Do You Believe Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead? (Poll)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"] So then how could Jesus be both human and divine? To be human means to be flawed, thus sinful. Crushmaster
Well, first let me say a few things:
Adam, the first man, was created sinless. He had to choose between doing good or evil. He chose to sin against God, and ate the fruit when Eve offered it to him. Christ, in contrast, was the last Adam. He chose to do only good, whereas, in contrast, the first Adam chose to do evil.
Christ was also sinless, though He could have chosen to do evil. Look:
(1 Corinthians 15:45-47)- "And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. {46} However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. {47} The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven."
Also:
(Isaiah 7:14-15) "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. {15} "Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good."
I am afraid this is going to have to do, as I have to go and eat supper. If you wish to know more, please look at the link from www.carm.org Igave you.
So, to all, good night, and God bless.And you contradict yourself in your first sentence:
Adam, a MAN, was not perfect, like God. Adam was capable of sin, thus not supposedly like God. And even then, everyone here knows to refuse evil, but does that mean that we do so? And even then, what is evil and how do we get rid of it?
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="Power_47"]
Alright I agree with your last part but the issue here is the double standard your using. I am saying that Muslim suicide bombers are willing to die for what they believe in, did I ever say that they werent sinning or dont deserve to burn in hell for it, no, In fact I wasnt even talking about suicide bombers themselves more the random civilians who are killed in the countless wars in that region, I brought up the witches to show that christians have also killed innocent people in the past.
You say that the existance of christian martyrs proves that Christ was real, Im saying that plenty of other religions have people who die for what they "know" is true, do you really not see the similaritys?
Power_47
You are still missing the point. The Apostles and early Christians were eyewitnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They knew what they were dying for was true. They also died rather than recant their faith, They did not die while killing others. Suicide bomber are dying for what they believe is true. They are not eyewitnesses. Big difference.
So your only evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is...... another story from the bible?
Let me see, hummm. Who should I believe? The New Testament eyewitnesses who died rather than recant their faith in what they witnessed or you who thinks they were lying? Sorry but I'll stick with them and the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us ; )
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
2Pe 1:15 Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
You are still missing the point. The Apostles and early Christians were eyewitnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They knew what they were dying for was true. They also died rather than recant their faith, They did not die while killing others. Suicide bomber are dying for what they believe is true. They are not eyewitnesses. Big difference.
blackregiment
And so we arrive at the beginning. The same can be said of the eyewitnesses of Muhammad's ascension into heaven. They died rather than recant their faith, because the early Muslims were just as harshly persecuted as the early Christians were.
Does that mean Muhammad = Jesus, and that Islam = Christianity?
er... ok good for him I guess... :roll: Same goes for Kell_rell here:[QUOTE="clembo1990"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
But have you ever studied the evidence in depth? Here is one that did and came to a different conclusion.
"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and author of A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. He was determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. He examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. He came to the conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in ancient history.
Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence; he committed his life to Jesus Christ!" source: Evidence that Demands a Verdictblackregiment
The issue is with your sources. Fetch me that unbias reference to the not known at the time as Jesus but whatever he was called. This source must not be from a biblical figure or from the bible. It needs to be a historical document of any form which we can extrapolate something logical. Go and prove me wrong.
First of all, you are assuming that the testimony of the authors of the Bible is unreliable and biased because they happened to believe what they saw and experienced. That is a logical fallacy.
That being said, there are secular writers and non-Christian that have referred to Christ. Here is some information.
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
Incredibly vague, second hand sources. He is no more a man, by this logic, than was Homer.Ok it's bad enough you gave me that infamous dribble but this really tickled me:
"It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed."
EDIT: By the way, i think this crap speaks for itself, just so you know...
Jesus performed a few miracles in his time. If fishermen could pass on what miracles he performed then why not important figures, first hand eye witnesses, there are no "this guy said that..." and it just so happens that these people get their say in the Bible.
As for it being a historical document, you HAVE to take into account the wider context surrounding the idea of Christianity. History and faith are separate. Mixing them gets occasional rubbish like Herodotus, he took Greek mythology as a matter of fact and his "history" was littered with hole-filling in spite of his great passion for search out the truths behind the myths. Such heracy was not permitted as to deny the truth of the gods, all he did was pitter patter around the mythology and made it work with actual history he helped to develop from a dogma into a semi-functional detective work. Quite interesting deviation, it's worth a look.
Anyway, I made such a bold statement because even the most determined Christian detectives have failed to present sufficient evidence. It would hardly matter to me anyway whether he were real or not. If Buddha were not real would that effect his message? Would it really matter if Buddha was 6 clever guys? I suppose it'd be harder to convince the peasants with but what I care about is truth, it stops me from getting conned. I will suspend disbelief when my mind can't see a fallacy as plain as day. My darkest hour is when I admit Theism plausable.
er... ok good for him I guess... :roll: Same goes for Kell_rell here:[QUOTE="clembo1990"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
But have you ever studied the evidence in depth? Here is one that did and came to a different conclusion.
"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and author of A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. He was determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. He examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. He came to the conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in ancient history.
Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence; he committed his life to Jesus Christ!" source: Evidence that Demands a VerdictFlyingArmbar
The issue is with your sources. Fetch me that unbias reference to the not known at the time as Jesus but whatever he was called. This source must not be from a biblical figure or from the bible. It needs to be a historical document of any form which we can extrapolate something logical. Go and prove me wrong.
Simon Greenleaf was born 226 years ago, at a time when modern science was just beginning to bloom. That's a pretty reliable source...I don't understand how people can believe these things. Nobody believes in wizards, or witches, or werewolves, or zombies, or spells, or hexes.
A space jew who listens to everyone speak all at once, who sent his son who was actually himself down to earth on a suicide mission, was crucified and then brought back to life. All because a man created from dirt who lived for 930 years, and a woman created from a rib bone ate an apple after a talking snake told them too. Yeah... That's totally believable.
That's another question. And to answer that 2nd paragraph (lol) People believe a bunch of stuff back then, that's why you are taught this stuff as a kid, no reasonable adult would see this as the truth. Get to them while they are young, the evangelicals do this a lot and it's disgusting, they shouldn't be anywhere near kids.[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
You are still missing the point. The Apostles and early Christians were eyewitnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They knew what they were dying for was true. They also died rather than recant their faith, They did not die while killing others. Suicide bomber are dying for what they believe is true. They are not eyewitnesses. Big difference.
tycoonmike
And so we arrive at the beginning. The same can be said of the eyewitnesses of Muhammad's ascension into heaven. They died rather than recant their faith, because the early Muslims were just as harshly persecuted as the early Christians were.
You might want to brush up a bit on Islamic theology. Muhammad claimed to have taken a midnight ride to heaven during his life. After his death, it is not claimed that he arose. In fact His grave is in Medina and it is a Islamic holy site.
Simon Greenleaf was born 226 years ago, at a time when modern science was just beginning to bloom. That's a pretty reliable source...[QUOTE="FlyingArmbar"]
[QUOTE="clembo1990"] er... ok good for him I guess... :roll: Same goes for Kell_rell here:
The issue is with your sources. Fetch me that unbias reference to the not known at the time as Jesus but whatever he was called. This source must not be from a biblical figure or from the bible. It needs to be a historical document of any form which we can extrapolate something logical. Go and prove me wrong.
blackregiment
I don't understand how people can believe these things. Nobody believes in wizards, or witches, or werewolves, or zombies, or spells, or hexes.
A space jew who listens to everyone speak all at once, who sent his son who was actually himself down to earth on a suicide mission, was crucified and then brought back to life. All because a man created from dirt who lived for 930 years, and a woman created from a rib bone ate an apple after a talking snake told them too. Yeah... That's totally believable.
Well all I can say is that God give each of us a free will to accept His plan of salvation in Christ or choose to pay the price in eternity for our own sins. He will not force anyone to accept eternal fellowship with Him.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe nothing created everything at the origin of the universe?
The big bang theory does not suggest that the universe originated from nothing.
Though Stephen Hawking, a man who is smarter than you and I combined, believes that the universe began through spontaneous quantum creation. An idea that is gaining momentum throughout the scientific community.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
You are still missing the point. The Apostles and early Christians were eyewitnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They knew what they were dying for was true. They also died rather than recant their faith, They did not die while killing others. Suicide bomber are dying for what they believe is true. They are not eyewitnesses. Big difference.
blackregiment
And so we arrive at the beginning. The same can be said of the eyewitnesses of Muhammad's ascension into heaven. They died rather than recant their faith, because the early Muslims were just as harshly persecuted as the early Christians were.
You might want to brush up a bit on Islamic theology. Muhammad claimed to have taken a midnight ride to heaven during his life. After his death, it is not claimed that he arose. In fact His grave is in Medina and it is a Islamic holy site.
OK, he went to heaven. Thank you for clearing that up. Now answer the question: does the fact that Muhammad and Jesus shared similar lives make them equal?
The same also applies to the Muslim suicide bomber example, does it not?[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Your argument is based on false premises. The early Christians and the Apostles were eye witnesses to the events surrounding Jesus. They died for what they knew was true because they saw the resurrected Jesus. They also did not die in a holy war killing others.
Your attempt to equate the death of a suicide bomber with the persecution of the early Christian Church is invalid and like comparing apples to bowling balls. The early Christians were persecuted and killed for their beliefs, they were not running around killing others. The same is happening today in the Middle East, North Korea, China, India, and other places. The suicide bombers you refer to are persecuting and killing others. That is a big difference that you conveniently seem to be ignoring. Again, the Apostles, were eyewitnesses of the events surrounding he death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the object of their faith, they were willing to die for, rather than recant their faith. They died for what they KNEW was true because they personally witnessed it.
Another fallacy is assuming that if someone does something in the name of God that it is of God. If a Christian burned a witch at the stake, then that was not pleasing to God, they were sinning.
blackregiment
Yes, just because someone claims what they are doing is of God, does not make it so. If one is acting contrary to God's Word, they are sinning regardless of what they claim they are doing or why they are doing it.
But does it even matter? As Crushmaster enlightened us all, it is only by faith people are judged(actions are totally worthless). So lets suppose that we have a group of christian suicide bombers, even though they are sinning they will enter heaven for they believe in Jesus as God and Saviour.......True but try not to hurt their feelings, they've spent so many Sundays reading from it and it's kinda important to them even if it isn't true.Nope the bible is a load of bollocks your just wasting your life believing that ****
ras2009
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
You are still missing the point. The Apostles and early Christians were eyewitnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They knew what they were dying for was true. They also died rather than recant their faith, They did not die while killing others. Suicide bomber are dying for what they believe is true. They are not eyewitnesses. Big difference.
blackregiment
And so we arrive at the beginning. The same can be said of the eyewitnesses of Muhammad's ascension into heaven. They died rather than recant their faith, because the early Muslims were just as harshly persecuted as the early Christians were.
You might want to brush up a bit on Islamic theology. Muhammad claimed to have taken a midnight ride to heaven during his life. After his death, it is not claimed that he arose. In fact His grave is in Medina and it is a Islamic holy site.
Yup! But in a night, he got as much info on Jerusalem and all its location as any person who actually visited the place. (plus, at that time only a few people gad traveled that far and when he was questioned he answered accurately). But are miracles the criteria to judge a man? Isn't it written in the Bible that the greatest amongst all those who have been born of a women, is john the Baptist. And as far as I know, he did not show any miracles.
I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in a Historical Jesus. Unfortunely, the ressurrection is where history and mythology have no certain answers. There's a lot of history and pseudo-history in the NT, so I'll say "I don't know." But chances are, there was no physical ressurrection. I think the ressurection is more of a symbolic, spiritual,and allegorical ressurection.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="clembo1990"] er... ok good for him I guess... :roll: Same goes for Kell_rell here:
The issue is with your sources. Fetch me that unbias reference to the not known at the time as Jesus but whatever he was called. This source must not be from a biblical figure or from the bible. It needs to be a historical document of any form which we can extrapolate something logical. Go and prove me wrong.
clembo1990
First of all, you are assuming that the testimony of the authors of the Bible is unreliable and biased because they happened to believe what they saw and experienced. That is a logical fallacy.
That being said, there are secular writers and non-Christian that have referred to Christ. Here is some information.
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
Incredibly vague, second hand sources. He is no more a man, by this logic, than was Homer.Ok it's bad enough you gave me that infamous dribble but this really tickled me:
"It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed."
EDIT: By the way, i think this crap speaks for itself, just so you know...
Jesus performed a few miracles in his time. If fishermen could pass on what miracles he performed then why not important figures, first hand eye witnesses, there are no "this guy said that..." and it just so happens that these people get their say in the Bible.
As for it being a historical document, you HAVE to take into account the wider context surrounding the idea of Christianity. History and faith are separate. Mixing them gets occasional rubbish like Herodotus, he took Greek mythology as a matter of fact and his "history" was littered with hole-filling in spite of his great passion for search out the truths behind the myths. Such heracy was not permitted as to deny the truth of the gods, all he did was pitter patter around the mythology and made it work with actual history he helped to develop from a dogma into a semi-functional detective work. Quite interesting deviation, it's worth a look.
Anyway, I made such a bold statement because even the most determined Christian detectives have failed to present sufficient evidence. It would hardly matter to me anyway whether he were real or not. If Buddha were not real would that effect his message? Would it really matter if Buddha was 6 clever guys? I suppose it'd be harder to convince the peasants with but what I care about is truth, it stops me from getting conned. I will suspend disbelief when my mind can't see a fallacy as plain as day. My darkest hour is when I admit Theism plausable.
Like I said, God gave us a free will to believe whatever we choose. It is not uncommon for those that do not believe to reject any and all evidence.
God has revealed Himself in His creation, in His providence, in His Word, in Jesus Christ, in our conscience, and in the power of the Holy Spirit to change the lives of those that put their faith in Christ.
The evidence bounds, one just has to want to look for it. Therein lies the problem for many non-believers, they choose to refuse to look.One confirmation for this is the response from non-believers to any evidence supplied.With virtual 100% certainty, when one presents a non-believer with any evidence whatsoever, the vast majority of non-believers immediately discount it, refuse to consider it, and immediately begin to attempt to discredit it.I can honestly say that in years of debates with non-believers I can count on my fingers, and I am not sure I would even need to go past one hand, the number of times a non-believer has responded with even the slightest acknowledgement that an evidence presented was even in the slightest way compelling.On the other hand, they are quick to accept as truth the unproven fact that the universe, all matter, energy, space and time, created itself from a singularity that occupied no dimension in space since space did not even exist. They are quick to accept the "truth" that black holes exist based on mathematical formulas and observations of their alleged effect on their surroundings because science sys they exist. Or they are quick to accept that all that exists is the natural world because science has proclaimed that. And they are quick to believe that life formed from non-living chemical by chance.The amazing thing is that for anything in this world, for example, in a criminal trial, there exists evidence of guilt and evidence of innocence that is considered by the jury in reaching their decision. Yet in the minds of many non-believers, any evidence for the existence of God is in never acknowledged as a even a remote possibility worthy of consideration.
I find this very compelling evidence that the majority of non-believers are not openly searching for the truth, but rather are attempting to just comfort themselves by justifying their non-belief.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
And so we arrive at the beginning. The same can be said of the eyewitnesses of Muhammad's ascension into heaven. They died rather than recant their faith, because the early Muslims were just as harshly persecuted as the early Christians were.
MFaraz_Hayat
You might want to brush up a bit on Islamic theology. Muhammad claimed to have taken a midnight ride to heaven during his life. After his death, it is not claimed that he arose. In fact His grave is in Medina and it is a Islamic holy site.
Yup! But in a night, he got as much info on Jerusalem and all its location as any person who actually visited the place. (plus, at that time only a few people gad traveled that far and when he was questioned he answered accurately). But are miracles the criteria to judge a man? Isn't it written in the Bible that the greatest amongst all those who have been born of a women, is john the Baptist. And as far as I know, he did not show any miracles.What verses are you referring to?
[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]The same also applies to the Muslim suicide bomber example, does it not?
MFaraz_Hayat
Yes, just because someone claims what they are doing is of God, does not make it so. If one is acting contrary to God's Word, they are sinning regardless of what they claim they are doing or why they are doing it.
But does it even matter? As Crushmaster enlightened us all, it is only by faith people are judged(actions are totally worthless). So lets suppose that we have a group of christian suicide bombers, even though they are sinning they will enter heaven for they believe in Jesus as God and Saviour.......No because if one that claims to be a Christian and lives a life of willful disobedience to God's Word in sin, then those fruits are indication that they were never truly saved. The Bible spraks of that in these verses.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
Indeed he did. Just in time for easter, eh? Happy resurrection folks!ShowStopper102
Amen to that. He is risen. Praise the Lord.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
And so we arrive at the beginning. The same can be said of the eyewitnesses of Muhammad's ascension into heaven. They died rather than recant their faith, because the early Muslims were just as harshly persecuted as the early Christians were.
tycoonmike
You might want to brush up a bit on Islamic theology. Muhammad claimed to have taken a midnight ride to heaven during his life. After his death, it is not claimed that he arose. In fact His grave is in Medina and it is a Islamic holy site.
OK, he went to heaven. Thank you for clearing that up. Now answer the question: does the fact that Muhammad and Jesus shared similar lives make them equal?
Their lives were not similar at all. I am not going to get into a discussion of that here however. Study their lives and you will see.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="FlyingArmbar"]Simon Greenleaf was born 226 years ago, at a time when modern science was just beginning to bloom. That's a pretty reliable source...
I don't understand how people can believe these things. Nobody believes in wizards, or witches, or werewolves, or zombies, or spells, or hexes.
A space jew who listens to everyone speak all at once, who sent his son who was actually himself down to earth on a suicide mission, was crucified and then brought back to life. All because a man created from dirt who lived for 930 years, and a woman created from a rib bone ate an apple after a talking snake told them too. Yeah... That's totally believable.
FlyingArmbar
Well all I can say is that God give each of us a free will to accept His plan of salvation in Christ or choose to pay the price in eternity for our own sins. He will not force anyone to accept eternal fellowship with Him.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe nothing created everything at the origin of the universe?
The big bang theory does not suggest that the universe originated from nothing.
Though Stephen Hawking, a man who is smarter than you and I combined, believes that the universe began through spontaneous quantum creation. An idea that is gaining momentum throughout the scientific community.
It sure does. The alleged singularity occupied no place in space or time since space or time did not exist.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Yup! But in a night, he got as much info on Jerusalem and all its location as any person who actually visited the place. (plus, at that time only a few people gad traveled that far and when he was questioned he answered accurately). But are miracles the criteria to judge a man? Isn't it written in the Bible that the greatest amongst all those who have been born of a women, is john the Baptist. And as far as I know, he did not show any miracles.[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]
You might want to brush up a bit on Islamic theology. Muhammad claimed to have taken a midnight ride to heaven during his life. After his death, it is not claimed that he arose. In fact His grave is in Medina and it is a Islamic holy site.
blackregiment
What verses are you referring to?
Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.But does it even matter? As Crushmaster enlightened us all, it is only by faith people are judged(actions are totally worthless). So lets suppose that we have a group of christian suicide bombers, even though they are sinning they will enter heaven for they believe in Jesus as God and Saviour.......[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Yes, just because someone claims what they are doing is of God, does not make it so. If one is acting contrary to God's Word, they are sinning regardless of what they claim they are doing or why they are doing it.
blackregiment
No because if one that claims to be a Christian and lives a life of willful disobedience to God's Word in sin, then those fruits are indication that they were never truly saved. The Bible spraks of that in these verses.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
So you are saying that if a person deliberately disobeys God's word and yet believes in Christ as his savior, he will enter hell?
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
You might want to brush up a bit on Islamic theology. Muhammad claimed to have taken a midnight ride to heaven during his life. After his death, it is not claimed that he arose. In fact His grave is in Medina and it is a Islamic holy site.
blackregiment
OK, he went to heaven. Thank you for clearing that up. Now answer the question: does the fact that Muhammad and Jesus shared similar lives make them equal?
Their lives were not similar at all. I am not going to get into a discussion of that here however. Study their lives and you will see.
I agree. Their lives were not similar, especially because Muhammad(SAW) was the head of the state, as Moses (PBUH) was. Whereas Jesus (PBUH) was not the head of a state. Hence, you will find difference. But you will find that Moses(PBUH) life and Muhammad(SAW) life are quite similar.
[QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"] The Catholic Church teaches faith + works. Not just works. Also, members of said church are taught to back up their faith with works in order to have fully satisfied the Law of God. Do you disagree with that?
I'm still waiting for a reply to my previous post, Crush.Crushmaster
Faith+works does not equal salvation. Grace+faith in Christ does.
And, yes, I do disagree with that. My Savior's Blood is quite enough to fully satisfy the Law of God. Filthy rags cannot save me.
Whatever, man.
You obviously are lacking in terms of philosophical understanding of what the Catholic Church actually believes -- therefore it's impossible to have a coherent argument with you.
Incredibly vague, second hand sources. He is no more a man, by this logic, than was Homer.[QUOTE="clembo1990"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
First of all, you are assuming that the testimony of the authors of the Bible is unreliable and biased because they happened to believe what they saw and experienced. That is a logical fallacy.
That being said, there are secular writers and non-Christian that have referred to Christ. Here is some information.
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
blackregiment
Ok it's bad enough you gave me that infamous dribble but this really tickled me:
"It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed."
EDIT: By the way, i think this crap speaks for itself, just so you know...
Jesus performed a few miracles in his time. If fishermen could pass on what miracles he performed then why not important figures, first hand eye witnesses, there are no "this guy said that..." and it just so happens that these people get their say in the Bible.
As for it being a historical document, you HAVE to take into account the wider context surrounding the idea of Christianity. History and faith are separate. Mixing them gets occasional rubbish like Herodotus, he took Greek mythology as a matter of fact and his "history" was littered with hole-filling in spite of his great passion for search out the truths behind the myths. Such heracy was not permitted as to deny the truth of the gods, all he did was pitter patter around the mythology and made it work with actual history he helped to develop from a dogma into a semi-functional detective work. Quite interesting deviation, it's worth a look.
Anyway, I made such a bold statement because even the most determined Christian detectives have failed to present sufficient evidence. It would hardly matter to me anyway whether he were real or not. If Buddha were not real would that effect his message? Would it really matter if Buddha was 6 clever guys? I suppose it'd be harder to convince the peasants with but what I care about is truth, it stops me from getting conned. I will suspend disbelief when my mind can't see a fallacy as plain as day. My darkest hour is when I admit Theism plausable.
Like I said, God gave us a free will to believe whatever we choose. It is not uncommon for those that do not believe to reject any and all evidence.
God has revealed Himself in His creation, in His providence, in His Word, in Jesus Christ, in our conscience, and in the power of the Holy Spirit to change the lives of those that put their faith in Christ.
The evidence bounds, one just has to want to look for it. Therein lies the problem for many non-believers, they choose to refuse to look.One confirmation for this is the response from non-believers to any evidence supplied.With virtual 100% certainty, when one presents a non-believer with any evidence whatsoever, the vast majority of non-believers immediately discount it, refuse to consider it, and immediately begin to attempt to discredit it.I can honestly say that in years of debates with non-believers I can count on my fingers, and I am not sure I would even need to go past one hand, the number of times a non-believer has responded with even the slightest acknowledgement that an evidence presented was even in the slightest way compelling.On the other hand, they are quick to accept as truth the unproven fact that the universe, all matter, energy, space and time, created itself from a singularity that occupied no dimension in space since space did not even exist. They are quick to accept the "truth" that black holes exist based on mathematical formulas and observations of their alleged effect on their surroundings because science sys they exist. Or they are quick to accept that all that exists is the natural world because science has proclaimed that. And they are quick to believe that life formed from non-living chemical by chance.The amazing thing is that for anything in this world, for example, in a criminal trial, there exists evidence of guilt and evidence of innocence that is considered by the jury in reaching their decision. Yet in the minds of many non-believers, any evidence for the existence of God is in never acknowledged as a even a remote possibility worthy of consideration.
I find this very compelling evidence that the majority of non-believers are not openly searching for the truth, but rather are attempting to just comfort themselves by justifying their non-belief.
Hey. No offense here, but what evidence as you proposing that is so frequently being discounted? There aren't exactly mountains of evidence to support chiristianity.
If it's quotes from religious text then they should be discounted. You don't prove the bible with the bible.
Black holes have been proven to exist, no scientist disputes this. A singularity of infinite density and temperature that expanded and cooled at exponential rates has been proven. Scientists can measure the expansion (as well as age) of the universe with extreme accuracy, and for that reason are able to extrapolate backwards. Scientists KNOW what happened in the big bang up to right about the time that it began. There is also some very solid evidence behind the theory of abiogenesis.
Just because science does not have all the answers yet, does not mean that we should throw everything out the window. Science is developing at an exponential rate, look how far it has come. It was not long ago that humans believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe. It was not long ago that doctors intentionally introduced foreign objects to wounds to create pus.
Science has FAR more answers than faith does by principle.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"] Yup! But in a night, he got as much info on Jerusalem and all its location as any person who actually visited the place. (plus, at that time only a few people gad traveled that far and when he was questioned he answered accurately). But are miracles the criteria to judge a man? Isn't it written in the Bible that the greatest amongst all those who have been born of a women, is john the Baptist. And as far as I know, he did not show any miracles.MFaraz_Hayat
What verses are you referring to?
Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.Here is what that verse means. It has nothing to do with John working miracles, but rather as the forerunner of Christ.
Mat 11:7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
Mat 11:8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
Mat 11:9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
Mat 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
"11:7, 8 As soon as John's disciples departed with Jesus' words of reassurance, the Lord turned to the multitudes with words of glowing praise for the Baptist. This same crowd had flocked to the desert when John was preaching there. Why? To see some weak, vacillating reed of a man, shaken by every passing wind of human opinion? Certainly not! John was a fearless preacher, an embodied conscience, who would rather suffer than be silent, and rather die than lie. Had they gone out to see a well-dressed palace courtier, luxuriating in comfort? Certainly not! John was a simple man of God whose austere life was a rebuke to the enormous worldliness of the people.
11:9 Had they gone out to see a prophet? Well, John was a prophet—in fact, the greatest of the prophets. The Lord did not imply here that he was greater as to his personal character, eloquence, or persuasiveness; he was greater because of his position as forerunner of the Messiah-King.
11:10 This is made clear in verse 10; John was the fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy (Mal_3:1)—the messenger who would precede the Lord and prepare the people for His coming. Other men had prophesied the Coming of Christ, but John was the one chosen to announce His actual arrival. It has been well said, "John opened the way for Christ and then he got out of the way for Christ."
11:11 The statement that "he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" proves that Jesus was speaking of John's privilege, not his character. A person who is least in the kingdom of heaven does not necessarily have a better character than John, but he does have greater privilege. To be a citizen of the kingdom is greater than to announce its arrival. John's privilege was great in preparing the way for the Lord, but he did not live to enjoy the blessings of the kingdom." source: Bible Believers Commentary
Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]
What verses are you referring to?
blackregiment
Here is what that verse means. It has nothing to do with John working miracles, but rather as the forerunner of Christ.
Mat 11:7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
Mat 11:8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
Mat 11:9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
Mat 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
"11:7, 8 As soon as John's disciples departed with Jesus' words of reassurance, the Lord turned to the multitudes with words of glowing praise for the Baptist. This same crowd had flocked to the desert when John was preaching there. Why? To see some weak, vacillating reed of a man, shaken by every passing wind of human opinion? Certainly not! John was a fearless preacher, an embodied conscience, who would rather suffer than be silent, and rather die than lie. Had they gone out to see a well-dressed palace courtier, luxuriating in comfort? Certainly not! John was a simple man of God whose austere life was a rebuke to the enormous worldliness of the people.
11:9 Had they gone out to see a prophet? Well, John was a prophet-in fact, the greatest of the prophets. The Lord did not imply here that he was greater as to his personal character, eloquence, or persuasiveness; he was greater because of his position as forerunner of the Messiah-King.
11:10 This is made clear in verse 10; John was the fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy (Mal_3:1)-the messenger who would precede the Lord and prepare the people for His coming. Other men had prophesied the Coming of Christ, but John was the one chosen to announce His actual arrival. It has been well said, "John opened the way for Christ and then he got out of the way for Christ."
11:11 The statement that "he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" proves that Jesus was speaking of John's privilege, not his character. A person who is least in the kingdom of heaven does not necessarily have a better character than John, but he does have greater privilege. To be a citizen of the kingdom is greater than to announce its arrival. John's privilege was great in preparing the way for the Lord, but he did not live to enjoy the blessings of the kingdom." source: Bible Believers Commentary
But does this not prove what I was saying. Did Moses do miracles? Yes. Did John The Baptist do miracles? No. And John the baptist is greatest of Prophets. Showing that miracles are not the criteria to judge the greatness of a Prophet.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
OK, he went to heaven. Thank you for clearing that up. Now answer the question: does the fact that Muhammad and Jesus shared similar lives make them equal?
MFaraz_Hayat
Their lives were not similar at all. I am not going to get into a discussion of that here however. Study their lives and you will see.
I agree. Their lives were not similar, especially because Muhammad(SAW) was the head of the state, as Moses (PBUH) was. Whereas Jesus (PBUH) was not the head of a state. Hence, you will find difference. But you will find that Moses(PBUH) life and Muhammad(SAW) life are quite similar.We are not talking about Moses who was not the Messiah, we are talking about Jesus who was. You are moving the goal posts. There are also many differences in the lifves of Moses and Muhammad but I am not going to get into that here.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"] But does it even matter? As Crushmaster enlightened us all, it is only by faith people are judged(actions are totally worthless). So lets suppose that we have a group of christian suicide bombers, even though they are sinning they will enter heaven for they believe in Jesus as God and Saviour.......MFaraz_Hayat
No because if one that claims to be a Christian and lives a life of willful disobedience to God's Word in sin, then those fruits are indication that they were never truly saved. The Bible spraks of that in these verses.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
So you are saying that if a person deliberately disobeys God's word and yet believes in Christ as his savior, he will enter hell?
*sigh* If one lives in willful disobedience to the Lord in sin, it does not matter what they claim to believe. We prove our faith by obedience to the Lord. Even satan believe is the Lord Jesus Christ. He attempted to tempt Him.
I agree. Their lives were not similar, especially because Muhammad(SAW) was the head of the state, as Moses (PBUH) was. Whereas Jesus (PBUH) was not the head of a state. Hence, you will find difference. But you will find that Moses(PBUH) life and Muhammad(SAW) life are quite similar.[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Their lives were not similar at all. I am not going to get into a discussion of that here however. Study their lives and you will see.
blackregiment
We are not talking about Moses who was not the Messiah, we are talking about Jesus who was. You are moving the goal posts. There are also many differences in the lifves of Moses and Muhammad but I am not going to get into that here.
If you want to talk similiraties, talk the Egyptian god Horus. Jesus was clearly ripped off of Horus.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"] Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.MFaraz_Hayat
Here is what that verse means. It has nothing to do with John working miracles, but rather as the forerunner of Christ.
Mat 11:7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
Mat 11:8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
Mat 11:9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
Mat 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
"11:7, 8 As soon as John's disciples departed with Jesus' words of reassurance, the Lord turned to the multitudes with words of glowing praise for the Baptist. This same crowd had flocked to the desert when John was preaching there. Why? To see some weak, vacillating reed of a man, shaken by every passing wind of human opinion? Certainly not! John was a fearless preacher, an embodied conscience, who would rather suffer than be silent, and rather die than lie. Had they gone out to see a well-dressed palace courtier, luxuriating in comfort? Certainly not! John was a simple man of God whose austere life was a rebuke to the enormous worldliness of the people.
11:9 Had they gone out to see a prophet? Well, John was a prophet-in fact, the greatest of the prophets. The Lord did not imply here that he was greater as to his personal character, eloquence, or persuasiveness; he was greater because of his position as forerunner of the Messiah-King.
11:10 This is made clear in verse 10; John was the fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy (Mal_3:1)-the messenger who would precede the Lord and prepare the people for His coming. Other men had prophesied the Coming of Christ, but John was the one chosen to announce His actual arrival. It has been well said, "John opened the way for Christ and then he got out of the way for Christ."
11:11 The statement that "he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" proves that Jesus was speaking of John's privilege, not his character. A person who is least in the kingdom of heaven does not necessarily have a better character than John, but he does have greater privilege. To be a citizen of the kingdom is greater than to announce its arrival. John's privilege was great in preparing the way for the Lord, but he did not live to enjoy the blessings of the kingdom." source: Bible Believers Commentary
But does this not prove what I was saying. Did Moses do miracles? Yes. Did John The Baptist do miracles? No. And John the baptist is greatest of Prophets. Showing that miracles are not the criteria to judge the greatness of a Prophet.
You are the one that keeps bring up miracles. It wasn't even a part of the discussion. If you want to talk about miracles, then look at Jesus who predicted His own death and resurrection.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"] I agree. Their lives were not similar, especially because Muhammad(SAW) was the head of the state, as Moses (PBUH) was. Whereas Jesus (PBUH) was not the head of a state. Hence, you will find difference. But you will find that Moses(PBUH) life and Muhammad(SAW) life are quite similar.FlyingArmbar
We are not talking about Moses who was not the Messiah, we are talking about Jesus who was. You are moving the goal posts. There are also many differences in the lifves of Moses and Muhammad but I am not going to get into that here.
If you want to talk similiraties, talk the Egyptian god Horus. Jesus was clearly ripped off of Horus.
I was wondering when someone would bring up that false allegation. You might want to research the truth about Horus. Bring on the religious texts that support your claim, not unsupported Youtube movies. If you are interested, here is some information on Horus as well as other false pagan gods.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html
http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html
Well I have to go. I have enjoyed the discussion. Till later, God bless.
Praise the Lord, He is risen.
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
No because if one that claims to be a Christian and lives a life of willful disobedience to God's Word in sin, then those fruits are indication that they were never truly saved. The Bible spraks of that in these verses.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:blackregiment
So you are saying that if a person deliberately disobeys God's word and yet believes in Christ as his savior, he will enter hell?
*sigh* If one lives in willful disobedience to the Lord in sin, it does not matter what they claim to believe. We prove our faith by obedience to the Lord. Even satan believe is the Lord Jesus Christ. He attempted to tempt Him.
Thank you, for confirming this. For Crushmaster, earlier in this thread, clearly told people that actions do not count and only professed faith is what will allow a person to achieve salvation.
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Here is what that verse means. It has nothing to do with John working miracles, but rather as the forerunner of Christ.
Mat 11:7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
Mat 11:8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
Mat 11:9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
Mat 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."11:7, 8 As soon as John's disciples departed with Jesus' words of reassurance, the Lord turned to the multitudes with words of glowing praise for the Baptist. This same crowd had flocked to the desert when John was preaching there. Why? To see some weak, vacillating reed of a man, shaken by every passing wind of human opinion? Certainly not! John was a fearless preacher, an embodied conscience, who would rather suffer than be silent, and rather die than lie. Had they gone out to see a well-dressed palace courtier, luxuriating in comfort? Certainly not! John was a simple man of God whose austere life was a rebuke to the enormous worldliness of the people.
11:9 Had they gone out to see a prophet? Well, John was a prophet-in fact, the greatest of the prophets. The Lord did not imply here that he was greater as to his personal character, eloquence, or persuasiveness; he was greater because of his position as forerunner of the Messiah-King.
11:10 This is made clear in verse 10; John was the fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy (Mal_3:1)-the messenger who would precede the Lord and prepare the people for His coming. Other men had prophesied the Coming of Christ, but John was the one chosen to announce His actual arrival. It has been well said, "John opened the way for Christ and then he got out of the way for Christ."
11:11 The statement that "he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" proves that Jesus was speaking of John's privilege, not his character. A person who is least in the kingdom of heaven does not necessarily have a better character than John, but he does have greater privilege. To be a citizen of the kingdom is greater than to announce its arrival. John's privilege was great in preparing the way for the Lord, but he did not live to enjoy the blessings of the kingdom." source: Bible Believers Commentary
blackregiment
But does this not prove what I was saying. Did Moses do miracles? Yes. Did John The Baptist do miracles? No. And John the baptist is greatest of Prophets. Showing that miracles are not the criteria to judge the greatness of a Prophet.
You are the one that keeps bring up miracles. It wasn't even a part of the discussion. If you want to talk about miracles, then look at Jesus who predicted His own death and resurrection.
I am not talking of Jesus(PBUH). The verses you provided clearly establish that John the Baptist was the greatest of Prophets. Yet it is also true that he did not perform any miracle. Moses(PBUH) on the other hand, did perform miracles. Yet, John the Baptist is a greater Prophet than him. Hence, we can logically conclude(from the Bible) that miracles have to do nothing with greatness of the Prophet.
That would not be correct. Actions are important.Thank you, for confirming this. For Crushmaster, earlier in this thread, clearly told people that actions do not count and only professed faith is what will allow a person to achieve salvation.
MFaraz_Hayat
That would not be correct. Actions are important. In fact, Crushmaster, earlier in this thread, clearly called Catholics non-christians for Catholics attach importance to actions/works and faith both. Where as, according to him, a Christian should only have faith(which I do not understand, for a person with faith will do good actions).......[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]
Thank you, for confirming this. For Crushmaster, earlier in this thread, clearly told people that actions do not count and only professed faith is what will allow a person to achieve salvation.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That would not be correct. Actions are important. In fact, Crushmaster, earlier in this thread, clearly called Catholics non-christians for Catholics attach importance to actions/works and faith both. Where as, according to him, a Christian should only have faith(which I do not understand, for a person with faith will do good actions).......Well he's just plain wrong. And doesn't know anything at all about Catholics. Catholics first and foremost have faith. But if you read the NT you can see several example where Jesus spoke about how actions are important. A Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ. That is the definition. I'd not put stock in any thing he says about Catholics.[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]
Thank you, for confirming this. For Crushmaster, earlier in this thread, clearly told people that actions do not count and only professed faith is what will allow a person to achieve salvation.
MFaraz_Hayat
In fact, Crushmaster, earlier in this thread, clearly called Catholics non-christians for Catholics attach importance to actions/works and faith both. Where as, according to him, a Christian should only have faith(which I do not understand, for a person with faith will do good actions).......Well he's just plain wrong. And doesn't know anything at all about Catholics. Catholics first and foremost have faith. But if you read the NT you can see several example where Jesus spoke about how actions are important. A Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ. That is the definition. I'd not put stock in any thing he says about Catholics. Thanks for clarifying that. :)[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That would not be correct. Actions are important.
LJS9502_basic
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment