|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What you want to know about Christ. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The power of legend and myth is far greater than that of actual history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3624 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
This thread is intended to answer anyone's questions about Jesus Did Jesus remain celibate all his life? If so, what was his usual form of sexual release?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
gen writes: So, if you don't mind, I think that the question should be rephrased to say; 'How good a job is the church doing of its purpose of spreading the Bible?' No problem, that's what I meant anyway.
To be honest, I don't think that the church as a whole is doing that great a job. That is one of the reasons I started this thread, to reach those who have questions and are searching for something more in their lives. Thanks for your honesty. It's nice to hear that you're willing to take initiative in attempting to help others.
I pray that you would come to know Him personally. He (Jesus Christ) wants to get to know you. Thanks. This sparks another question in my mind, though. I thought Jesus already knew everything? Why would He be concerned with getting to know me? Wouldn't He already know me? Thanks again for your answers. Umm... may peace follow your path
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gen Member (Idle past 6007 days) Posts: 78 Joined: |
Yes, he does. But I guess I should rephrase that to He wants you to get to know Him. If that makes sense? Sorry about that. Would you like to know what getting to know Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour means?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, how can I tell the difference between a real spiritual experience with Jesus/God and one I've imagined, or one that the Devil or a demon has caused to happen but makes me think is really from Jesus/God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I guess I should rephrase that to He wants you to get to know Him. If that makes sense? Sorry about that. Yes, that makes more sense for an all-knowing being.
Would you like to know what getting to know Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour means? Yes, I'm not sure if I've ever had it clearly explained. If you wouldn't mind, anyway. On a side note, I think it would be respecful to this site to keep this particular answer as concise as possible. I don't mean to attempt to take anything away from the glory of Jesus Christ, I just don't think this is the place for over-emphatic illustrations (if any are even involved). Perhaps this is included in the same answer, but in addition... why does Jesus want me to get to know Him?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Nator writes:
As to telling the difference between the experience being from God or arising within ones conscience is irrelevant. So, how can I tell the difference between a real spiritual experience with Jesus/God and one I've imagined, or one that the Devil or a demon has caused to happen but makes me think is really from Jesus/God? There are some basic differences that are generally agreed upon.
Of course, we can argue the reasoning behind this list. i just wanted to get it started.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Are you saying that someone couldn't have an imaginary experience that has all the characteristics you listed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Nator writes: Are you saying that someone couldn't have an imaginary experience that has all the characteristics you listed? If you believe that people can imagine a good life with good behavior without any need of a God Led impartation, I won't argue the point. Your original question was how, hypothetically, we could tell the difference between God and a demon as pertaining to influencing human behavior. Some believe that Gods Spirit is Gods imagination and that He desires that we commune and allow His Spirit to live through us. The original sin folks would argue that our own human imagination is vain and self serving. I see where you are saying that our own human idealism and self driven imagination could, of itself, be altruistic, selfless, and humble (without need of a god). If so, again, I won't argue with you. An imaginary experience could be very real. Depends on whose imagination we are talking about!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Phat writes:
Phat, these criteria are extremely subjective. There are no objective measures of haughtiness, selflessness, humbleness, etc. What you are talking about here is reverence for your belief system. The only criterion that will work for you is one that supports your faith. There are some basic differences that are generally agreed upon.
So, OK, I'll give you your belief system. Will you do the same for me. If I tell you that I believe in myself supremely, would you act reverently and humbly toward my personal faith? If I tell you that I am my own savior, will you respect that? I don't insist that you have to believe in me, my personal savior, to be "saved," so why do you say that only your personal savior will "save" me? One thing that has always stumped me about Christians is why they oppose scientific inquiry. If God gave man the ability to reason objectively, then why shouldn't Christians behold science as His greatest gift? Why wouldn't a Christian's blind faith be more offensive to God than a scientist's objectivity? Why wasn't Darwin perceived by Christians to be more graceful in the eyes of the Lord than Bishop Berkeley? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Phat, aren't all those also features of genuine relationships with Vishnu? Or with Allah? Or with the Buddha? Many of us know a lot of people who are explicitly non-Christian and yet have all of those features from their divine connection with their God. Gandhi is a good example, as was Anne Frank, and so many others.
Are you saying that only Christians can be good people? Thanks- Equinox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Gen writes:
The Bible does not specifically mention about Jesus genes scientifically, because there was little known about that 2000 years ago. Why would it matter what was known by humans back then? Aren’t you saying that the Bible is ultimately written by God? Wouldn’t God know how genes work? Ancient people weren’t stupid - if god explained the truth about something, they could understand as well as people do today when scientists explain it. Doesn’t it strike you as a little bit odd, to say the least, that an omnipotent God writes a half-million word book for us, and never mentions any science from his vast knowledge before the people themselves figure it out on their own? It can’t be because of some pledge not to tell us things we don’t know, since he goes on about the existence of heaven, hell, the creation of the world, Cain & Abel, Jesus’ trial narratives, and much more that the human transcriber couldn’t have known. And yet, not a peep about anything scientific that wasn’t already known (such as the fact that striped sticks determine breeding traits, or that there is a giant dome holding up the sky). Wouldn’t an omniscient, loving god say something about life saving things like vaccination, fertilizer, electricity, pain relievers, steam engines, telephones and the periodic chart? This is like a scientist who discovers an instant cure for leukemia, then comes home to his dear son who is dying of Leukemia, and just doesn’t say anything, or give it to him, but instead watches him die. Whaaaa? Imagine a ship of uneducated people you loved going to colonize a distant planet, and you could send a book of 500,000 words (the length of the KJV Bible) - think of what you could include! But instead we get stories repeated word for word, whole chapters of geneologies of people who are never mentioned again, and incoherent babblings. It’s like the parachutist who pulled the cord and out popped a blow up doll. What is this, some cruel, sadistic joke? And you say a God is behind all that, and that you still want to worship him? It makes me wonder who is more messed up. I know a lot of moderate Christians who think that blaming God for the Bible has to be the worst blasphemy they’ve ever heard. It’s hard to fit a more damning statement about the Holy spirit into a single sentence than saying that the Holy Spirit is ultimately the author of the Bible. Realizing that the Bible is a purely human creation allows a Christian to believe in a much grander, more wonderful, more loving God as compared to the sadistic, incompetent cosmic terrorist that must be believed in if one thinks that the Bible is the direct work of God. Equinox P.S. gen, I haven't seen a response from you to my questions posted back on post #54. Did you miss them? Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
gen wrote:
All the gospels are different, because they were written by different people with different backgrounds and qualifications. Matthew was a former tax collecter, and a disciple, Mark was not a disciple, and was probably a Roman, Luke was a Greek doctor, and never met Jesus face to face, and John was a disciple, formerly a fisherman. Of course they will have different writing styles. They had different viewpoints, different relationships, and different statuses. So their view of Jesus was different, but they all mostly agreed. I know there are some discrepencies, but depending on how you look at them, they can usually be seen as the same. . . . ..Sorry, but no. John was one of Jesus close friends, an apostle in fact. Gen, have you actually read and critically studied these gospels? Even a very cursory study shows that the differences are beyond having a different writing style, including differences in theology, differences in what they say happened, and differences in how to be saved. (reposted from july) “John’s” gospel has so much magic and so many fabrications that is does not appear to be written by someone who was there or even someone familiar with the Palestinian world. In the 4th Gospel, Jesus never casts out a single demon, talks incessantly about himself, never does anything special with the bread and wine at supper, does showy miracles explicitly to convince people that he's the messiah, and never even tells a freakin’ parable! The opposite is seen in the other gospels. If the other gospels have any accurate information about a real Jesus, then it is clear that whoever wrote the 4th gospel can’t be anyone who was around Jesus, like John the son of Zebedee, who you claim. The author of the 4th gospel also speaks in Greek, and apparently doesn’t know Aramaic (see Greek word pun in John chap 3 - ask me if interested). How could John not know Aramaic?? Also note that chapter 21 is well known to have been added later - not by whoever wrote the rest of the 4th gospel. It is only in that later addition that it says the “beloved disciple” wrote the gospel. The bottom line for me is that we don’t have much of a clue as to who wrote the 4th gospel - but that it appears to be a well-educated, upper class person, far removed from Jesus life and direct followers by both distance and time. There is almost no evidence supporting your statement that the 4th Gospel was written by John the son of Zebedee, one of Jesus’ disciples. Here is what we have in support: 1. The Catholic tradition that this is the case - which doesn’t really tell us much, other than the fact that later Catholics thought so in the late 2nd century. 2. The “beloved disciple” line in chapter 21. This is irrelevant for two reasons. First, it only says that this “beloved disciple” wrote this gospel - it doesn’t say who that beloved disciple is, and there is nowhere in the gospel that says something like “I’m John, the beloved disciple, writing this”. Secondly, and more importantly, chapter 21 is well known to be a later addition tacked on the end by someone else. That’s supported by changes in the greek, the previous ending in 20:30, the content of chap 21, and the fact that Tertullian, writing in the late 2nd century, says it ends without the verses in Chapter 21 (there were no chapter numbers then of course - he refers to content). OK, what evidence suggests that the 4th gospel wasn’t written by John the son of Zebedee, the disciple: 1. Even our oldest manuscripts are in very good, sophisticated greek. This seems unlikely from an uneducated, lower class peasant like John. 2. Elsewhere (Acts 4:13) says that John was illiterate. 3. Many, contradictions (see above) between the 4th Gospel and the synoptics strongly suggest that whoever wrote John wasn’t an eyewitness (as John the son of Zebedee would be), and the 4th gospel itself says that it wasn’t written by an eyewitness, but rather based on the reports of eyewitnesses. (we can get into listing these if we like). 4. Anachronisms in the 4th Gospel argue against an eyewitness as well. 5. The Gospel of Mark (written around 70 CE) says that Peter and John were (will be) martyred - which is difficult to square with the idea of John writing the 4th gospel, which wasn’t written until the turn of the century. Scholars who study the Bible (including Christian Scholars) have long ago concluded that John the disciple didn’t write the gospel of “John”. So, overall, do *you* really think John wrote the 4th gospel? I’m asking for your opinion, for you to think for yourself, not just repeat what your preacher told you that you have to believe to avoid Hell. Thoughts? Thanks- -Equinox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Gen,
Just to let you know I am still waiting for a scriptural reference that some Egyptians painted their doorposts with lambs blood, AND that the Egyptians were given a choice. If you made a mistake that is fine, just let me know. If you lied then there's a bigger guy than me to answer to!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
Would have liked a reply to message 125. I'll post it again. It's an odd piece of text that seems out of place in the bible, considering that god is infinitely powerful.
quote: After reading through this thread I'm curious about something. It seems to me that satan is considered to be the ultimate in evil, but from what I see, god is pretty much holding his own in this department.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024