Wow, you're not very insightful in the spiritual department are you? I was saying that Jerusalem's destruction was an assurance of Christ's return and of the resurrection, even though that generation saw neither of them. Like Abraham, they saw God's promises from a distance, but had signs to assure them.

This is a bit off topic sorry, I was thinking about the bible and how God sent so many messages or signs to do his work, And How God spoke to some. Do you think there were skeptics back then and are there many more now? If someone said God told me to....... And they atempted to do as told By God, they would have skeptics coming from every direction saying he was nuts and wanting proof God talked to him. What is so different today compared to back then when God did send messages and spoke to people. I am not saying God doesn't send us messages now, Today I just wonder why No one doubted their word when God spoke to them, Always a pleasure

Yes it is the same today as it was yesterday unfortunatly.

Bro Jesus spoke with Father and they hung him on a cross, The good news is that would be against the law in today's world.

That is why I can tell what I know aboy Father today without worry of being Martyred or murderd by some fanatic who is upset for God that I don't believe as he does.

There wer not as many people on the earth back then, but there werte Just as many per capita who doubted , and some of them are back today trying to work through their jugements of Others.

Love Omnaka

randomhit10
what if this is indeed the mark and you are fooled or tricked into getting it, Are you still held accountable or receiving it. There are so many things the bible says to look out for false prophets and the sign of the beast, The clues are vague enough to be alot of different things, How do we know for sure for positive that we are being fooled will god tell us we need to look deeper or is hat for us to decide? Always a pleasure

Sandee,
if you take it, trick or not, you will bve held accountable because the information has been laid out for you to read and understand...this is why it is important for you to study for yourself, the Bible, and to pray for Godly wisdom to understand what He is saying...many people over define what the Bible is saying...most of the time it is exactly what it reads and nothing more...we have and will always have false prophets...the best way to spot one is to test what he says by matching it to the Word of God...if it does not match then something may be wrong with what is being taught...false teaching can also be in the personal interpretation of the Word, such as does Genesis Creation mean 7 literal days or years?...to get caught up in an endless babble about who is right means nothing but it does keep you from doing what God wants us all to do and that is to spread the Gospel...be watchful...and if someone says the Bible means this or that, look for yourself, especially if you get the feeling that it is not right...

randomhit10

so when Jesus told the disciples he was speaking to that he would be back during their lifetime - was he lying or wrong ?

most were skeptics then just as now. more so. Jesus wasn't concidered divine until a few hundred years later. Christanity didn't take off with Jesus as much as it did with Paul who never met the man . who's preaching was vastly different that the original intention.

so basically christanity is following Paul , not jesus.

Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever, other than perhaps the disputed Gnostic Gospels.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

The religion of the followers of Jesus remained unified for fewer than ten years after Jesus' execution circa 30 CE.

- Jesus' disciples and other followers had formed a reform Jewish group -- the Jewish Christian movement. It was centered in Jerusalem, and was under the leadership of James, the brother of Jesus. It was essentially a reform movement among Judaism -- one of about two dozen Jewish traditions which were active at the time.

-Within a decade, Paul started to organize a competing Christian movement which was primarily aimed at converting the Gentiles -- mostly Greek and Roman Pagans -- to what has been called Pauline Christianity.

- Gnostic Christianity formed the third major component.

In any large city of the Roman Empire, there were often religious leaders from each of these three movements -- and probably more -- teaching their own conflicting views on Christianity.

Although the Jewish Christian and Gnostic movements were eventually scattered and/or exterminated, the successor to Pauline Christianity survived, and became the established church. However, it later split into thousands of Christian faith groups with competing beliefs and practices. These are often grouped into four categories: the Roman Catholic church, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Anglican communion, and Protestantism. Sometimes, the Anglican communion is considered part of Protestantism. There are over 1,500 Protestant denominations and sects -- over 1,000 in North America alone.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi1.htm

so it seems the man who would have known best what Jesus wanted , James , was basically pushed out of the way for Pauls idea of what is now called christianity.

well said!!!!

randomhit10

no He wasn't...we are the ones who have to know the time so we picked what suited us.

randomhit10

louder ? by asking for proof ? ( that isn't availible)

let's be honest. no religion likes debate because there is no evidence to back it up. skeptics aren't getting louder it's just you have no real arguement for your case. just faith. which is not fact.

we have the same people as then just different clothing....then they were called Pharisees, Saduchees, etc. etc....today atheist, skeptics, gnostics, etc etc...some say God doesn't speak anymore...i say some do not have ears to hear...do i believe it with all my being? yes...can i prove it to an unbelieveing skeptic? no...skpetics asks, then what value is it to anyone?...i say, i don't know for you...but it is of value to me...as for back then, people doubted when the prophets said the Lord talked to them...that is why judgement was rendered at different times because the people did not heed the warnings given them...even Jesus told us that not all will listen...remember Lazarus and the rich man?..."if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead"...

randomhit10

that is the same way believers believe skeptics are...you say you have the facts but they are no more convincing than you say ours are...so here i am, stuck in the middle with you...(like the song says)...

randomhit10

The bible is a confusing chronicle of things that mostly never happened.

Yes, some of the towns and kings mentioned in the bible really existed, but so what ?

Towns and kings were "current events" when the original biblical texts were written.

If we wrote a book today that said there was a country called the United States, and it had 50 states, and George Bush was the president in the year 2007, and that he walked on water and made dead people rise from the grave, well, some of that would be true, and some of it wouldn't.

Would the fact that we were right about the description of the U.S. and Bush being president make the other things true too? Of course not.

Just because the bible mentions towns and kings from 2000 years ago does not make the whole book true. It proves nothing.

No first-century historian confirms the existence of Jesus (as far as I know ?)

Nothing was written about Jesus while he was alive (if he ever lived at all>>we aren't sure>but I think so).

Even the gospels were written about 100 something years after the crucifixion. If Jesus lived nobody noticed it

Hey, I love that song !!

But dont forget that the writings of Paul and other books of the NT are earlier than the 4 gospels. There are creedal passages in the new testament that were written within about 5 years of Jesus supposed death and probably the most respected new testament scholar, James DG Dunn, confirms this as well. I KNOW I KNOW this is irrelevent to the topic but I just wanted to mention it and no im not trying to start a new discussion, nor go off topic. If you disagree with this then thats fine, no intentions to force this on you.

Kindly,

Hairston

Maybe people would just rather Jesus had not existed. too much other stuff must be true if his existance was true, and that....well that would be terrible wouldn't it. awful man that did such terrible things and hurt everyone. I for one can't believe they still study that man.

I don't think anybody dislikes or has a problem with Jesus ravergirl.

If he existed we respect him.

We just don't believe him to be the son of god, that is all

please read post # 56

What's this we stuff Kimosabe,

I know he is a son of God, He is not nor will he ever be God of this world, but he is given another world to create as our Father did this one. Believe or not does not matter.

Not every one will be Going to his world.

There have been thirty worlds given away, By Father and the Universe to sons who graduated this world, and an infinate amount of worlds out there to choose from.
someplace for everyone

There are like 5 separate posts saying there is no proof Jesus ever existed. not just existed was Gods son. Im saying that it is easier to choose not to believe in him or his existance than to accept that the rest of the bible may be true.

and there really isn't outside of the bible . and the fact that none who wrote the bible actually knew Jesus. Jesus may well have been an amalgamation of various prophets preaching at the time.

forgery in the Gospel of John -

http://www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm

the alleged forgery in the gospel of Mark ( which was the earlies gospel written in the early 70's AD - and jesus died supposedly at 33 AD. )

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

and the rest of the bible isn't all true. not when stories from it date back to other societies , beliefs . long before the 'hebrews' even thought of writing a bible. back when they still worshipped multiple gods.

Perhaps we put to much faith in historians?
As a demonstration of this I offer up this challenge. We would all agree that a very important man existed by the name of Christopher Columbus just a couple of hundred years ago. Can any one here tell me how tall/short was he? What colour was his hair or eyes?
How did he dress? Did he have any distinguishing features (moles, scars, tattoos ect,) that we could recognize him from others of that period?
I hear all the time here these same questions about the man Jesus, two thousand years ago, and many believe He did not exist simply because historians did not describe him in their journals. So my challenge should be an easy one with old Mr Columbus being just a couple of hundred years or so?
Remember no assumptions just cold hard recorded facts!

Irish

What is it that I am supposed to be reading in this post 56?. I see bits of truth mixed in with some rather incredible assumptions. And by the way, what in post 56 would I need to be reading that would change the fact that there are written creeds written within 5 years of Jesus death?. Unless you attack the writer of the passages, which is a completely different subject, I see no need to even read your post.

Kindly,

Hairston

PLUS. other historical figures didn't do anything at all to be recognized and the people that really did do them got squat.
and we haven't found all of the documents. what about the legal documents of the era...like the census the night that jesus was "born" or the conviction papers that pilat would have had to send to rome. anyway....i think there probably is proof even if there isn't much...it was a long time ago and who would have thought you would have to proove that the son of god lived.

Historically speaking and in the eyes o rome, jesus was a criminal and a minor one at that. Even nowadays with multimedia everywhere, such a person would warrant barely a mention IMHO.

You don't have to prove That He Jesus ws A son of God, Alexander was another son Moses was another The list is large.

Does not really Matter . Being a son of God does not make any of the son's God of this world.

Love Omnaka

You hit the nail right on the head...in flying colors

Kindly,

Hairston

There is a portrait & journals written by him. Certainly more evidence for him than Jesus

He killed in the name of Jesus too as far as I know

Nationality

Main article: Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

It is most widely accepted that Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa, located in modern-day Italy.[1] 188 notarial, judicial, and administrative documents about Cristoforo Colombo (Christopher Columbus) and his family have been preserved in the "Archivio di Stato" (national record office) of Genoa, Italy.[2] Some writers hold that his background was Spanish, Portuguese or Greek,[3] but no conclusive evidence has ever been offered. Clues to Columbus' origin such as learned languages and DNA samples have been studied, but to date, DNA tests show only that Columbus was Caucasian, and probably was not (as some have argued) a Sephardic Jew (Spanish/Portuguese).[4] DNA surveys of present-day individuals with similar names in various countries are continuing.[5] There was one document, the Last Will and Testament of 1498, where Columbus said he was from Genoa, but it is said to have been falsified, by the Spaniards, in 1573 (67 years after Columbus's death, along with certain other documents that supported this theory). [6] However, there is proof in the memoirs of England's King Henry VII (who was prepared to finance Columbus's voyage but was beat to it by the Spaniards) that Columbus's brother had visited him frequently regarding Columbus's planned exploration and that the king had used his Royal translator, familiar with the dialect spoken in Genoa, Italy, to communicate with the visitor. King Henry VII identified the visitor as an Italian from Genoa[citation needed]. A gloss journal of Columbus's, written in Italian, was kept by the Royal Court of Spain[citation needed]. A study made on Columbus's Spanish letters concluded that he wasn't a native speaker of a dialect of Spain. His journals, which were written in an extremely substandard form of Spanish mixed with Catalan and Portuguese, are proof that he wasn't an original inhabitant of Spain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus

Here's the portrait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Christo...lumbus_Face.jpg

ha...is that what mr bean is singing??

randomhit10

it really still reads like many commentaries of Jesus...some one put together bits and pieces of history and came to this assumption...no one knows if cc could actually write...he may have had a scribe put it down in the scribes own notes, and translated by another scribe later on...the royal courts were just
as corrupt as governments are today...so for them to say this is cc's journal doesn't hold beans to me...the memoirs of henry vii, that is really proof that all this happened...heck, forget all i just said....

randomhit10

well if in the eyes of rome he was a criminal, then he existed minor criminal or not. and nowadays multimedia every where it would have been televised, along with the ressurection, warranting quite a mention.

what do you mean Alexander was a son of God? and Moses? where are you getting this? In the eyes of God we are all cildren so to speak so yeah the list will be long. but all of the other ones came from copulation and Jesus came from immaculate conception making him THE sin if God not just A son of God.

Well, many did. If you look in the instances such as Isaiah (who was sawed in half by King Mannaseh) or Jeremiah (whose life was sought after), you will see that even as early as the eighth century B.C. men were skeptical. The term, "Drink, for tomorrow we die" was used in the Old Testament showing the carefree and apostate attitude that is so prevalent today. The fact is, nothing has changed, not even the arguments. People were skeptical of YHWH when Elijah challenged the Baal woshippers of Mt. Carmel. People were skeptical that God was with them so much that the made a Golden Calf and worshipped it, totally forgetting Moses and what he had told them. Skepticism is common and has always been around.

Even Jesus chided the Jews of His day that nullified the word of God for the sake of their tradition (Matthew 15:6). There you have it. Skepticism does not mean that the story is wrong. Skepticism is just outspoken doubt.

He was not lying, nor did he say that he would be back in their lifetime. He said that all the signs that He gave them of His return, they would see.

Did you mean these verses?

(Mat 16:28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

(Mat 26:64) Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

(Jhn 5:25) Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.


But Jesus also alluded to his delay:

(Luk 12:45) But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

You see, Jesus coming is the process thereof, not the immediate fulfillment. As I showed earlier, signs were given to assure His coming and the resurrection, though He may tarry.

The spirit , which is eternal, came from God, created in God's image. Yes we are all sons Of God.

Jesus called vus all brother, This means we are all sons of God he is no better than The rest.

His spirit was not the first spirit created By Father, In fact it was the 12th spirit created by Father, believe it or not.
It was not Jesus spirit which inhabited Adam, nor was it Jesus spirit which was inside King David Moses , or a Host of other sons who 's spirit was born with a tear to go with the breath of Life.

The breath of Life is The breath from Father which created your Spirit.

Begotten Means Of Father and Mother (God) Only.

If Jesus was the only begotten Who was Adam? A dirt clot Father just wipped up?

Adam Was Jesus older Brother, who sired the bodies For the spirits Father Made in Heaven, Making Adam Man , First born of Father Spiritually and Physically, and Making Jesus The son Of Man , even though his spirit came down fully intact, and he could hear Father. He was still adams little bro using one of adams Bodies, And Mary was just a host to The spirit which Mother put inside Her.

Don't get Me wrong , I love My bro jesus, but he is not god of this world, and will never be God of this world, He gets his own world, which is not this one , after this one is over.

Love Omnaka

I am not claiming that he was or is God of this world. I am claiming that he is THE son of God and a brother of man, in the brother from another mother sense of the phrase, and that he is the saviour of this world. the sacrifice made so that no other sacrifices have to made to cleanse the soul in order to acend to heaven to be with the Father.Jesus claiming to be the God of this world would have in fact made him the beast warned about in Revelation.

Then lets be honest, no skeptic wants proof, and no skeptic will accept it as proof. When Christians and Jews were in a debate one time, the Christians used the Jewish Scriptures. Upon the Christians gaining the lead in the debate, one of the Jews said, "Lets close our books and walk away, lest we have to admit that Jesus is the Messiah." Even during Jesus's time, Christ did miracles in the name of the Father, and some of the other Jews attributed the miracles to a demon. Skeptics are and always will be attempting to be louder so that the proof will never hit them as proof. I've discussed with a number of skeptics and they resist regardless of what could be used as proof. A common tactic of the skeptic: Deny it as proof. You claim that Christianity has no proof, but go ahead and accept less proven things in history as proof, not because it is fact, but because you don't want to believe. So any proof would not be proof, lest you would have to change your lifestyle and way of thinking.

I hear a lot about Jew vs Christians I have two comments
1) Jesus was a Jew
2) No one talks about Messianic Jews on here.

I agree with some of What you said except the part where He Is THE son , He is A son, and not the first as I pointed out in the last post.

Do you think Adam was begotten?

He also came to show that it is possible to Keep the comandments, by doing this One can literally save himself, it's why Father gave those laws to Moses. Jesus said and These things wou will do , even better than me. Paraphrasing.

This does not make Him better , savior , Or anythig but a son , who came to do Fathers will and help his bros who were living on Earth at the time.

Also that life was his last life(Mortal) He has been here before, and his other lives were not as perfect as his last one.

No one gets it right in one life, not even a Son of God.

Love Omnaka

You are correct. I must clarify, then, what I meant. Jesus (a Jew) attempted to teach the correct way of observing the Law, but lost influence because He taught that man was not good enough. Even among Christians today who profess the Gospel of grace, its hard for them to think that they have no influence in their salvation. So thus, when I said Jew, I meant the other Jews that disagreed with Jesus's teachings. And yes, I know of Messianic Jews, and I would directly refer to them as Messianic Jews in order to avoid confusion.

And also if I might add to your well stated post. 2 Peter 3:9 goes very well with your explanation. "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, [1] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." God tarries for this very reason

Kindly,

Hairston

Well said! God bless.

adam was not begotton, he was an original creation from the earth not from seed, of any kind. he was not born of anything, he was an invention. a most special one, im not trying to cheapen him by any means. but no I do not agree that he is a son. God did not create him as a child he created him as a man

The sons of God are not Mortal, they are spirit, who n's eternal Spirit is created In Father, and Mother's ( God's) image (Mother being the Holy Spirit, Fathers wife)

The father , after creating the eternal spirit of Adam, Jesus and Many more, put these spirits in the bodies (Which do not last and are for a short time only)after the Body dies the spirit Goes back , and Father can incarnate it back in to another body.

Do you think Adam did not have a Spirit?

I Mean you state he was just created for earth , like he was Just a shell to nmake babies for Jesus to come.

The spirit which was inside THe first man, was Father's First spirit son. Yes Father created The body , He also created The spirit which is eternal .

This involved No human named Mary, Making Adam the First begotten son. No disrespect to bro Jesus.

Love Omnaka

i agree with that other than His name Jesus would have to be blacked out or the atheist would sue the network for making them have to look at His name.

randomhit10

right on!!!!...excellent summation....

randomhit10

everything has a spirit.
i said he was created FROM earth not FOR earth.

Adam was not begotton at all he was created. not begotton. begotton means delivered from a womb which did not happen to adam. no matter what he is spiritually. God created man in image of himself. adam was created to birth civilization, not to save civilization. Adam is a creation of God's putting him yes under a father, but unlike the messiah...who was prophesied about long before jesus came. Immaculate conception...God causing a pregnancy.

i agree with you...created and begotten mean different things especially in light of Adam and Jesus...this is not a play on words...read the Bible in context and this will make sense...create=originate beget=procreate...

randomhit10

thanks. 3 cheers for vocabulary..just kidding...
anywhoo that being backed up. Jesus is God's one and only begotton son (Romans 10:9&10) and therefore the sacrifice and saviour of our souls. the lamb. and the word. and the word was God.

Hogwash .........just because faith can't concern itself with facts,which you define as deception

You think we don't want to be reunited with our loved ones again ? Or how wonderful it would be not to have to fear that death is the ultimate end ?

That everything has a purpose ? that possibly we will live in a paradise called heaven ? I can't think of many that do not desire this deeply.

You have no proof, you have faith. Nothing more,nothing less. It's good enough for your mental faculties but not for ours.

Belief & faith is something many of us wish we could share with you. Alot of us had faith at one time ,maybe not as much as you probably, but we believed at one time.

We understand more than you think,because we thought similarly at one time.

Faith is a huge pill that we can't swallow even though we try.

If you have proof please do share it with the scientific community. They seek the truth,they don't seek to be right

I have said this before skeptics don't want proof, I agree with you , Always a pleasure