Did Jesus die in vain?

It is true though.The evil done by religions far outweigh the good. Hard to say.I think some are just plain stupid.Others have weak faiths and need external support for events in the Bible as if this proves anything supernatural.Some are reformed junkies and alcoholics, and other disastrous lives. Things are so bad for them that when they reach a point when they cannot sink any lower then they remember their sunday school lessons. They have no friends but they remember that Jesus loves everyone, Jesus even loves them, and it is the demons that made them bad.

This says exactly what I said immediately after I wrote "I question your belief". That was I question your belief that the book of Acts is not a historical document. That is all.At best you would have to point out your reasons why Luke is lying here and there. You may question his interpretation of events that happened. You may say that he imagined an incorrect interpretation of the events he recorded.But I question your belief that Acts should be dismissed as a historical reference to the spread and growth of the Christian church. There you go again. You LOVE to bring up Islam when I am talking about the New Testament.Islam does believe that there is one God. Orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians also believe that there is one God.So in THAT respect, at least, they are all believers. We share a common monothiestic belief that there is one God.Islam and Judaism do not believe in the incarnation of God to be the man Jesus. In that respect Islam and Orthodox Judaism are unbelievers in Christ the Son of God. This should not be new information to you. I have tried to take away the clouds.As to the belief in one God all three faiths are BELIEVERS. From my Christian perspective only, as to the Son of God, Islam and the Jewish Orthodox faith are unbelievers.And they themselves would be all to eager to confirm that in that repect of God having a Son they certainly ARE unbelievers.Now from the standpoint of Islaml, Christians and Jews are unbelievers as to the Moslem concept that Mohammed was the last prophet. Am I right?So they call me "infidel". Why? Because I am an unbeliever in their belief that the last prophet of God was Mohammed. They are quite right. In fact I don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet of God period. From you point of view that's what you think. I wuold say that my belief in the Son of God is based upon the fact that I met the Son of God. I believe that He came to me and into my heart and I know Him.When I compare my experience with His teaching I am mightily confirmed that I am on the right track. I read the New Testament and I can say "I understand that. I know what he is talking about there. I have experienced that. That is just what happened to me."For example when I read this from Jesus:Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23) I now respond with "I understand that. That explains what happened to me when I called out 'Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus'. That explain the changes that occured in my life from the day I called out to the Lord Jesus."Yes I have a faith. But I have the New Testament which signals that I am on the right track. When I read Paul's, John's and Peter's letters, I can identify with what they are writing. I am confirmed that they experience they are speaking of I too am having.So I think I am on the right track to be a Christian. But I was not always so. And perhaps like you I was perplexed as to who is telling the truth. Maybe you give up in dispair that everyone knows nothing.Somehow by the mercy of God I did not give up in dispair assuming that all "believers" in something are delusional.I think that if you read the New Testament with a willingness to be changed by God, faith will be put into you. I don't even have a sword.Go find some Crusader to debate with on this point.And, I don't "villify" person just because she or he cannot believe the Gospel.I may villify you if I see that you strenuously oppose and fight against the Gospel. Then I may villify you a little. But just to say "Hey, I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God and rose from the dead." NO I do not villify a person just because he cannot yet believe. I think I see much more of a big picture than you do.I even think that I can prove from the Bible that some people who are ignorant of who Jesus is will be granted everlasting life.I think I have had that discussion before on this Forum. This belief comes from a truly biblical big picture. And not all my Christian brothers would agree with it. But I think I have a very strong case from Scripture to show that some people not born again will have their names written in the book of life.However I don't think this applies to anyone who is today able to read this discussion.Christ offers a very big picture. I don't need to step outside the faith to obtain a big picture. Besides, once Jesus gets into your heart it is so difficult to think of any life without Him inside.I mean how do you become UNBORN again once you are BORN AGAIN. It is impossible to reverse a BIRTH.IT is a matter of receiving another Life in addition to the life I received when I was naturally born. This is your favorite subject. This is not a statement on the unreality of Jesus Christ. This is a statement on the corrupted nature of the religious fallen man.Religious wars and religious persecutions are not proof of the unreality of the Son of God.There is a last judgment. And God will sort it all out. I say again, religious wars and religious persecutions are not the hallmarks of the unreality of the Gospel of Christ. It is a tragedy that they occured. It was PREDICTED by Jesus that they would occur. So why should I be shocked and throw up my hands and say:"Oh well, Because of the Crusades and the Spanish Enquisition and the Holocost, THEREFORE, Jesus must not be the Son of God." I DO NOT MAKE THAT CONNECTION.You go ahead and make that connecton if it makes you happy. You go ahead and say "Well, so many people did such evil things in the name of God and in the name of Christ, THEREFORE, Christ is not the Son of God that he said he was, and the New Testament must not be true. Because if it were true there would have been no religious persecution and no religious wars!"You go ahead and make that logical connection. I won't be doing that.Neither would I say Yahwah does not exist because Rueben and Simeon slaughtered some local boys who disrespected their sister.Neither will I deny Yahwah exists because the tribe of Dan practiced idolatry or the tribe of another tribe of Israel fought a war over a gang rape.Nor will I say. "Well the Old Testament must not be true" because David the king of Israel had a man murdered and stole his wife.Bad things that happened in connection with people who claim to know God or seemed that they should know better do NOT cause me to doubt the truthfulness of God or the Son of God.So PLEASE use the persecution and religious war card on someone else. It doesn't work on me.I intend to follow the Lord Jesus. I don't care if every other disciple takes up arms and wages war and has Inquisitions and persecutes Christians and Jews. I intend to follow Jesus."You ... follow Me." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But I question your belief that Acts should be dismissed as a historical reference to the spread and growth of the Christian church.

---

The point I made was, it is insufficient to use one part of a scripture, as historical proof for antother part of that scripture. This would apply to any scripture - the OT, Quran or the Bagwatgita. There is almost nothing contemporary or with cross-reference from other sources of the NT, of a period where writings was commonplace: define historical?

quote:

---

At best you would have to point out your reasons why Luke is lying here and there. You may question his interpretation of events that happened. You may say that he imagined an incorrect interpretation of the events he recorded.

---

It does say a lie-by-omission, which is not debatable. Historical facts such as mass crucifixtion of Israelites defending their faith against depraved Rome, and that the Judeans of that time were big time believers of their faith - is not given any regard: they are villified because they stayed Jewish - no other crime. The gospels is a racist document - which may be seen in all three M/E scriptures to varying degrees, but I think the OT is not in the same league of racism: the NT takes the jackpot prize here with its NO SALVATION BUT THROUGH ME - a literal death sentence on Jews, perpertrated with 20/20 vision it would never be accepted, and far worse than mighty rome's decree. Now just imagine a new force emerged and said that to christians today, the same thing, but with different names: your an unbeliever if you don't believe, and your doomed unless you do believe - all your 2000 belief is now passe? Its not a debatable thing, if you've studied this history: one can trace the holocaust as a dot in the thread of the church, and there is no place for this to come from than its writings and those who harkened to it. But I suppose you have justification for it, you would love someone gospelling you that way? - what else is new.

quote:

---

Islam says the same - but uses different names only. So which is right, and how can you question anyone's belief on that basis?

​

There you go again. You LOVE to bring up Islam when I am talking about the New Testament.

---

This is not about the NT - it is about reality and truth. You should look at the scenario from an objective view. There are TWO religous groups saying exactly the same thing, al biet with different names, and both claiming how bad the Jews are. The point you are not wanting to address is, both give polar oppositte reasonings for villifying the Jews - and both cannot be right. Jews get hit which ever way they turn or which ever way they not turn, nor can they move away, nor can they stand where they are. Its not about the NT - its about chaos and insanity by two king kongs. There is only one way out of this hellish future of destruction it points to: and what is that - any clues?I say, both king kongs can only be made sane via the OT laws, one of which says, DO NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING. The king kongs are pointing to a M.A.D. paradise, held together only by deflection on the most common scapegoat syndrome: what happens when Israel is wiped off - will the king kongs dwell in peace or have a face off? Give me front row seats please! Is it not sufficient that America was discovered by the Jews - to save christianity from Europe? Columbus never got lost - he had the finest Jewish mapsters on board.

quote:

---

Islam and Judaism do not believe in the incarnation of God to be the man Jesus. In that respect Islam and Orthodox Judaism are unbelievers in Christ the Son of God. This should not be new information to you.

---

But the inference is, thereby, they don't believe in God - a most ubsurd and presumptious premise, and a failed one - meaning it is a wrong and false insinuation, and one which has costed millions of lives, and given the word religion a terrible reputation. I see that Islam came to christianity as a sign and omen, accusing christians of being infidels. So who's the right one here? I think the OT's chosen syndrome, which is made a big fuss over, is mild compared to the NT and Quran modes of chosen.In the end, only majestic laws will apply. All the names will be set aside, all will stand down at the mount: the message, not the messenger, will prevail. There is a reason the greatest revelation was all about laws - because this will resolve humanity eventually. Love is a law in the OT, involving evidential actions applicable to the stranger, and is preceded by truthfulness [the 3rd C] and respect [the 4th C]- else it has no merit, nor is it a brilliant new NT invention. I say, walk humbly before your God.

I have observed believers seemingly living thier lives in order to go to heaven when they die. Fear of eternal damnation is a pretty good reason to believe but it doesn't allow much freedom to live.Religious beliefs do not accept/incorporate humanity as normal. The foundation belief is that we are not perfect which in itself leads us not be ourselves. Some lives are completely lived trying to be better.The self-rightious amongst the believers even think they are better. What happened to we are all equal?My observations are purely from my own life experiences and maybe some religions lead the way to become everything you can be. Maybe they teach their young to draw their own conclusions and make their own decisions. Maybe there are some who teach to believe in yourself and nothing else matters, but I haven't found one yet.

Jesus probably never even existed. There's no historical proof whatsoever. However, if he did exist, he was very likely prosecuted for something else. In the muslim version(or some arabian or other middle eastern version) Jesus was executed because he committed a major crime, something on par with rape -but that variation on the Jesus story came up later, and was mere folklore as well.I never understood why a person would have to die for no reason(Jesus), just so a less virtuous person(A sinner) could go free. Doesn't make any sense to me at all, whatever way I look at it.

quote:

---

Religious beliefs do not accept/incorporate humanity as normal.

---

Depends what you condone as religious beliefs and humanity: religions have become a generic term, while humanity is represented by the laws in its instutions, such as the judiciary systems. Most religious beliefs have no laws for humanity, except they are promoting a specific preferred name instead of laws or concepts for humanity. When one examines the message of the NT and Quran, for instance, these say you are bad if you don't subscribe to a particular name - their message is that their messenger is greater than the message, which one can argue is a form of paganism and has nothing whatsoever to do with humanity. Here, it does not matter if you observe the laws - you are bad if you don't first and foremost subscribe to a particular name. This is more politics than religion.In polar contrast, the OT does not mention names nor attaches them to any laws of humanity. There is no law which includes the name of God or Moses; the OT uses a generic premise for the creator [indescribale and no images of anything within the universe], as opposed NO SALVATION BUT THROUGH JESUS, or No God w/o Mohammed. This is 100% politics, and it has created a quagmire which has taken millions of lives - and both those religions contradict each other, creating a cyclical warp not any of them can escape from. Both are mutually exclusive of each other - namely it is a chaos: one is bad no matter which of them he follows or if he does not follow any of them. The OT presses the point the law applies equally to all humans, regardless of religion, status or any ther criteria, namely no names apply: 'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY'.This has resulted in humanity not accepting a single law from both those religions, and condoning only the laws in the OT - exclusively. Try to name a world accepted law from any of those religions - all you get are names in response? The world's institutions turn by the OT laws, and msteriously, not one comes from elsewhere, even when many religions emerged in the last 2000 years. This says there is one religion or one religious document which does impact humanity, not with names but with concepts and laws only.Consider what the future of humanity holds. The religions will have a show down, facing only destruction - because they are in chaos, with self contradicting laws. Ultimately, humanity has to go by laws - not names. In the end, humanity will have to put laws, not names, on the table and vote, and whatever humanity agrees to, will be the accepted laws for humanity: this is also the reasons some countries reject democrasy - they in fact reject laws and want a name to be the operative factor. This means, not a single law will be accepted by humanity of the NT or the Quran. This means, any law in the OT which is not acceptable by humanity, will also not be included - but by far, the OT will be the most accepted. The term 'belief' will not be accepted, because the law will represent belief, and none will be able to tell anyone else they are bad because a preferred name is not adhered to. This appears the future of humanity, but perhaps after a lot more destruction and wars, before humanity settles down on one set of laws applying equally to all of humanity - agreed to by humanity.

I see your view is mainly through 'laws'. My perspective is from the human being's experience of all these 'laws'. How religious beliefs {laws) affect the individual human being and humanity as a whole.

Legend has it. Humans are never grateful. We doubt the existence of God. Reason being we refuse to surrender our right to understand the universe we choose to define.

​

Sin can be defined many ways. To me, sin is the willful absence of God. IOW, we choose to run the show and ultimately screw it up.

​

To some, religion is a fairy tale for grownups and makes no sense.

​

The bottom line is how we would choose to relate to a God incarnate if He (or She) DID exist.
Are we too old for the fairytale? Or are we too arrogant to consider it?

quote:

---

I see your view is mainly through 'laws'.

---

Everything is a law - including love, humanity, kindness, justice, life and the universe itself. It is significant that the world's only OPEN revelation was ushered in with laws - and it was given to those who wanted anything but more laws, having just been freed from laws of slavery.The term law is misunderstood, while the notion of love is incorrectly applied as if someone just discovered it. Actually, love is a law, and two other laws transcend it: HONESTY [3rd command from Sinai], and then by RESPECT [4th command] - for what is love w/o honesty and respect - other than a lawless love?

quote:

---

The bottom line is how we would choose to relate to a God incarnate if He (or She) DID exist.
Are we too old for the fairytale? Or are we too arrogant to consider it?

---

I dont think so. All life has an inherent belief in a creator source, and is never the brilliant observation of anyone. Once someone says their nominated version of the creator is the encumbent and exclusive path, someone else will come along and put their own preferred name as transcendent and fullfilling yours - then what? This is also what occured when the NT claimed exclusive kingdom keys - Islam came on its heels and said they have the kingdom keys, and that it is the last message. And why not - if one does it, then it opens the door to a cyclical, dizzying array of the same - but both the NT and Quran, which contradict each other - cannot be right.Here, we see that names cannot be the measure - but majestic laws can. Here, the OT topples both the NT and the Quran - which is also why both have an obsession to prevail it, feeling they become wrong and negated by it. A true, correct law can never be negated, diminished, increased, fullfilled or touched - the advocation, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT, has proven correct and vindicated today: the others have no laws nor been able to prevail over the OT laws.

This obviously doesn't apply to Goerge Bush Or, 'are we believing a fairytale and do not want to grow up and take responsibility for the screw up'?

Everything is a law insofar as they exist including fear, hate etc; but surely it is down to choice?

quote:

---

Everything is a law insofar as they exist including fear, hate etc; but surely it is down to choice?

---

You raise an important factor in connecting laws with choices. Laws need choice, and choice needs laws - none of these can prevail without the other. This also means, a law has no bearing where there is no choice - and that the option of choice is directly related to laws: we have no freedom of choice outside the law, whereby a moral/ethical decision has to be made - the only instant we have choice, and none outside this peremeter.Freedom of choice does not relate to the casual or trivial, such as choosing between a bue or red car. One can stop breathing - but for how long and to what result: one has to 'LIVE BY THE LAW'? Thus THOU SHALL OR SHALT NOT BREATHE is not a law, and no moral/ethical decision has to be made here or become of merit.When real choice is considered, which has merit and consequences, this choice factor is limited to making a moral/ethical decision - and all the laws of humanity which are true and correct laws are pointed at this premise. No other life forms have laws nor freedom of choice - nor can they sin or earn any merits. Love of parents is not a law because this is biological and instinctive, requiring to moral/ethical decision - this is also why the law says, 'HONOR [RESPECT] YOUR PARENTS', instead of love thy parents - which means one has to abide that law even when a discourse occurs, which requires a moral/ethical deliberation - and it is then a choice.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Choosing to love or fear does not require a law. It's a normal response. How do you know which laws are true and correct?

quote:

---

Choosing to love or fear does not require a law. It's a normal response.

---

Correct. Thus these are not laws.

quote:

---

How do you know which laws are true and correct?

---

Aside from one's contemplation, those laws which are generally accept by the world's institutions, and which are not lmited to any religion's beliefs but accepted by those outside that belief, are true and correct.There have been laws since ancient times [code of hamurabi, etc], some were true and correct, some were not. When the OT emerged, it was first known as the book of laws, and contained 613 laws - some of these were from more ancient times, being an affirmation of those laws being correct, while most were discarded. Today, almost every law accepted by the world, aside from ritual laws which relate to one's particular religion, come exclusively from the OT. The judiciary institutions, family and civic laws, all from from here, as do all animal rights laws.That these have stood the test of time and have been incorporated in today's advanced human institutions, says these are true and correct laws. It is thus alarming and suspicious when the NT says Jesus, a Judean jew, advocated the law is changed or negated in some ways - I doubt this, and it appears that this was by others, specially Paul, and then ratified in Europe much later. In any case, this is a failed premise, as none of the laws have been negated and remain active today.