Part 32 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

If God knows and God can't ever be wrong, then free will doesn't exist.

 

By destroying the wicked and evil and their babies.
You think it is wrong to destroy the wicked and the evil???????

 

The church have studied the Bible and all its other related manuscript and documents for centuries and they have concluded and they know it is a Holy Book.
You need to study and most of all understand the Bible and its related history more.

There are many and sufficient evidences that Jesus was a Jewish teacher, a very learn man, a holy man, but most of all the Messiah and the Son of God.

The leaders of the Jews corrupted the scriptures to suite their own political agenda making the Words of God as their words. It was written long before Jesus Christ coming and Jesus coming is the fulfillment of what is written in the OT even St. John the Baptist recognized Jesus Christ and he did not recognized or accept the corrupted Jewish Bible.

That was also their attitude towards Jesus Christ "nonsense" that is why they had to silence him by having him crucified but by crucifying Jesus they were actually fulfilling the scriptures. The church have preserved all the authentic manuscripts and identified all the erroneous and false manuscripts that today's so called modern scholars have been using to sell their inaccurate and wrong version of Biblical and Christian history.

The so called modern scholars you are referring to lack detail information and evidences to make a credible conclusion about church, Bible history.

I have proved that I and many others agreed with true history not atheist or agnostic version of history.

 

I know better than you and your authorities who ever they may not because of arrogance but because I am on the side of true history.

 

Free will does not give evil and wickedness the right to destroy good.
You have the free will to be evil but keep it to yourself if you are going to use your evilness against good than good have the right to respond against evil.

 

Babies are not evil. Your mind is sick.

 

You don't get what I'm saying. If God is omniscient and can never be wrong, free will doesn't exist. People have no choice but to do things exactly as they were foreseen.

 

This isn't history. These are up-to-date facts.

Why don't you come clean and admit you are god posting under a pseudonym, or are you just pretending to be a god?

 

Paragraph is so nonsensical that it's hardly worth mentioning. What you are suggesting is that we could corrupt todays teaching and history to take into account something that might happen in 600 years time. Excuse me

The teaching in the early days of Christianity varied according to each area/church. The church decided what people should believe. The church decide what should be preached. For centuries priests were not encouraged to read or study the Bible, just 'preach' what they were told. In fact most of them could not read the latin Bible anyway. They were not ordained, or taught. And that is history.

Modern scholars, in fact, have more information, history and understanding than any early church historian. And they are not constrained to abide by the church doctrine.

You have proved nothing on here but your own ignorance and reliance on church doctrine.

 

Using babies as an excuse to justify and promote evil are people with a very wicked, evil, criminal and sick mind.

- - - Updated - - -

Free will is the greatest gift from God to us.
People have a choice to be good.
People have a choice to be evil as well
Both good and evil has its consequences as part of free will.

- - - Updated - - -

As an agnostic you surely are very sure about your claims?
This is the reason why agnostics and atheist have difficulty to be honest with history and facts because of their extreme hatred against God.

 

When it comes to Biblical, Christian history the church is more reliable than the atheist and agnostic sources.
You have only again demonstrated your lack of historical facts and is extremely bend in your own false understanding or misreading of history.
It is not about constraint that the church imposed on priest it is about supervising and educating making sure that the truth is being preached and only qualified and highly educated priest and individuals with the proper knowledge can and is qualified to preach. This is the reason why we have many regulatory boards to make sure no unqualified doctors, dentist, lawyers, judges, engineers or teachers will practiced their profession irresponsibly.

 

And all this has happened in the last few of centuries. Most RC Priests, outside of the privileged, in days of old were neither highly educated or ordained. And that is History. In the UK the first son of the village squire inherited the title and the second son usually became the local priest. And that is History.

We are not talking about Church history. We are talking about general history surrounding the events of the Bible.
The church has manipulated religious doctrine since the Council of Nicea.

I've told you how modern understanding of Roman Laws makes Luke's Nativity story questionable. How you cannot reconcile Matthews and Luke's Nativity stories. The church has always told us that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Now, taking into account Jewish ritual and customs we understand that it was almost certainly a 'family meal'. It does not fulfil the requirements for a Passover meal.

 

I am sure about my facts, and how can I hate a god in whom I don't believe.

 

.

What has that got to do with my post that 'babies are not evil'. Nothing.

 

People have no choice if God is omniscient.

 

Say what? I have no idea how many times you have to say whatever it is.

Is this what you mean by saying you have said this many times? I wasn't aware you have said this many times...perhaps it was someone else that you said it many times to.

Anyway of course it's a religious book, in what other aspect should one study the Bible other than it being a religious book? We believers view the Bible as the Word of God, a religious Holy Book that contains true historical events along with biblical messages that God has revealed to us. The basic theme of God's book is the messages He is conveying over to us, basically He is telling us that He loves us and has a plan to save us from the destructive power of sin.

But you've made statements that's more in line with an atheistic point of view/perspective. So it's evident you're not sure what your belief system is. Perhaps you are progressing into becoming more of an atheist now...yes? I mean you claimed you were once a Christian, then became an agnostic but it appears you are now progressing into becoming an atheist without even realizing it.

That's just your own conclusion, are you saying everyone will come to the same conclusion as you have? Sorry but I hardly think so, I mean I have read it and I certainly didn't come to the same conclusion as you have. And what about the other 2 billion plus practicing Christians world-wide?

As a matter of fact I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a book that is the Word of God and it has lots of wisdom in it, messages that help us cope with our everyday life experiences that we go through. Messages that give us hope and comfort, messages of how we can redeem ourselves from our sinful fallen state, messages of God's grace and salvation.

As you see it in your own opinion. They do inter-relate, the NT is just a continuation of where the OT leaves off. The whole book is God's revelation to us. The books in many ways are complementary to each other.

The OT is foundational; the NT builds on that foundation with further revelation from God. The OT establishes principles that are seen to be illustrative of the NT truths. The OT contains many prophecies that are fulfilled in the NT. The OT provides the history of a people; the NT focus is on a Person...namely on Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

The OT shows the wrath of God against sin...with glimpses of His grace; the NT shows the grace of God toward sinners... with glimpses of His wrath.

So yes indeed they do inter-relate with each other, they complement each other no doubt.

I don't care what you think you've pointed out to me, that is not the issue here all I'm saying is that you are confused about your belief system. You claim to be an agnostic but yet you don't sound like one. If you're agnostic your view points shouldn't be as they are now.

Again this is your opinion, this is your interpretation...a flawed interpretation I might add on your point of view, your perspective.

Sorry but you just proved my point in that you are still confused. If you claim there is no evidence of a Supreme Being or of Jesus being the Messiah then you are claiming God doesn't exist. This point of view is in line with atheism. An agnostic would claim I don't know if there is evidence or not therefore I don't know whether God exists or not. An agnostic wouldn't be making affirmative statements such as you have ("There is no evidence of a Supreme Being or of Jesus being the Messiah")

It's just his opinion/interpretation and furthermore it's just your opinion he is right. I don't agree with it so in my view you're both wrong because there is a self-evident blueprint in the Hebrew Bible because it prophesied a Messiah was going to come into the world to take away the sins of the world. Of course it wasn't prophesied that His name was going to be Jesus but when Jesus came into the world He essentially fulfilled these prophecies mentioned in the OT. Obviously you have a different interpretation of what was written in the OT from the interpretation of Christians.

So perhaps you should go back and study very closely the Scriptures again.

I see it as written in the Scriptures of the Holy Bible first, let's not forget the Holy Bible consists of the OT and the NT but you seem to think of only the Jewish bible with your flawed interpretations of it.

Furthermore, the Christian websites that I subscribe to with their apologetic viewpoints affirms everything written in the Bible and that's why I'm in agreement with what they say because they keep in line with Scripture and so I use what they say at times. Thank God for copy & paste...lol I mean why bother typing it out all yourself when it's faster to copy & paste it. I've seen you use the copy & paste feature numerous of times before...lol

So anyway I get all what I need from the Scriptures, and the websites just explains in detail what's written in the Scriptures. So you could say they complement each other. And so as usual your opinion the way you see things are flawed.

You must be speaking about yourself...remaining in a shadowed confused world. I mean afterall you are confused about your belief system. You talk so much about the culture, religion and history of the Jews but you aren't Jewish by faith yourself...why is that? Oh but wait it's because you claim to be an agnostic...are you sure?

More opinions coming from you. Sorry but opinions are just what they are....opinions!

Conclusion: You are confused about your belief system. You lean more towards the atheistic point of view than the point of view of an agnostic without even realizing it.

An agnostic point of view should be "I just don't know"/ "I'm not sure of anything"/ "I straddle the fence because I don't want to commit myself one way or the other"/ "I don't know if God exists or not"/ "I don't know if Jesus is the Messiah or not".

But they way you've been babbling on it appears you are sure of many things...more in line with an atheistic point of view.

 

The Council of Nicea is part of church, Christian and general history that authenticates the reality of God and Christianity. Early church fathers this include priest were devout missionaries they struggle under cruel, hostile and barbaric conditions to preserve, teach and educate the general public about God their struggle and perseverance will lead to the rise of modernization of science and medicine.
Jewish traditions is Jewish tradition not God's tradition.

 

How can you hate on something that as an agnostic you are not sure of?
How can you be sure of your facts?
So far you have manipulated inadvertently historical facts because of your agnostic position.

- - - Updated - - -

Everything about your post in using babies as a means to justify evil and the use of babies to cursed God, God for acting against evil.

- - - Updated - - -

God's omniscient is the final judgement to separate good and evil.

 

Those facts that you say you have are not facts, they are your opinions/beliefs. Your statement above is more proof that you're an atheist.

Agnostics believe that we should not believe or disbelieve in God’s existence, because it is impossible to know either way. But your statement above is definitely atheistic.

Atheists are in fact anti-God. Atheist is a label some hide behind to mask a deep hatred toward God. Often due to childhood trauma or abuse in the name of religion, these people are consumed by an antipathy toward all things religious. The only way they can retaliate against a God they consider cruel is to deny Him vehemently. Events of the past have left wounds so deep that it is easier to deny the reality of God than admit that they hate Him. True atheists would not include this group in their numbers, as they recognize that to be angry with God is to acknowledge His existence. But many people do, in fact, call themselves atheists while simultaneously expressing outrage toward a God whose existence they deny.

To read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/so-many-atheists.html

 

The Virgin Birth Theory and how it probably crept into scriptures over the first century or two of Christianity is probably a good example of this happening!

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...longer-believe-virgin-birth-jesus-yeshua.html

I no longer believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus/ Yeshua!
I did until December 2012 when I read The Thomas Book Near Death and a Quest for Another Gospel by the Twin Brother of Jesus.......

This book has the potential to transform the relationship between Jews, Christians and Muslims!

In November of 2012 I probably would not have believed you if you had told me that within two months I would no longer believe in the Virgin Birth of Rabbi Jesus/ Yeshua.... but then I purchased Bruce F. MacDonald Ph. D.'s book and went through a major theological crisis!!!!!


http://www.thomastwin.com/6 A Thomas background.html

 

<Mod Edit> Are christians anti santa claus?

 

We like Santa he is a symbol of peace and love to all he is part of Christmas.

[video=youtube;Zo20M0Ky-T0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo20M0Ky-T0[/video]

 

To say God exists is to also say the Bible is true and accurate, I mean after all the Bible is the Word of God and God's Word is truth and nothing but the truth because He has never ever lied about anything. That's just His nature, as Holy and righteous that He is, He chooses to always be truthful.

It is not compatible to say in the same breath that God can exist...and then say....and the Bible still be inaccurate. Who gets to pick & choose which parts of the Bible are accurate/inaccurate? You'll have people picking out which parts they like and don't like...lol...everything will turn into a mockery/travesty.

 

I'm not going all through your post. It's a waste of time. All you ever do is post the Christian point of view.

You have never studied the OT with an open mind as you have shown by your ignorance of Jewish belief and the OT as and when it was written.

I am agnostic. If there is a god, there is. If there isn't there isn't. One thing I'm sure of that any god there may be does not does not interact with humanity.

Jesus was real IMO as a Jewish teacher. There is no evidence for anything else. To say that the evidence is Christianity is to say that Mohammed was a true prophet - Islam shows it.

These are not opinions, they are commonsense. For all your bluster anyone one knows that over 2-3000 years things change. What people believed then, what the culture was then etc etc often has no meaning today.

The translation of the Bible has involved errors and deliberate mis translation. The OT has been misinterpreted by Christianity and Islam.

I'm amused that you find time to post a screed on this, and have ignored my many posts pointing out the real translation of the OT. Still if you can't answer them that's only to be expected.

When I comment on the OT, and I've said this time and again if you only read things, I comment not on what I believe, but what the Bible actually says. In the case of religion one doesn't have to believe what is written to comment on it. But if one does comment one has to have studied with an open mind. Something that Christians are not encouraged to do. If I were to stand up in Church and say 'I can prove Luke was wrong in his nativity story because he knew little about Roman Laws' I would not be welcome. Why? Because the Church teaches Luke was right.

Mitt. Things are no longer the same. Modern understanding of the Old World shows us that things we thought we had right are not necessarily so. When we interpret ancient documents we interpret them in the light of the age in which they were written. This makes sense. The Church is beginning to realise it's mistake in not doing this. The Messiah forecast for the Jews was not Jesus. He does not fit the character that the OT forecasts.

Why am I wasting time. There are so many questionable things if you take the Bible literally that it becomes impossible.

And I didn't say 'if you'd read the Bible'. I said if you'd studied the Bible - a vastly different thing.

 

Is this another of your porn posts?

- - - Updated - - -

For clarification. It is NOT the WORD of God, it is the inspired word of God to man who wrote it down. Sometimes decades after an event.
At least try for honesty.
Lets also not forget, you are using an out of print bible to answer questions here, it is out of print because of errors. Some Word of God. It contains errors.