Thank you, KingdomSeeker, for such an in depth response.
Beleif In Gods existence, mine, is I felt him. I heard him say "Come" I came to him, and surrenderd my self, and then i felt His spirit fall on me, adn enter my Body, and a great overwhelming Joy sprung up in me, and i could not stop praiseing Jesus, and God.
Alright...What did it feel like, and how did you know it was Him that you felt, and not just some horemonal chemical reaction in your brain from a "religious experience," as Jiggs likes to call it? Where did you feel it? Your chest? Your head? Under your skin? In your feet?
But another reason, for why i beleive(for i Believed in A God, before i truly meyt THE God) is God says he created one creature, in his Immage. and that is HumanKind. What do Humans Love to Do? Create. We HAD to have learned it from someone, Im sorry, but Animals cant create. Or none i have ever met.
I don't think I've understood this. You say you had a reason to believe in a god before you believed in THE God, but then you use THE God as your reason for believing in a god to begin with. Please, clarify.
Also, surely humans did not have to learn to create. We've been doing so for tens of thousands of years. Apes create tools. Birds create nests. Ants create intricate tunnel systems, all without having to learn how, and they've all been doing so far longer than we have. No need to apologize, just do a little more research.:wink:
What is your belief that Jesus of Nazareth existed based upon? Well to touch on Jesus, first we have to see if Nazareth existed...Theres Lots of Talk that it Did NOT, i know it did, and the breifest and to the point explination is as follows "Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600-900 BCE, it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16), which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of the Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus, and her name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.It seems that the words of Nathanel of Cana, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:47) characterized the site’s seeming insignificance. It is needless to say that the people of Judea had never heard of Nazareth. And from this we understand the reason that Pontius Pilate decorates the cross with the sign “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” (John 19:19) – meaning that the “King of the Jews” is from “nowhere.” The early name “Nazarenes” given to the Christians might have been a derogatory nickname that the people of Judea gave to the followers of Jesus (Matthew 26:71, Acts 6:38). Jesus was known throughout the Galilee as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Matthew 21:11 , Mark 14:67) – but for those not from the Galilee, this name had no meaning for them. In order to explain where Nazareth was located, the Galileans had to explain that the village was near Gat-Hyefer (Jonah’s hometown,Kings II 14:25), which could be seen from Nazareth. Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families." SO its a tiny obscure backwater town. Nazareth?
This was not exactly the foundation of my question, but now I'm curious. Why are you telling me that a city that all the record keepers make no point of ever mentioning is proof that it was a real place? Again, I'm not sure I'm understanding you.
Now evidence for Jesus? Well i could quote, the Bible, as well as MANY early Biblical scholars, but you dont beleive in God, so you may not take the bible to be valid history, and you might not trust the words of the ancient Scholars considering they are Christians...so heres two accounts from NON followers of Christ: 1.)"The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44)."
Concerning Tacitus, we must note that even if the novelistic passage in question were authentically Tacitus', it would prove nothing more than that he knew of the existence of Christians, not "Christ" or "Jesus of Nazareth." Tacitus lived from ca. 55 CE to ca 120 CE and wrote probably after the last of the canonical gospels (John) were in circulation.
In actuality, Tacitus, was considered a credible historian, however, this bit of writing attributed to him was NOT considered credible even by the earliest fathers and sons of the church. Here are several reasons I can say this...
1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian [ca 160-ca 220 CE] was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed. [The fact that Tertullian claims Nero was the first to persecute Christians without citing the authority of Tacitus to prove this is inexplicable if the passage existed in Tertullian's day. By the time Tertullian was writing, all sorts of legends had developed.]
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by ANY Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7. At this time but one copy of the "Annals" existed, and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century—600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian, the insertion of a forgery was easy.
9, It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintillian. [I have not yet tried to verify this independently. frz]
10 .The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
11. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century. [It is entirely possible that the story found in Sulpicius Severus' Chronicles 2:29 — itself apparently modeled upon the story of Galerius' burning of Nicomedia in 303 CE—served as the stimulus for a Renaissance forger to add the story to Tacitus' Annals.]
12. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertaiments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
13. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.
This passage by Tacitus, like that of Josephus, is likely a forgery.
2.)The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) Yeshu, as they call him, is mentioned...Granted they are twisted, and I find personally Blasphemous, "accounts" of his life, and death...but Historicaly...this proves Yeshua's(Jesus) existance.
Hold on, hold on, hold on. You can't use a source that you yourself have discredited as false and twisted to prove the one thing out of it that you believe is true, and expect me to believe it. You ought to use sources that you find credible, at least.
What is you belief that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the Son of God, YHWH, based upon? There are MANY Accounts of Jesus, in the New testement, and ALSO in the Old. Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs 30 mentions God has a son...its refuted to be talking about ISRAEL, the nation...but It says it, and its only thought of that by Rabbincal Jews, who Hate God anyway. (Why do i say they hate God? Well becasue they follow an "Oral Torah" that is NOT mentioned in the Tanakh...anywhere...yadayada...thats not what this is about anyway...)
Haha. Yikes, man. I guess I'm glad we don't have any Rabbinical Jews around here, or they might take offense to that. They'd probably think you were the one who hated God because you worship a man. I would like some of that OT Scripture to back up the claim that it says God has a (one) son.
So what is My beleif, of Jesus being the Son of God, based apon, Outside of the Scriptures? The fact that No one outside of Christianity, truly beleives in Jesus, either deity wise, or just plain factualy. and furthermore, most of the ones that DO claim him. Dissobey him left and right. They do NOT live by the words of the Bible. Yet still calim to Love God, adn Jesus. SO if you have the World denying Jesus in word and action. And you have the majority of the Self proclaimed Church, accepting him in word, yet denying him in Action, That seems to me, that there is an opposing force.
And this opposing force is Jesus, the Son of God? How? Why?
ALL religions came from sumer,Babylon.
This is so false, it hurts. I would go into your religious references, but I probably wouldn't be able to do it in a kind way. I apologize.
Why did Jesus have to die? God IS Love, and it is His WILL that no man should perish. God is ALSO Holy. and WILL NOT accept Sin.
We already have a word for God, then. It's love. What do we need God for? And if it's His will that no man should perish, then why do men perish? Are we humans capable of trumping God's will? And if He will not accept sin, then why did He accept the one who became sin (Who was actually Himself) as a viable sacrifice for all mankind? Also, how do you deal with Satan visiting God in the Book of Job. He didn't seem to have too much of a problem being in the presence of sin then.
Sin Entered the World through Adams disobedience. Romans 5:12 "Therefore as by one man sin entered into this world [sin entered into the world], and by sin death, and so death passed forth into all men, in which man all men sinned."
I don't know how to best put this. There really probably was no Adam, man. Evolution has proven true with no yet known exceptions. Man and woman did not suddenly magically appear on this planet. They evolved. Adam and Eve were not the first humans, and the original sin story is, at best, allegorical. Sin didn't come from one man. If you'd like me to assume that the Genesis story is factual, I would be glad to, but there is still a whole heapin' helping of poor judgment and false justice going on. The whole tale is a witch's brew.
HumanKind needed a perfect Sacrafice for Sin. In the OT, Men would sacrifice innocent lambs, showing their repentance from sin and faith in the future Sacrifice from God who would bear their penalty.
OK. Two questions here. What does it say about God that He demands the slaughter of innocents to appease Him? How is He any different from the Volcano gods who demand virgin sacrifices. What exactly is the moral lesson being taught when you teach your worshipers that they can simply cast their wrongdoings onto the hide of another creature...Another man, in Christianity's case? I don't get it, but it seems so so wrong.
Second question. You say that God bore the penalty in order to create the new covenant...but He created the penalty too, right? So...God payed Himself for a price He had previously been charging us, which He knew we couldn't pay ourselves. Why didn't He just make the price more reasonable to begin with, and avoid the whole brutal sacrifice thing. It doesn't seem loving...It seems convoluted.
So in order to Save ALL mankind, Jesus, the perfect Sacrafice(also the perfect High Priest) had to Die, in essence, Gods living Word, his powerful wisdom, which is an entity in and of its self, yet still fully God, Humbled its self, and came down so you can be WITH God. Jesus Christ IS the only way, Truth and LIFE. and NO man comes to GOD but through THE WAY. And No unclean can come through this Holy Highway.
ALL Mankind? Does that mean I'm saved too? Jesus died for me?
So...Thats why Jesus Had to Die. Yet He did not stay Dead, God Rose him to Life,
God rose Himself to life. Again, this sacrifice doesn't seem that impressive. Jesus, being God, knew He would die. But He also knew that He wouldn't be staying dead. He knew He was all powerful, and He knew that He couldn't be destroyed or defiled. So what's the big deal?
How do you have a personal relationship with a person who might have died almost 2000 years ago? Well If you beleive the account of the Bible, and the Words of The risen Christ...He Is NOT Dead, but ALive, and sitting at the right hand of the Father.
So did He die? How is He alive if He died? If you die...you're dead...that's it, game over. That's what I don't get.
I really do appreciate your answers, but I think they've just spurred more questions.
