If I remember the verse correctly, Paul "met Christ in the way" or something along those lines. The human - Jesus Christ died It was a vision of Christ that only one Apostle, Barnabus, authenticated. Paul then established himself as the 12th apostle taking the spot of Judas.

 

In fact, Paul admits in his letters that his teachings of Christ were not based off the Apostles but simply from his vision of Christ.

 

Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

 

 

To respond to your question about why would the apostles do what they did and die horrible deaths in order to protect Christ - I simply do not know. I can't explain why people would die for David Koresh either. I have to think that the kind of people that are capable of having their brain washed into believing that a particular person claiming to be the Messiah is indeed the Messiah is probably not the operating under the same laws mental stability as many of us. Dying to protect their leader is just part of it, I suppose. I can't pretend to understand why they would do it - but 1 out of 12 attempted to get out prior to all this happening...he just commited suicide out of the guilt.

 

So Paul's writings are not hearsay then?

 

I agree that brainwashing had to occur on David Koresh's followers, the Islamic radicals and the like. But in each case, they BELIEVED that it was the truth in what they were doing.

 

The Apostles would KNOW that what they were doing was not TRUE. And yet they stayed with it till their deaths.

 

Does that not give their tales at least some credibility? Especially, since their tales make themselves look horrible in their loyalty to Christ.

So Paul's writings are not hearsay then?

 

I agree that brainwashing had to occur on David Koresh's followers, the Islamic radicals and the like. But in each case, they BELIEVED that it was the truth in what they were doing.

 

The Apostles would KNOW that what they were doing was not TRUE. And yet they stayed with it till their deaths.

 

Does that not give their tales at least some credibility? Especially, since their tales make themselves look horrible in their loyalty to Christ.

 

How would the Apostles "KNOW" that Christ was the true Messiah? You can't say that they knew it because they "saw" him do his miracles or whatever - because they were the ones recording the history of it.

 

Just because they wrote down that it happened - does not mean that it did. There is no way for us to know what they actually witnessed when they were with Christ - because all we get is what they wrote down in the Gospels. And if they wished for others to believe what they believed in him - than I'm sure they would have had no problem fabricating the truth.

How would the Apostles "KNOW" that Christ was the true Messiah? You can't say that they knew it because they "saw" him do his miracles or whatever - because they were the ones recording the history of it.

 

Just because they wrote down that it happened - does not mean that it did. There is no way for us to know what they actually witnessed when they were with Christ - because all we get is what they wrote down in the Gospels. And if they wished for others to believe what they believed in him - than I'm sure they would have had no problem fabricating the truth.

 

How do you accept the Caesar version of his kingdom when it was HIS historians writing the versions?

 

How do we accept the version of the English kings' histories when they were writing their own histories?

 

How do you accept the US' version of the Great Indian Wars when they were the ones writing it?

 

How do you accept the scientist view of the matters of scientists when they are the ones writing it? Even things like the Big Bang and evolution that they cannot prove.

 

Based on your first statement, all history written by the party in the history is not believable? Meaning most history and a good portion of what I teach is not believable.

 

When the apostles were writing parts of the NT, it was still in the lifetime of people that had witnessed Christ and His miracles and would have been easily disproven. And again, if they were writing it not as fact, why would they make themselves look so bad.

 

As I posted in one of these threads, there is more historical proof of the Bible and it's manuscripts than other things that are NOT questioned.

How do you accept the Caesar version of his kingdom when it was HIS historians writing the versions?

 

How do we accept the version of the English kings' histories when they were writing their own histories?

 

How do you accept the US' version of the Great Indian Wars when they were the ones writing it?

 

How do you accept the scientist view of the matters of scientists when they are the ones writing it? Even things like the Big Bang and evolution that they cannot prove.

 

Based on your first statement, all history written by the party in the history is not believable? Meaning most history and a good portion of what I teach is not believable.

 

When the apostles were writing parts of the NT, it was still in the lifetime of people that had witnessed Christ and His miracles and would have been easily disproven. And again, if they were writing it not as fact, why would they make themselves look so bad.

 

As I posted in one of these threads, there is more historical proof of the Bible and it's manuscripts than other things that are NOT questioned.

 

Great post LBBC! But I think it is falling on deaf ears and blind eyes.:thumb:

I simply am humble enough to admit that there is no way of knowing. While I know that faith is an important componet of many people's religion - it means nothing to me (in a religious - belief in an unproveable God kind of way.).

Whether you view it as humble, or ignorant, or misguided, or whatever… I am honest enough to acknowledge that without faith, God—or the absolute denial of God—simply cannot make sense. You cannot prove Him or disprove Him empirically. The fact that we are having this discussion proves this is the truth.

 

Paul instructs us that “faith in God” is in fact the human trait that pleases God most.

 

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Paul goes on in Hebrews 11 to enumerate the “ancients” who were commended for their faith including: “Abel, Enoch, Abraham Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Jacob, Esau Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets.”

 

Hebrews 11:39-40 “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.”

 

Paul goes so far as to stick his neck out with the following statement:

 

Hebrews 11:6 “ Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.”

 

I choose to believe the veracity of Paul’s words.

I don't think you are trying to censor my ability to reflect my "beliefs.".

Not in the least Sir… I’m simply trying to figure you out… :lol:

I am very much like Ghandi in that in many ways I look up to the figure of Jesus Christ while rejecting the dogmatism in the religion that was founded in his name. Do I believe he was a real man? Yes, I think he probably was. Do I think he was a good man? Yes, he probably was. Do I believe he was the son of God? No, at this point I do not.

It is not logically reasonable for one to examine the actual claims Jesus made about Himself and to then label Him a “good man” or a “good teacher”. Either He was and is the Son of the living God… the one and only way by which humans enter into the presence and pleasure of God Himself. OR, he was a liar and deceiver of the highest rank, OR a complete lunatic suffering the most extreme delusions of grandeur.

 

We can’t pick and choose His good teachings and label those that make us uncomfortable as erroneous and just toss them aside. He did not leave us that option. Either we accept the entirety of His teachings and accept or deny Him in whole as a result, OR we write Him off altogether. IMO, Ghandi was wrong in regard to Jesus Christ.

I am comfortable discussing all issues - I hope that you remain the same.

I have no problem discussing virtually anything. I do have a sincere problem with someone asserting that my beliefs are inferior because they include faith in God, while at the same time suggesting that their own beliefs are superior because they deny faith in God. The irony here being that the denial of God requires at least as much if not more faith.

 

I’m not angry. I’m not dogmatic. I’m simply perplexed by your reasoning.

Whether you view it as humble, or ignorant, or misguided, or whatever… I am honest enough to acknowledge that without faith, God—or the absolute denial of God—simply cannot make sense. You cannot prove Him or disprove Him empirically. The fact that we are having this discussion proves this is the truth.

 

Agreed. The difference is I have no more faith that God exists as I do that he doesn't exist. I think it is just as illogical to be completey athiest as it is to be completely religious.

 

 

 

Paul instructs us that “faith in God” is in fact the human trait that pleases God most.

 

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Paul goes on in Hebrews 11 to enumerate the “ancients” who were commended for their faith including: “Abel, Enoch, Abraham Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Jacob, Esau Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets.”

 

I have to think it was much easier to have "faith" when God was appearing to you in the form of a burning bush, messenger angels, and basically having some direct communication.

 

Its a lot easier to believe in something that reveals itself to you. Don't try to say that he reveals himself through people and the bible - because I doubt you really want to resort to that argument any more than I'm willing to buy into it.

 

Hebrews 11:39-40 “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.”

 

Paul goes so far as to stick his neck out with the following statement:

 

Hebrews 11:6 “ Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.”

 

I choose to believe the veracity of Paul’s words.

 

 

I don't....moving on.

 

 

Not in the least Sir… I’m simply trying to figure you out… :lol:

 

:thumb:Fair enough. It's not too hard.

 

 

 

It is not logically reasonable for one to examine the actual claims Jesus made about Himself and to then label Him a “good man” or a “good teacher”. Either He was and is the Son of the living God… the one and only way by which humans enter into the presence and pleasure of God Himself. OR, he was a liar and deceiver of the highest rank, OR a complete lunatic suffering the most extreme delusions of grandeur.

 

I see your point - but I do not look at things so black and white. While I could be convinced that he was a lier and a deceiver - that doesn't necessarily mean he is inately evil - and that many of his teachings can't be incorporated into our lives.

 

We can’t pick and choose His good teachings and label those that make us uncomfortable as erroneous and just toss them aside. He did not leave us that option. Either we accept the entirety of His teachings and accept or deny Him in whole as a result, OR we write Him off altogether. IMO, Ghandi was wrong in regard to Jesus Christ.

 

Interesting. Why do you think that?

 

 

 

I have no problem discussing virtually anything. I do have a sincere problem with someone asserting that my beliefs are inferior because they include faith in God, while at the same time suggesting that their own beliefs are superior because they deny faith in God. The irony here being that the denial of God requires at least as much if not more faith.

 

I’m not angry. I’m not dogmatic. I’m simply perplexed by your reasoning.

 

I don't intend to make it seem as though I am asserting that your beliefs are inferior. I am just as simply perplexed that you can buy into it as you are perplexed that I can not.

Agreed. The difference is I have no more faith that God exists as I do that he doesn't exist. I think it is just as illogical to be completey athiest as it is to be completely religious.

No offense intended, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. Playing the middle is the least safe bet possible. Either God exists or He doesn't. It seems most illogical to deny both options.

I have to think it was much easier to have "faith" when God was appearing to you in the form of a burning bush, messenger angels, and basically having some direct communication.

No doubt, but at the same time, it had to be pretty tough to know the game plan before He provided us written instructions.

Its a lot easier to believe in something that reveals itself to you. Don't try to say that he reveals himself through people and the bible - because I doubt you really want to resort to that argument any more than I'm willing to buy into it.

I do resort to it and do believe it whether you do or not... :lol:

 

I've yet to attempt to twist your arm.

I see your point - but I do not look at things so black and white. While I could be convinced that he was a lier and a deceiver - that doesn't necessarily mean he is inately evil - and that many of his teachings can't be incorporated into our lives.

I don't doubt that Adolph Hitler had a good idea or two that he espoused in his lifetime. It would be impossible for me to say he was a good man and that his teachings can be incorporated in my life.

Interesting. Why do you think that?

Clearly I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the one Way to heaven and salvation... Ghandi did not.

I don't intend to make it seem as though I am asserting that your beliefs are inferior. I am just as simply perplexed that you can buy into it as you are perplexed that I can not.

Mutually assurred perplexion... :thumb:

No offense intended, but this makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

None taken.

 

By why does it make no sense? There is no way to prove there is a God. There is no way to prove that there is not a God. The only thing we can truly know is that we can never know.

 

 

 

Playing the middle is the least safe bet possible. Either God exists or He doesn't. It seems most illogical to deny both options.

I choose to not base any religious beliefs on the safty of said beliefs. If I were to choose to be religious it would not be because by doing so I was taking the fire escape.

 

No doubt, but at the same time, it had to be pretty tough to know the game plan before He provided us written instructions.

I do resort to it and do believe it whether you do or not... :lol:

 

I dont know, Fast. I for one have always learned better when I hear the instructions verbally, first hand as opposed to written instruction.

 

 

I've yet to attempt to twist your arm.

I don't doubt that Adolph Hitler had a good idea or two that he espoused in his lifetime. It would be impossible for me to say he was a good man and that his teachings can be incorporated in my life.

 

Fair enough...but it's a bit of a stretch to group Hitler in with anyone much less someone that the only apparent sin is lying and deceiving. Look at politicans. They lie and decieve but we can't really say that NEVER have good ideas.

 

 

 

Clearly I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the one Way to heaven and salvation... Ghandi did not.

 

As do literally millions upon millions upon more millions of others around the world. Do you think Christianity is the only one that has it right?

 

Mutually assurred perplexion... :thumb:

 

Well if you're going to have perplextion...might as well mutually assure it.

As do literally millions upon millions upon more millions of others around the world. Do you think Christianity is the only one that has it right?

I believe that Jesus Christ is the only one who has it right.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the only one who has it right.

 

If you had been born in Saudi Arabia - you would most likely say that Muhammad was the only one who had it right.

 

If you were born in China - you would say that Lao Tzu or Confucious had it right.

 

I guess this goes back to religious peer influence, or what you may call "being blessed" to be born in a predominantly religious populated area of the country.

If you had been born in Saudi Arabia - you would most likely say that Muhammad was the only one who had it right.

 

If you were born in China - you would say that Lao Tzu or Confucious had it right.

 

I guess this goes back to religious peer influence, or what you may call "being blessed" to be born in a predominantly religious populated area of the country.

I am most certainly blessed.

I am most certainly blessed.

 

*Sigh*

 

Based on your beliefs you are. Based on their beliefs, they are.

 

I can't fathom that everyone but your group is wrong.

I can't fathom that everyone but your group is wrong.

I never said any such thing. I make mistakes all the time. The people around me make mistakes too. I have faith in Jesus Christ. I believe He is without error.

 

I am betting my eternal destiny on the fact that Jesus is indeed who He said He is. If He is not, as you assert, I have still invested my life and actions wisely.

I never said any such thing. I make mistakes all the time. The people around me make mistakes too. I have faith in Jesus Christ. I believe He is without error.

 

I am betting my eternal destiny on the fact that Jesus is indeed who He said He is. If He is not, as you assert, I have still invested my life and actions wisely.

 

I didn't say that you "said" it...but if Jesus is the only true way to Heaven and is who The Bible says he is than all those other millions and millions of people are wrong.

 

 

By the way, I do not assert that is not who he says he is. I assert that I do not know and that I don't buy it. I wonder that if Jesus had lived recentally - if you would have considered the idea of him being the son of a God pure crazyness. Of course, we all could have seen rather or not he could really heal the blind and walk on water. (And if he could, I'm sure somoene on Youtube would disect it for us and show us how he was using camera tricks or something.)

 

IMO, it depends on how you use your religion that says if your wasting your time or not. If you follow religion because you feel connected to your creation and it gives you a sense of reason and worth that is ok by me. If you use it to try to tell two men that love each other that they can't be married and enjoy the same privelages that you can...then IMO it is a complete waste of time.

I don't know where you get you information Ace... but you couldn't be further off base.

 

Do you actually read the Bible, or just what certain scholars claim it says?

 

Your evidence???

 

Show the mention of a literal eternal hell in the old testament. . . you can't.

 

Show me where Jesus talks to sinners about hell in the new testament . . . you can't

 

Show me where Jews, especially orthodox believe in an eternal hell . . . you can't. They did not.

 

Do you read and STUDY the Bible with historical commentary or do you just read and then believe what your preacher says about it? How condescending of a statement.