Part 39 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

But not Ghandi or any other good person who doesn't but into Christian mythology.

 

Nor Jesus' parents, since they didn't even believe that he was prophet (Matt 13:57).

 

"Heaven" or "the Kingdom of Heaven" is synonymous with "the Kingdom of God"

Let me give you an example.

We Read in Scripture:

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. 24 I’ll say it again—it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” Matthew 19:23-24 NLT

As we see with the verses above Lord Jesus uses "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" interchangeably and so obviously Lord Jesus consider them synonymous.

Ok thanks Kode for your post.

 

That's what I thought. Thanks.

Mitty asked you where heaven is. You replied saying "Answer: Is unknown because we do not have verses in Scripture that give us a geographical location but the short answer to this question is: "Heaven is where our Creator Almighty God is."

Is there any place where heaven is not? Where would heaven NOT be and where would god NOT be? Your bible says Satan is "the god of this world". What do you say? Where is god not? Maybe not in the sinner?

 

You said god will "cut you off" if you stop trusting. You say god didn't change in that case. Rather, circumstances have changed. But you have a situation in which you say god had NOT "cut you off" but as circumstances change "he will cut you off". Then you pretend that wouldn't be a case of god changing. That cannot be true and I think you know it.

You have a contradiction that you're trying to make not contradict. But you can't. God doesn't change but god changes. You can't escape this with lame denials.

 

That is an instance in which science crushes biblical myth. There is a consistent and clear fossil record that dates the last dinosaur at about 65 million years ago, while the bible says the earth is some 6000 years old. And since homo sapiens first appeared about 4.5 million years ago, there is no way any human ever saw a living dinosaur. So you either have to believe an unsubstantiated myth or you have to believe science that demonstrated repeated facts and results that were peer reviewed many times. Not to mention that a 6000-year-old earth is absurd. Humans were in North America 20,000 years ago!

 

Speaking of "generalized statements", correlation does not imply causation. So unless you and one other person actually heard god say he will answer a prayer, it isn't causation.

 

No, sorry but you're wrong Mitty. You have misinterpreted/misunderstood the passage of "Jesus rejected at Nazareth". And so I have to correct your error.

Let me put up that passage of Matthew 13:53-58.

We Read in Scripture:

Jesus Rejected at Nazareth

53 When Jesus had finished telling these stories and illustrations, he left that part of the country. 54 He returned to Nazareth, his hometown. When he taught there in the synagogue, everyone was amazed and said, “Where does he get this wisdom and the power to do miracles?” 55 Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph,[a] Simon, and Judas. 56 All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?” 57 And they were deeply offended and refused to believe in him.

Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his own family.” 58 And so he did only a few miracles there because of their unbelief. Matthew 13:53-58 NLT

Footnotes
a. 13:55 Other manuscripts read Joses; still others read John.

After reading the entire passage intently and taking note of what Lord Jesus said, the correct interpretation is that He was rejected by a crowd of people, not by His immediate family members. His immediate family members weren't part of the crowd because they weren't there, it's just that the crowd had mentioned the Lord's family members.

Ok thanks Mitty for your post.

 

The Scriptures say that no one is righteous, not even one. Everyone has sinned and we all fall short of God's glorious standard.

We Read in Scripture:

10 As the Scriptures say, “No one is righteous—not even one. Romans 3:10 NLT

23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Romans 3:23 NLT

Now as far as Mahatma Ghandi is concerned he rejected Lord Jesus as being the only Incarnate Son of God. He was quoted saying:

According to the Scriptures of the Christian Holy Bible anyone who rejects Jesus as their Lord and Savior will not be saved and will be separated from God for all eternity.

But as far as Mahatma Ghandi is concerned who knows, maybe he recanted what he said and way before his eventual death converted over to Christianity. So I'm not going to say where Mahatma Ghandi is in the after-life...I have no idea. All I know is what is written in the Scriptures of the Christian Holy Bible.

Ok thanks my jolly good fella for your post.

 

IOW Jesus' parents and family didn't believe that he was a prophet, and why he rejected them (Mark 3:31-36).

 

Yes. It is a book of universal self hate in that way. Nobody can ever be good enough and all deserve to suffer for it, except of course if you accept and celebrate the suffering of another (Jesus), who suffers on your behalf, even though you didn't ask him to. Only if you do that may you be forgiven. And this is somehow mistaken as a message of justice and love.

Again, numerous layers of immorality.

A moral message would be something about doing good deeds and being a good person, and would not push the concept of vicarious redemption. You do not deserve eternal suffering, and if you somehow do, then you shouldn't get out of it through the suffering of others. I challenge you to think about it and not just mindlessly quote your scripture.

 

And Jesus said that he wasn't without sin either (Mark 10:18), otherwise he would have cast the first stone (John 8:7), and people wouldn't have described him as a gluttonous boozer which he didn't deny (Matt 11:19).

 

Mitt, you said falsely that you answer all posts it seems. Are you going to skip the above 4 posts #3479-3482?

 

Heaven is not where hell is and so wherever hell is Heaven is not there.

Ok thanks Kode for your post.

 

So is god within the sinner? Or is that where hell is most prevalent?

 

A month ago, on April 30th I stated my viewpoint on this subject matter, and you responded to that post of mine with a question that wasn't even related to my post because it regarded a different subject matter. I even presented a video titled, "How is satan god of this world?"

So obviously you didn't pay any attention to my post. Click on the link below to view my post and the video, it answers your question above:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-christianity.593626/page-133#post-1074778082

Ok thanks Kode for your post.

 

Right right right. "Satan" (mind) rules the unbeliever. But it rules all of us including you and all believers.

You also said "Heaven is not where hell is and so wherever hell is Heaven is not there."

So is god within the sinner? Or is that where hell is most prevalent?

 

Were he a sinner, he wouldn't have told her to sin no more, and make of himself a hypocrite. His gospel of repentance is to our benefit, to save us from destruction. And to conform ourselves to the law, as opposed to our taking up the law in self righteous and hypocritical application upon others, as they were about to do with the woman. Good laws require good people. It is a double edged sword. Otherwise the laws become a crown for perdition and the staff of tyranny. Only God has full rights to judgment because he is perfect. When Jesus said he is the light and life of the world, it wasn't idle speech. When men say there is no God or need of God, they do so with the very lives and breath he provides. They are driven by pride and vanity, without cognizance of Gods power. I am astonished by Gods long suffering.

 

Which is why he didn't cast the first stone and make himself a hypocrite (John 8:7), since he said he wasn't without sin either (Mark 10:18).

 

That makes no sense. He told her to stop sinning. If he didn't stone her because he's a sinner, then being a sinner he wouldn't have told her to stop sinning either by your rationale. But he did, so he's not. In Mark 10:18 he is redirecting the mans praise from himself to his Father, not lamenting his own wickedness.

 

But where did Jesus say that he was without sin, and given that he said that every jot and tittle of OT law still applies till heaven and earth pass when all is fulfilled (Matt 5:17-19) including the commandments described in Exodus 20:14 and Leviticus 20:10?

 

I don't know. I know I can't justly make up my own stories from the Bible to suit my own agenda, anymore than I can presume to enter a holy sanctuary and make myself at home. But to do so and then to declare that there is no holiness therein would be to define my own self. So if I'm commanded to live, then I shouldn't place myself in harms way by trifling with the work of God.

 

Oh but there is empirical evidence (Gospels) that bears witness to the supernatural abilities that Lord Jesus possessed and utilized during His ministry while He lived among us several thousands of years ago.

Furthermore, there is also outside the Bible sources that mentions His miracles. And so when you state there is no empirical evidence all you're doing is just expressing your denials/disbeliefs without any credible evidence to support your stance. I guess if you could somehow prove that Lord Jesus never existed then you might be on to something but as it is good luck in trying that for there is historicity of Lord Jesus as I will present the evidence shortly and so your efforts if you do try will just be a senseless exercise in futility to no avail.

Let me now present a brief explanation of "empirical evidence" below:

The Gospels of the New Testament depicts the birth, the life, the teachings from His ministry, the miracles He performed, and the death by crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Gospels of the New Testament are indeed empirical evidences. Whether you believe them or not it's up to you but nevertheless they are a form of "empirical evidence" (first hand eye-witness accounts). To not believe the Gospels is essentially calling the writers liars but can anyone prove that?...the answer is no but to be fair neither can it be proven they were telling the truth but then one must ponder the fact that people will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie. So I as a Christian believe the Gospels after all the Gospels are essentially a key foundation that the Christian religion is built upon. It's the Good News for all the people in the world! Sadly though not all the people in the world will believe/accept the Good News...that's a sad shame!

Now getting back to eyewitness testimony, 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.

And there is mention in Roman history as well as Jewish history of miracles performed by Lord Jesus, granted though they are not as detailed/descriptive as what is presented in the Gospels but nevertheless they are mentioned. Phrases such as "For he was one who wrought surprising feats...", "He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things", "did magic", are just a few examples of mentioning miracles.

Now I'm going to present a partial article from my favorite Christian Ministry, they answer the question, "Did Jesus really exist?" If anyone wants to read the entire article click on the link below the partial article. This article presents evidence of the historicity of Lord Jesus all coming from sources outside of the Bible. And after the written article I will present the video portion of this article. I have presented this article and video before when I responded to a post by trevor but no harm in presenting it again for there has to be some who missed it before which might include you JET.

So in conclusion I've established that there is "empirical evidence" to support supernatural Jesus claims and to the historicity of Lord Jesus from outside of the Bible sources.

Ok thanks JET for your post.

 

Good points Mitt. It's amazing how someone who supposedly wasn't divine and probably never lived, could have such an influence on the whole world two thousand years hence. Not to mention that the very date of our times is based on his going.

 

The Gospels are anonymous hearsay. No one know who wrote them. If you think you do you better do your homework. Who wrote the Q source if you have a clue what that is? The last gospel JOHN was written in 100AD, generations later after the claimed death of Jesus.. Do you even know what empirical evidence is? It is evidence subject to independent testing and verification which. If you did have emprical evidence of a supernatural claim you would be a candidate for a Nobel Prize. lol The Gospels are not contemporary history, let alone align with contempory history. You know they did have real history back then that of course missed the heavens opening up, the temple veil being ripped in half, the dead people coming up out of the ground and walking down the street, lol. You have got to be here as a troll.