How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (4 Viewers)

[Paddington]

I have to chuckle at "eyewitness accounts" being the definitive proof that Jesus was the Son of God as more and more studies show that eyewitness accounts are very unreliable. I see that play out in court all the time where two neutral, honest individuals will give significantly varying accounts of an incident. To then suggest that these accounts would then be accurately written down by the viewer decades later or, worse, past down through oral tradition like a game of telephone, is similarly unable to stand up to scrutiny.

So if hundreds of people saw him after he rose from the dead that isn't definitive proof? Of of course it would hold up in a Court of Law. In fact, the greatest lawyer that ever lived, never lost a case, decided to research the resurrection and concluded that it was the most documented event in ancient history. There is no telephone game going on these people were there. There are also dozens of writings by historians from his day and shortly thereafter. These include Roman historians which were the greatest historians of the day. I think that I shared a link to them would you like me to share it again?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I have to chuckle at "eyewitness accounts" being the definitive proof that Jesus was the Son of God as more and more studies show that eyewitness accounts are very unreliable. I see that play out in court all the time where two neutral, honest individuals will give significantly varying accounts of an incident. To then suggest that these accounts would then be accurately written down by the viewer decades later or, worse, past down through oral tradition like a game of telephone, is similarly unable to stand up to scrutiny.

So if hundreds of people saw him after he rose from the dead that isn't definitive proof? Of of course it would hold up in a Court of Law. In fact, the greatest lawyer that ever lived, never lost a case, decided to research the resurrection and concluded that it was the most documented event in ancient history. There is no telephone game going on these people were there. There are also dozens of ratings by historians from his day and shortly thereafter. He's include Roman historians which were the greatest historians of the day. I think that I shared a link to them would you like me to share it again?

Sir Lionel Luckhoo advocacies for conservative Christianity is not really any different than "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit". Effective for "preaching to the choir" but not very convincing otherwise.

 

[massraider]

Delete the comments, pretend he never made them, and hope no one notices.

Really odd, in other threads, when people get political, the statements get quoted, and it's explained to everyone to keep politics out of the topic. That seems fair.

Wonder why it's different in this thread.

Too bad, Paddington was just in the middle of explaining to all of us what a real Christian is, and what a fake Christian is.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Delete the comments, pretend he never made them, and hope no one notices.

Really odd, in other threads, when people get political, the statements get quoted, and it's explained to everyone to keep politics out of the topic. That seems fair.

Wonder why it's different in this thread.

Too bad, Paddington was just in the middle of explaining to all of us what a real Christian is, and what a fake Christian is.

I don't believe the post in question had anything to do with politics. While 21st century politics have been pretty destructive to the "catholic" [universal] church as one historic Protestant [mainline] denomination after another have split into branches, and I'd be pretty certain that "conservative/liberal" in a Christian context has a pretty high correlation between "conservative/liberal" in a political sense, I don't think politics were part of that reply.

You know at the ten-thousand-foot level my beliefs aren't that different from @Paddington 's and, ultimately, we are both doing the same thing of spreading the Good News. It's just that the devil is in the details. Theologically the difference is really on the focus and emphasis, but that doesn't mean that I believe that my focus on love and grace and making the kingdom of God we live in today a better place is absent from his beliefs. I think that most everything he does is out of love. Love for God, love for Christ, love for how Jesus' sacrifice saves him, love for all of those he tries to share the gospel with. The post in question was just frustration.

I think that telling people that this very intelligent and successful and noted lawyer became "born again" late in life (life "did a 180") and rather authoritatively asserted that the evidence was overwhelming works in certain circles. But someone who takes studying the bible to mean mediating, tossing and turning ideas of what a passage might mean, to try to interpret the author's intentions as well as to interpret what the passage might mean to me in these times might try to look at this from the perspective of a non-believer. Wondering how many of the 245 murder suspects that were gotten off one way or another by this capable lawyer were really innocent and how many did what they were accused? At least in some of these cases you would have to think that he argued authoritatively for someone that was likely guilty. To be honest, if not why did he say he did a 180? Or, is his record all that impressive if they were all innocent all along? So, with that in mind, advocating authoritatively for a cause is just what this guy did. So why should a non-believer be impressed with any of this?

I don't bring that up to replay events, but because ultimately the Gospels and the Epistles are exactly the same thing. They are advocating authoritatively for a cause. They might occasionally contain history or biographical material, but it is always through the context of this advocacy. That isn't bad. In most ways they are advocating for my beliefs. Advocating to a late first century audience the same things I'm advocating to an early twenty first century audience. What's funny though, is that my way isn't new. Those early Church Fathers I keep bringing up wrote, usually in defense of not taking what becomes the Old Testament too literally wrote that there were audience and room in Christianity for both those that take it literally and those that interpret. That scripture works for both audiences among believers. What about non-believers? If the desired result is belief, I'm not sure there is a short path but what if the goal of Christianity was just love, and acceptance, and grace? And it need only go in one direction from Christians to everyone else? Where would that get us?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Delete the comments, pretend he never made them, and hope no one notices.

Really odd, in other threads, when people get political, the statements get quoted, and it's explained to everyone to keep politics out of the topic. That seems fair.

Wonder why it's different in this thread.

Too bad, Paddington was just in the middle of explaining to all of us what a real Christian is, and what a fake Christian is.

I don't know what you think is different in this thread.

Comments were made about liberal and conservative and looks like moderators deleted them. Could have been that it wasn't political but when it gets into that they don't have much tolerance. Coupled with this thread spiraling down already with bad faith accusations.

 

[Paddington]

Through The Bible With Les Feldick (25 Minute Lessons)

Through the Bible with Les Feldick

Excellent Genesis-Revelation Bible study, Rightly-Dividing the Word: 82 books and MP3 Audio on-line. Les is an Oklahoma rancher who teaches non-denominational, home-style Bible classes.

www.lesfeldick.org

(Shows How The Bible Fits Perfectly When You Take It Literally For What It Says, Unless The Bible Specifies Otherwise)

 

[Paddington]

Delete the comments, pretend he never made them, and hope no one notices.

Really odd, in other threads, when people get political, the statements get quoted, and it's explained to everyone to keep politics out of the topic. That seems fair.

Wonder why it's different in this thread.

Too bad, Paddington was just in the middle of explaining to all of us what a real Christian is, and what a fake Christian is.

I don't know what you think is different in this thread.

Comments were made about liberal and conservative and looks like moderators deleted them. Could have been that it wasn't political but when it gets into that they don't have much tolerance. Coupled with this thread spiraling down already with bad faith accusations.

It doesn't always have to do with Politics. Religion has both sides also. Thank you for trying to be fair to all. I appreciate it.

 

[massraider]

I don't believe the post in question had anything to do with politics. While 21st century politics have been pretty destructive to the "catholic" [universal] church as one historic Protestant [mainline] denomination after another have split into branches, and I'd be pretty certain that "conservative/liberal" in a Christian context has a pretty high correlation between "conservative/liberal" in a political sense, I don't think politics were part of that reply.

I do believe it was a political post, and I am sure if our friend Paddington was allowed to expound on his thoughts, he would make that clear. I didn't see anything in your post explaining why you thought they weren't political terms.

If any other poster used those terms, would you assume they meant them in a political manner? Of course you would.

(Shows How The Bible Fits Perfectly When You Take It Literally For What It Says, Unless The Bible Specifies Otherwise)

The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples (Matthew 28:8).

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark 16:8)

Which one of these gospels is The Literal Truth?


It is in the Bible that Moses told the Israelites to acquire and keep slaves. I don't believe the Bible condemns the practice of slavery at all. Are you personally in favor of slavery? If not, why not? Bible doesn't condemn the practice. If my wife cannot be proven to be a virgin, I assume it is the Literal Truth To Stone Her To Death?

10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse

If you are among the approximately 32 percent of the world population that considers themselves Christian, you were probably raised to believe that the

listverse.com

Very good little list of some, just SOME, of the items from Christianity that are 'borrowed' from other religions.

We are all atheists. I am just an atheist once more than you are.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I do believe it was a political post, and I am sure if our friend Paddington was allowed to expound on his thoughts, he would make that clear. I didn't see anything in your post explaining why you thought they weren't political terms.

If any other poster used those terms, would you assume they meant them in a political manner? Of course you would.

The primary reason I do not believe it was a political post is because we have been engaged in a back and forth for years. If I had to jump to a conclusion, I would be pretty confident in where he would fall on the political spectrum, but his gripe with "liberals" in the context of this thread is that they don't focus on scripture the same way he does. The specific gripe in that post being that we reinterpret the scripture through a lens other than a literal reading of an inerrant document. I'm guilty as charged.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

In one of these threads someone mentioned the "Yellow car effect". Maybe that is what happens here, but one of the things that always gets me is how the church calendar always seems to line up with something I'm thinking about. Sometimes it is something bothering me in my everyday life, sometimes it is wisdom I need for a friend or a family member. This week is a little less impressive, and I may have cheated.

You see I was sick all week and I was stressing over being able to fulfill my volunteer duties. The lessons that I needed to read were Genesis 45:3-11, 15, Psalm 37:1-11, 39-40, and 1 Corinthians 15:35-38,42-50. The Psalm is a bit long but these are all relatively easy reads with no names to fumble over, etc. Based on these texts I have been tempted to try to work in to this thread "But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual." Maybe saying that we shouldn't expect nonbelievers to jump to the spiritual until after the "physical". But I never found a non-forced way to do this.

Now yesterday I wrote the below. Normally, I would read the entire service for my weeks in advance, but I was truly not feeling well and worried about my stuff and so I just skimmed for any out of the ordinary stuff like a baptism or such and concentrated on the above (and the three prayers I'd read). Now if I had read the gospel (maybe I did and don't remember, I was out of it at times)...

but what if the goal of Christianity was just love, and acceptance, and grace? And it need only go in one direction from Christians to everyone else? Where would that get us?

It was Luke 6:27-38. I'd guess that most everyone here, even those that have never been in a church have some knowledge of this passage. It is the "Love your Enemy" passage, the "turn the other cheek" passage*. Not exactly what I said yesterday, but a pretty darn good tag team. So, Christians let us allow the spiritual (faith, belief, etc.) follow, come after and instead concentrate on the physical love even if it is never reciprocated, even if it is mocked or scorned, even if it is abused at our expense. Love thy neighbor, even if that neighbor is our enemy.

Speaking of "tag team", while the readings weren't particular tough, I was getting quite parched with a paragraph or so ago. I figured I was going to be disaster, but somehow, I managed to let go and put my trust in God and I probably nailed that paragraph better than any other I have ever read. Believe what you want about this (all of that practicing paid off), but I know what I believe (I got a lift).

ETA: *I am also aware that some insist that turning the other cheek was at that time and place an insult and it doesn't mean what we generally think it means. Some of the other if this happens do this also are also forms of insults, or so I have read. That might be true, but getting one over on someone seems out of place within the context of "Love your Enemy".

 

[dkp993]

In one of these threads someone mentioned the "Yellow car effect". Maybe that is what happens here, but one of the things that always gets me is how the church calendar always seems to line up with something I'm thinking about. Sometimes it is something bothering me in my everyday life, sometimes it is wisdom I need for a friend or a family member. This week is a little less impressive, and I may have cheated.

That was me.

I certainly won’t weight in on whether it is or isn’t. But regardless whether it is or isn’t if the church provides you with kind of mental and emotional support that’s awesome you’ve found it.

 

[Paddington]

I am not a Catholic, nor do I follow the Pope. But does anyone have any thoughts on the fact that he has double pneumonia?

 

[Navin Johnson]

I am not a Catholic, nor do I follow the Pope. But does anyone have any thoughts on the fact that he has double pneumonia?

No

 

[dgreen]

I am not a Catholic, nor do I follow the Pope. But does anyone have any thoughts on the fact that he has double pneumonia?

I hope he gets better.

 

[dgreen]

ETA: *I am also aware that some insist that turning the other cheek was at that time and place an insult and it doesn't mean what we generally think it means. Some of the other if this happens do this also are also forms of insults, or so I have read. That might be true, but getting one over on someone seems out of place within the context of "Love your Enemy".

Rather than being an “insult” or “getting one over”, I’ve heard it described as pointing out injustice. If a Roman soldier legally makes you carry his pack one mile, what happens when you keep walking? The soldier has to stop you because apparently that would be crossing a line and be wrong. Continuing to walk points out the injustice of the first mile. If you’re not ok with me going the second mile, maybe you shouldn’t be forcing me to do that first mile.?

 

[Paddington]

Happy Monday everyone! I hope you all had a great weekend.

 

[Paddington]

I don't believe the post in question had anything to do with politics. While 21st century politics have been pretty destructive to the "catholic" [universal] church as one historic Protestant [mainline] denomination after another have split into branches, and I'd be pretty certain that "conservative/liberal" in a Christian context has a pretty high correlation between "conservative/liberal" in a political sense, I don't think politics were part of that reply.

I do believe it was a political post, and I am sure if our friend Paddington was allowed to expound on his thoughts, he would make that clear. I didn't see anything in your post explaining why you thought they weren't political terms.

If any other poster used those terms, would you assume they meant them in a political manner? Of course you would.

(Shows How The Bible Fits Perfectly When You Take It Literally For What It Says, Unless The Bible Specifies Otherwise)

The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples (Matthew 28:8).

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark 16:8)

Which one of these gospels is The Literal Truth?


It is in the Bible that Moses told the Israelites to acquire and keep slaves. I don't believe the Bible condemns the practice of slavery at all. Are you personally in favor of slavery? If not, why not? Bible doesn't condemn the practice. If my wife cannot be proven to be a virgin, I assume it is the Literal Truth To Stone Her To Death?

10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse

If you are among the approximately 32 percent of the world population that considers themselves Christian, you were probably raised to believe that the

listverse.com

Very good little list of some, just SOME, of the items from Christianity that are 'borrowed' from other religions.

We are all atheists. I am just an atheist once more than you are.

Christianity didn’t borrow anything from other religions. Every culture around the world has flood legends. That doesn't mean that the Bible borrowed anything from them. It means that there was a literal flood that actually happened. Having a list of moral principles to live by doesn't mean that Christianity borrowed from anybody. The same thing with Adam and Eve. All that means is that it actually happened and other cultures knew about it and it was passed on to them. The Bible just Chronicles what actually happened.

 

[Paddington]

Through the Bible with Les Feldick in 25 minute lessons

Through the Bible with Les Feldick

Excellent Genesis-Revelation Bible study, Rightly-Dividing the Word: 82 books and MP3 Audio on-line. Les is an Oklahoma rancher who teaches non-denominational, home-style Bible classes.

www.lesfeldick.org

 

[dgreen]

The Bible just Chronicles what actually happened.

I don't remember if I asked you this already. Maybe we already discussed it. But, do you think the Bible's primary purpose is to chronicle what actually happened? In other words, while I understand that you believe that things actually happened the way the Bible describes them, do you think that's WHY the Bible records those events? Or do you think God and the Biblical authors are trying to communicate something else besides historically accuracy?

 

[On The Rocks]

The Bible just Chronicles what actually happened.

I don't remember if I asked you this already. Maybe we already discussed it. But, do you think the Bible's primary purpose is to chronicle what actually happened? In other words, while I understand that you believe that things actually happened the way the Bible describes them, do you think that's WHY the Bible records those events? Or do you think God and the Biblical authors are trying to communicate something else besides historically accuracy?

That's a great question! I had this conversation with someone recently. Not on the whole of scripture but on certain individual stories. For example, the first person to see Jesus after the resurrection was Mary Magdalene. Was the record of Mary Magdalene being the first person to see Jesus after the resurrection a vital part of scripture, or was it situation where it just happened to be Mary Magdalene? Would it have made any difference if the first person to see him was Peter or John?

 

[Paddington]

The Bible just Chronicles what actually happened.

I don't remember if I asked you this already. Maybe we already discussed it. But, do you think the Bible's primary purpose is to chronicle what actually happened? In other words, while I understand that you believe that things actually happened the way the Bible describes them, do you think that's WHY the Bible records those events? Or do you think God and the Biblical authors are trying to communicate something else besides historically accuracy?

The purpose of the Bible is to show the history of creation, how God dealt with man throughout history, man's failure to Govern himself, his sinful state and show the promise of God for a Savior, hundreds of prophecies written hundreds to 1500 years before His birth that came true in His first coming and many more when His second coming happens. The central event of history that was predicted by God and Scripture was the death, burial amd resurrection of Christ. He left his eternal thrown in heaven, came to this earth, was born of a virgin and then the day perfect life formed many miracles to prove who He was. He didn't come in a grandiose way which is why his people rejected him. He predicted his own resurrection and then He died and Rose again. This also proved who he was. Those who reject his great offer of Salvation will be without excuse on the day of judgment. The Bible also predicts the future of how God will judge the Earth just before he comes physically back the second time to the Earth. When he comes back to second time He will rule and reign forever. There will be 7 years of judgment where most of the people on the Earth will die from all of the events that are happening. Globalism will become a reality and will result in many people dying. God will also send plagues during that time and Wars and famines. This will Heaven because the people will not accept him for who He is. After the 7 years of judgment he will return and he will rule on the earth for 1,000 years. And then at the end of the Thousand Years there will be a great War final war with Satan and his followers. And God will judge those who rejected Him. And then eternity will start with Christ ruling over the Earth and over all of God's creation

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The purpose of the Bible is to show the history of creation, how God dealt with man throughout history

If this were the purpose, or even part of the purpose, do you find it odd that this is done by focusing on a very tiny part of civilization?

 

[Zow]

Kind of reminds me of Thanos.

 

[dkp993]

Kind of reminds me of Thanos.

Minus the logic.

 

[BlackCrowes]

The purpose of the Bible is to show the history of creation, how God dealt with man throughout history

If this were the purpose, or even part of the purpose, do you find it odd that this is done by focusing on a very tiny part of civilization?

Only the ones that survived the big rainstorm right?

 

[On The Rocks]

The Bible just Chronicles what actually happened.

I don't remember if I asked you this already. Maybe we already discussed it. But, do you think the Bible's primary purpose is to chronicle what actually happened? In other words, while I understand that you believe that things actually happened the way the Bible describes them, do you think that's WHY the Bible records those events? Or do you think God and the Biblical authors are trying to communicate something else besides historically accuracy?

The purpose of the Bible is to show the history of creation, how God dealt with man throughout history, man's failure to Govern himself, his sinful state and show the promise of God for a Savior, hundreds of prophecies written hundreds to 1500 years before His birth that came true in His first coming and many more when His second coming happens. The central event of history that was predicted by God and Scripture was the death, burial amd resurrection of Christ. He left his eternal thrown in heaven, came to this earth, was born of a virgin and then the day perfect life formed many miracles to prove who He was. He didn't come in a grandiose way which is why his people rejected him. He predicted his own resurrection and then He died and Rose again. This also proved who he was. Those who reject his great offer of Salvation will be without excuse on the day of judgment. The Bible also predicts the future of how God will judge the Earth just before he comes physically back the second time to the Earth. When he comes back to second time He will rule and reign forever. There will be 7 years of judgment where most of the people on the Earth will die from all of the events that are happening. Globalism will become a reality and will result in many people dying. God will also send plagues during that time and Wars and famines. This will Heaven because the people will not accept him for who He is. After the 7 years of judgment he will return and he will rule on the earth for 1,000 years. And then at the end of the Thousand Years there will be a great War final war with Satan and his followers. And God will judge those who rejected Him. And then eternity will start with Christ ruling over the Earth and over all of God's creation

Let's not make it complicated. In a single sentence, the purpose of the Bible is to point all mankind to Jesus.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Globalism will become a reality

Can you define globalism and explain how it pertains here?

 

[Paddington]

Globalism will become a reality

Can you define globalism and explain how it pertains here?

The New World Order Agenda, the world economic forum, G8, ect

 

[Captain Cranks]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

 

[Zow]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

I chuckled at the first sentence as it reads "the act extending an influence to all parts of the world" which seems to mostly describe evangelism.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I chuckled at the first sentence as it reads "the act extending an influence to all parts of the world" which seems to mostly describe evangelism.

You gotta be on the right side, bruh.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Is the planetary alignment happening this week a better candidate than the one '82 that Hal Lindey suggested would be the start of the 7 year countdown? And has Israel signed a treaty with ten nations lately?

It's been a bit since I lived through an end of the world prophesy. (Part of which is moving away from a billboard which kept track for me, where I guess this time will be different.)

 

[BlackCrowes]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

this have anything to do with the Pentaverate and the Colonel's recipe?

 

[Captain Cranks]

God will also send plagues during that time and Wars and famines. This will Heaven because the people will not accept him for who He is.

Does it seem loving to you that an all-powerful god would inflict unnecessary suffering? He could just quickly eliminate those who don't follow him, but instead he wants to make sure they suffer.

 

[On The Rocks]

God will also send plagues during that time and Wars and famines. This will Heaven because the people will not accept him for who He is.

Does it seem loving to you that an all-powerful god would inflict unnecessary suffering? He could just quickly eliminate those who don't follow him, but instead he wants to make sure they suffer.

Whether Christians want to admit it or not, many of us struggle with that question as much as unbelievers. It’s also just not an easy question to answer. Let me rephrase that, it’s not easy to provide an acceptable answer to individuals with a contrarian point of view.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Whether Christians want to admit it or not, many of us struggle with that question as much as unbelievers. It’s also just not an easy question to answer. Let me rephrase that, it’s not easy to provide an acceptable answer to individuals with a contrarian point of view.

I appreciate that and feel most Christians in this thread have been forthcoming with the difficulty of such a question. My post is specific to Paddington who professes a more rigid viewpoint.

 

[dkp993]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

I chuckled at the first sentence as it reads "the act extending an influence to all parts of the world" which seems to mostly describe evangelism.

If the entire world accepted Jesus wouldn’t that be globalism?

 

[BlackCrowes]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

I chuckled at the first sentence as it reads "the act extending an influence to all parts of the world" which seems to mostly describe evangelism.

If the entire world accepted Jesus wouldn’t that be globalism?

They’d call it something else

 

[dkp993]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

I chuckled at the first sentence as it reads "the act extending an influence to all parts of the world" which seems to mostly describe evangelism.

If the entire world accepted Jesus wouldn’t that be globalism?

They’d call it something else

Convenient

 

[Navin Johnson]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

I chuckled at the first sentence as it reads "the act extending an influence to all parts of the world" which seems to mostly describe evangelism.

If the entire world accepted Jesus wouldn’t that be globalism?

They’d call it something else

When the insane outnumber the sane, the sane become the insane.

 

[Zow]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

I chuckled at the first sentence as it reads "the act extending an influence to all parts of the world" which seems to mostly describe evangelism.

If the entire world accepted Jesus wouldn’t that be globalism?

They’d call it something else

You mean like Revelation?

 

[Paddington]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

I chuckled at the first sentence as it reads "the act extending an influence to all parts of the world" which seems to mostly describe evangelism.

If the entire world accepted Jesus wouldn’t that be globalism?

When Christ returns, there will be the only Globalism that doesn't result in pain, death and misery for the people involved. But before Christ returns ,there will be Globalism here with the Anti christ for 7 years and most people will die during that time.

 

[massraider]

Christianity didn’t borrow anything from other religions

Yes it does. That's the literal truth. The Literal Truth.

Every culture around the world has flood legends

No, every culture doesn't. That's not the Literal Truth.

It is in the Bible that Moses told the Israelites to acquire and keep slaves. I don't believe the Bible condemns the practice of slavery at all. Are you personally in favor of slavery? If not, why not? Bible doesn't condemn the practice. If my wife cannot be proven to be a virgin, I assume it is the Literal Truth To Stone Her To Death?

You must not have seen these questions?

 

[Zow]

For anyone interested in where this is coming from.

Globalization

I chuckled at the first sentence as it reads "the act extending an influence to all parts of the world" which seems to mostly describe evangelism.

If the entire world accepted Jesus wouldn’t that be globalism?

When Christ returns, there will be the only Globalism that doesn't result in pain, death and misery for the people involved. But before Christ returns ,there will be Globalism here with the Anti christ for 7 years and most people will die during that time.

Eesh. I actually prefer the Rothschild’s plan to this one.

 

[dkp993]

You must not have seen these questions?

Oh he didn’t. He ignored them for you like he did when I asked similar questions pages before.

 

[Paddington]

Christianity didn’t borrow anything from other religions

Yes it does. That's the literal truth. The Literal Truth.

Every culture around the world has flood legends

No, every culture doesn't. That's not the Literal Truth.

It is in the Bible that Moses told the Israelites to acquire and keep slaves. I don't believe the Bible condemns the practice of slavery at all. Are you personally in favor of slavery? If not, why not? Bible doesn't condemn the practice. If my wife cannot be proven to be a virgin, I assume it is the Literal Truth To Stone Her To Death?

You must not have seen these questions?

Wrong. There have been many assertions of this false claim, but the evidence isn’t there.

Yes, every major culture does have flood legends. Golgamesh is just one example.

Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?

"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Corinthians 1:20) One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family, has been the...

www.icr.org

The slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude. It was voluntary for a period of 7 years to pay off debts. It was a crime punishable by death to steal a man and force him into slavery.

Exodus 21:16 NKJV
[16] “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

 

[Paddington]

The Bible just Chronicles what actually happened.

I don't remember if I asked you this already. Maybe we already discussed it. But, do you think the Bible's primary purpose is to chronicle what actually happened? In other words, while I understand that you believe that things actually happened the way the Bible describes them, do you think that's WHY the Bible records those events? Or do you think God and the Biblical authors are trying to communicate something else besides historically accuracy?

The purpose of the Bible is to show the history of creation, how God dealt with man throughout history, man's failure to Govern himself, his sinful state and show the promise of God for a Savior, hundreds of prophecies written hundreds to 1500 years before His birth that came true in His first coming and many more when His second coming happens. The central event of history that was predicted by God and Scripture was the death, burial amd resurrection of Christ. He left his eternal thrown in heaven, came to this earth, was born of a virgin and then the day perfect life formed many miracles to prove who He was. He didn't come in a grandiose way which is why his people rejected him. He predicted his own resurrection and then He died and Rose again. This also proved who he was. Those who reject his great offer of Salvation will be without excuse on the day of judgment. The Bible also predicts the future of how God will judge the Earth just before he comes physically back the second time to the Earth. When he comes back to second time He will rule and reign forever. There will be 7 years of judgment where most of the people on the Earth will die from all of the events that are happening. Globalism will become a reality and will result in many people dying. God will also send plagues during that time and Wars and famines. This will Heaven because the people will not accept him for who He is. After the 7 years of judgment he will return and he will rule on the earth for 1,000 years. And then at the end of the Thousand Years there will be a great War final war with Satan and his followers. And God will judge those who rejected Him. And then eternity will start with Christ ruling over the Earth and over all of God's creation

Let's not make it complicated. In a single sentence, the purpose of the Bible is to point all mankind to Jesus.

It points to Jesus Christ and the sacrifice on the cross that that He gave for us so that we could be saved. And so that if we have faith in Him and what He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude. It was voluntary for a period of 7 years to pay off debts. It was a crime punishable by death to steal a man and force him into slavery.

Exodus 21:16 NKJV
[16] “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

That is Hebrew servitude. For heathens (like those suffering the "curse of Ham") there is

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids

And if slavery is so terrible in the bible, how can all of humanity be enslaved to sin?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

He did on the cross to pay for our sins we can be forgiven and go to heaven and be with God for all of eternity.

Did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If he did why is there a second payment of "faith" required?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is Transfiguration Sunday on the traditional worship calendar commemorating one of Jesus' file milestone (baptism, this, crucifixion. resurrection, and ascension). This is the day, that for Jesus' followers where Jesus goes from teacher and profit to being "son of God." Now I believe that they already knew the term and believed that of Jesus, but this day is when the meaning of that took root. Now we are still a long way from the followers having much of a clue about what is happening in their midst, but the idea that being son of God might mean one is made a bit more like God than everyone else starts.

The importance of this is that this idea will grow and grow. It will grow so much that in not too many years there will be those that reject that Jesus was ever human at all, that he was ever anything but a spiritual being that may or maybe not had walked among us for a bit. So much so that some take that since Paul never met Jesus "in the flesh" that Paul's epistles should be read as being about this spiritual Jesus and a metaphorical death on a cross in the spiritual realm. While Gnosticism means something else, a good bit of this thought made it into at least some Gnostic teachings. But the Bible addresses this, but it uses another word for those (plural) promoting this idea in 1 John 4:3 - Anti-Christ.

This seems out of place with some other teachings.

Oh and the Transfiguration is one of those Old Testament prophecies coming true in that Elijah returns briefly. Good thing that we have eye witness testimony from the Gospel writers. Oh wait, the one Gospel writer that was said to be present - John, doesn't write about it all. (Though to be fair it was there to be copied from Mark's, Peters interpreter and also mentioned in 2 Peter.)