Part 6 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

So you can't answer the question.\?

 

If Jesus was to appear as the Holy Spirit and simply talk to people in this world- just sit on a hill in the open- so many questions would be answered. So many problems would vanish because people would now there is an afterlife, and there is a God, and the way to heaven is peace and love because those were his teachings. So much could be solved by a definitive visit o wither Jesus, God, and or even an angel. So much bloodshed could be ended. Why don't they come down and intervene? It's ridiculous to say Free Will because the Apocalypse is anything but free will.

If Jesus was to come back and keep walking and preaching- immortal and immune to assault- it would create the most good. Why doesn't he do this?

 

Exactly! He gave everyone free will, sadly there are people who choose to be wicked and vile to the core.

 

None of the disciples, not Paul, and none of the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity (that Jesus and God were equal)
The first mention of the modern Trinity Concept is Tertullian aroun 200 AD. The Church at large condemned his doctrine as heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

Its a historical fact.

If the Catholic Encyclopedia and International Standard Bible Encyclopedia are not good enough for you a more detailed treatment of the topic is given here: http://www.torahofmessiah.com/morematthew28.htm

Below is a link to a fantastic documentary (4 hrs long) on the rise of Christianity. I think you will enjoy it immensly but also it would be very eye opening.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/watch/

 

He was symbolically The Truth.

The Truth existed before Abraham and until this very moment.
The Truth is the salvation for men, who need to accept that Truth in order to correctly see the Reality of the Forces of Nature and Life that he must adapt to.

That concept, Truth, is still available, right now.
But it is the Big Satan, and the lies, that create Politically Correct propaganda which opposes Jesus, i.e.; "I am the Truth, and the way, and the life"....

 

hahaaaa...

LOL
Funny...

You are saying that these men, during those very times when they were the one's writing the New Testament, that they, themselves, did not believe in the new name of god, Trinity?


Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name, (Trinity, since 325AD).

 

This really doesn't answer the question. It just seems like more evidence of how the roles of Politician and Preacher don't seem to have much of a distinction these days...or those days.

 

Those roles were all mentioned in the Bible.

The politicians were the lawyers/Sadducees while the preachers were the pharisees.

The harlots an the publicans were John Q Public who actually listened to the Truth Jesus spoke, and it was that growing audience that the powers of the day feared.
That same audience did what we see in America now, as the Truth does appear in the News, but it is soon displaced by the next events which get the attention of the public away from the last issue.

The whole gospel story is about this ever on-going cycle where we let the forces at work injury us while we do nothing about it but pray or depend on Lady Luck.

 

That is a good way to look at it. Whether political or religious revolutions, they always channel the anger and resentment of the people to topple and old power structure...and replace it with a new one, whether it be secular or religious in nature. It seems like smart and crafty people take hold of these basic beliefs that captivate people and use them to get them to sacrifice themselves in some way for their own aims. But it always returns back to the same old thing, new wrapper.

It would be cool if the higher ideals of religion were actually followed rather than "liked". The religion actually would be a fountain of morality. These days, it's just another bad book in the pile.

 

The publicans were tax collectors. No one liked them.

Some things never change, do they?

 

I agree.
Totally.

The real sociopath today is the Church, which preaches, erroneously, that Christ is Love, when He actually died to demonstrate that He is Truth, which always rises again from the ashes of its demise.

This idea of Christ tolerating every bad behavior because he forgives us immediately and never fails to accept our apologies, while we establish and support everything He warned us against, like feeding into organized religions, creating rules to be abided in promises of personal salvations, and ignoring Truth for Political Correctness.

Our hope is that as happened when Rev Martin Luther King stood up for the Truth, some brave politician/stateman/minister will attack the Republican Christians whose daughter have 2/3rds of all 1.2 million annual Abortions, while he attacks the secular illegitimate baby farms of the Democratic Welfare System which has 2/3rds of all the 1.5 million bastards every year..

 

Kids have it tough, don't they?
They are either aborted or they are simply considered bastards if they aren't.
No win situation when faced with Christian love.

 

Christians get married first, then have sex.

If they are following their religion, that is.

 

800,000 of them a year have abortions.

 

If that's true, and I have no idea whether it is or not, then they're not following their religion, are they?

 

As well as most do.

 

I don't see any mention in that verse of the Trinity besides you placing it in there. Also, the Trinity isn't a name of God, it is a name of a doctrine.

 

I knew a prostitute named Trinity once.

 

Quote Posted by AlphaOmega on pg. 18 #175 of Part 3

Anyone? Also did he kill the dinosaurs on purpose or was that just an accident? and why create the dinosaurs and let them thrive for so long? Were they practice for our existence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, can't answer your questions because God hasn't given us any answers pertaining to your questions.

I guess you will never know those answers especially since your stance is being on the atheist side and as Scripture tells us all unbelievers will be forever separated from God in the after-life.

 

Quote Posted by Woody on pg. 18 #180 of Part 3

#1. No city of Nazareth existed in the 1st Century.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry...but there is no concrete proof that the City of Nazareth never existed in the 1st Century. Such a conclusion is equivalent to arguing that since we have not found the Ark of the Covenant or Noah's Ark that the temple never existed or that the flood never occurred.

This sort of thinking commits the logical fallacy of arguing from silence! Besides, archaeological data from excavations in the Nazareth area clearly indicates that Nazareth was a small agricultural village, had a population of several hundred people, had several rolling-stone tombs in the vicinity like the tomb of Jesus used up until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and a 3rd- Century A.D. Jewish synagogue which was probably built over the top of an earlier synagogue that was familiar to Jesus.

There has been an assortment of pottery found in the Nazareth area dating from 900 B.C. to A.D. 640, which clearly suggests that the area was occupied at various times over a 1500-year period.

Among these finds, there is no evidence that contradicts the view that Nazareth was a small historic village during the time of Jesus. Even if there was no material data uncovered at Nazareth from the early first-century A.D., it does not eliminate Nazareth as a historical city.

It is unrealistic to expect such a small agricultural village to leave massive amounts of material behind as do large cities like Beth Shan and Jerusalem. To demand such evidence from Nazareth would be unrealistic. In fact, it is not uncommon for small villages to just disappear over time since later Roman and modern building projects have been known to erase traces of earlier settlements altogether. Current archaeology has not yet revealed the exact place of first-century Nazareth. This is hardly proof that Nazareth did not exist!

We must be reminded that only 1% of the archaeological sites have been excavated, and to treat the Galilee region (or the Nazareth area) as "fully excavated" is misguided and incorrect since much more is yet to be learned.

So we must not jump the gun for the jury is still out on the matter of first-century Nazareth’s exact location. So at the moment we can say that your statement that no city of Nazareth existed in the 1st Century is invalid.

 

Quote Posted by Woody on pg. 18 #180 of Part 3

#2. No eyewitness accounts exist.
#3. The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry...but your claims are not true. The fact is, conservative scholars agree that we have a great deal of eyewitness testimony recorded in the New Testament documents.

The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of Jesus' original disciples. So both of these Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. Early church tradition claims that Mark's Gospel was based on the preaching of the apostle Peter (another eyewitness of Jesus' life and ministry). And Luke's Gospel begins by noting the importance of eyewitness testimony to the ministry of Jesus.

 

Sorry, none of the Gospels were authored by eyewitnesses.

 

Quote Posted by Woody on pg. 18 #180 of Part 3

#4. Gospels are written in 2nd and 3rd person....Not (I) saw this or that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to argue that the Gospels claim to be written as "eyewitness testimony" have to written from the 1st person? Where is it the law that any "eyewitness testimony" must be written from the 1st person?...lol

The four Gospels are written as in the form of historical narrative documenting the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ so it would only be fitting that they were written from the 3rd person perspective.

One should be more skeptical about a text claiming to be historical record and being written in the 1st person. Just think about history in general…..the only documents that I can think of written in the 1st person would be autobiographies.

Did Christ have to write a story about His own life? Of course not. Nearly all historical works follow a "reporting" style and would thus use 3rd person narrative.

More importantly, the purpose of the Gospels is not for the writers to talk about their lives, but the life of Jesus Christ. Writing from 3rd person places even more emphasis on this goal as opposed to the writers (unnecessarily) talking about themselves.

We see that Luke begins his Gospel in the 1st person clearly stating the purpose of the work in Luke 1:1-4.
Luke essentially says that he is writing a history book chronicling the life of Christ. Though not explicitly indicated by the other 3 Gospel writers, this same historical narrative style can be seen in the other 3 accounts.

Their claim isn’t that "hey, we saw this stuff happen" (even if the writers were firsthand witnesses), but more formally documenting history events.

They each had their own perspective and unique style in that they focus and write about some different things, mainly to appeal to the audience they are trying to reach….Matthew to the Jews, Luke to the Gentiles etc…

So in conclusion, I see no problem with first-hand witnessess not writing their Gospels in the 1st person perspective.

You atheists try so hard to discredit the Holy Bible but to no avail...sorry but you just can't discredit the truth!

 

Aha! So Jesus suffered every humiliation possible, and every pain imaginable not because He loved us, but because He wanted to prove He is truth? So instead of a God consisting of pure love, we have an egotistical god, suffering to prove something to us? Interesting!

So then Christ cannot be the arbitrator of 'truth', since He forgives us for feeding into organized religions. Thanks for enlightening me. And here I was under the assumption the Church was the Bride of Christ.

 

So both are eyewitnesses to a Ghost. So show me where this Jesus appointed anyone a disciple.

Name them. With sources.

Matthew written in 2nd and 3rd person is not eyewitness testimony of anything. John comes along way to late to be of any importance as an eyewitness to anything.

http://www.holybooks.info/matthew.html

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html#NoHistory

Luke never saw a Jesus and neither did any of the rest of them.

- - - Updated - - -

No they were not. None of them appeared or were mentioned until the 2nd Century.