Jesus Christ is the Son of God

[Xev]

First, thanks to Adam and Tony1. The spectacle of an athiest making an arse out of himself while a Christian fundamentalist behaves like a gentleman has cured me of any prejudice I might have towards athiesm.

Now.

Tony

Not really, since there is a resurrection in between the two, for those who wish to believe the truth only for a short time.

Very well, but they're close.

If they have any expression of staying there for all eternity, they'd be lies equally.

Thank you.

Who said I wasn't?
Don't forget that a lot of "mainline" denominations sprang directly from the Catholic Church.

Oh I don't, and I think we see eye to eye on this - well, close to. The RCC is really no worse than any large Protestant denomination.

Quite likely.
However, the thing that is going to cause them problems, is that the Catholic Church specifically anathematizes, i.e. curses, them.
Thus, they ended up blessed by God, but cursed by their own church.

Anathemizes them? How?

Adam:

Thanks for that. Now, what about all that talk of burning in lakes of fire and eternal torment? Is that not also mentioned in the same book?

Where?

 

[Adam]

Xev

After demonstrating your inability to grasp a logical point, and your display of truly disgusting and infantile language... Please just don't bother referring to, or talking to, me again.

 

[tony1]

Re: Tony1

*Originally posted by Adam
Now, what about all that talk of burning in lakes of fire and eternal torment? Is that not also mentioned in the same book? *

Well, it is mentioned.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
(Revelation 20:10, KJV).

The devil looks like he might be tormented for a while.

People? No.

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
(Malachi 4:1, KJV).

See? Nothing left, but ashes.

And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
(Malachi 4:3, KJV).

For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
(Psalms 37:10, KJV).

The wicked will be nowhere to be found.

*Originally posted by Xev
Very well, but they're close.*

They ARE close, but since there is a little space in there, it might be worth finding out why.

For example, if you've ever told a lie, the following would be applicable to you...

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
(Revelation 21:8, KJV).

It would be a shame to be burned to ashes for lying, when you could plead the the blood of Jesus, ask for forgiveness and avoid such a fate.

*Anathemizes them? How? *

The usual way, i.e. by saying so.

IOW, in some papal bulls, which are given ex cathedra, i.e. "infallibly," the pope simply says whoever believes such-and-so, let them be anathema (cursed).

 

[Adam]

Tony1

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
(Revelation 20:10, KJV).

The devil looks like he might be tormented for a while.

People? No.

Very interesting, thanks a lot for those quotes.

But tell me... "the devil that deceived them" ... What did the devil recieve?

 

[Adam]

Tony1

While I'm at it...

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Okay, the beast is there in addition to the devil? So who is the beast if not the devil?

 

[Binary]

Why even have such a thread? Those who will believe have been ordained unto it by god, and those who have not been ordained unto belief have been ordained unto disbelief, that the scriptures might fulfilled. As you can not decieve a true believer so also can you not convince a unbeliever of your belief. Works of faith nor soundness of doctrine availeth anything for it is the lord that must reveal the truth unto them even as (if you are a believer) he has revealed it unto you. You can not know now who is a true believer and who is not for the lord only knows those that he has ordained unto eternal life. Neither judge a man now but what he speaks or writes for the things that he does not he does being ignorant of the knowledge of god. Even as Paul being ignorant persecuted the church in zealousness of righteousness and did not turn for the soundness of the doctrine nor for knowledge of the works of the lord and his discipiles. Although ordained to be one of the twelve apostales of god the lord did not chose to reveal himself unto him until later even after his persecution of the church.

As for the below quote, there is only one true church it is neither Protestant or Catholic, it is not a body in which one is joined to merely by observing religious practices or by any works they may do. You can only be joined to this body by god himself, through the receiving of the holy ghost which is the spirit of god. Unlike in false churchs where you can be entered by the perception of its members or by your own declaration, the only way get into the real church is by taking actions summed perfectly by peter in "Acts 2:38".

It is also important to note that contrary to many beleifs their is only one god (not a trinity father son and holy ghost are titles just like a man could be refered to as a father a son or a man and still is only one person with the one name) and recieveing of the holy ghost is a direct interaction with God who is Jesus Christ not just a change in ones belief or perception of ones self. In this the true saints are easily distingiushed concerning faith in that unlike others who say they believe in Christ (usely refering to themselves as christians although to be christian you must be christ like) there faith is not based on the witness of others but they themselves having become witnesses by by the christ bearing witness with them that they are his.

True, of course. However, the actual church is the body of believers scattered throughout the various "branches."

I've read a lot of postings, many of which require lengthy explaination, of which unless requested I deem it unprofitable to write.

i.e.

"Is there a hell?"

 

[Xev]

Adam:

After demonstrating your inability to grasp a logical point, and your display of truly disgusting and infantile language... Please just don't bother referring to, or talking to, me again.

Oh gosh, this is just too much of a plum to resist. I think I'll have fun watching you squeal for some time now.

Or rather, I will have a lot of **** fun watching you squeal.

Tony:

It would be a shame to be burned to ashes for lying, when you could plead the the blood of Jesus, ask for forgiveness and avoid such a fate.

It would indeed. Pity I don't see any evidence that I am lying.

The usual way, i.e. by saying so.

IOW, in some papal bulls, which are given ex cathedra, i.e. "infallibly," the pope simply says whoever believes such-and-so, let them be anathema (cursed).

Right, sorry, I was misintepreting something you said.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Binary
Why even have such a thread? Those who will believe have been ordained unto it by god, and those who have not been ordained unto belief have been ordained unto disbelief, that the scriptures might fulfilled.*

Some people are neither of those yet, since they haven't heard.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
(Romans 10:17, KJV).

People can't be believers unless they have something to believe.

*Originally posted by Xev
It would indeed. Pity I don't see any evidence that I am lying.*

I'm not saying you're lying now.
I'm saying if you have ever lied, even once.

After all, it only takes one murder to make a murderer.
Similarly it only takes one lie to make a liar.
There's no way to unlie a lie, and there is no way to compensate for having told one, either.
Hence, one is guilty.

 

[Binary]

[Q]Some people are neither of those yet, since they haven't heard.[/Q]

Eph. 1:4

*4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.*

Peter 1:18

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

Hopefully this will help with understanding my post.

(see also John 17:24)

 

[Cris]

Tony,

It seems that the more "mature" religion mentions hell, too.

It looks like you did a search of the BG looking for references to hell but did not stop to understand what you found.

The hell of Hinduism is little more than a temporary demerit for bad karma, one returns to regular life after the experience. Heaven is similarly temporary.

Hinduism has no concept of eternal damnation, or in your interpretation of Christianity a permanent cessation of spiritual existence.

The Hindu View of Heaven and Hell.

The actions that we do in one life do not have eternal ramifications but only those into a corresponding field of time. Wrong actions lead to suffering but such suffering is equal to the nature of the action. There cannot be an eternal result through transient action.

The idea of an eternal heaven or hell is irrational and shows an ignorance of the basic nature and laws of the universe. Hindus believe in a loving God who would never condemn any creature to an everlasting hell. To them, such a God would be the worst of tyrants and unworthy of worship.

Heaven and hell have been used by various priests to entice or frighten people into certain beliefs. Such heavens and hells do not exist. This heaven and hell idea appeals to the basic reward-punishment conditioning mechanism of the undeveloped mind. It does not promote real ethical behavior so much as creating emotional imbalance and sometimes religious fanaticism. It is important to recognize that our actions have their consequences in both this and future lives, but to hang the specter of an eternal heaven or hell over people is only to promote fear and ignorance.

 

[Cris]

tony,

Mankind has grown from the stone age and onwards learning all the time.*

You are quoting evolutionist propaganda as if it is historical fact, it isn’t.

Are you saying the Stone Age did not occur?

And evolution has occurred. It is fact. It is foolish to suggest otherwise.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Binary
Hopefully this will help with understanding my post.*

It sure does.
I see that you have yet to decide whether verses from different parts of the Bible agree with each other or not.

*Originally posted by Cris
It looks like you did a search of the BG looking for references to hell but did not stop to understand what you found.

The hell of Hinduism is little more than a temporary demerit for bad karma, one returns to regular life after the experience. Heaven is similarly temporary.*

Granted, the Hindu "hell" differs from the normal meaning of "grave," but there it is.

*Hinduism has no concept of eternal damnation, or in your interpretation of Christianity a permanent cessation of spiritual existence. *

It does for those who fail to achieve nirvana.
As for the permanent cessation of existence, understandably, Hinduism wouldn't have that.

The Hindu scriptures were dictated by beings who don't die the way we do, hence the emphasis on reincarnation.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what beings would go from body to body as the hosts die.
These beings have no wish to deal with their own ultimate demise, hence the open-ended look of Hinduism as a religion.

*There cannot be an eternal result through transient action.*

Sure, there can.
Blow your brains out, and you will eternally never post as Cris in the same body again.

*The idea of an eternal heaven or hell is irrational and shows an ignorance of the basic nature and laws of the universe.*

Hence the non-existence of either in the Bible.

*Hindus believe in a loving God who would never condemn any creature to an everlasting hell.*

They'd like the real God, then.

*Heaven and hell have been used by various priests to entice or frighten people into certain beliefs.*

Quite accurate.
There's a whole pile of quotes to that effect at http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com

*Such heavens and hells do not exist.*

Am I to conclude that you have been reading the Bible?

* It is important to recognize that our actions have their consequences in both this and future lives, but to hang the specter of an eternal heaven or hell over people is only to promote fear and ignorance.*

We wouldn't want that.
So you do see the importance of getting the gospel (good news) out to people, then?
After all, what you've been describing is bad news.
We wouldn't want people thinking that the Catholic/Roman/Greek/Mithraic/Hindu hell is real, would we?

*Are you saying the Stone Age did not occur? *

I'm saying the learning didn't occur, at least not to the extent that scientists would wish.

*And evolution has occurred. It is fact. It is foolish to suggest otherwise.*

Whew!
Luckily I'm not suggesting anything.
I'm flat-out stating that the fictional evolution taught in schools didn't occur, because of lack of evidence, and because no sane, logical person can perform the mental gymnastics required to overlook the impossibility of it.
Mind you, I'm not saying no one can perform such gymnastics.

 

[Adam]

Tony1

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
(Revelation 20:10, KJV).

Again, in the section "the devil that deceived them", who or what did the devil recieve?

 

[tony1]

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
(Revelation 20:7-9, KJV).

The three verses immediately preceding the quote I gave you tell the story.
The devil deceives the nations (large groups of people) who then attack the saints (God's people).

 

[gladzic]

Cris

Originally posted by Cris
moonman,

Yes good point.

I argue from the perspective of credibility. If he were the Son of God and our savior then he would be the most important event in the history of mankind. A central tenet is that he existed as a man and led a perfect life. If true then why isn't this vital claim supported by at least one indisputable (as far as humanly possible) piece of evidence?

Cris.
I hope you read all the posts here...i just recommended two books which are full of tangible evidences and not hypothetical ones. "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel and "Evidence which demands a verdict" by Josh McDowell.

Look, the very calendar we use is just one proof of Jesus' existence. It used AD and BC. Before Christ and Annu Domini. Why? Because Jesus' birth was of great significance to humanity that our time system or calendar is divided into two periods...one is before Jesus' birth, and the other is after. If Christ did not exist as some of you claim...then the whole world is in real shambles. We are in great trouble in terms of determining time. It would seem that all of history is one whole hypothesis because the very timetable we use turns out not be reliable.

There are a lot more evidences which is directly related to Jesus' existence and mor tangible ones.
Just tell me if you want me to enumerate them.

 

[gladzic]

Originally posted by Xev
Tony:


Would you then say that established religion is counterproductive?
What constitutes a Christian?

Hi Xev,
Id like to reply to your previous posts as well. First, religion is a system of beliefs and tradition, none of which can be claimed to be the sole way to heaven. Being Christian is about a relationship with Jesus and not a religion. What consitutes a Chrsitian? It is having accepted Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior, and giving Him the authority to reign in one's life.

I am a Methodist and methodism will not save me...only Jesus can. He is the only way to heaven, as all of us may already know.

There is no absolute right or wrong in religions...none stands out among the rest as the right one.

 

[gladzic]

Adam

Originally posted by Adam
What does the existence of graves have to do with heaven and hell? Graves are just holes in the ground where we store dead meat.

you rock!

 

[gladzic]

Re: Tony1

Originally posted by Adam
Thanks for that. Now, what about all that talk of burning in lakes of fire and eternal torment? Is that not also mentioned in the same book?

Adam, lakes of fire is mentioned in Revelation not in Ezekiel. However, I come into your defense that graves cannot be equated to hell. Since they are totally turn deaf ears to your argument, I wouldn't try to prove the non-relation now.
They chose not to listen so I choose not to speak...at least for now

 

[gladzic]

Originally posted by Binary


It is also important to note that contrary to many beleifs their is only one god (not a trinity father son and holy ghost are titles just like a man could be refered to as a father a son or a man and still is only one person with the one name) and recieveing of the holy ghost is a direct interaction with God who is Jesus Christ not just a change in ones belief or perception of ones self. In this the true saints are easily distingiushed concerning faith in that unlike others who say they believe in Christ (usely refering to themselves as christians although to be christian you must be christ like) there faith is not based on the witness of others but they themselves having become witnesses by by the christ bearing witness with them that they are his.

It's obvious that you dont believe in the trinity. You are arguing in terms of doctrine now. And the original thread simply asks if Jesus is the Son of God and if he truly existed.

I won't argue with your doctrine because I respect your belief as I respect others...but I argue in terms of logic, facts and evidences...not in terms of doctrine because that way, the fire of argument would not cease unless one is too lazy to argue more

 

[Cris]

Gladzic,

Yes I do read all posts here, or at least I try to in the threads in which I participate. And I do thank you for the book references. Please don’t assume that because you don’t receive a response that your post has not been read.

And welcome to sciforums BTW.

Look, the very calendar we use is just one proof of Jesus' existence.

Well no that is not proof of the existence of Jesus, but it is proof that a number of political and religious zealots had significant control of part of the world at some point.

It used AD and BC. Before Christ and Annu Domini.

And you’ll find that many historians are now moving to BCE and CE (Before the Common Era, and Common Era). No one knows when or if Jesus was born. The best estimates put the myth at around +/- 12. And that is a very imprecise method for determining dates. Most historians also curse the stupidity of starting at 1 instead of zero; it makes the arithmetic very irritating. But then the religious were never known as being particularly logical.

If Christ did not exist as some of you claim...then the whole world is in real shambles.

They are just numbers, any will do. Take the year 2000 CE for example, in the Jewish calendar that is 5760, to Arabs the year would be 1420, and for the Chinese the year would be 4698.

We are in great trouble in terms of determining time. It would seem that all of history is one whole hypothesis because the very timetable we use turns out not be reliable.

No but that does reflect the typical Christian arrogance (especially American Christians) by ignoring the rest of the world. Remember two thirds of the world population (the majority) is not Christian.

And in global terms Christianity appears as just another imaginative myth alongside many others.