The Bible, Jesus and God - (we cant just go making things up)? a discussion - Page 10

Apparently when you give a challenge you understand it correctly but when you are given the challenge you become dense.

Clever.

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Note 11 at Jn. 3:18: Those who do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God are already under the condemnation of God that comes through the Old Testament (Jn. 5:45). Jesus not only saved us from the wrath to come (Mt. 3:7; Rom. 5:9; 1 Th. 5:9; Rev. 6:17; 11:18), but He also delivered us from the present wrath (Jn. 3:36; Rom. 4:15; 2 Cor. 3:9; see note 4 at Jn. 3:36, p. 52) that is the curse of the Old Testament law (Gal. 3:13).


The ONE AND ONLY reason that I will be able to stand before God with confidence and get into heaven in because of what Jesus did for me. I did not and could not earn or merit any favor with God. But I learned what it is that God accepts. He only accepts the work that Jesus did on the cross for all the world.
I know that God the Father put all mankinds sins on Jesus on the cross. Jesus freely laid down His own life for you and me because He loves us with an unconditional love. Even if you choose not to believe in Him and accept what He did for you, thank doesn't change His love for you! It's the goodness of God that men to repentance ( change their thinking and believe and accept Christ). The good news is that God is a good God and everything that is good comes from Him. God is here if you just with an honest open heart seek the truth. What seperates true Christianity from all other religions is the grace of God. God did the work Himself. Will you choose to believe?

To whom also he (Jesus)shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Note 1 at Acts 1:3: The phrase "infallible proofs" comes from one Greek word, "tekmerion." The only time this word is used in the Bible is in this verse and it is stressing the surety of the proofs that attested the resurrection of Jesus. The word "proof" is so strong that it needs no further description, therefore, the addition of "infallible" is surely underscoring that there could be no reasonable argument against the resurrection of Jesus.

Indeed, there is more historical evidence of the life and resurrection of Jesus than of any other person in history. For a person to believe that either the life or resurrection of Jesus is a myth is intentional ignorance (2 Pet. 3:5).

Note 2 at Acts 1:3: There are eight recorded appearances of Jesus to His disciples during these forty days. The first six of these appearances are recorded in order in footnote 9 at Jn. 21:14, page 559. The seventh appearance of Jesus was to His disciples at a mountain in Galilee (Mt. 28:16). His last appearance to His disciples was when He was received up to the Father which was recorded here and in Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:50-53.

There is one other mention of Jesus appearing to over 500 brethren at one time in 1 Corinthians 15:6. We have not included this instance as a ninth appearance because of the probability that this is descriptive of the same appearance that Matthew recorded on the mountain in Galilee or this account of His ascension.


I believe many of you will accept Jesus and call out to Him and fill that void and emptiness that you have. I know its there because its a sign that there is something more. Its actually a someone! Jesus!

Amen!

Amen again!

Your argument might have well been, "Don't believe me? ... Ask me!"

The Koran never changed and was never rewritten.

This one is interesting..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19zUW...ayer_embedded#

funny how people who don't believe in religion, do believe in Nostradamus's predictions....talk about vague!

"One day in the future, someone will run for office, and eat some bread during that week." ...call me Notradamus II....

No, like I said , I just didn't understand what he said. That is why I asked him to explain further.

If it was so obvious, then maybe you could have explained, but you just decided to make a useless comment.

I never issued a challenge. I added a reasonable condition to the original challenge since the original prophecy given cannot be corroborated by an external non biblical source.

Hence, I asked for a biblical prophecy that can be confirmed by a non biblical source, which is evidently fairly easy to do.

Look, this guy named Jesus, in front of thousands of witnesses did miracle after miracle after miracle and still people did not believe.

Words written down in the past which foretell the future are much further down the scale of extraordinary.

Except there is no contemporary non biblical evidence of a man called Jesus or any of his miracles.

I guess you've never heard of the Historian Josephus.

There are also the books of the Apocrypha which were not included in the Bible.

I'm sure now that you've been made aware of contemporary non biblical evidence of a man called Jesus and his miracles, you're going to change your mind.

Except that Josephus wrote about Jesus significantly after the time he died. Therefore, not making it contemporary or an eye witness. That is ignoring the problems in the authenticity of the passages and the fact it doesn't talk about any of his miracles.

There are quite a few books of the apocrypha. Which one is contemporary? I want a non Christian source preferably.

Not one contemporary Roman/Non Christian historian bothers to reference the miracles of Jesus. People being raised from the dead, walking on water etc etc. Nothing is there.

It is contemporary because it was during the same century.

Eye witness? Odd, you didn't ask for that before.

You mean after 2000 years there are questions about authenticity? Say it isn't so!

So we've gone from non-biblical to non Christian. Gotcha!

Shocker, that.

You mean nothing non-biblical, ooops! I mean non-Christian preferably, and you mean contemporary, oops! I mean eye witness.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

Even those who saw Christ performing miracles did not believe.

There are some few who will believe it when they see it.

On the other hand, there are those who will not see it, until they believe it.

I'd rather spend my time praying to the Lord to open your eyes than to watch you move the goal posts.

rgman

Is that the only criteria required to prove truth? If so there are no contemporary eyewitnesses to Darwinism yet it is, by force I might add, taught as fact in every public school in the country. Sounds kind of like inconsistent logic if you ask me.

It was shorter than the other one. It grew. She was a Yale professor of a world religions class, I don't think she was a Christian but she invited them to her class. I myself have never actually literally seen someone been healed, but multiple times I've had supernatural experiences. I've seen lights in my room and a story that sounds unbelievable but is true...My brother was staying in my room when I left for college and one night was awoken to a wandering light (looked like a flashlight) came up to his face and shut off, he ran screaming bloody murder telling my parents to call the police. I came home to visit and stayed in my room, I usually listen to talk radio before I go to sleep so as the radio was on I sat on the edge of my bed and told "them" if they were going to mess with my brother they need to do it to me, I pretty much commanded it. It was weird, but something knocked on my door and my radio turned off. It's almost like "it" knew I was skeptical, so it did two things simultaneously.

This is a true story, my point is supernatural things happen (like that) so I can't see how a god is far out of the picture. People who don't believe in Angels/Demons/God will believe that these were ghosts or something, and if you think there is an afterlife or you believe in ghosts I don't see why a god is so out of the picture.

No, it isn't contemporary. He wasn't a contemporary of Jesus and therefore he did not write a contemporary account of Jesus. He wrote it more than 50 years after the event.

I didn't ask for eye witness accounts either. Maybe you can point out to me where I asked you for that.




Not really. There have been questions about its authenticity over the last several hundred years. It isn't new.


Not really Gotcha. It doesn't make a difference to the argument since any contemporary account of Jesus is not going to be Christian.

As far as I know, the Apocrypha are not contemporary.

They were written well after the fact. Again, instead of making up imaginary things that I have asked of you, why don't you answer the question?

Which one of the books of the Apocrypha is contemporary?



Who cares if people didn't believe in it?

That doesn't mean that they wouldn't write about it.

The Bible does talk about zombies walking around Jerusalem and yet there is nothing written about outside of Christian Sources. There is no record of an earthquake occurring at the time of Jesus resurrection. etc etc.

You don't need to believe in Miracles to write about an earthquake.

No, I never said it was.

Why do you think they killed Jesus?

Who writes history? What would happen to a Roman historian if he wrote about Jesus?