Couldn't have said it better myself...

[Brian2]

I never said that Jesus lied in the Gospel. It is a lot more subtle than that. There are many creeds.

I'm talking about the gospel story and Jesus saying that He would be killed and rise again on the third day.
Muslims attack the gospel by saying it is not true.

 

[Brian2]

They claim he is sinless but he sins. He breaks at least two commandments and the penalty for that was death.

What commands did He break?

 

[Brian2]

He said that they would die if they ate it THAT DAY.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

It certainly looks to be saying they will die on that day and I think some people say that they they did die spiritually on that day, they lost fellowship with God.
Others point out that such an expression is used elsewhere in the OT, but not to indicate that the person would die on the day he did a certain thing, but to indicate that the death sentence would be certain from the day the person did a certain thing. (eg 1Kings 2:37)
Both these explanations are probably true but I prefer the latter.
Then again the JWs claim that a day to God is as a 1000 years and that no human is said to have lived over 1000 years.
What you should realise is that what you are saying is that the writer did not realise that such a contradiction had been made within the story and within a few lines in the same story. Chances are that it was not an error and certainly was not meant to show that God lied to anyone, it just has a simple explanation like the ones I have pointed out. BUT of course it's just one of those things that critics of the Bible like to point out and stick with even if it is explained.

 

[Brian2]

I admire the bodhisattva approach better. I see people gladly stepping over each other to see heaven but I feel it’s more moral to stand outside and hold the door. You know, like that whole “whoever seeks the chair next to the host will get thrown out of the party “. (Not exact words)

Yes some people prefer to see Jesus in the light of their beliefs in other religions, but that of course entails denying the gospel message in favor of the teachings of the other religions.

 

[Brian2]

The problem is that one has to add all sorts of unjustified context to claim that it is not a lie. You would have to justify that act of adding context and no one can seem to do it without using a from of the argument that "Well, the Bible would be shown to be false if I did not do that". One needs something better than just defending the Bible.

Post 583 is an answer I prepared earlier for Kelly of the Phoenix.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Post 583 is an answer I prepared earlier for Kelly of the Phoenix.

And that is just pure BS. You need something stronger than apologetics.

The honest thing to do would have been for you to have admitted that you have nothing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Still I don't think that there was any earlier group that taught the Arian teaching.
But really do you want Emperors to have accepted Arianism or do you want them to have quashed it?

I see that the ruling class waged war against those Christians who did not conform to "their creed".
It looks highly suspicious to me .. more about "uniting the empire", than concern about the teachings of Jesus.

The era when Christianity became politicised seems to have been a time when it went down hill in some ways indeed, but that is no indication that the trinity is not correct. The New Testament has Thomas saying that Jesus is His God after all.

Jesus did not teach about any trinity .. it is dogma that evolved through human council [vote].

It is a plain teaching of the Bible that through Jesus all things were created. Surely you can see that if that is so then Jesus cannot have been one of those created things.

I see no such thing.
I see that God sent many prophets to mankind in ancient civilisations, to guide them when they were astray.
God never sent "Himself", and Jesus wasn't the first human "messiah" who was oppressed or killed.

It is a plain teaching of the Bible that this uncreated Jesus was sent by His Father to become a man..

I assume you refer to the philosophical preamble in "John".
That is the opinion of the anonymous author, and not reported to be Jesus' words.

A Jew could never accept that any man could be God. Jesus as a Jew prayed to "the Father", meaning God.
It makes no sense that God would send 1000's of human prophets to warn mankind, and then send "Himself" appearing as a human.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm talking about the gospel story and Jesus saying that He would be killed and rise again on the third day.
Muslims attack the gospel by saying it is not true.

I don't say "it is not true".
I say that it is most likely Jesus said that he would be betrayed and condemned, and would appear again.

It is not hard to see that those who wrote the Gospel believed that he actually died, and that is what Jesus was actually saying.

It is interesting to note that he ate broiled fish after his ordeal, and still had visible wounds. God knows best what actually happened.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Isn’t the Mahabharata longer than the Bible?

Yes, Mahabharata is longer than Bible. Bible has about 1 million words and 31,000 verses while Mahabharata has 1.8 million words is 100,000 verses of two lines each.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I prefer to think that it is because I have been called by God to His Son and accepted the faith offered and have been kept in the faith so that I do not fall out of the hand of God.
Nothing I have been presented with has convinced me that the Bible is not the truth. Interestingly many times the more the nonsense attacks come reigning down that is more support for it's truth,,,,,,,,,, and the more I see people not being able to comprehend simple things I tell them, the more I realise they must be being blinded.
How arrogant can one be ah. But we all believe what we believe and wonder why others can't see what we see.

Yes, others feel the same. Someone who was born somewhere else was called by God to a different religion. And there are some who realized there is no reason to believe anymore...

 

[YoursTrue]

Wait a second. I am not sure. Are you following the Biblical story where the only character that did not lie in the Adam and Eve myth was the Serpent?

Did they die?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, others feel the same. Someone who was born somewhere else was called by God to a different religion. And there are some who realized there is no reason to believe anymore...

The Bible says the good news will be preached in all the earth and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14. Jesus knew there were other religions on the earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did they die?

Not that day. The myth specifically says "On that day". Did they die on that day? And if you read the myth unless they took a specific action they were going to die anyway.

 

[Brian2]

And that is just pure BS. You need something stronger than apologetics.

The honest thing to do would have been for you to have admitted that you have nothing.

Well that was not nothing, so admitting that would have been dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that was not nothing, so admitting that would have been dishonest.

No, the comparison failed. Did you even read the verse that you preferred? It did not say that the person would die on that day. It said that his actions of that day would cause his death. A very different statement. You had less than nothing.

The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head.”

 

[Brian2]

I see no such thing.
I see that God sent many prophets to mankind in ancient civilisations, to guide them when they were astray.
God never sent "Himself", and Jesus wasn't the first human "messiah" who was oppressed or killed.

Heb 1:1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Heb 1:10 He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”
(a quote from Psalm 102:25-27 being applied to Jesus)

So now you can see that the New Testament teaches that through the Son all things have been created and therefore that Jesus cannot have been one of those things.
These verses also show that Jesus is pretty much equal to His Father and is not like any other prophet etc before Him and is in reality the only one who was sent from heaven.
But you are right, the Father did not send Himself, since the Father is not the Son.

I assume you refer to the philosophical preamble in "John".
That is the opinion of the anonymous author, and not reported to be Jesus' words.A Jew could never accept that any man could be God. Jesus as a Jew prayed to "the Father", meaning God.
It makes no sense that God would send 1000's of human prophets to warn mankind, and then send "Himself" appearing as a human.

Don't forget Paul also who taught that the uncreated Jesus was sent to become a man.
Don't forget the synoptic gospels who report Jesus parable of the bad tenants and how the owner of the vineyard sent His son to them, whom they mistreated and killed. (Matt 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19)
But there are other places where the Bible teaches that Jesus was sent to become a man from His Father in heaven and other places in John's gospel apart from the preamble also.
If you don't believe it you don't believe it.

 

[Brian2]

I don't say "it is not true".
I say that it is most likely Jesus said that he would be betrayed and condemned, and would appear again.

It is not hard to see that those who wrote the Gospel believed that he actually died, and that is what Jesus was actually saying.

It is interesting to note that he ate broiled fish after his ordeal, and still had visible wounds. God knows best what actually happened.

Those who were there also know what happened. If you think that God allowed them to think that Jesus was killed and raised again then it is God's fault that the gospel teaches what it does and I suppose that means that God wanted it to be that way until he sent Muhammad to clear up the mess that God created for us.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, others feel the same. Someone who was born somewhere else was called by God to a different religion. And there are some who realized there is no reason to believe anymore...

Yes believers in God have various religions.
And yes some people want to combine them all into one religion (Eg Baha'is) and some just give up and say they are all rubbish and etc.
I see Christianity as the best and the truth however and witnessed to by God in prophecy and by historical records.
But everything is attacked by those who don't believe and it becomes hard to see through the muck to see what the truth is without God leading the way.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not that day. The myth specifically says "On that day". Did they die on that day? And if you read the myth unless they took a specific action they were going to die anyway.

Did Satan tell them they would die or would not die? They did not have to die; but on the day they ate from the tree they were going TO die. The action on that day sealed the death penalty for them. So look at this and tell me if Satan told the truth:
He told Eve (Genesis chapter 3), “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
There are many points here to be learned, but the question we're concentrating on is, Did she die? Remember -- he said, "You will not surely die." Did Satan tell her the truth--that she would NOT die? (Did she die?) She did not die in the 24-hour period (if you consider that a day) from sun up (usually considered "daytime") to the next 24-hour time period, but the sentence was invoked on that day. Did she die is the question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Many may not. But they are still Christians. For example, are you familiar with the story of the unfaithful wife where Jesus said "Let the one without sin be the one to cast the first stone"? Did Jesus say that? If a person believes that Jesus did not say that would that mean that that person was not a Christian?

Well, let's see what the Pope recently said -
“And here I have something sad and painful to say,” the pope continued. “There are fake Christians: those who say, ‘Jesus Is risen’ or ‘I have been saved by Jesus’ — I am in new life, but I live a corrupt life.”
“And these fake Christians will end badly,” he said.
Pope Francis Warns that ‘Fake Christians’ Will ‘End Badly’ (breitbart.com)