Jesus is Dead

[amadeus]

well, i get why you might say that, but wadr i think it is a valid observation on the current state of "Christianity," which near as i can tell has very little to do with the Bible

A positive note on Mark Twain, perhaps.

 

[marks]

well i think the point is that one was accepted and the other rejected

. . . good, bad, there they go, down the same drain!

 

[bbyrd009]

The destination isn't what makes up a Christian's life.
A Christian's life determines their destination.
You can't search for heaven out there somewhere.. you walk in heaven right here.

”like”

You are either in or out, you can't be both.

thought about this for a couple days…and i dunno; maybe :)

 

[bbyrd009]

You are either in or out, you can't be both.

Im 60, and have a job that pays decent, 6 weeks a year vaca, all the ot i can stand...im in heaven
Im 60, and have a job that no one else wants, more ot than i want, cant get a day off, im in hell...
:)

 

[bbyrd009]

. . . good, bad, there they go, down the same drain!

drain?

 

[Ziggy]

Im 60, and have a job that pays decent, 6 weeks a year vaca, all the ot i can stand...im in heaven
Im 60, and have a job that no one else wants, more ot than i want, cant get a day off, im in hell...
:)

you can't be in both places at the same time.
You are either content or you are not.
Either in the water or in the fire..lol

Mat 17:15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.


HUGS

 

[2bme]

So you're saying that if a Christian loves you, they should leave you alone and not share the Gospel with you, right?

Well, I can tell you now that seeing someone walk toward destruction and not telling them how to avoid it is the opposite of love.

But it's your choice. No one can force you to choose life. That choice belongs to you.

Truth is that anyone who desperately believes anything to cope with life's unanswered questions, will by default force everyone and everything to conform to their belief. But the earth, the universe and reality will not let them, as we can all see now.

 

[2bme]

1. dont use the Lords name as a cussword. Would you use your mothers name as a cussword??
2. Extermination?? Yea my vote is, the grief you’re feeling because of us, is a good thing. The Holy Spirit is working on you, but your pride is getting in the way.

God is a word made up by us. Is that not true?

 

[2bme]

God does not change, He is perfect and His way is not natural to us. You need to read the Bible.

You become the thing you believe. No wonder the earth is full of violence, for the God of the Bible is a warlike God.

 

[2bme]

Not really related to the OP is it?

In any event, you are totally wrong. Read about Christian transformation and a New Creation, which means we have a changed, divine nature.

Make a blessed day!

I have a hypothesis relating to the tunnel of light, when peopleh have NDE experiences.

Who said the tunnel of light is opened outward to travel outside the universe? Maybe it could be a tunnel or (Funnel) traveling inwards. At the point of physical death the energies within the body collapse (Similar as black holes do) To funnel those energies into somewhere else.

 

[Truth OT]

"The world is filled with nice people. If you cannot find one, be one."

I like it.

 

[bbyrd009]

Truth is that anyone who desperately believes anything to cope with life's unanswered questions, will by default force everyone and everything to conform to their belief. But the earth, the universe and reality will not let them, as we can all see now.

fascism always seems to be our default, huh?
fwiw the Bible’s coat of many colors might describe the opposite

You become the thing you believe. No wonder the earth is full of violence, for the God of the Bible is a warlike God.

ha well OT i guess, if you read literally, but Yah is also described as “Love” right; so it might be more a matter of—like you say—what one chooses to focus on?

 

[Truth OT]

The Bible is an eye witness record of Jesus being alive after he was killed.

Luke was definitely not an eye witness and neither was Paul. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and John are anonymous so the idea of biblical eyewitness testimony is very unlikely.

 

[bbyrd009]

you can't be in both places at the same time

well, you say that…

You are either content or you are not

well, being “divided” i guess it is possible to be both/either, even if not at exactly the same moment

 

[Jim B]

Luke was definitely not an eye witness and neither was Paul. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and John are anonymous so the idea of biblical eyewitness testimony is very unlikely.

Your logic is flawed. The Gospels accurately describe Jesus' life. It's unfortunate that you can't (or won't) see that.

Luke begins his gospel with "Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." Luke 1:1-4, NET v 2.1

The Apostle John wrote this: "This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life— and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us). What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ). Thus we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete." 1 John 1:1-4

So your claims about eyewitness testimony are false. You seem bent on disproving eyewitness testimony; what is your real intent?

 

[Truth OT]

So your claims about eyewitness testimony are false. You seem bent on disproving eyewitness testimony; what is your real intent?

Did Luke not admit he was NOT an eyewitness? My point is proven by the very words you quoted. Argue with the Bible, not me on this.

The Gospels accurately describe Jesus' life. It's unfortunate that you can't (or won't) see that.

As far as this claim goes, I'm not 2000 years with early life experience in Palestine so I can't confirm the accuracy of the accounts. What I do know from historians is that the accounts were pinned decades after the events mentioned so they COULD NOT be eyewitness accounts.

 

[Jim B]

Did Luke not admit he was NOT an eyewitness? My point is proven by the very words you quoted. Argue with the Bible, not me on this.


As far as this claim goes, I'm not 2000 years with early life experience in Palestine so I can't confirm the accuracy of the accounts. What I do know from historians is that the accounts were pinned decades after the events mentioned so they COULD NOT be eyewitness accounts.

Once again: The Apostle John wrote this: "This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life— and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us). What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ). Thus we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete." 1 John 1:1-4

That is an excellent description of being an eyewitness. Heard, seen, looked at, touched. How can there be a clearer statement about being an eyewitness?

It is absurd to claim that because something was written decades after the events occurred they couldn't be eyewitness accounts.

 

[Raccoon1010]

Did Luke not admit he was NOT an eyewitness? My point is proven by the very words you quoted. Argue with the Bible, not me on this.


As far as this claim goes, I'm not 2000 years with early life experience in Palestine so I can't confirm the accuracy of the accounts. What I do know from historians is that the accounts were pinned decades after the events mentioned so they COULD NOT be eyewitness accounts.

God is an eye witness to all that sin against him. And the apostles were eye witnesses to him that sinned not and healed many. What part about healing the wicked do you not want? He healed them that didn't deserve it. What do we deserve? And what do we get? I have been healed by God and am thankful. Those that aren't healed I suspect are not thankful.

 

[Jim B]

Did Luke not admit he was NOT an eyewitness? My point is proven by the very words you quoted. Argue with the Bible, not me on this.


As far as this claim goes, I'm not 2000 years with early life experience in Palestine so I can't confirm the accuracy of the accounts. What I do know from historians is that the accounts were pinned decades after the events mentioned so they COULD NOT be eyewitness accounts.

I was present at the birth of both of my children and one of my grandchildren. My children are now in their forties. As an eyewitness, I can remember their births vividly. Therefore, your statement that "accounts were pinned [sic] decades after the events mentioned so they COULD NOT be eyewitness accounts" is nonsense.

 

[Truth OT]

Once again: The Apostle John wrote this:

The book of John is anonymously written. Nowhere does it declare who should be credited with authorship. It was attributed to the apostle John nearly a century after the events it described would have transpired if they were real.

That is an excellent description of being an eyewitness. Heard, seen, looked at, touched. How can there be a clearer statement about being an eyewitness?

That depicts a 1st person narrative and nothing else. It doesn't mean the author was an eye witness or that the words pinned by the author were true occurrences or accurate depictions of what transpired.

Therefore, your statement that "accounts were pinned [sic] decades after the events mentioned so they COULD NOT be eyewitness accounts" is nonsense.

It is absurd to claim that because something was written decades after the events occurred they couldn't be eyewitness accounts.

Your points are taken. This is a fair criticism.