LBBC,

 

I thought you might bring up the writing of Josephus. I have came across this writing and studied it before.

 

There are a lot of problems with this writing however. Spend a day watching the history channel, and I'm sure atleast once they will shread this writing to pieces.

 

The writing above has been shown to be a forgery beyond a shadow of a doubt - even conservative scholars admit that at best, the document has been tampered with. Even if the document where historically written by Josephus - the document dates more than 6 decades after the death of Christ. Notice the phrase "to this day...."

 

The main evidence in the passage that would suggest Josephus did not write (or atleast had his writings tampered with) is that Josephus, a Jew who converted to Christianity, would have never called Jesus "The Christ" or "The Truth"

 

Further trouble with the document concerns propaganda over history... Josephus (or the writer) mentions Jesus fortelling of Prophets yet he never says who these prophets are or what they said. Not to mention that in all of Josephus's writings Jesus and Christianity is no where mentioned outside of the paragraph below. Seems suspicious that a man so important and bewildering would have only got a brief mention by the most hardcore historian of Jewish history.

 

There is also historical disconnect. Hegesippus, the Christian historican wrote in 170 that Jesus's brother James was killed in a riot - his death having nothing to do with a court sentence.

 

Where is the rest of the proof? Jesus's era was documented in great detail though the only historian to make a breif, tiny mention of him was Josephus (or atleast it could have been)

 

 

Aside from this paragraph, the only documented history we have of Christ is the gospels and the letters of Paul. The Gospels which could easily be considered to be religious propaganda can't be considered proof without something backing it up - and Paul never even met Jesus. He fails to mention any deeds of dialouge of Christ outside of briefly mentioning the last supper.

 

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Most of the Gospels are not considered by scholars to be eyewitness accounts. They are oral traditions. Q is probably the closest to an actual eyewitness account, and much of Matthew and Luke have come from Mark/Q.

 

Here is one that may get people in an uproar -

 

What if Jesus never had a physical resurrection? How does that really change anything. His life was an example of a life to point you toward God and he was obedient even unto death. Whether he was physically or spritually resurrected has no bearing on my faith other than to know that at some point I too, in some form, will be reunited and creation will be made whole.

Jesus, however, did not say that he would abandon her and condemn her to hell if she did not leave her life of sin. As He instructed Peter he would never Condemn her, he would continue to forgive her and call her to a right relationship with him. Not to a doctrine or set of beliefs, but to a right relationship.

 

What is your definition of condemn? It seems like you believe that condemn means to tell anyone what sin they are committing. There is a difference in condemning someone and asking them to repent and live a life like Christ's.

A theme of discussion on the Poly/Rel board continues to be rather or not The Christian God (hereafter referred to by CG) as described in the Bible can justify his titles of being "All Loving" and "All Merciful."

 

My posistion is this:

 

An "All Loving" and "All Merciful" God could not allow his creations to burn and be tormented.

 

Within the bible, CG himself is quoted as suggesting he is not all-merciful:

 

He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” (Romans 9:15)

Would an all-merciful God not have mercy on us all, and have compassion for us all - not simply who he chooses?

 

The scriptures are also pretty clear that CG isn't exactly always loving:

 

Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"

 

Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

 

Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."

 

Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil,

19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

 

Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

 

 

Here is the question I really wish to dive into in this thread: CG allows those who reject him to burn in Hell. Don't use the excuse "He only allows the wicked" to burn because if we are to believe that the only path to Heaven is through Christ - what about Ghandi?

So, just curious, are you an Atheist?

So, just curious, are you an Atheist?

 

I am agnostic.

What is your definition of condemn? It seems like you believe that condemn means to tell anyone what sin they are committing. There is a difference in condemning someone and asking them to repent and live a life like Christ's.

 

Agreed, and Jesus asked her to turn away, but he did not Condemn her to eternal hell because of her sin.

I am agnostic.

 

What Is an agnostic?

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

 

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

 

http://www.cojoweb.com/ref-agnostic.html

For those whom have questions about what an agnostic is!!!!!!

For those whom have questions about what an agnostic is!!!!!!

 

Thanks JCHS! :thumb:

I am agnostic.

I find that very sad, not intended as an insult in any way, shape or form. I will pray for you.

If it was proven without a doubt the Jesus was Christ, there would be no need for faith....

I find that very sad, not intended as an insult in any way, shape or form. I will pray for you.

 

Why do you find it sad, Run? There are thousands upon thousands of religions plus atheism and agnosticism? Do you find it sad that there is literally hundreds of millions of people in the world who have a religion other than your own? Likewise, do you pray for them?

If it was proven without a doubt the Jesus was Christ, there would be no need for faith....

 

So what is the need for faith? Why does God realy so much on faith?

So what is the need for faith? Why does God realy so much on faith?

 

Like you pointed out in another thread, try denying the existence of Australia... God gives people free will to believe in him and wants people to decide to be his, not be forced to. However, look around every day at those you love, and the beauty of the world, and if that's not proof of the Lord, I don't know what is... JMO, I'm not a religious scholar like LBBC, FB, or HHS, just the perspective of a young Christian.

Like you pointed out in another thread, try denying the existence of Australia... God gives people free will to believe in him and wants people to decide to be his, not be forced to. However, look around every day at those you love, and the beauty of the world, and if that's not proof of the Lord, I don't know what is... JMO, I'm not a religious scholar like LBBC, FB, or HHS, just the perspective of a young Christian.

 

First off, I respect you to be wise enough to state your opinions at a young age. We need more young thinkers.

 

To address your post -

 

As for the "deny the existence of Australia" comment - I do not remember that. I think you may have me confused with someone else or maybe one of us is misunderstanding. If you are trying to say that denying God and denying the existence of Australia are comparable - I am sorry to say that the argument is ludicrous. I can go to Australia - therefore I can know rather or not it is there. I can not go to God. In fact, if I attempt to talk to him he simply says nothing back. He makes no effort to contact us at all in anyway. I cant believe an all loving God would expect us to believe in him and then leave us in the cold. You or whoever else can say that he communicates through people and through scenery or whatever else - but that argument is simply moot. That is really grasping straws.

 

Oh, and I am fairly sure there are no biblical scholars on BGP.:thumb: