Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

ARE YOU 100% SURE THAT IF YOU DIED TODAY THAT YOU WOULD GO TO HEAVEN?

1. Realize that you are a sinner

Ro 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Ro 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

Every person who has ever lived is a sinner and is not richeous because we do bad things.

A sin is a crime against God, just as if you steal something at the store is punishable by going to jail. Even if we lie one time,
the punishment is hell, which is eternal separation from God. No matter how well you live your life from then on, you have already committed
a sin which will be punished if you are not pardoned. Just as if you commit a crime, and then live as a good citizen you still will go to jail for
the crime you committed. Just as the president can pardon a crime so you won't go to jail, Jesus can pardon your sins so that you do not go to hell, and can go to heaven when you die.


2. Because of our sins, we die both physically and spiritually, but God sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross to take your punishment.

Ro 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

3. The reason that Jesus Christ died on the cross is so that You and I could go to heaven, but we will not get there unless we receive what HE did for us.

Ro 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."


4. We must confess Jesus Christ with our mouth as our Savior, and believe in our hearts that God hath raised Him from the dead.

Ro 10:9,10 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

You cannot get to heaven by being a good person, going to church can't get you there, you can only get to heaven by turning to Jesus and asking Him to Save you.

Will you do that today? If you will, you can be 100% sure that you will go to heaven when you die.


If you are willing to receive Jesus Christ as your Savior please pray this from your heart to God,

"Dear LORD JESUS, I believe that YOU died on the Cross and Rose from the dead for my sins. I realize that I cannot get to heaven any other way other than to trust YOU as my SAVIOR. I ask you to forgive me for my sins and take me to heaven when I die. I receive YOU as my Lord and SAVIOR. Thank You for Saving me in JESUS name amen"

If you prayed that prayer from your heart to God, and meant it with all of your heart, you are now a child of God and will go to heaven when you die.

Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing church and follow in baptism.

One question, how does gods son dying, save us from our sins? Just wondering.

angelI love god and jesus i am never alone with them they are my life they are my soul they are evry thing and i do belive theres a god i belive justic but i dont belive evilangelangel

dark crown you are evil you love hell you will be punished you will work for the devil2 and do work and feel pain FOREVER!!!!

Where in the bible can the first mention of the concept of original sin be found?

Answer: the Church of the Lord, the Church of Christ and of God, the Church of Christ (Acts 20:28, Romans 16:16)... in short be a member of Christ's Church, as mentioned in the Bible.

Don't ask me where it is now (the true Church of Christ from the ends of the earth, from the islands of the sea, from the far east) ... The Bible has the answer... read it.

All adove sounds right.I guess.I do what to go to heaven and not hell.I just have to believe in god which I can't.JM

and all I have to do is die bravely, or die while working..... then I go straight there, to pay for what I did wrong and be rewarded for what I did good.... and Dark Crown... don't worry.... originally the nazarene congregation never thought of Christ's death on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins.... it was the ultimate sign that jesus wasn't a liar.... "I'm going to die, and come back to life," he said, "and if I'm telling the truth about that, you'll know I told you the truth about everything else...." the idea of the sacrifice was a later addition, possibly by the Paulian movement...

I think because before this happened, humans had to sacrifice animals everytime they sinned to have that particular sin forgiven... although Im not entirely sure of the exact "bargain" that was made for christs life... perhaps they explain it in that movie "passion of the christ"... although I never watched that either..

You're an idiot.

dude that chick freaks me out on your sig mayo

if there is a heaven they will do anything to host me

Yes, they did sacrifice animals because you needed shed blood to only COVER your sins until a Redeemer was sent, the real passover lamb. That's why the animal sacrifices ended. NO need if you believe in the Holy Lamb that CHOSE Himself to die for us because HE loves us. He wasn't forced by his dad.

For all you philosophers I'm sure you'll discount it unless you were to live where there is no TIME too see the whole thing happen from beginning.

For me I'm a believer in the Bible

Sigh. Getting to heaven. Immortal souls. It's all so tricky, something that, if one believes, in such a monumental thing. But there are a 1001 (more really) religions all claiming that unless you believe in them and them alone, exactly as they say, your doomed. And of course it's nothing but faith and feeling, rarely facts.... what to believe...

Maybe I should do a John Safran on here, and go on a quest for my religion....

Imperial Samura, the first problem is that you are believing in religions. There are thousands. Read the Books they came from, not what others say about them. For me it's the Bible. And by the way we are not immortal souls. That thought has been around forever. It's not what the Bible teaches. Some pf us get to be immortal, that is the gift of GOD, eternal life.
Jesus came not to distroy the world but to give life, not death. Eternal death. Some would wonder if that would be worse than in fire for ever.

Does anyone else but me believe that Jesus was God in The Flesh! Many Bible scriptures back this up! Let he who has ears hear!

Originally posted by vicki horvath
Does anyone else but me believe that Jesus was God in The Flesh! Many Bible scriptures back this up! Let he who has ears hear!

I do!!!

I used to, but.......Too much knowledge corrupts thinking.

Repent on your death bed.

It says in the bible if you are saved to die means you shall live because you go straight to fathers house.But if you die and are not saved it is spiritual death and go to hatias untyil judgement day when all unsaved will be taken to gehenah or as they call it lake of fire.

Originally posted by superior
dark crown you are evil you love hell you will be punished you will work for the devil2 and do work and feel pain FOREVER!!!!

I hope you burn in the Eternal Pit for condemning one of your fellow Humans....

condeming is the virtue so called christians seems to forgett about the most

It was a double-entondra (sp?) finti, because I condemned her/him....

I saw that, just wanted to hang on a bit to the condeming part

Ah....

Originally posted by Powerful Dragon
dark crown you are evil you love hell you will be punished you will work for the devil2 and do work and feel pain FOREVER!!!!


nono

Thou shalt not judge....

There is no heaven people, we turn into maggot food when we die; deal with it! diva

eyes
Just because you will rot, doesnt mean the rest of us are. Cremation for myself !

Cremation, eh?
Nothing smells better than burning flesh....

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
eyes
Just because you will rot, doesnt mean the rest of us are. Cremation for myself !

My babelicious bod will be frozen and revived in the distant future where upon I will grace them with my presence and be worshiped as the sex goddess I am! eyes

Originally posted by Tex
My babelicious bod will be frozen and revived in the distant future where upon I will grace them with my presence and be worshiped as the sex goddess I am! eyes

This, is not true. I am taking texs body, freezing it and keeping it for my own, personal sex toy.

If I'm cremated..I want to be included in all the families functions..

I ****en hate it when bible bashes come onto these forum to tell us we're going to burn in Hell.

But I truely believe Jesus died for us and ours sins, I do believe God bought him back.

Is that enough to get into heaven Mr 'I'm-trying-to-scare-people-into-christianity?'

Anyways, when I die I'm going to become a ghost for awhile, then become reincarnated.

Originally posted by Tex
My babelicious bod will be frozen and revived in the distant future where upon I will grace them with my presence and be worshiped as the sex goddess I am! eyes

Seriously Tex, you crack me up!

When I die I want the same thing.

If you be nice I'll join you eyes

No I am not sure I would go to heaven.But I would try to seek forgive on my death bed and go to inleast partoctory(or what ever that place is called)so I could be forgiven and go to heaven one day.JM

Jackie...Are you Catholic? That's a Catholic teaching...

No I am not.But my friend is and that is who I got it from.JM

I think a doubting Thomas guide would be of great help.

to get into heavin, ask jesus into your heart

We live in heaven, right here, right now.

earth is gunna be nothin compared to heavin. we cant even imagine

Originally posted by majjacet
earth is gunna be nothin compared to heavin. we cant even imagine

This is life, this is heaven; hell is living in heaven and not knowing it.
Don't waste your life thinking that the after life is better, it is not.

what r u talkin about of course it is

Originally posted by majjacet
what r u talkin about of course it is

I am sorry that you feel that way. If ever in the future, you doubt what you believe now, remember, this is heaven.

what do you think heavin is gunna be worse

Originally posted by majjacet
what do you think heavin is gunna be worse




This is heaven.

no mind can concieve what heavin has in store for us

Originally posted by majjacet
no mind can concieve what heavin has in store for us

That is true, but it does not mean that this is not heaven. What do you have to loose, by humoring me, and living your life as if it was heaven?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, but it does not mean that this is not heaven. What do you have to loose, by humoring me, and living your life as if it was heaven?
No, I live my life preparing for heaven as Jesus told us to. If this was heaven with poverty, crime, pevertion, rape, economical disasters, terrorism, bombings, etc. then I would think hell could only be a much better place.

I live my life to live it

Originally posted by sonnet
No, I live my life preparing for heaven as Jesus told us to. If this was heaven with poverty, crime, pevertion, rape, economical disasters, terrorism, bombings, etc. then I would think hell could only be a much better place.

Heaven can be hell if you wish it to be. I have a lot of fun with people like you. Don't waste your life waiting for something that will never come.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Heaven can be hell if you wish it to be. I have a lot of fun with people like you. Don't waste your life waiting for something that will never come.
Wishful thinking did not create the sick state our society is in and neither is imagining it away into so called heaven gonna make it less real. I am not wasting my life, I have great fulfilment in my relationship with God and living life in a way that honours God. That means living my live to the fullest while growing spiritually. I prefer to belief the Bible on topics such as heaven and life after death rather than people like you who think they know more than God.

Originally posted by sonnet
Wishful thinking did not create the sick state our society is in and neither is imagining it away into so called heaven gonna make it less real. I am not wasting my life, I have great fulfilment in my relationship with God and living life in a way that honours God. That means living my live to the fullest while growing spiritually. I prefer to belief the Bible on topics such as heaven and life after death rather than people like you who think they know more than God.

However, you view the world as an evil place, therefore it is an evil place. If we all changed our point of view to see the good that is here, it would be a better place. I believe this fully.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, you view the world as an evil place, therefore it is an evil place. If we all changed our point of view to see the good that is here, it would be a better place. I believe this fully.
You are absolutely right, but that is the utopia. We would like to live in this world but all of us know that there will always be people greedy for power, money, etc. and because we will always have different points of views there will always be people who cannot be tolerant towards other views and opinions and would feel the need for war so to speak.

Originally posted by sonnet
You are absolutely right, but that is the utopia. We would like to live in this world but all of us know that there will always be people greedy for power, money, etc. and because we will always have different points of views there will always be people who cannot be tolerant towards other views and opinions and would feel the need for war so to speak.

Very true, but it does not hurt to see the positive in life, it helps.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes, they did sacrifice animals because you needed shed blood to only COVER your sins until a Redeemer was sent, the real passover lamb. That's why the animal sacrifices ended. NO need if you believe in the Holy Lamb that CHOSE Himself to die for us because HE loves us. He wasn't forced by his dad.

For all you philosophers I'm sure you'll discount it unless you were to live where there is no TIME too see the whole thing happen from beginning.

For me I'm a believer in the Bible

WHAT HAPPENED DEBBIJOE?

You actually SOUND like a Christian for the FIRST time since I first discovered this site.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive


WHAT HAPPENED DEBBIJOE?

You actually SOUND like a Christian for the FIRST time since I first discovered this site.





Witches should be burnt alive !

God damns the JEWS !

Homosexuals burn in HELL !

GOD HATES F*GS !

Women MUST submit to MEN !

MUSLIMS ARE EVIL !




Do I sound like a Christian ?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive


WHAT HAPPENED DEBBIJOE?

You actually SOUND like a Christian for the FIRST time since I first discovered this site.

Yep, I was................now let me put a hex on you............

Tell me this? If I were and did just say hex would you believe it.................??

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yep, I was................now let me put a hex on you............

Tell me this? If I were and did just say hex would you believe it.................??

Debbijoe, I am seeking an honest, sincere response. But if you just want to ACT immature and giddy, be my guess.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Debbijoe, I am seeking an honest, sincere response. But if you just want to ACT immature and giddy, be my guess.



She is playing on your superstitions.

Originally posted by sonnet
Wishful thinking did not create the sick state our society is in and neither is imagining it away into so called heaven gonna make it less real. I am not wasting my life, I have great fulfilment in my relationship with God and living life in a way that honours God. That means living my live to the fullest while growing spiritually. I prefer to belief the Bible on topics such as heaven and life after death rather than people like you who think they know more than God.

Tell me... did your God contribute at all to the state of the world you knock so? Or are you another one says all good things are attributed to God while the bad things, well of course God has nothing to do with them.

And really, heaven is going to be full of people. Now, look at the world today - look at the Christians. Are they perfect, even with God? No. Do they still do bad things? Yes. And all that - the people apparently getting into heaven are still people, not candy floss. And what about all the people before now - look at Christians in the past! How does God stop them being people in heaven? After all, by your logic the earth is horrible thanks to us people - and thanks to our souls, how does Heaven curtail our negative futures? Does moving to the after life in fact equal some form of spiritual lobotomy?

I'm 100% sure I'd burn in hell if I died tomorrow, and I do not care.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
I'm 100% sure I'd burn in hell if I died tomorrow, and I do not care.

You don't go to hell when you die, you come back here.

How to get into heaven:

1. Believe in God

2. Believe in Jesus

3. Beleive in Jesus's teachings

4. Be a good person

5. Pray for forgivness to your sins

Pretty simple

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
I'm 100% sure I'd burn in hell if I died tomorrow, and I do not care.

You dont care if you spend eternity in damnnation because you were to ignorant to apologize for your sins

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Tell me... did your God contribute at all to the state of the world you knock so? Or are you another one says all good things are attributed to God while the bad things, well of course God has nothing to do with them.

He's your god too

Even if you reject him and his teachings he's still your god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You don't go to hell when you die, you come back here.

Says you, and last I checked you were not Dictator Supreme of the Universe.

You are spouting your beliefs as if they are fact. Your words are no more true than the Pope's or the homeless man on the corner of 69th St

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Says you, and last I checked you were not Dictator Supreme of the Universe.

You are spouting your beliefs as if they are fact. Your words are no more true than the Pope's or the homeless man on the corner of 69th St

What? I'm not the Dictator Supreme of the Universe?

Of course I'm telling you what I believe as truth. If I didn't believe that it was true, then I wouldn't believe it. Why do you have a problem with that? I never said you were going to hell or anything bad. My words are no more or less true then yours. Why do you want me to state my beliefs as not fact?

Because they AREN'T fact, they're beliefs.

Of course my words aren't going to be true, what I type about religion isn't even serious anymore, for the simple fact that noone knows what is true.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Because they AREN'T fact, they're beliefs.

Of course my words aren't going to be true, what I type about religion isn't even serious anymore, for the simple fact that noone knows what is true.


How do you know they are not fact. Reincarnation maybe an unprovable fact.

What is a fact to you?

Originally posted by Grimm22
He's your god too

Even if you reject him and his teachings he's still your god.

Well, when he feels like proving such a thing I might feel moved to say something more then "bah"

Until such a time I don't have a God, just myself and the rest of humanity, and my fondness for Buddhism and Hinduism (which while I like them for conceptual purposes I can't claim them as a religion)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, when he feels like proving such a thing I might feel moved to say something more then "bah"

Until such a time I don't have a God, just myself and the rest of humanity, and my fondness for Buddhism and Hinduism (which while I like them for conceptual purposes I can't claim them as a religion)

That is one nice thing about Buddhism, you can have it as a religion or a philosophy and no one is going to say you are wrong (that is, other Buddhists).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? I'm not the Dictator Supreme of the Universe?

Of course I'm telling you what I believe as truth. If I didn't believe that it was true, then I wouldn't believe it. Why do you have a problem with that? I never said you were going to hell or anything bad. My words are no more or less true then yours. Why do you want me to state my beliefs as not fact?


Because while Truth may be proven or unproven, Fact is universal. Something is not considered a Fact until its truth is discovered by all sources and then accepted among all cultures (or atleast the dominant culture).

You may claim your beleifs as Truth, since it may well be, and Truth does not need a witness to be true. But "Fact" needs validity and needs to be accepted by all before it can be called such.

For you to claim that Reincarnation is a Fact is just as Valid or Invalid as someone saying that Jesus's Resurrection is Fact, or as valid as someone claiming that NOTHING happens after we die as Fact.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Because while Truth may be proven or unproven, Fact is universal. Something is not considered a Fact until its truth is discovered by all sources and then accepted among all cultures (or atleast the dominant culture).

You may claim your beleifs as Truth, since it may well be, and Truth does not need a witness to be true. But "Fact" needs validity and needs to be accepted by all before it can be called such.

For you to claim that Reincarnation is a Fact is just as Valid or Invalid as someone saying that Jesus's Resurrection is Fact, or as valid as someone claiming that NOTHING happens after we die as Fact.

I think you've got that mixed up. Truth can't be disproved, because then it wouldn't be true. Fact on the other hand... There are facts which are not true:

fact n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
-1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
-2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
-3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.


See 2-3, a fact is just something believed to be true, Truth is true by definition. Of course that doesn't mean that everything we hold to be true is true...

-edit-

Just to tie this into the actual topic - I'd say that the way to get to Heaven is by finding the truth, and then living by it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is one nice thing about Buddhism, you can have it as a religion or a philosophy and no one is going to say you are wrong (that is, other Buddhists).

Very true.

Originally posted by Grimm22
How to get into heaven:

1. Believe in God

2. Believe in Jesus

3. Beleive in Jesus's teachings

4. Be a good person

5. Pray for forgivness to your sins

Pretty simple

What are Jesus's teachings ? Because st. Paul contradicts much of what Jesus himself supposedly said.

On top of that Jesus' teachings contradict the Old Testament...

so can i only pay attention to what Jesus said, and IGNORE the rest ?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know they are not fact. Reincarnation maybe an unprovable fact.

What is a fact to you?

There's no such thing as an unprovable fact. There is no 'to you'. Individuals don't make up their own definitions of words. Fact has a definition in English.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What are Jesus's teachings ? Because st. Paul contradicts much of what Jesus himself supposedly said.

On top of that Jesus' teachings contradict the Old Testament...

so can i only pay attention to what Jesus said, and IGNORE the rest ?
Jesus made a new covenant that fulfilled the Law and the Passover. Paul does not contradict Jesus, he teaches on the deeper meaning and workings of Christ's power and we are specifically warned in the Bible that are easily misinterpreted by the immature in faith. This is what you and many others who are not of the Christian faith have done: misinterpret it. If you pay attention to what Jesus says and OBEY what he says which means repentance and acceptance of his sacrifice you will likely do just fine, but understanding the entire Bible is better.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Jesus made a new covenant that fulfilled the Law and the Passover. Paul does not contradict Jesus, he teaches on the deeper meaning and workings of Christ's power and we are specifically warned in the Bible that are easily misinterpreted by the immature in faith. This is what you and many others who are not of the Christian faith have done: misinterpret it. If you pay attention to what Jesus says and OBEY what he says which means repentance and acceptance of his sacrifice you will likely do just fine, but understanding the entire Bible is better.

So Paul was a greater teacher then Jesus? I don't think so. I think that Paul distorted and corrupted the teaching of Jesus. Today the church of Jesus is extinct. In it's place stands the church of Paul.

Jesus was definitely the greater teacher, no doubt about it. Jesus is alive in the church today moreso than he has been in over a thousand years. In JESUS's name we cast out demons, in JESUS's name we heal the sick, in JESUS's name addictions are broken, in JESUS's name he are set free from the chains of this world. Jesus baptized us with the Holy Spirit and has given us all power and authority through his name. I am a follower of Jesus. If Paul said something that disagreed with Jesus I would ignore it, but it doesn't. To JESUS be the glory, not Paul. Be Baptized in the name of the Father, the SON, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Jesus was definitely the greater teacher, no doubt about it. Jesus is alive in the church today moreso than he has been in over a thousand years. In JESUS's name we cast out demons, in JESUS's name we heal the sick, in JESUS's name addictions are broken, in JESUS's name he are set free from the chains of this world. Jesus baptized us with the Holy Spirit and has given us all power and authority through his name. I am a follower of Jesus. If Paul said something that disagreed with Jesus I would ignore it, but it doesn't. To JESUS be the glory, not Paul. Be Baptized in the name of the Father, the SON, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Careful there, remember the "goats" in Mathew 25. They claimed to have done all that stuff in His name too, but still ended up on the wrong side.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Jesus made a new covenant that fulfilled the Law and the Passover. Paul does not contradict Jesus, he teaches on the deeper meaning and workings of Christ's power and we are specifically warned in the Bible that are easily misinterpreted by the immature in faith. This is what you and many others who are not of the Christian faith have done: misinterpret it. If you pay attention to what Jesus says and OBEY what he says which means repentance and acceptance of his sacrifice you will likely do just fine, but understanding the entire Bible is better.



oo0o0o00o0o00o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o


Okay...I get it now





Oh wait....No I don't....Paul tends to focus more on punishment and judgement, while Jesus tends to focus more on Love and Unity....

There is a DEFINATE Contradiction between the two....

Paul was teaching people how to come to Christ repent of your sins and accept him as your lord and savior. Paul never contradict himself, people that are not Christians or have no faith will always say that the Bible contradict itself, to me people using that argument are using it a scape goat and not come to christ.

If you die in Christ you will be joint heirs in heaven, you will be on the same footing with Jesus, no more pain, no more crying, no more stress, you will feel joy beyond belief.



Jesus is the truth and the way, if you don't believe so than you are putting your soul andyour eternal future on the line, that's why God created free will you can make you own decision life or death, choose wisely.

"No one comes to the Father but threw me" Jesus said, if you don't believe it then I am sorry for you, because when you die you will be judge by a living god, and his judgment is final and righteous.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Paul was teaching people how to come to Christ repent of your sins and accept him as your lord and savior. Paul never contradict himself, people that are not Christians or have no faith will always say that the Bible contradict itself, to me people using that argument are using it a scape goat and not come to christ.

If you die in Christ you will be joint heirs in heaven, you will be on the same footing with Jesus, no more pain, no more crying, no more stress, you will feel joy beyond belief.



Jesus is the truth and the way, if you don't believe so than you are putting your soul andyour eternal future on the line, that's why God created free will you can make you own decision life or death, choose wisely.

"No one comes to the Father but threw me" Jesus said, if you don't believe it then I am sorry for you, because when you die you will be judge by a living god, and his judgment is final and righteous.
Amen. It is important to notice that Paul most directly deals with those already within the Church. Once you have accepted Christ you must hold yourself to a higher standard and strive to be Christ-like. Paul wrote his letters to the Churches, not the unsaved, in an effort to uproot the evil that was corrupting the Church. Jesus preached mostly to the unsaved, showing them the way into a relationship with the Father.

I am no saint I've sin and I ask God to forgive me of my sins, and I have faith Lord Jesus Christ who died for me took the nails that where mint for me.

Their is one faith that is lord jesus, anything else saying that their is another way into heaven is false, Jesus is the way repent accept Jesus as your lord, if you don't you will be left behind and their will be a real hell on earth when the anti-christ comes on the sceen and ask man and woman to take the mark of the beast.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Amen. It is important to notice that Paul most directly deals with those already within the Church. Once you have accepted Christ you must hold yourself to a higher standard and strive to be Christ-like. Paul wrote his letters to the Churches, not the unsaved, in an effort to uproot the evil that was corrupting the Church. Jesus preached mostly to the unsaved, showing them the way into a relationship with the Father.

exactly^^.

I believe he was using the unknown God to illustrate a point, not necessarily meaning that the people in question were already praying to him.

What you fail to understand mahasattva is that God is the only TRUE god. Other gods exist, but they are demons as I showed in my previous post. That is why God commands us not to use their names. Yes, Jesus was sent especially for the Jews, but that does not exclude his salvation from others as I also showed. Yes, the Jews are (some say were) God's chosen people, but that does not exclude from being God over all nations as I also showed. The passage from Mark that you quote only proves my point... Jesus was sent to the Jews, but when we Gentiles show enough faith and accept Christ as Lord, he does not withhold this grace from us. You consisently claim against the Bible but show no understanding of its message or meanings.

Originally posted by Nellinator
What you fail to understand mahasattva is that God is the only TRUE god. Other gods exist, but they are demons as I showed in my previous post.

All other gods, even the ones that don't advocate anything bad, or in fact represent or advocate good things? Or even those gods that bare a strong resemblance to Jesus and God of the Christian faith?

It is hard to reconcile such Gods as demons, especially when they sometimes represent Christian ideals and/or rules, simply under a different name.

And by all accounts it appears that the demon gods have had a far better run then the Christian god. I mean, all those polytheistic religions that predated Christianity, all those religions that grew in absence of Judea theology (and there were so many...)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What are Jesus's teachings ? Because st. Paul contradicts much of what Jesus himself supposedly said.

On top of that Jesus' teachings contradict the Old Testament...

so can i only pay attention to what Jesus said, and IGNORE the rest ?

* i cannot think of anything that Saint Paul contradicts about the teachings of Christ... if there is, according to you, can you please quote it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So Paul was a greater teacher then Jesus? I don't think so. I think that Paul distorted and corrupted the teaching of Jesus. Today the church of Jesus is extinct. In it's place stands the church of Paul.

* the Church that Saint Paul ministered was called like this...

"For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;"
I Thessalonians 2:14

* the Church of God in Christ Jesus... there is no Church of Paul...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
oo0o0o00o0o00o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o

Okay...I get it now

Oh wait....No I don't....Paul tends to focus more on punishment and judgement, while Jesus tends to focus more on Love and Unity....

There is a DEFINATE Contradiction between the two....

* Saint Paul also preaches Love and Unity...

"So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith."
Galatians 6:10

"For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Galatians 5:14

* and Christ also teaches Punishment and Judgment...

"But I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire."
Matthew 5:22

"And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire."
Matthew 18:8

* so, where's the contradiction?

^ The Church of Jesus was the Gnostics.

* nope, the Gnostics preached a different "Jesus" and is not in accordance with the other books...

"Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you."
The Romans 16:16

* and Saint Paul preached the Church of Jesus...

Ok, Heaven and sinning, I have a little bit of a typical Hell question -

According to you, everyone is a sinner, at some level. If road to Heaven is extreamly difficult, then a lot of people will end up in hell/have ended up in hell....so...

Wouldn't by now, considering thousands upon thousands of years of humans and civilisation, Hell get..you know...full? Overcrowded?

What does soul do in heaven? It doenst have a body, so how can it feel pain?

And does it ever get used to pain? But how can a soul feel pain, when all the pain we feel is associated with either our bodies, or our egos?

Originally posted by peejayd
* nope, the Gnostics preached a different "Jesus" and is not in accordance with the other books...

"Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you."
The Romans 16:16

* and Saint Paul preached the Church of Jesus...

You are the one who is wrong. All you have to do is read the Gospels that the Roman church tried to destroy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are the one who is wrong. All you have to do is read the Gospels that the Roman church tried to destroy.

You mean the ones that have been dated to times when the original apostles were definitely dead?

The pseudopigrapha is good to read, but you have to take it with a grain of salt, since it wasn't written by first or secondhand witnesses.

-edit-

of course that doesn't mean that we won't someday find new material that is a first or secondhand account, just that we haven't so far. The roman church did a pretty good job of destroying anything they didn't agree with.

Originally posted by docb77
You mean the ones that have been dated to times when the original apostles were definitely dead?

The pseudopigrapha is good to read, but you have to take it with a grain of salt, since it wasn't written by first or secondhand witnesses.

-edit-

of course that doesn't mean that we won't someday find new material that is a first or secondhand account, just that we haven't so far. The roman church did a pretty good job of destroying anything they didn't agree with.

I believe that the Gospels of Thomas and Mary are authentic copies, because I have read them and they are consistent with the teachings of Jesus, but not with the teachings of Paul.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that the Gospels of Thomas and Mary are authentic copies, because I have read them and they are consistent with the teachings of Jesus, but not with the teachings of Paul.

I haven't researched the Gospel of Mary, but that of Thomas has been shown to be a compilation from the 2nd century AD. While it does contain many of Jesus teachings, it is similar to if somone from today wrote about Abe Lincoln, Using the identity of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.

Originally posted by docb77
I haven't researched the Gospel of Mary, but that of Thomas has been shown to be a compilation from the 2nd century AD. While it does contain many of Jesus teachings, it is similar to if somone from today wrote about Abe Lincoln, Using the identity of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.

You are making one assumption, that the gospels in the bible are earlier documents. There is no way to support this assumption.

Gnostics directly contradict what Jesus Christ was. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.
Gnostics teach a Christ that contradicts the prophecied Messiah. Gnostics are strongly influenced by Greek philosophy which states that the Spirit is innately good and that the flesh is the evil. They use this rational to claim that Jesus Christ never claim in flesh which is contradiction to prophecy. Many of them claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin birth, also a contradiction to prophecy. They also claim that Jesus never died on the cross, another contradiction. This means that he did not rise from the dead, leaving even more prophecy unfulfilled. Thomas also denies Jesus as a teacher contradicting more prophecy. Furthermore, it seems to deny the true divinity of Christ which contradicts prophecies. I am also of the opinion that these gnostic texts can be dated to the early second century not predating the canonical scriptures. Gnostic are the undoubtedly reason that John wrote this verse:
"Because many FALSE PROPHETS have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ has COME IN THE FLESH is from from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and is already in the world" 1 John 4:1-3
The Gnostic Church is not the Church of Christ.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Gnostics directly contradict what Jesus Christ was. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.
Gnostics teach a Christ that contradicts the prophecied Messiah. Gnostics are strongly influenced by Greek philosophy which states that the Spirit is innately good and that the flesh is the evil. They use this rational to claim that Jesus Christ never claim in flesh which is contradiction to prophecy. Many of them claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin birth, also a contradiction to prophecy. They also claim that Jesus never died on the cross, another contradiction. This means that he did not rise from the dead, leaving even more prophecy unfulfilled. Thomas also denies Jesus as a teacher contradicting more prophecy. Furthermore, it seems to deny the true divinity of Christ which contradicts prophecies. I am also of the opinion that these gnostic texts can be dated to the early second century not predating the canonical scriptures. Gnostic are the undoubtedly reason that John wrote this verse:
"Because many FALSE PROPHETS have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ has COME IN THE FLESH is from from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and is already in the world" 1 John 4:1-3
The Gnostic Church is not the Church of Christ.

First, you do not know that John wrote that for that reason. You don't even know that John even wrote that gospel. Second, I don't believe in the prophecy, that is the church of Paul.

Jesus was not divine and may not have died on the cross, I don't know. I don't believe in all of the teachings of the Gnostics, but IMO they are more consistent with the teaching of Jesus.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
First, you do not know that John wrote that for that reason. You don't even know that John even wrote that gospel. Second, I don't believe in the prophecy, that is the church of Paul.

Jesus was not divine and may not have died on the cross, I don't know. I don't believe in all of the teachings of the Gnostics, but IMO they are more consistent with the teaching of Jesus.

By consistent, do you mean with what is found in the 4 recognized gospels, vs the epistles of Paul? or vs the modern teachings of christianity? Because the 4 Gospels of the NT are really the only things to compare the pseudopigrapha to.

What teachings? I assume who are referring to the four canonical gospels. Paul does not contradict them. If he does, where?
Also, because the Gnostics and the Gospel of Thomas contradict OT prophecies that can not be connected to the Judeo-Christian faith (dare I use the word heresy).

Originally posted by docb77
By consistent, do you mean with what is found in the 4 recognized gospels, vs the epistles of Paul? or vs the modern teachings of christianity? Because the 4 Gospels of the NT are really the only things to compare the pseudopigrapha to.

Just the reported words of Jesus in the four gospels. Not the commentary by other people, just the quotes of Jesus by themselves.

"quotes"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just the reported words of Jesus in the four gospels. Not the commentary by other people, just the quotes of Jesus by themselves.
One important thing missing from Gnostic texts is any mention of consequences of sin. Gnostics do not deal with morality as shown in the text and by the writings of Ireneus (which may be, admittedly biased) which is not consistent with Christ at all. Gnostics also believe in reaching God through understanding and knowledge and rituals. Jesus Christ says "I am the way the truth and the light, NO ONE come to the Father EXCEPT through me". Gnostics do not believe this and this a HUGE contradiction.

Originally posted by Nellinator
One important thing missing from Gnostic texts is any mention of consequences of sin. Gnostics do not deal with morality as shown in the text and by the writings of Ireneus (which may be, admittedly biased) which is not consistent with Christ at all. Gnostics also believe in reaching God through understanding and knowledge and rituals. Jesus Christ says "I am the way the truth and the light, NO ONE come to the Father EXCEPT through me". Gnostics do not believe this and this a HUGE contradiction.

The Gnostics are more like Buddhists.

If I stand in a door way and say only though me can you leave the room, when I go through the door, do you still have to go through me?

A funny analogy, but one that does not apply here. Accepting Jesus as the Son of God is the only way to God.

Originally posted by Nellinator
What you fail to understand mahasattva is that God is the only TRUE god. Other gods exist, but they are demons as I showed in my previous post. That is why God commands us not to use their names. Yes, Jesus was sent especially for the Jews, but that does not exclude his salvation from others as I also showed. Yes, the Jews are (some say were) God's chosen people, but that does not exclude from being God over all nations as I also showed. The passage from Mark that you quote only proves my point... Jesus was sent to the Jews, but when we Gentiles show enough faith and accept Christ as Lord, he does not withhold this grace from us. You consisently claim against the Bible but show no understanding of its message or meanings.

What is their assumption that the god of the Jews is the only true god and that other gods from other nations are demons? How can a god be the only true God and also how can a god turn into a demon? Are u saying that god and demon are one and the same thing?

Originally posted by mahasattva
What is their assumption that the god of the Jews is the only true god and that other gods from other nations are demons? How can a god be the only true God and also how can a god turn into a demon? Are u saying that god and demon are one and the same thing?
You seem to have a hard time understanding. God is God of everthing and everyone and always has been. The other gods that people worship are demons and always have been demons. God and demons are exact opposites as in they are in opposition to each other.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You seem to have a hard time understanding. God is God of everthing and everyone and always has been. The other gods that people worship are demons and always have been demons. God and demons are exact opposites as in they are in opposition to each other.

There is no gods or demons, there is only you, and you are a part of God.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Are you saying that in your belief, Jesus was a Buddha?

Yes and no. Jesus was never in any Buddhist text, but I see Jesus as a Buddha.

Originally posted by Nellinator
A funny analogy, but one that does not apply here. Accepting sJeus as the Son of God is the only way to God.

Perhaps accepting "Jesus as the son of god" is the only way to your god.

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps accepting "Jesus as the son of god" is the only way to your god.
Yes.

Ok, that statement was intended to come with the understanding that your god is not the only one.

But I think he is.

How is that statement supposed to cary any weight. People think lots of things....they are often wrong.

Originally posted by Alliance
How is that statement supposed to cary any weight. People think lots of things....they are often wrong.
And then you admit that you could be wrong about there being one god.

Funny how the Bible says God is love. You must remember that God will have human qualities as we are created in his image. But he does not have our negative qualities. You sit and gripe about starving children in Africa and what do you do about it? How many here are actually part of the solution? Not many I presume. Christians do more to help and aid suffering people around the world than any other people group. God obviously works against poverty and suffering whiile most others sit around and pretend to actually care (I say pretend because if they cared they would do something about it). Perhaps you should fund the building of schools in Africa, an interest free bank for single mothers in Vietnam with small businesses, buy livestock for poor farmers in Zimbabwe, or sponsor food banks for poor people in Mozambique. I see God working against poverty all the time. I see God answering prayers because he loves us.

When it comes to AIDS, they' re overshooting the mark. Atheists and agnostics do make a difference in society as well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are the one who is wrong. All you have to do is read the Gospels that the Roman church tried to destroy.

* i just quoted a Bible verse and i was wrong? you just said that the Church of Jesus was already extinct and the Church of Paul was left standing... on the contrary, according to the Bible, Saint Paul preached the Church of Jesus (Romans 16:16)... how can i be wrong if you can't even refute my post?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that the Gospels of Thomas and Mary are authentic copies, because I have read them and they are consistent with the teachings of Jesus, but not with the teachings of Paul.

* are the Gnostics in accordance with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
First, you do not know that John wrote that for that reason. You don't even know that John even wrote that gospel.

* Saint John wrote it...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Second, I don't believe in the prophecy, that is the church of Paul.

* the Christ is all about fulfilling the prophesies, i think you are so misled... Saint Paul never preached himself, he preached the Church of God in Christ Jesus (I Thessalonians 2:14)...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus was not divine and may not have died on the cross, I don't know.

* according to the 4 Gospels in the Bible, Jesus is divine and died on the cross... if you admitted that you don't know this, you are the one who is terribly wrong... even the Roman history acknowledged a certain Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe in all of the teachings of the Gnostics, but IMO they are more consistent with the teaching of Jesus.

* more consistent with the teachings of Jesus compared to what? the 4 Gospels? the epistles of Saint Paul? you have to prove that first...

* and then again, maybe not... because you just admitted that you don't even believe in all of the teachings in the Gnostics... you've got double-standards, my friend...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no gods or demons, there is only you, and you are a part of God.

* even the Gnostics say there is a God and there are demons... you contradict the same thing you claim to be "more consistent with the teachings of Jesus"...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes and no. Jesus was never in any Buddhist text, but I see Jesus as a Buddha.

* sigh... that's a killer... now that's an opinion...

Originally posted by Nellinator
But I think he is.

Just your opinion. You have no Facts to fall back on.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, that is an assumption that is not supported by historians. A scribe most likely wrote the four Gospels. Not every one knew how to write back then.

There are no such things as prophecies. No one can see into the future. Paul change the interpretation of the words of Jesus from a Gnostic to a Roman interpretation.

No according to the Church, Jesus is divine. They even had a big meeting and declared him divine. Again another Roman habit. They would often declare the emperor divine.
Luke was a doctor (which is likely why he wrote on Jesus's healing ministry more than the others) and very educated and wrote both the Gospel According to St. Luke and Acts. Matthew was a tax collector and very wealthy from which can be inferred that he was educated. I cannot tell you exactly how John and Mark were educated (probably could if I took the time to find out), but it should be noted that literacy was actually rather high around Jesus's time, and many Jews were educated in the temples. Also, they may have written the Gospels by dictating to a scribe, which still means that they are the author.
Yes, God can see into the future and he sometimes reveals it through the gift of prophecy. Prophecies are being fulfilled even today. But, I guess that does not end this unendable argument. Also, Paul was a devout Jew (responsible for the deaths of many Christians) before his conversion. Therefore Paul would never contradict God's teachings as the Gnostics did.
According to OT prophecy Jesus is divine. The church did not make it up. Paul knew that Christ was divine and showed so in his epistles written about twenty years after Christ's death. Also, early second century historian Pliny reported to Rome that "Christianity is the worship of Jesus as Lord". Furthermore, Jesus claimed to be divine. And the Nicean Council did not decide the divinity of Christ, it merely disclaimed the few dissenters, notably Arius (who still viewed Christ as divine, but saw him as less than God). Everyone at that Council knew that Jesus was divine, it was the extent that was in question. Remember that the vote for the equal divinity of Christ was 314 (some say 214) to 2.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Luke was a doctor (which is likely why he wrote on Jesus's healing ministry more than the others) and very educated and wrote both the Gospel According to St. Luke and Acts. Matthew was a tax collector and very wealthy from which can be inferred that he was educated. I cannot tell you exactly how John and Mark were educated (probably could if I took the time to find out), but it should be noted that literacy was actually rather high around Jesus's time, and many Jews were educated in the temples. Also, they may have written the Gospels by dictating to a scribe, which still means that they are the author.
Yes, God can see into the future and he sometimes reveals it through the gift of prophecy. Prophecies are being fulfilled even today. But, I guess that does not end this unendable argument. Also, Paul was a devout Jew (responsible for the deaths of many Christians) before his conversion. Therefore Paul would never contradict God's teachings as the Gnostics did.
According to OT prophecy Jesus is divine. The church did not make it up. Paul knew that Christ was divine and showed so in his epistles written about twenty years after Christ's death. Also, early second century historian Pliny reported to Rome that "Christianity is the worship of Jesus as Lord". Furthermore, Jesus claimed to be divine. And the Nicean Council did not decide the divinity of Christ, it merely disclaimed the few dissenters, notably Arius (who still viewed Christ as divine, but saw him as less than God). Everyone at that Council knew that Jesus was divine, it was the extent that was in question. Remember that the vote for the equal divinity of Christ was 314 (some say 214) to 2.

We just see things very differently. I do not believe in the god of the bible, but if it works for you, then I am happy.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Funny how the Bible says God is love. You must remember that God will have human qualities as we are created in his image. But he does not have our negative qualities.

I dare say that should be an impossibility. How can he only have our good side and not our bad? We are created in his image, with choice, logically he should have the ability to be bad as well - besides, a perfect creator by rights should be incapable of creating something flawed without the conscious desire to do so. Either God has just as much potential for good and evil as the rest of us, or he is far from perfect.



The hight of arrogance and folly I dare say to make such mass generalities. As Storm said Atheists, Agnostics and members of other religions are just as capable of contributing positively to the world, and the worlds needs as any Christian. Remember, while some Christian missionary is shouting at starving Africans in the wilderness there is an Atheistic scientist somewhere trying to find a cure to aids etc. And while there is a Christian raising money to feed a village there is an Atheist sitting on a couch somewhere doing nothing. Both theists and atheists are equally capable of helping. Being an Atheist does not somehow shut of ones ability to do good. And in my experiences an Atheist can approach helping from many different ways, unlike certain Christians who are locked onto a limited path.



I see no reason to believe Christian deserve the reward for "Most Good Done"- hell, I dare say it should be seen just as much as paying off the debt incurred from centuries of doing "God's work." Diseases spread by Christians, forced conversions, the disruption and sometimes destruction of cultures, the imposition of mindsets that helped take land from natives. Even slavery at times had Christian support (the duty of the Christian world to improve the life of the dark savages.) And how many Christians are doing this out of a sense of duty rather then some noble desire to help? I know of those who see it as nothing but a minor inconvenience. "Sigh. Two years preaching in Africa before my life actually begins."

Now I am not saying there are not Christians who do good. There are a lot. And they should be thanked. But I think it is wrong to put them in a class of their own above the works of so many others. Especially when in plenty of cases the aid of the Churches is dependant on people turning up and converting.



I see people working against poverty all the time. I see people answering the cries of the hungry and suffering. I find it hard to imagine an all loving God sitting up there somewhere, with the power to solve this so easily, yet choosing not to. Choosing to take the slow way, the slow way which looses, and has lost, many millions over the years. I believe the people need more respect for their actions. They deserve recognisition. None of this "I couldn't have done it without God", because I think they can, and would of.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Luke was a doctor (which is likely why he wrote on Jesus's healing ministry more than the others) and very educated and wrote both the Gospel According to St. Luke and Acts. Matthew was a tax collector and very wealthy from which can be inferred that he was educated. I cannot tell you exactly how John and Mark were educated (probably could if I took the time to find out), but it should be noted that literacy was actually rather high around Jesus's time, and many Jews were educated in the temples.


The Bible is not infallible and therefore cannot be revelation.Many of the books in the Bible are named after different people who are supposed to have written them. So the Gospel of Matthew is supposed to have been written by Matthew, one of the disciples of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark is supposed to have been written by Mark, another of Jesus' disciples, and so on.

The Christian could claim that even if the Bible is not necessarily infallible revelation it is the testimony of reliable people, They could claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John knew Jesus well, they lived with him for several years, they heard its teachings and they wrote down what they saw and heard and that there is no reason for them to lie or exaggerate. Therefore, Christians could claim that the Bible is reliable testimony. Except that for testimony to be reliable it must come from reliable people, people we could trust, people from good backgrounds. Were the disciples of Jesus such people? Let us look.

Some of Jesus' disciples were tax collectors (Matt 9:9), a dishonest and despised class of men (Matt 18;17); others were mere illiterate fishermen (Mk 1:16-17). Simon was a Zealot (Lk 6:15), a group of men known for their fanatical and often violent opposition to Roman rule, and like many people involved in illegal politics he used an alias and was also known as Peter (Matt 10:2). Peter and James were given the nicknames ' Boanerges ' meaning 'sons of thunder' (Mk 3:17) once again suggesting their involvement in violent politics. When Jesus was arrested his disciples were carrying swords and were willing to use them (Matt 26:51). Hardly the sort of people with whom we would feel comfortable.

Another thing that should make us wary of trusting the testimony of Jesus disciples is that they seemed to be constantly misunderstanding what Jesus was saying (Mk 4:13, 6:52, 8:15-17, 9:32; Lk 8:9, 9:45). They are supposed to have seen Jesus perform the most amazing miracles and yet despite this they still doubted. Jesus scolded them and called them "men of little faith" (Matt 8:26, 17:20). Should we trust the writings of men who constantly failed to understand what was being said to them and whom even Jesus called men of little faith? If even the people who knew and saw Jesus had "little faith" how could we, who have never seen him, be expected to have faith in him?

How unreliable and faithless the people who wrote the Bible were is best illustrated by what they did just prior to and during Jesus' arrest. He asked them to keep watch but they fell asleep (Matt 26:36-43). After Jesus was arrested they lied and denied that they even knew him (Mk 14:66-72), and after his execution they simply went back to their fishing (Jn 21:2-3). And who betrayed Jesus in the first place? His disciple Judas (Matt 26:14-16). Association with sinners, liars and fools in order to help them, as Jesus did, is a good thing. But should we believe everything such people say?

An even more disturbing thing about the disciples of Jesus is just how many of them were possessed by demons or devils from time to time. Mary Magdalene who later claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead, had been possessed by seven devils (Mk 16:9). Satan entered into Judas (Lk 22:3), tried to get into Simon (Lk 22:31) and Jesus once actually called Peter, his chief disciple, "Satan" (Matt 16:23) indicating that he too was possessed by a devil at that time. Whether possession by devils actually happens or whether it indicates serious psychological disorders as modern psychiatrists believe, either way it indicates that we should treat the words of Jesus' disciples with great caution.


Also, they may have written the Gospels by dictating to a scribe, which still means that they are the author.

We have seen that the Bible is not infallible, is not revelation and is not the testimony of reliable, trustworthy people. We will now show that the Bible was not even written by the people who are claimed to have been its writers. Let us have a look at the first five books in the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These five books describe the creation of the world, God's first revelation to man, and the early history of the tribe of Israel and are supposed to have been written by Moses. They are, in fact, often called 'The Books of Moses'. however, his authorship is clearly impossible, because in these books we have an account of Moses' death.

So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab according to the word of the Lord, and they buried him in the valley in the land Moab opposite Beth Peor , but no man knows the place of his burial to this day (Deut 34.5-6).

How could a man write an account of his own death and burial? The book of Deuteronomy, at least, must have been written by someone other than Moses.

Now let us have a look at the New Testament. The Gospel of Matthew is supposed to have been written by Matthew (tax collector, doubter, man of little faith), one of the disciples of Jesus. Yet we can easily demonstrate that Matthew could not have possibly have written the Gospel of Matthew. We read:

As Jesus passed on from there he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office and he said to him, "Follow me". And he rose and followed him (Matt 9:9).

Neither now nor in the past do people write in the third person. If Matthew had really written this we would expect it to read:

As Jesus passed on from there he saw me sitting at the tax office and he said to me, Follow me". And I rose and followed him.

Obviously this was not written by Matthew but by some third person. Who this third person is we do not know but Bible scholars have made a guess. In the preface to his translation of the Gospel of Matthew the distinguished Bible scholar J.B. Phillips says:

Early tradition ascribes this Gospel to the apostle Matthew but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view. The author, who we still can conveniently call Matthew has plainly drawn on a collection of oral traditions. He has used Mark's Gospel freely, though he has rearranged the order of events, and has in several instances used different words for what is plainly the same story.

This is a deeply disturbing admission, especially coming from an eminent Christian Bible scholar. We are told that "almost all" modern Bible scholars reject the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was actually written by Matthew. We are told that although the real author is unknown it is "convenient" to keep calling him Matthew. Next we are told that whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew has "freely copied much of his material from the Gospel of Mark. In other words, the Gospel of Matthew is just a plagiarism where material has been "rearranged" and restated in "different words". So apparently in the Gospel of Matthew not only do we no have the words of God, we don't even have the words of Matthew.

To the credit of Bible scholars like Prof. J.B. Phillips, they freely admit these an other major doubts about authorship of the Bible, but such admissions make claim that the Gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus clearly untrue.

How do you know?? Can you prove this WITHOUT the Bible?

The Roman Catholic church as EVERYBODY ELSE knows manipulated the scriptures and what was to be taught.

Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, i respect your opinion... you just see Jesus as a Buddhist... but the truth is, He's not...

To be fair Jesus does have a lot in common with many other messiah like figures in other religions, both before and after Christianity came about. Likewise, he is a prophet in Islam and Judaism. I don't see why people can't claim he was also a Buddha - after all, Buddhism isn't just about a single Buddha - the Buddha people think of when they say "Buddha" is, depending on which type of Buddhist you speak to, just another in a line - one still effecting earth today through his teachings, kind of the current face of Buddhism. I think it is perfectly fair to consider the possibility.

Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, i respect your opinion... you just see Jesus as a Buddhist... but the truth is, He's not...

hes just over-reaching to do a little Buddhist promotion.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
To be fair Jesus does have a lot in common with many other messiah like figures in other religions, both before and after Christianity came about. Likewise, he is a prophet in Islam and Judaism. I don't see why people can't claim he was also a Buddha - after all, Buddhism isn't just about a single Buddha - the Buddha people think of when they say "Buddha" is, depending on which type of Buddhist you speak to, just another in a line - one still effecting earth today through his teachings, kind of the current face of Buddhism. I think it is perfectly fair to consider the possibility.

Different Buddhists have different ideas about Jesus's place in the Buddhist worldview. Most Mahayana Buddhists would see him as an exemplary bodhisattva. I would agree with this. I see Jesus as an embodiment of the bodhisattva ideal. He did not teach the unique teachings of Buddhism concerning the four noble truths or dependent origination so I can not see him as a Buddha. Furthermore, his experience of God as Abba (the Aramaic word for "Daddy" seems to describe a very devotional and intimate personal relationship to Brahma(God). However, his selflessness is suggestive of one who has realized nirvana and he attempted to convey that to others in terms of being "born-again." His disciples experience of the Risen Lord does seem to match the Buddhist description of the sambhogakaya - a limited form of which is possessed by the bodhisattvas who are able to emanate many spiritual bodies for the sake of suffering beings. So in many ways, the life and teachings of Jesus are not incompatible with Buddhism if Jesus is understood to be a bodhisattva who attempted to convey as much as he could of the Dharma (Truth) in terms his contemporaries could understand.

In Mahayana Buddhism, it is taught that the buddhas and bodhisattvas9(enlightened beings) appear throughout the universe in order to convey the Dharma(Law or truth) in different ways to different beings. To do this, they employ what is called upaya or "provisional methods." This means that if they can not convey the Dharma directly, they will find a way to express it in a way that their listeners can understand and work with. In this way, they can gradually mature those beings to the point where they can understand the Dharma directly either in that lifetime or in a future lifetime. Sometimes, they just try to provide a way for beings to attain the heavenly pure lands where they can meet the sambhogakaya buddhas and learn the Dharma from them. Jesus's remark that he was going to prepare a place for his disciples, and that in heaven there were many mansions, and that he had other flocks his disciples did not know about are all very suggestive of such an arrangement.

Originally posted by peejayd


"Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"
Titus 2:13

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"
II Peter 1:1

* according to Saint Paul and Saint Peter, Christ is a God and Savior...



Let us see if there is any justification for these claims. If Jesus really was God it is very strange that he never said so. There is not one place in the whole of the Bible where Jesus simply and unambiguously says, "I am God". Christians will object to this and say that Jesus often called himself or was called the Son of God. However, the Bible clearly shows that any person who was good and had faith qualified to be called a Son of God. For example, Jesus called Adam a son of God (Lk 3:38).
It will happen that in the very place where it was said of them "you are not my people" they will be called "sons of the living God" (Rom 9:26).
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven (Matt 5:44-45).

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26).

You are God's; you are all sons of the most high (Ps 82:6).

Jesus is called God's 'only begotten son' but even this is not unique. In the Psalms God says to King David, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" (Ps 2:7) In fact, Jesus said distinctly that when he called himself a son of God, he did not mean he was God or related to God in a literal sense. When the Jewish priests criticized him for claiming to be equal with God, Jesus said:

Is it not written in your law, "I have said you are gods"? If he called them "gods" to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken what about one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? (Jn 10:34-36).

Christians make an enormous fuss about Jesus' claims to be a son of God but as we can see, there is absolutely nothing unique in this claim. Christians could claim that the term 'son of God' is used in the Bible in two different ways - as a title for a particularly holy person and for the actual son of God, Jesus, who was with God in heaven before coming to earth. But even in this second sense Jesus was not unique. The Bible tells us that God had numerous sons with him in heaven who later came to earth and lived with humans just as Jesus did.

In the Bible Jesus is called the Son of Man more than 80 times. Yet the Bible also tells us that in the eyes of God the Son of Man is nothing more than a worm (Job, 25:6). How can Christians claim that the Son of Man is God when the Bible itself says that the Son of Man is nothing more than a worm? Christians will then insist that Jesus was called the Messiah, but again it was not unusual to be called a Messiah. The Hebrew word messiah of which the Greek translation is christos simply means 'anointed one', and refers to anyone sent by God to help the people of Israel. Even a non-Jew could be and sometimes was called a Messiah. The Bible even calls the pagan Persian King Cyrus a Messiah because he let God's people return to their homeland (Is 45:1). So just because Jesus was called the Messiah does not prove he was God. In fact, throughout the Bible Jesus goes out of his way to make it clear that he was not God. When someone called Jesus 'good teacher' he said:
Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone (Lk 18:19).
Now if Jesus was God why would he deny that he was good? We are told that Jesus prayed, but if he was God why would he need to pray to himself? And when Jesus prayed, he said to God, "not my will but yours" (Lk 22:42). Quite clearly Jesus is making a distinction between God's will and his own. Jesus says that no one has even seen God (Jn 1:18), meaning that when people saw him they were not seeing God. Again Jesus says he can do nothing without God.

I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees the Father do (Jn 5:19).

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me (Jn 5:30).

I can do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me (Jn :28).

If Jesus was God he could do anything he wanted to do, and in these passages and dozens of others he is making it as clear as crystal that he is one thing and God another. Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28) making it clear that he is not as great as God and therefore different from God.

Jesus said that at the end of the world he would be sitting at the right hand of God to judge the world (Lk 22:69). If Jesus and God are the same being, how is this possible? Quite clearly the two are separate and different. And again David is described as sitting on the right hand of God, so to do this one does not have be a god (Ps 110:1). We are told that Jesus stands between God and man.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5).

This passage clearly states that Jesus is not God, for if he was, how could he stand' between God and men? It also specifically calls Jesus a man (see also Acts l7:3 -31). In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matt 1:16, Lk 3:23) we are given the* name of Jesus' father, his father's father, and so on, back through many generations. if God was really Jesus' father, why does the Bible list all Jesus' ancestors on his father's side? Christians are forever claiming that Jesus is God and at the same time that he is the son of God. But how is this possible? How can I father be his own son and himself all at the same time? And to make matters more confused, the Holy Spirit is brought in and we are asked to believe that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are different and yet the same.
The claim of Christians that Jesus is God contradicts what the Bible says, it goes against common sense and it raises numerous logical problems. Whereas if we sci Jesus as he was, a reformer and prophet, none of these problems arise.

The fact is that if God can only be understood as "a personal God who is the Creator, who has revealed himself in the Bible, and who has given his only Son to die for our sins so that we can have eternal life" then I can not believe in God, because I do not find that description of God very credible or even intelligible.

The Buddhist tradition did not develop the notion of reality to use the term "God" (except in the case of Brahma who is a personal deity). Rather, the Buddhist tradition developed in reaction to the misunderstandings, confusion, and even oppression of the masses spread by the priests in the name of God or Brahma. The Buddha was not concerned with denying the reality of the Divine, the Buddha was concerned with liberating people from fear based and superstitious views of Divinity so that they could directly experience the reality that people have labeled as God.

Buddhist scriptures, or sutras, present a far more refined and uplifting description of the divine reality which we awaken to once we are free of our finite, materialistic, and self-centered point of view. The Buddha describes God (he called him Brahma, since he had never heard the Germanic word "God" or the Jewish "YHWH" as one who resides in the highest of the heavens and who is perfect in his love, compassion, joy, and equanimity. This God is one we can unite with if we develop those same qualities in ourselves. But even this is a limited conception of God according to Buddhism.

The experience of nirvana is spoken of as a state beyond birth and death, beyond any possible conception or description. It can not be spoken of in terms of anything that our finite minds can relate to. But it is the supreme reality that is beyond causes and conditions which we can awaken to even within this lifetime, though this awakening may be only the beginning of something even more unimaginable upon death as implied by the term parinirvana (complete nirvana). Nirvana is not a state of annihilation though it is selfless. It is spoken of in terms of being pure, blissful, eternal, and the basis of true selfhood - though even these terms are only used analogously - the truth being beyond even these. Nirvana is not a person, place, or thing but it is not nothingness either.

On some occasions the Buddha even spoke of nirvana as Brahma or God, but again only analogously. The Buddha did not want to directly identify the realization of nirvana with God realization because that term meant different things to different people depending upon their idea of God. So to prevent confusion, the Buddha spoke more in terms of what nirvana is not rather than in terms of what it is. He certainly did not want to identify it with a name like "God" which was already too loaded with all kind of misleading connotations. Just as importantly, the Brahmanist priests were using their scriptures and their alleged ability to mediate God's will to impose their power over others. The Buddha wanted to avoid this pitfall of someone presuming to be able to mediate the will of God, by avoiding such rhetoric entirely.

Originally posted by debbiejo
How do you know?? Can you prove this WITHOUT the Bible?

* i obviously can't prove it without the Bible, because it was the Bible that supplies the life, works and doctrine of Christ... and according to the Bible, Jesus is not a Buddhist...

* if you're not down with that, prove it otherwise...

Originally posted by debbiejo
The Roman Catholic church as EVERYBODY ELSE knows manipulated the scriptures and what was to be taught.

* the Scriptures was not manipulated as what you think it was, the RC in those days, only chose what books should be included in the Canon of Scriptures, that's why the Gnostics were left behind... but the Apochrypha was included even if it was worldly-known spurious...

* let me tell you this, if the Bible was manipulated by the RC, why is it that the RC was in direct contrary with the doctrines in the Bible?

* firstly, do you believe in the apostleship of Saint Paul and Saint Peter? if so, you should also believe in their written epistles... if not, it's a different story...

Originally posted by mahasattva
Let us see if there is any justification for these claims. If Jesus really was God it is very strange that he never said so. There is not one place in the whole of the Bible where Jesus simply and unambiguously says, "I am God". Christians will object to this and say that Jesus often called himself or was called the Son of God.

* so your question is, if Christ is a God, why didn't He said so? because it is not Christ's mission to bear witness for Himself...

"And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ."
John 17:3

* Christ's mission is to bear witness for the Father... but who will bear witness for Christ?

"But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me . Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form.
John 5:36-37

* the Father will bear witness for Christ... so, what did the Father called Christ? did the Father called Christ a God? or a human?

"But of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
Hebrews 1:8

* the Father called Christ, "O God"... Christ is a God...

Originally posted by mahasattva
However, the Bible clearly shows that any person who was good and had faith qualified to be called a Son of God. For example, Jesus called Adam a son of God (Lk 3:38).

"And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli...
... the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
Luke 3:23, 38

* according to the verse you gave, Jesus did NOT called Adam the son of God... it was the writer, Saint Luke, who wrote the genealogy of Christ...

Originally posted by mahasattva
It will happen that in the very place where it was said of them "you are not my people" they will be called "sons of the living God" (Rom 9:26).
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven (Matt 5:44-45).

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26).

You are God's; you are all sons of the most high (Ps 82:6).

* the term, "sons of God", is a general term... in other translations, the word, "sons" also meant "children"...

"And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God."
The Romans 9:26

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
Matthew 5:45

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:26

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
Psalms 82:6

* but the term, "The Son of God" was only intended for Christ...

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?"
Hebrews 1:5

* no angel was called "The Son of God"... although the angels are often called the "the sons of God" or "the children of God", only Christ was called "The Son of God"... and He really is "The Only Begotten Son of God"...

"He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
John 1:18

* and Christ even told them that He really is The Son of God...

"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?
Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee."
John 9:35-37

* see?

Originally posted by mahasattva
Jesus is called God's 'only begotten son' but even this is not unique. In the Psalms God says to King David, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" (Ps 2:7) In fact, Jesus said distinctly that when he called himself a son of God, he did not mean he was God or related to God in a literal sense. When the Jewish priests criticized him for claiming to be equal with God, Jesus said:

Is it not written in your law, "I have said you are gods"? If he called them "gods" to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken what about one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? (Jn 10:34-36).

* it was later revealed by the wisdom of God given to Saint Paul that it was Christ, the Father was addressing as His Begotten Son, and not David...

"That God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."
The Acts 13:33

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?"
Hebrews 1:5

* there is a context within the verses John 10:34-35 that you gave, my friend...

* by proclaiming Himself as The Son of God, the Jews understood that it also meant that Jesus is also a God like the Father...

"I and the Father are one."
John 10:30

* and in this statement, Christ really did said that He is a God, only indirectly... but the Jews understood Him and started to persecute Him...

"The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."
John 10:33

* the Jews believe that Christ was only a mere human just like everyone else... Christians like Saint Paul and Saint Peter believe that Christ was not a human but a God... now, which side are you on? the Jews? or the apostles?

* and to prove that being The Son of God means that Christ is also a God according to the belief of the Jews...

"For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
John 5:18

* and this were the grounds why Jesus was crucified...

Originally posted by mahasattva
In the Bible Jesus is called the Son of Man more than 80 times. Yet the Bible also tells us that in the eyes of God the Son of Man is nothing more than a worm (Job, 25:6). How can Christians claim that the Son of Man is God when the Bible itself says that the Son of Man is nothing more than a worm?

* there is a spiritual sense on that "Worm" you're talking about, my friend... it's not a literal worm...

"But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people."
Psalms 22:6

* take note that the worm is NOT a human... so, who is this "Worm" that was scorned by men and despised by people? let us read the proceeding verses...

"Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing."
Psalms 22:16, 18

* it was revealed to be Christ...

Originally posted by mahasattva
Christians will then insist that Jesus was called the Messiah, but again it was not unusual to be called a Messiah. The Hebrew word messiah of which the Greek translation is christos simply means 'anointed one', and refers to anyone sent by God to help the people of Israel. Even a non-Jew could be and sometimes was called a Messiah. The Bible even calls the pagan Persian King Cyrus a Messiah because he let God's people return to their homeland (Is 45:1).

* not all persons anointed or chosen are called "The Messiah"... the term, "messiah" means "The Anointed One" or "The Chosen One", with the definite article "the"...

Originally posted by mahasattva
So just because Jesus was called the Messiah does not prove he was God.

* who anointed Christ?

"Even Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."
The Acts 10:38

* the Father anointed Christ... what did the Father called Christ again?

"But of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
Hebrews 1:8-9

* the Father, who anointed Christ, called Christ a God...

Originally posted by mahasattva
In fact, throughout the Bible Jesus goes out of his way to make it clear that he was not God. When someone called Jesus 'good teacher' he said:
Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone (Lk 18:19).
Now if Jesus was God why would he deny that he was good?

* again, Christ's mission is not to bear witness for Himeslf but for the Father...

"The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had:
He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God."
Philippians 2:6

* see?

Originally posted by mahasattva
We are told that Jesus prayed, but if he was God why would he need to pray to himself?

"Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."
John 20:17

* our Father is also Christ's Father and our God is also Christ's God... remember: Christ, The Son of God, is a God, but He is NOT God... the Father IS God...

Originally posted by mahasattva
And when Jesus prayed, he said to God, "not my will but yours" (Lk 22:42). Quite clearly Jesus is making a distinction between God's will and his own.

"Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon him, went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye?"
John 18:4

* Jesus knows what will happen to Him... Jesus knows He would be killed... however...

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory."
I Timothy 3:16

* Christ was a God, The Word, a spirit in the beginning... but He was manifested in human flesh... and because He was manifested in human flesh, He would be able to be experience human feelings and culture... He could grow tired and weary, He was circumcised, He could feel thirst for water, He could feel hunger for food, and He could feel fear of death...

"Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
And there appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him."
Luke 22:43

* i understand Jesus' feelings in this scenario...

Originally posted by mahasattva
Jesus says that no one has even seen God (Jn 1:18), meaning that when people saw him they were not seeing God. Again Jesus says he can do nothing without God.

* then, let us first identify some characteristics of the Father...

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
John 4:24

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;"
Colossians 1:15

* the Father is a spirit and is invisible... but why can the people saw Christ? it is not because Christ is not a God, but because He was manifested in the flesh... so Christ was visible and tangible when He was here on earth...

* let us look at another side of John 1:18...

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
John 1:18

* Christ had seen the Father... but no human had seen the Father at ANY time... will any human be able to see the Father in the future?

"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen."
I Timothy 6:16

* nope... no human could see the Father... why?

"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live."
Exodus 33:20

* humans shall not see the Father and live... who else, besides Christ, can see the Father?

"See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven."
Matthew 18:10

* now, what are the similarity of Christ and the angels for Them to be able to see the Father?

"But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet?
Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?"
Hebrews 1:13-14

* Christ, in the beginning, and the angels are spirits, not humans...

Originally posted by mahasattva
If Jesus was God he could do anything he wanted to do, and in these passages and dozens of others he is making it as clear as crystal that he is one thing and God another. Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28) making it clear that he is not as great as God and therefore different from God.

* but Christ is not God... Christ is a God but not God... and He can do anything He wants to do with the will of the Father... for example:

"But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."
I Corinthians 1:24

* Christ is the wisdom of God... as The Wisdom of God, what did Christ do?

"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute;"
Luke 11:49

* is it really Christ who sent the prophets? yes! not only that, the spirit of Christ even taught the prophets...

"Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
Searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them."
I Peter 1:10-11

* and of course, it was also Christ who elected the apostles... all Christ did, but with the will of the Father...

Originally posted by mahasattva
Jesus said that at the end of the world he would be sitting at the right hand of God to judge the world (Lk 22:69). If Jesus and God are the same being, how is this possible? Quite clearly the two are separate and different.

* i didn't say Christ is God... i said, Christ is a God...

Originally posted by mahasattva
And again David is described as sitting on the right hand of God, so to do this one does not have be a god (Ps 110:1).

* let us read Psalms 110:1...

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."
Psalms 110:1

* the verse does NOT say that it was King David who was sitting on the right hand of God... this verse was also quoted by Christ, let us read His revelation...

"Saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet?
If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son?"
Matthew 22:42-45

* according to Jesus Himself, King David calls Him and the Father both as "Lord"...

Originally posted by mahasattva
We are told that Jesus stands between God and man.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5).

This passage clearly states that Jesus is not God, for if he was, how could he stand' between God and men?

It also specifically calls Jesus a man (see also Acts l7:3 -31).

* let us read the preceding verses...

"I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men;"
I Timothy 2:1
The American Standard Version

"First of all, I ask you to pray for everyone. Ask God to help and bless them all, and tell God how thankful you are for each of them."
I Timothy 2:1
Contemporary English Version

* Christians are also mediators between the Father and the people... and the verse I Timothy 2:5, ends with a comma, so let us read the proceeding verse...

"For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,
who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times;"
I Timothy 2:5-6

* what did Christ gave as a ransom? as a sacrifice? as an offering?

"By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Hebrews 10:10

* the "man Christ Jesus" in I Timothy 2:5 is the body of Christ offered for all...

Originally posted by mahasattva
In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matt 1:16, Lk 3:23) we are given the* name of Jesus' father, his father's father, and so on, back through many generations. if God was really Jesus' father, why does the Bible list all Jesus' ancestors on his father's side?

* because Christ manifested in the flesh...

"Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant. He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness.
He was humble and walked the path of obedience all the way to death--- his death on the cross."
Philippians 2:7-8

* Christ took the nature of a servant and appeared in human likeness... Christ only became like a human but He really is a God... He is NOT God but He is a God...

Originally posted by mahasattva
Christians are forever claiming that Jesus is God and at the same time that he is the son of God. But how is this possible? How can I father be his own son and himself all at the same time?

* true Christians, stated in the Bible, never claimed that Christ is God but Christ is a God... the offspring of an animal is an animal, the offspring of a human is a human, the offspring of God is also a God...

Originally posted by mahasattva
And to make matters more confused, the Holy Spirit is brought in and we are asked to believe that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are different and yet the same.

* yes, The Father, The Christ and The Holy Spirit are different entities especially described in Matthew 3:16-17 that The Three were also in three separate places all in that one scenario...

* but you also cannot deny that the Three are joined as The Godhead...

"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:"
Matthew 28:19

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
II Corinthians 13:14

* see?

Well done peejayd.
In addition, Christ is God in fulfillment of the prophecies that he claimed to fulfill.
"And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
Jesus is God in flesh.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
John 10:30
I and My Father are one .

Jesus affirmed that He and His Father are one. What does Jesus mean? Jesus means that He and His Father constitute one "God" but not one divine Person.



Using your logic:

Jesus affirmed that He and His Father are one. What does Jesus mean? Jesus means that He and His Father constitute one "God" but not one divine Person.

Thus we see that through your logic man may become God in the same sense that Jesus is God, at least if John 10:30 is meant as your claim asserts.