Still you.

Which exact denomination do you believe is the way, the truth, and the life?

You keep attempting to poke holes in my understanding of the universe, yet you won't share this basic bit about your understanding?

You've obviously chosen to not participate anymore. Or maybe incapable, either way, your debating skills need improvement.

Well, it seems this thread has gotten a little too heated for my blood, so I'm going to get on out of here.

It's not that I have thin skin, far from it. It's for the sake of peace. Jesus never forced himself on anyone and I'm not going to force Him on anyone. I think I've stated my view and I'll leave it at that. If anyone has questions for me please feel free to IM me.

Amen
Same deal.

Well my friend, here I am back at square #1 with you.
What kind of proof are you looking for?
The inconclusive sort I would imagine.
Right ztug?
You know, as I remember from the other day, some of the more discourteous posting started just about the time that you posted what you did here.
And this got me to thinking.
There is a kingdom of God, but there is also a kingdom of darkness also.
Whether or not that someone knows that they are actively participating in this realm, or the Devil or Satan's realm in order to stop someone from getting certain kinds of counselling or ministering about God, especially in the form of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will always bring a challenge from that dark side because the Devil id always lurking, just as the has been a member of this board who as been lurking around here for quite a while with a hidden agenda which seems to be in the light now about his or her intentions about attempting to bring the word and kingdom of God to a state of non-effect here because some Christian people here are doing their jobs in order that some people will benefit in the greatest of ways, eternal salvation in Christ forever.
Amen

If you are serious about the facts and details according to your own salvation through the Lord, then IM me or Ledslnger as he is a most capable brother in Christ, and probably a better candidate for Q&A with you than I. However I am always available too.

Thanks

SAE

I've never doubted the existence of God, only his goodness.

He exists. Explain the miracles. Some people just refuse to believe even when they witnessed Jesus performing miracles.










 

Yes.

 

You were very religious but do you KNOW Christ?



While you have chosen to reject Christ... Christ will never reject you. That is a God worth getting to know.



 

But Christ has rejected me.  How many,  many times have I prayed for some righteous desire, only to receive absolutely nothing from above. That is because saying prayers is as effective as talking to the ceiling.  If God really loved me and really wanted me to be a follower, he would let me know he exists. And please don't tell me gods proof is in the flowers or bees or any other natural thing.  

It's kind of like having an absentee father, who isn't really there and doesn't do any normal things a normal father would do, but other people keep telling you that your father is alive and well somewhere. Even if I were to believe that person, what good would  a father like that do for me?

Explain the miracles? No one witnessed any miracles. There are no eyewitness accounts. The gospels were written long after Jesus death with a healthy dose of plagiarism and 1st century superstitious fanaticism.


You really want commentary?

You hurt. Then felt better. Somehow a reasonable person is supposed to accept that as a miracle and therefore irrefutable proof of a deity?

Next you survived a car accident with no injuries, and the only possible answer is a miracle?

Let me clue you in on something: Thousands upon thousands of small children starve to death every single day. It happened yesterday, the day before that, and on and on back through all the many days of your life. It has been going on for many long years before that. I presume many of them cried out to the Lord and then died anyway. You have the audacity and the hubris to claim that your deity saved you. The gall required to make that kind of statement is impressive. Bravo.

Tell me more. What other gods are there?

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/points-to-remember-when-making-the-case-for-gods-existence-free-bible-insert/

I would like to share with you a little of my story that has to do with perceived unanswered prayers. Up until three weeks ago I would not have been able to post this.

I did not grow up in church or learning about God. I never stepped foot inside a church until I was sixteen and could drive myself. It only took several months of attending church and reading the bible for me to give my life to Christ. From that point on I prayed that my brother and parents would come to church. I prayed about that for 21 years, and my brother and his family started attending church with me in January. He is now attending liberty university for his masters degree. That was a 1/3 of my prayer answered after 21 years, but not all of it. But, three weeks ago my parents started attending church with me also. Before that they had only been to church twice in my lifetime. Once for my baptism and once for my wife's baptism.

I can't think of a more righteous prayer than to have someone come to know Christ. Yet it took 21 years for the start of that prayer to come true. I did not pressure my family into going, they actually came to me about it and said they wanted to go. That's how I know it was God leading them there and not guilt or pressure from me.

See, it's on God's time, not ours. I've had many many many prayers unanswered and I thank God for those as much as I do for the answered prayers. Actually He did answer them, He said "no".  But I thank Him because He knows what's best. He knows where that prayer will ultimately lead to. It's almost just like we do with our kids, we tell them "no" because we love them and want to protect them. But them being young they don't understand that and they think we're being mean and don't care about them.

Matthew was written before 70 ad. Mark was written about 55 ad. Luke was written between 59 and 63 ad. John was the last to be written at around 85 ad. That's not too many years off. As for the plagiarism thing: prove it. The burden is put on Christians to prove God exists, so the burden is put on you to prove that Jesus never performed any miracles and the gospels were "written with a healthy dose of plagerism and 1st century superstitious fanaticism".   You make the claim, you back it up. I think that's what the unbelievers tell me anyway.

As for the starving kids: my church (not the whole church, people from it) goes to Burkina Faso several times a year to dig wells and provide clean water to the villages. Many times the water is piped directly to the homes so they won't have to make long walks to collect it. These kids suffering is not God's fault, it's our failure. It is our job to help those in need, we are God's hands and feet. He did not create us as robots, He wants us to get with His plan and live our lives with Him. That's what a relationship is after all, spending time with each other.

Now I humbly ask: what are YOU doing for the starving suffering kids?  Anything?  Or is it enough just to blame God?  You can't deny that the vast majority of people that help those in need are Christians. If there is one thing that unites all the denominations of Christianity, it's helping the needy.

I know I said I was out of this thread, and I am when it comes to trying to convince anyone that God exists. I'm only here to defend the scripture against misinformed claims.

 

Only if you take the most absolute most positive estimates could you be satisfied with the dates provided. Most biblical scholars and historians put the authorship at decades past your claims. The Catholic Church itself puts the writings at hundreds of years past the time of the alleged events. But let's say you're right, the accounts written closest to the supposed events are still 25+ years out. Lots of things can be written to steer the contents towards the agenda of the day.

The poster I was responding to stated that Jesus performed miracles, how is the burden of proof on me? Prove to me that Allah or Zeus or the tooth fairy don't exist. Many biblical scholars also provide compelling theories about the interdependency of the gospels, I can google/copy/paste pages and pages of that if you're interested. In the end though, that evidence is admittedly also shaky, as definitive analysis of any aspects of the writings depend on a suspension of reason.

And you let the point of global starvation sail right over your head. BlackRifle made the claim that god intervened on his behalf in a direct medical and physical way, for some purpose he has not shared. I find that statement disgusting in light of the suffering and death that happens every day to the most innocent. If He takes action through you, then He is doing a very poor job. 20,000 more died yesterday.

You can't have it both ways, does your god intervene for you in some actual way, or does he take no part? Once you answer that question you have to decide if he is powerless or pitiless (or more likely nonexistent).

People survive car accidents every day. Sometimes very terrible car accidents. Was every one of those events a miracle?

On the flip side more than 30,000 people die in car accidents in the US each year. Does god have a  limit on how many he's interested in saving?

Fyeguy, we are just men. Who are you or I to question God's motives?

There it is, the predictable get out of jail free card. You stick god to RANDOM events, but then when I point out the randomness of his responses, that can only be rebutted as my lack of understanding.

Just off the top of your head, what do you think is the motive of a god so apathetic towards human life that he's willing to watch thousands of children starve to death every day, even though he has the power to intervene? Could anyone justify that kind of motivation?

Oh, then he also saw fit to cure you of a panic attack and a car accident.


A belief that is true, only because He said it was true in the book He wrote.


I am not minimizing your claims, I am arguing the requirement for supernatural intervention. What happened to you was an event that was incredible and quite lucky for you. You survived a violent car accident. But don't people survive them all the time, sometimes even babies? On the other hand people also sometimes die in the most innocuous minor fender benders. There's no evidence of supernatural intervention in any of them.

You can attempt to attach god to any event you like, but it puts you on a very slippery slope. If one is to take you at your word based on your testimony, then how can we dispute claims of alien abduction, or fortune telling, or haunted houses,or the Loch Ness Monster? Many of these claims often have 'eyewitness' testimony... doesn't make them any more true or believable.

Name the person who says the gospels were written a century later. I can list some certified authentic historians that say otherwise. If you want another account of Jesus Christ from that of a Jew in the 1st Century, I say you should read Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus Book 18 Chapter 3. Josephus was a Roman citizen, a Jew, and a historian as well.

As for the bible check out Sir William Ramsay of great Britain.

Who's fault is it that people are starving or dying? God or are own. You sound like my daughter when she was 7. She blamed all her problems that she created for herself on everybody else.

Acting as if there's some mind/spirit dualism that makes science/faith a binary choice is questionable.  I'd suggest that an appreciation of nature is a form of appreciation for God (God being the author of all natural processes, after all).

Fye, question for you. What was the benefit for the 12 apostles to "make up" Jesus Christ? What was the benefit for Saul of Tarsus to give up all the power he had, to give it all up to become a Christian? What was so great about Christianity that you had prominent men, lawyers, and others to become Christians?

If this was all some BS how come it grew so much as to where the Romans who killed a christian on a whim, become Christians themselves?

"the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"
--- Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7

And Josephus is a 1st century writer by the hair of his chinny-chin-chin. Antiquities was written in 93-94, at best a full 60 years since Jesus' death.


Another failed attempt to twist my words to fit your narrative. I'm not blaming god, I don't believe in him, remember? I am pointing out the ridiculous notion that if god were to exist, that he's taking some active hand and if he's performing any miracles, they're random and impotent.

Logic leads me to believe that such a creature does not exist.

I can't speak to their motivations, but it's likely they 'made up' or augmented Jesus' history in an attempt to fit their interpretation of various prophecies. It's not much of a stretch with what we know about a) the crazy things people will believe and b) the long history of groups of people trying to control other groups of people.


People have been killing each other on a whim for many thousands of years. I will concede that quite a lot of it has been based on one's religion. If it's not BS then why did Christians burn tens of thousands of witches near the end of the middle ages? Do you believe they were witches and worthy of being burned alive? Or do you concur that superstitions can drive people to perform heinous acts?

Really? What did you ask for that you didn't get?


No answer is an answer. You mean it didn't turn out the way you wanted?  An all knowing and loving father would not allow His child something that would be counter to your salvation. You were being called to another direction and instead of accepting that or seeking it, you have chosen to refuse that path?


He is never absent from you.


In  the morning you will wake up and Christ will still choose you. He knows the Thomas's of this world. You have to put your fingers in his wounds.


But in your case... you want your way not His Holy Sacrifice. My guess is not once did you ever pray.. God My heavenly Father let Your will be done not mine?


Or My Father through Your Holy Son please show me the way. If this is Your will clear the path for me... These are the only righteous prayers.





This is for you.  I think you are lost not over it. God will find you if you let him.







 

No. It's for the giggles

 

 

No, they all have equal validity to me.

I agree with everything you said here paris, but I don't think he meant that science was bad.  I think he was referring to the "science only, God not possible" mindset.  That's how I took it anyway.  I've always said that science is the way we see how awesome our God is.  I believe that He created all things to ultimately point back to Him.

does Gravity exist? I can't see it, only how it works

That is a ridiculous statement.  Gravity can be proven by scientific methods. God cannot.

I would propose that Science only proves a methodology or a history of a progression of how the Divine Creator designed the world and and as infinite is He is, is as infinite as that progression.

Who visited the infant Jesus. Scientists they paid Him homage. In fact the more we get into minute particulates the more we discover how much God loves science.



God gave us an intellect and gifts for a reason.  Darwin and so many others changed their minds. Why... The more they studied the universe the more it became evident that there was an Intelligence to the Design. It's not random.

I give you the worlds most notorious atheist. Antony Flew.  

" There
were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing
empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that
there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the
physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated
complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical
Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I
believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be
explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do
so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the
richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely
that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The
difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was
ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf
is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion
that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If
that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not
hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion."



You can live your life in what you believe is a freedom: Freedom from your deep faith. God never wants your faith to be a burden. Or you can live your life knowing you are truly free. It's EASY to not believe. There is no work involved.

You are in a place of only you right now and there is no room for God. . And if you feel you are greater than everything else nothing we say here is going to persuade you. This is your time of blindness and it is a path Rangermaster.







 

I agree but 'materialism' is probably a better word to use in that context.

God grants forgiveness, mercy, and miracles how He sees fit. He is just and Holy.




 

Every god I've ever heard of contradicts the laws of nature and is therefore by definition impossible.  No.

LOL



 

I said decades and that some sources claim much later, which I have provided. As I said, I'll flat out give you the best case scenario of 55AD for the earliest writings. That's still 25 years after the events described. And often are stories written by a guy, who know a guy, who knew a guy, who heard about these events. I'm sure that everything was recorded with perfect accuracy.


You've studied these things and you've never heard the conclusion that Matthew and Luke were heavily influenced by Mark? It's on wikipedia for goodness' sake. There are many many sources available online, and many found at the bottom of my link. You may be a bit behind on your research.


I don't know that he doesn't exist and never claimed that. I have stated that if he does exist, then he's a pretty pathetic deity.

And to clarify: I didn't say 20,000 people died yesterday, I said 20,000 children died yesterday. Again, these are things easily found on the interwebs, do a little digging before you start blustering about my facts.

And god 'bringing his angel to him' is one of the most morally bankrupt statements you can make in my book. The horrible loss of a loved one, especially a child, shouldn't be cheapened by such nonsensical claims.


In your opinion, devoid of any credible proof. Your feelings are not evidence.

That's interesting, because I'm equally certain that most men know that there is no god. I'll ask you a question that I've asked in previous threads:

If God asked you to kill your children, would you do it?

Yes, I'M the one that is unlearned here.

Quite Christian of you to laugh and make jokes when you're being asked real questions. It's EASY to avoid a debate.. especially when you can't refute the other persons query accurately.
Instead of laughing just respond? I'm enjoying the dialogue and it's been pretty informative besides your paltry responses. It makes it appear as if you're grasping for answers.

STOP IT!!! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!!

25 years is still well within a single lifetime, and keep in mind that these are only the dates of the earliest manuscripts. We don't have the originals. The funny thing about paper, especially the type they used in the first century, is that it degrades over time. How is this, in any way, a dead bang that the documents are fake? If the earliest writings were 55 AD and we know we don't have the original, that would likely put the original much earlier. The argument that "it is a story written by a guy, who knew a guy, who knew a guy..." is a completely unsubstantiated argument also. There is no sufficient reason to believe that the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses. You are using unsubstantiated guesswork to discount their authenticity.



Since when is wikipedia a scholarly source? Any conclusions regarding influence on Matthew and Luke by Mark are operating from the presupposed conclusion that they are not all eyewitness accounts. There is no argument to be made that is not easily refuted that says the Gospels are contradictory/inconsistent/ etc etc.



How is suffering and death inconsistent with what the Bible teaches about the world in which we live? At what point do you make the logical leap to the conclusion that if God exists, he must exist in a way that makes absolute sense to the rationale and logic of fyeguy? There are over 7 billion people in this world today, and many hundreds of billions that have lived and died prior to today. Must the creator of the universe bow to the whims of each individual on this planet and exist in such a way as to make them all happy? Keeping one person happy at all in this world seems impossible.

Mark is generally accepted as the earliest writing, and it is generally accepted that Mark was not an eyewitness. So a guy (Mark), who knew a guy (Peter), is surely an accurate statement. The argument was that the gospels were written long after Jesus' death. We can argue all day about the specifics, but the accepted range for the writing of the gospels lies somewhere between 25-300 years after the fact. Either way, a long time. If you're claiming that they were written at the actual time of the events, please provide proof, and please be aware that you are in a very very small minority.


I'm not claiming that Wikipedia is a scholarly source, I am telling you that the statement that several gospel writers borrowed heavily from Mark is not some out there idea, it's pretty common knowledge. If you need more info, there are plenty of scholarly sources cited at the bottom of the link I shared. If you're just going to attack the source, do your own research, I'm certain you'll come across that fact soon enough.


You apologists keep providing the same boring responses: You just don't understand! It's beyond your understanding! Magic! If you want to argue the logic of my statements, you gotta do better than that.

I never said they were written at the time of the events, only that they were written by eyewitnesses. The Synoptic Gospels were written within 60 ish years at the latest. Most estimates put them within 30 years. Well within one lifetime for the authors to have been eyewitnesses to these events. Mark, of course, dictating for the Apostle Peter. The generally accepted idea is that Christ's followers believed that his return would be swift and did not take the time necessary to document it until later as they spent their time spreading the Gospel in order to hasten His return.

We have sources too.

When were the gospels written

but, when were the Gospels written?

no way, when were the gospels written?

Even atheist nat-geo says 65-95 A.D.

The real problem

The real problem with dating the synoptic Gospels is that those scholars that reject Jesus' deity refuse to believe that Jesus could have accurately predicted the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. so they are adamant that the Gospels must have been written later.

This certainly puts the individual rejecting Jesus' power in a conundrum. The Gospels are not trustworthy because they were written long after the death of Christ  and we know this because they predicted the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and we know they couldn't have predicted the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. because they are not trustworthy. Wait, isn't that circular reasoning?

The problem is, there is plenty of evidence to suggest they were written earlier. The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written no later than 62 A.D. as they coincide with Paul's imprisonment and we know that the Gospel of Mark and Matthew were written prior to this. Again, this is well within a partial lifetime and the only reason for rejecting their authenticity is a rejection of what they teach. Any scholar would accept the writings as historically accurate were it not for the meaning behind it. This introduces the option for the scholar to either accept it or reach for ways of rejecting it in order to reject its meaningfulness.

Didn't you hear the man?!  It's beyond your understanding!

Matthew 10:14-16, brother.