(Hbr 11:1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What is the scientific community? Is it a 'minor' group of people who claim what fact is (or can or can't be) for the rest of the world based on theories and experiments? Scientific community once said that smoking was healthy for the lungs and people scoffed religious people like Ellen White for saying that God told her it was bad for you. I'm sorry, but thats evidence enough for me. If you want more evidence, just pursue a personal relationship with God instead of living other peoples' enforced experiences also known as organized religion. Having faith goes beyond religion.

Pascal,

Touché mon amie! I hope I spelled that right, it's been a long 35 years since French class! Lol! You are right in that God exists inside each and every one of us. Our choices and actions define what roads we take, be it good or bad. As for the "Apocalypse", why worry about it? Some say that we won't know until all 12 or is it 13 crystal skulls are found. Others stick to the predictions of the Bible and try to pin the Anti-Christ label on anyone they see as a threat. Still others insist that mathematical codes spell out our danger in any number of religious texts, you can't forget the Mayan calendar and those of other native and ancient cultures, and then there's always Nostradamus to fall back on. You have looked at the many other dates that we have gone through that were predicting our end, and yet we are still here.

If anything that dramatic is going to happen, if by human hands, I am hoping that the generation coming in recognizes the danger our world has put itself in with all of it's war and strife, and try to change things. If it happens by natural disaster, then there is nothing any human can do, and fear will not do any good. The best thing to do is whatever you can for those you can and reach out; use a little of that "God-light" in the service of humankind if in fact we have such a short time to do so. You will lose nothing by it and gain much in satisfaction because you did what you could. Why would that be a problem?

you wish to bury your head that is your choice. but those aren't assumptions.

but jesus was a rebel in the statement king of the jews. that may have been considered treasonous. .

so in other words jesus had no clue .

Jesus was hung on the cross for...... God gave his son so that we shall have everlasting life. But I assume Jesus hung from the cross because he was veiwed as a criminal? Always a pleasure

Jesus was arrested for blaphemy by the Romans on behalf of the Jews. He should have had a appeal but al the impending Sabbath day came there was a big push for the "punishible by death" deaths to be taken care of.

also as Pontius Pilate stood before the Jewish people he offered to have one criminal set free...the people chose a murderer, Barabbas to go free. Pilate washed his hands of the blood that would be spilled by the jews of the messiah...since Jesus was arrested for claiming kingship, he was crowned and adorned in a fashion to reflect royalty and then beaten for his crimes which included treason...Jesus could have defended himself, set straight the lies that were told about him, but he did not. he could have stopped preaching and teaching, but he did not, and that is how he became a sacrifice.

as for being the son of God. opinion. if in fact he existed , it was for being a rebel , possibly treasonous.




actually the Barabbas story according to cultural scholars is not true. The romans never would have released a prisoner. there was no such custom.

Your ad hominem attacks are amusing but can you please answer my question?. What in your earlier post did I miss that refutes the creedal passage that is written within 5 years of Jesus death?. Whether pauline literature flourished or failed over any other literature this creedal passage was STILL in use within 5 years of Jesus death and is in no way effected by your post!!!.

Hairston

lets see -------- the earliest written gospel was written about 70 AD. jesus 'died' at 33 AD.... you say it was written 5 years after his death ? the math doesn't add up.

Ripley, Creedal passages are not the gospels. Creedal passages can be found in 1 Cor 15:3. Most critics who have taken time to investigate this, date the tradition from the 30's ad and some even believe that Paul received it from the apostles themselves (Probably Peter and James) (reference to view is [Creel, p. 70]). Other passages are Philippians 2:6 11


Romans 1:3 4 calls Jesus "Son" "Christ" "Lord"." First Corinthians 11:23. Joachim Jeremias states this "goes back . . . to Jesus himself," (Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, transl. by Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1966), p. 101) also calls Jesus "Lord." These creeds pre date Paul , which complement Jesus' self claims.

These were circulating well before the gospels were written and were present in a span of 20 years (33-38 ad being the earliest which is 1 Cor up to the 50's ad)

Hairston

i don't think that the gospel was written in 70AD. the gospels are letters....they were probably found or first collected then.

The gospels were written anywhere between 65-73 AD.

I use the higher criticism studies/scholarship for reference


Higher criticism is a name given to critical studies of the Bible that treat it as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

I didn't think it was a custom. I thought it was Pontius Pilates way of letting the people know that he didn't believe Jesus to be guilty and since he was their prisoner gave them one last option to free him.

I accept the story as true because it is just one more twist of the knife so to speak. one last chance for your fathers chosen people to spare you and they choose....a killer.lhow much harder it is to die for them now.


i may look into this, but there will be a lot more studies and texts put out to discredit the bible as the end times draw nearer. It is just more corruption to fuzz out our brains....i guess thats how SO many people end up supporting the antichrist.

Omnaka,

May I ask a question, respectfully of course. Are you a Mormon, by any chance? Your beliefs sound very much like what I have heard the Mormons believe. I have to admit, I myself am a Spiritualist and believe that eventually we will all find our way to the light of the everlasting, men & WOMEN equally. I think his purpose here was to set our feet on the right path, unfortunately almost everyone got the message wrong or twisted it to fit their own interpretations. That's why all the spin-offs or we would be all following his message together. He was a master teacher and knew at his death that his efforts and sacrifice had fallen short. That is why he asked the Creator to forgive the people. They didn't get it, they didn't know what they were passing up.
That almost assures that he will be reborn and at a time when we need him most because a soul like his is only a step away from joining the eternal light and never has to be reborn. The only thing that held him back was our blind ignorance. The only reason he will return is his love for humanity. Will we recognize him this time? Who knows, we have known many great men. They all seem to get assassinated before their plans see the light of day. Women also, or they aren't listened to and pushed aside until the powers that be start to notice the growing crowds. Then they have to go. Like Bhutto who only thought of the unity and progress of her people.
We must all make our own choices, to follow a certain doctrine, follow none, or be true to our own individual belief system; whether others agree or not. I will continue as I am. One of our Principles is most important to me. It is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I live by that.

Mariposa1

I would go as far as saying that one of the gospels could have been written in the late 80's/very early 90's (90 preferrably) but Im in no way implying that it is solid 100%

Hairston

but with the back and forth on accuracy and the calander changes how can we be sure that one fact is 30 yrs ahead and one is 30 years behind making 2 different wrond sorces put the thing in question happening at the same approx. time. your certainty that this is wrong is unnerving to me a little.

My certainty that what is wrong?

Hairston

sorry i wasn't clear at all.

i mean the time period they were written in vs. the time period people think they were written in...im just saying mybe both sets of opinions are wrong and it really meets somewhere in between there.

Yeah im open to that possibility. Most definitely.

Hairston

Edit: But I would like to add that I would not choose a happy medium just because of the differing opinions of scholars. I would rather go with the time that best fits the available data and would have to be open to the possibility that with the discovery of new data, we would have to modify that date as better evidence is made available.

It wasn't for Him to say.

And believers will not acknowledge evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

All discussions on these boards are therefore pointless, and a waste of time and energy for the participants.
They do, however, provide a lot of amusement for the observers.



good journey to all.

No doubt about it!

Good journey to you too.

Love Omnaka

From all the above data and a knowledge of Pauline chronology, provide an absolute date or at least a range of dates for Paul's composition and sending of 1 Corinthians (see, in particular, Acts 18:11, 22-23; 19:1; 20:31; 1 Cor 16:8). Remember that the dating 1 Corinthians must fall between the two known dates proximate to this event: the founding of the church at Corinth between 50 and 52 and Paul's arrest in Jerusalem between 55 and 58.

According to the Book of Acts, Paul visits Corinth during his second missionary journey and establishes a church there; as already indicated, this can be dated between 50-52. After a total of eighteen months (Acts 18:11), Paul leaves for Antioch in Syria (Acts 18:22). After spending some time in Antioch, Paul sets out on his third missionary journey (Acts 18:23). He travels to Ephesus, where he remains for three years (Acts 19:1; 20:31). Paul writes 1 Corinthians during the last year of his three-year stay in Ephesus. This means that he is writing c. 54-57, between four or five years after founding the Corinthian church sometime between 50 and 52, but, obviously, before his arrest in Jerusalem between 55 and 58. Paul indicates that he plans to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost (late Spring) (1 Cor 16:8), which suggests that he is writing near but before that time of the year in whichever year he is writing.



http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/1Cor.htm

and realize Paul never knew Jesus , never met him and actually changed the way the disiples were teaching about jesus. he basically made it up the way he wanted too and that is what christians believe today.

BUT the problem is that this creed that I make mention was in circulation BEFORE it was written. You see, Paul made mention of an ancient oral tradition in Corinthians which means that it was in circulation before it was written. The vast majority of critical scholars who answer the question place Paul’s reception of this material in the mid-30s A.D. Even more skeptical scholars generally agree. German theologian Walter Kasper even asserts that, “We have here therefore an ancient text, perhaps in use by the end of 30 AD . . . .” Ulrich Wilckens declares that the material “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.”

Paul is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to others what he had received earlier, as the center of his message (15:3). There are many textual indications that the material pre-dates Paul. Most directly, the apostle employs paredoka and parelabon, the equivalent Greek terms for delivering and receiving rabbinic tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23). Indirect indications of a traditional text(s) include the sentence structure and verbal parallelism, diction, and the triple sequence of kai hoti Further, several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk. 24:34) and James, and the possibility of an Aramaic original are all significant. Fuller attests to the unanimity of scholarship here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition." Critical scholars agree that Paul received the material well before this book was written.

The most popular view is that Paul received this material during his trip to Jerusalem just three years after his conversion, to visit Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:18-19), both of whose names appear in the appearance list (1 Cor. 15:5; 7). An important hint here is Paul's use of the verb historesai (1:18), a term that indicates the investigation of a topic.[6] The immediate context both before and after reveals this subject matter: Paul was inquiring concerning the nature of the Gospel proclamation (Gal. 1:11-2:10), of which Jesus' resurrection was the center (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 14, 17; Gal. 1:11, 16).

While this pre-Pauline creed provides crucial material, it is not the only instance. For example, many scholars think that the Book of Acts contains many early confessions, embedded in the sermons. These creeds are indicated by brief, theologically unadorned wording that differs from the author’s normal language. Although this is more difficult to determine, it appears that most critical scholars think that at least some reflection of the earliest Christian preaching is encased in this material. This can be determined not only by the many authors who affirm it, but also because it is difficult to find many who clearly reject any such early reports among the Acts sermons. The death and resurrection appearances of Jesus are always found at the center of these traditions. Gerald O’Collins holds that this sermon content “incorporates resurrection formulae which stem from the thirties.” John Drane adds: “The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles.”

I believe that it is pretty well evidenced that this was in circulation within a few years of Jesus death. This is not my opinion. There are a vast majority of scholars that agree that this is true, even critical scholars.


References

Habermas: Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection

Habermas: Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?

Walter Kaspar, Jesus the Christ, new ed., trans. V. Green (Mahweh, N.J.: Paulist, 1976), 125.

Wilckens, Resurrection, p. 2.

Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 10.

Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983), 109-110

John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986), 99


Hairston

I never thought of that... To the Old Testement!

I love reading about the endtimes, and, though it wont happen, want to predict its happening!
Haha. At least I'd like to be there. That might be cool, or not, from some of the things I've read.
WWIII! Oh no!

You are right, I went back as far as I could in the old forums and its the same questions over and over just different people. There may not be anything we can add thats not already been said, But we will never know until we try. The amusment is prabaly the reason these forums have lasted so long. And the arguing of course. I enjoy the people here and like to hear their veiws, I do like the amusment as well.Always a pleasure

Wait...
Do you have any verses I could look up, or maybe chapters? Books?
The more specific (and in context) the better!

Your avatar thing may just be the coolest thing ive ever seen LOL

The 13 "Pauline" epistles

During the early Christian movement, there were about 40 Gospels and hundreds of Epistles circulating among the various faith groups. Centuries later, four Gospels, 13 Pauline Epistles, 8 Epistles written by others, and Revelation were selected to form the New Testament. It is composed of 27 books, containing a total of 260 chapters. However, not everyone has agreed with the official canon. In his translation of the Bible into German, Martin Luther downgraded the book of James because it stressed good works, and the book of Revelation because he felt that its portrayal of a hate-filled, revenge-seeking God is incompatible with the Gospel message. He relegated both books to an appendix.

The final 27 books which form the official canon was written by an unknown number of authors; most estimates run from 9 to 15. It covers the interval circa 7 BCE to perhaps the mid 2nd century CE.




Are some Pauline epistles forgeries?

Most conservative Christians believe that all 13 epistles were actually written by Paul; they would answer this question with a "no."

Liberal Christians generally believe that many of the epistles which say that they are written by Paul were actually written up to 85 years after his death by anonymous authors. By today's standards, they would be considered as forgeries -- much as would a modern day writer composing a letter in the style of George Washington, forging Washington's name, and promoting the letter as having been written in the 18th century.

But that is judging 1st century CE traditions by today's ethical standards. As stated in the New Jerusalem Bible 1:

"The best explanation may be that the Pastoral Epistles are letters written by a follower of Paul, conscious of inheriting his mantle and seeking to give advice and instruction for the administration of local churches. This adoption of a revered name in such circumstances was a literary convention of the times."

The authorship of the epistles is of particular importance when studying what the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) have to say about the role and status of women. One might assume that Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus and 1 Peter were not written by Paul and Peter. One of the main criteria used by the early Church to consider books for inclusion in the Bible, was whether they were written by Jesus' disciples and the apostles. Under this standard, it could be argued that those four books should not form part of the Bible. Then, the only references left in the New Testament that negatively affect feminine roles and status would be found in Paul's 1 Corinthians. If one considers that some of the 1 Corinthians anti-equality passages in may have contained later forged insertions, then one might argue that the valid Christian Scriptures promote gender equality.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

Im not opposed to some of this. I am well aware that scholars are skeptical of some of the letters authenticity, this is not something that I would argue against. But I do want to make mention that not all of the epistles are in dispute, only a few. Gerd Ludemann maintains that "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. . . . not later than three years. . . . the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE. . . .". Similarly, Michael Goulder thinks that it "goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion." Thomas Sheehan agrees that this tradition "probably goes back to at least 32-34 C.E., that is, to within two to four years of the crucifixion." Others clearly consent.

My own argument against some of the skepticism is the fact that Paul was so careful to assure the content of his Gospel message. He made a second trip to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1-10) specifically to be absolutely sure that he had not been mistaken (2:2). The first time he met with Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-20). On this occasion, the same two men were there, plus the apostle John (2:9). Paul was clearly doing his research by seeking out the chief apostles. As Martin Hengel notes, "Evidently the tradition of I Cor. 15.3 had been subjected to many tests" by Paul.

So in reality Ripley, I am in agreement with a great deal of what you believe (or at least from what youve copied and pasted from other websites) but the creeds that im making mention of are agreed by a great majority of critical scholars, which ive mentioned in quotes in this post and from my other previous posts as well. I do see where there are disputes with certain writings among scholars if your thinking that Im a hardcore innerantist.


Habermas: Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection

Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38 (Ludemann’s emphasis).

Michael Goulder, "The Baseless Fabric of a Vision," in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 48.

A.J.M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 274, note 265; Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 24; Jack Kent, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999), 16-17; G.A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? (London: Pemberton, 1986), 30.

Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 38.


Kindly,

Hairston

interesting read -

One Jesus, Many Christs : How Jesus Inspired Not One True Christianity, but Many


An insightful portrayal of Jesus as a classical hero-martyr, by New Testament scholar Riley (School of Theology, Claremont). The first half of the book is a quick romp through Greco-Roman heroic literature, but with a point: Riley argues that Jesus had a lot in common with familiar figures like Hercules and Achilles. The classical heroes claimed a mix of divine-human parentage, usually with a virgin human mother and a god for a father; they possessed some remarkable or even miraculous skill; they had divine enemies and were hated by powerful humans; they died, often young and violently, as martyrs for a principle; and their deaths powerfully transformed other people's lives through emulation. Jesus fits the bill perfectly, Riley argues, because the Gospel writers had obtained a classical education, which meant that they were thoroughly steeped in heroic lore. Early converts readily embraced Christianity's message, despite tremendous penalty from a hostile Roman government, because it captured the heroic formula that peasants had heard recited and then memorized. The second half of the book drives home this point about the source of Christianity's popularity. Riley demonstrates that it certainly wasn't doctrine that attracted the masses, since the earliest apostles couldn't agree on the most basic tenets of the faith. Dozens of sects arose in different cities, all claiming to be the religion of the risen Christ (though whether he had risen in spirit or body was itself a subject of heated debate). What they could agree on was that Jesus was a hero and that they, as martyrs for the faith, could become heroes themselves. Such faithfulness constituted the religion of Christ into the fourth century, which witnessed the conversion of Constantine and the great creedal controversies. Written in a refreshingly easygoing style, this new view of why Jesus' radical message spread so rapidly is clearly aimed at a mainstream audience. --


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-d...155&s=books

Ill have to check this one out...Havent read it yet. Thanks for the link.

Kindly,

Hairston

Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in Revelation 1:7

Isaiah 34:4 is quoted in Revelation 6:13

Joel 3:4 is quoted in Revelation 6:12

There are many quotes here, especially from chapter 6 and on. The reason why is a) certify which books were inspired by God bring a particular context to mind c)illustrate a part of the Gospel for encouragement

actually i am totally open to evidence. im just not open to empty claims. if you can show me that my beliefs are wrong i will totally listen to what you have to say with an open mind and ready with questions. but as someone already took care of that at one time or another when i was developing what I believe now they came with proof, so you see what I am saying.

Is proof and Faith the same thing?

Love Omnaka

no proof and faith are not the same thing. nor do I have proof of the things that require faith, not do I have faith in the things that require proof.

however not all things can you believe solely on faith nor can you believe all things solely on proof. They are cousins and sometimes they need to be together in order to change the assumptions or wrongness of the past so as to correct them. if our beliefs have been one of 3 for 1000 years and the correct is a fourth, that fourth must come with proof to make the blind see, the deaf hear, and the mouthy shut up. and if the fourth can offer only what the other 3 already have, faith with no proof, then it is no better than any of the others and thus no more correct.

I check everything against my heart, If it be proof, I check that proof against my heart, which leads to faith in what I believe.

Love Omnaka

Omnaka, I am truly trying to hear you and determine if what you believe to be true. but your heart doesn't make something true. you have to offer something else, if you cannot offer something else then you can't help anyone else, and that is selfish and not full of love at all.

I may not be very good at explaining right now, Quitting smoking , nerves on edge, Sorry about yesterday.

When I started talking to Father I documented our conversations, I have not put it all together yet but it will be out, then you can Judge The informationTo be true or not.

I submit The heart Is Where God resides and It will not lie to you, This I have always taken on Faith.

It is understandable if you do not do it this way, I don't really need you to Believe me , It has no bering on me helping Others.

I help in many ways. Believe it or not.

Iam sorry you feel Iam selfish and have no love .
My Father (God), wife and Kids would disagree with you.
You can check that against your heart.

Love Omnaka

Im gonna have to agree. And something similar to this discussion would be the unawareness of the death of a loved one. Say a lost loved one died last week and you were not made aware. You may be excited, happy, or even making plans based off of those feelings to do something with that loved one (fellowship with them or vacationing as examples). Once realization is known that same attitude you had before awareness quickly fades. So technically you could be having feelings that are contradictory to truth. This is why we should be weary of relying on feelings SOLELY. That doesnt mean we should shun our own feelings but that we should not rely upon them as the only means of truth because they can bring false assurance.

Kindly,

Hairston

Edit: I do want to make note that I dont think you are selfish omnaka, I only agree with ravergirl in regards to relying on feelings.

I'm not saying that Omnaka is selfish, im saying that it could be percieved as selfish to not give the gift of insight that you have if it be the truth when what you are trying to spread is love. with holding information that could make us more favorable in God's eyes by embracing his truth is like with holding extra love. Omnaka keeps taking about love and then not making it available. which promotes discord and frustration.

If you are stating something as truth, then yes I would think it be necessary to provide a means of testing that "truth", especially in a public forum.

Hairston

Sorry you feel I'm holding back, I'm not
I thought I described How I check things internally against my heart, and described my Faith. You are favorable in God's eyes, Ive been saying that for a while now. belief in God is a personal thing , or belief I share as much as I feel I can.

Please don't judge me if you think it is not enough or good enough.

How others percieve My belief or truth Is up to them, not you. How I present it is up to me.

Again Iam not trying to spread love , I spread love, I'm truly sorry If My love does not live up to your expectations.

Love Omnaka

i feel you on the quitting thing. i am a smoker also. it's disgusting.

Omnaka im not trying to say that what you believe is not true. im trying to say you are overshadowing the help you want to give, by the mystery the source is shrowded in. I cannot get past what you are not telling me in order to absorb what you are telling me.
A lot of people are going to have this problem if this is how you present yourself or your message. The difference between me and them is that even if I disagree with everything you are saying I at least want to understand fully with what I am disagreeing with. im not scared to hurt someones feelings, even though it is not ever my intention, and I have no problem being judged.im a performer and public speaker, it happens.

you are right it is up to you how you do what you do and up to others how they percieve it...but I am one of those people and I want more, what are you going to do if all of them want more and you don't have it to give...fall upder the weight of them.

I have pleanty to give, But you ask me not about my posts but judge me at every turn on how I present my self. Like the other post you did not ask me one question about what I opened with and went straight to Judging my love andsource. when the book comes out Y&ou can decide for your self if what I say is true or not, If you can ask me questions on My truth and belief with out Judging My truth I would be Happy to answer.

What I know is Open for discussion, You may judge your self to believe or not, but you can't judge for me Or what others might think of the content.

This has nothing to do with anything but Judging So There is no point in talking about it any more. If you have a question On what I believe I would be Happy to Tell you But If you judge me we will go in a circle learning nothing about what I believe or what you believe. and even if you have no problem being Juged, does not Mean I don't have a problem with Judging you.

It's not something I want to do.

Ps-About the Apocalypse, Father told Me it would not happen in your childs life.
This may be a comfort to some, Or it may be a vehicle to judge My source,
But I did tell what I know to be true. Wether you believe it or not.

Love Omnaka

My bad Hairston, I will put My Before Truth when stating My truth , Or My belief, or you could just know That it is My TRuth and Belief.

Title of this section is not Truth Back it up or be Judged.

Love Omnaka

No, im stating that if you want anyone in this public forum to take you seriously with the proposals you bring forth then you need to be able to back those up. Otherwise no one will be entitled to listen to what you have to say. Now I know you may not be concerned but if your trying to convince an audience that your belief is true, then I do find it significant to put forth some established evidence that you find convincing and persuading so that others may investigate and make judgement with said evidence for themselves otherwise you will be right where you are currently in this discussion.

Respectfully,

Hairston

Again Iam not trying to convince you of anything, I am just sharing what I know. You can read what I say and if it sparks something , you can ask me about any thing, If all you care about is proof Then read Otyher posts which only carry proof, or links to proof , Most links to proof in a religious setting will only lead you to another authors Opinion or truth. so you need more than my Proof Of what I know to be true, Good luck with that and on finding Proof in any religion Or Belief.
Does not matter if you believe me or not Just giving you info, what you do with it is your buisness, or you can judge my truths.

If you say something is true in the bible, and I say Prove it can you?

Love Omnaka