the same reasons.

Aslan also notes that there was nothing remarkable in Jesus' career as an itinerant healer, exorcist and miracle-worker, the country was swarming with such -- what distinguished Jesus from the rest was that he did not charge money. (No doubt he accepted donations -- "love offering only," as they say; at any rate his team somehow got enough money that Jesus and Judas could quarrel over how to spend it.)

 

[EternalFantasies]

He was killed by the Roman government for being a dissident.

Can you support that? Coz it's incorrect, or at best, misleading.

Had the Jewish high priests not been involved, the Romans wouldn't be involved.

Herod refused to sentence him. Pilate did it since the Jewish high priest - Annas, who had been removed as high priest for 20 years, and sat there instead of his son in law Caiaphas, - asked for it.

 

[rocket_surgery]

Aslan also notes that there was nothing remarkable in Jesus' career as an itinerant healer, exorcist and miracle-worker, the country was swarming with such -- what distinguished Jesus from the rest was that he did not charge money. (No doubt he accepted donations -- "love offering only," as they say; at any rate his team somehow got enough money that Jesus and Judas could quarrel over how to spend it.)

His opinion towards Jesus' miracles was a little more than that. He also noted that Jesus performed miracles in a manner that others did not. He noted that Jesus was the only one who did them without touching or being touched. There was some more to it but I can't remember.
Overall he was very hesitant to say anything negative about Him and the miracles. Not sure if it was out of respect (which I sort of doubt considering what he had to say about other things) or if it was leftover from his Christian days or if he was simply impressed.

Good book tho. I heartily recommend it to religious and atheist alike.

 

[EternalFantasies]

See Zealot, by Reza Aslan. His thesis is that Jesus' mission was much more political than spiritual. The people of Judea were being fleeced and bled by the Romans, and the Jewish priestly aristocracy were working hand in glove with them, and the money went to build a lot of splendid monuments and palaces and public facilities and amenities ("What have the Romans ever done for us?!"), but the process left the people hungry; that was what Jesus was opposing. And not he alone, in his time there were several rebels claiming to be the Messiah, all for much the same reasons.

Aslan also notes that there was nothing remarkable in Jesus' career as an itinerant healer, exorcist and miracle-worker, the country was swarming with such -- what distinguished Jesus from the rest was that he did not charge money. (No doubt he accepted donations -- "love offering only," as they say; at any rate his team somehow got enough money that Jesus and Judas could quarrel over how to spend it.)

What a load of crap. Kinda funny too, those parallels drawn, yet, so crappy.

Crafty, but wrong.

 

[EternalFantasies]

His opinion towards Jesus' miracles was a little more than that. He also noted that Jesus performed miracles in a manner that others did not. He noted that Jesus was the only one who did them without touching or being touched. There was some more to it but I can't remember.
Overall he was very hesitant to say anything negative about Him and the miracles. Not sure if it was out of respect (which I sort of doubt considering what he had to say about other things) or if it was leftover from his Christian days or if he was simply impressed.

Good book tho. I heartily recommend it to religious and atheist alike.

If one's hobby is to read as many books as they can, sure.

But i bet both religious and atheists would like and benefit from Bart Ehrman for example, a lot more than what this amateur has to offer.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Can you support that? Coz it's incorrect, or at best, misleading.

Had the Jewish high priests not been involved, the Romans wouldn't be involved.

Tomayto, tomahto -- the priestly establishment worked hand in glove with the Romans and enjoyed wealth and privilege under the imperial arrangement; whatever threatened to overturn the cart was of concern to both groups -- but the concerns of both were all about political dissent, not blasphemy or heresy.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If one's hobby is to read as many books as they can, sure.

But i bet both religious and atheists would like and benefit from Bart Ehrman for example, a lot more than what this amateur has to offer.

Reza Aslan --

Reza Aslan (Persian: رضا اصلان‎‎, IPA: [ˈɾezɒː æsˈlɒːn]; born May 3, 1972) is an Iranian-American author, public intellectual, religious studies scholar, producer, and television host. He has written three books on religion: No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in the Age of Globalization,[2] and Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Aslan is a member of the American Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the International Qur'anic Studies Association. He is also a professor of creative writing at University of California, Riverside.[3]

-- is no "amateur."

 

[phrodeau]

Can you support that? Coz it's incorrect, or at best, misleading.

Had the Jewish high priests not been involved, the Romans wouldn't be involved.

Herod refused to sentence him. Pilate did it since the Jewish high priest - Annas, who had been removed as high priest for 20 years, and sat there instead of his son in law Caiaphas, - asked for it.

The RCC came out against Jewish deicide.

Do you claim that Jesus was sacrificed by the Sanhedrin to atone for their sins?

 

[EternalFantasies]

Reza Aslan --



-- is no "amateur."

Having a degree in religious studies is no biggie. writing books nowadays?

Please.


Here's Bart's:

https://www.bartdehrman.com/barts-biography/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Bart Denton Ehrman (/bɑːrt ˈərmən/; born October 5, 1955) is an American professor and scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is one of North America's leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.


Resa is a child.

 

[EternalFantasies]

The RCC came out against Jewish deicide.

Do you claim that Jesus was sacrificed by the Sanhedrin to atone for their sins?

That's a diff question. I replied to your assertion on who killed him.

While the executioner was the Romans, the Jewish high priests essentially killed him.

And it's irrelevant what the RCC or anyone came out and said.

The Bible's right there and that part is quite easy to read.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's a diff question. I replied to your assertion on who killed him.

While the executioner was the Romans, the Jewish high priests essentially killed him.

See post #1813.

 

[EternalFantasies]

See post #1813.

I did.

Without the Jewish high priests interests, the Romans wouldn't have bothered.

It's not: both, hand in hand, one or the other, same difference, at all.

 

[phrodeau]

I did.

Without the Jewish high priests interests, the Romans wouldn't have bothered.

It's not: both, hand in hand, one or the other, same difference, at all.

Neither did the deed as atonement for their sins.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Neither did the deed as atonement for their sins.

When you replied that to TryHarder, you confused - or mixed up - a couple of notions together. It's up to her to reply to that.

I'll reply to your above quote nonetheless:


It did, to His followers.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Neither did the deed as atonement for their sins.

She never necessarily said what you replied.

 

[Tryharder62]

All ID theorists acknowledge the existence of speciation, and of evolution, and of a 6-billion-year-old Earth, etc., that's what distinguishes them from Young Earth Creationists. What distinguishes them from mainstream evolutionary biologists is their insistence that a purely blind and random evolutionary process that works like water flowing downhill could not produce certain features of "irreducible complexity" observed in organisms without the occasional direct intervention of an Intelligent Designer. E.g., some microorganisms are propelled by a flagellum, a whiplike tail that rotates in a ball-joint; and -- so ask ID theorists -- how could any intermediate stage leading up to such a thing enhance differential survival and reproductive success? Therefore, it must have been consciously designed.

Close but no cigar!!!

Some of evolution's most vocal critics are proponents of "intelligent design," arguing that many structures in plants and animals bear the unmistakable signature of design by a supernatural intelligence.


For example, Intelligent design proponents say the eyes of vertebrates--including humans and the common snapping turtle--could not have evolved in a stepwise fashion. That's because the eye is made of several interacting parts, and the removal of any one part will cause the entire system to cease functioning. Thus, the argument goes, the eye must have been produced in one fell swoop.


They do believe that species adapt and mutate but that all species were created by intelligent design not by evolution. (Sound familiar) The problem is that they will never prove it is God, because you can't prove God.

 

[EternalFantasies]

https://youtu.be/ABBMnXRBUZU?t=25

 

[KingOrfeo]

I did.

Without the Jewish high priests interests, the Romans wouldn't have bothered.

If Jesus had not been stopped at that point, it would not have been long before he did something that bothered the Romans. If the Biblical account is true, the people of Jerusalem were in a frenzy, or at least a state of fervent excitement, from the moment Jesus arrived. And he had already, as a public demonstration, staged what amounted to a small riot in the Temple. The danger of his raising a revolt -- or inspiring a revolt just by his presence -- was a very real one. And the Romans probably would not have let it get that far, at the first rumors of any such thing they would have arrested him (they wouldn't need a traitor's help to do it while avoiding needless bloodshed; they simply would have arrested him, by daylight in the marketplace if necessary, and shed anyone's blood who got in their way), and the end result would have been the same.