Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You should worry about you before you get banned for personal attacks
All you can do when you dont agree is attack. 10,9,
You constantly dig to take what I type out of context because you dobrt have the knowledge to refute it. you dont even try because you cannot.
"There is no need to criticize the authenticity of the Scriptures when we can know that God was behind the scenes directing and guiding men in what to record."
because it says so in the text. well wow, that's what I call water tight reasoning. good to know some people put actual effort into presenting an intellectually honest argument... "got questions?" not originally, but the sophistry of that site does raise a few...
and how come god isn't "behind the scenes" directing the research into the origins of scripture?
I already explained the context of John 8:58, if that's what you mean.something you forgot to consider when taking the gospel of john into account
I would suggest that you read the article with the same name, How We Got Our Bible
I would have hope somewhere, I have put this short article about How does archaeology support the Bible? and equally short ones such as How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? ,How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say which books belong in the Bible?,
and finally, How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.? another short one which answers the questions for conservative Baptists, anyway.
Then please give us the worthless biased view supported by "atheist" but in a different thread.All of those links are pretty much worthless for real history and only offer a biased view only supported by theist
One particular difference with John (and a reason why more than one scholar thinks the ending was forged) is that the Disciples meet Jesus at a different place than in Matthew and thus John directly clashes with Matthew. So John 20:28 is suspect. For those who think John 20:28 is an authentic verse, the question is: Where did Jesus meet the Disciples?
but anyways."A week later his disciples were in the house again"
To the mountain. Locked rooms and Pharisee Patrols in the mountains?"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go."
Who else doubted besides Thomas in John's account?but some doubted
It says they were in the same house,
but anyways.
To the mountain. Locked rooms and Pharisee Patrols in the mountains?
Who else doubted besides Thomas in John's account?
And in Luke's account,this takes place in Jerusalem, which is not exactly in Galilee.
jesus and god were not one but in one accord
big difference.
what an awful thing...
Please help me out here. I only converted to Christianity a month ago. Before that I was a Mormon. As a Mormon I believed that Jesus was the son of God but not actually God incarnate.
I'm struggling with what I now believe which is that I don't know what to believe.
I see nothing in the above list convincing me Jesus is God. I'm open to the concept but I see Jesus still as a sort of demi-God. Which I know is through the lens of Mormonism but I have nothing else but 40 years as a Mormon.
Also, is it really that important? Can't I just accept Jesus as my savior and just not worry about his nature?
Thank you.
How about considering the fact that the word "one" has multiple legitimate meanings. Even if the Father and the Son were not "one" in substance, they could still be "one" in everything that really matters. Aren't perfect, absolute, incomprehensible unity of will, purpose, mind, heart, power and glory enough? Why is a Son who is physically distinct from His own Father in some way a heresy, even when the Bible makes this relationship absolutely clear? The word one has a number of meanings, one of which is "united." Trinitarians insist that one must be understood to mean a numerical unit, a single "substance," instead of granting that it is much more reasonable, not to mention scripturally consistent, to understand it as meaning "united."
Consider the following verses:
Exodus 24:3 ...and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul
Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In each of these verses, we can see that the word "one" is used to denote unity, as opposed to an actual number of units.
i made my point....and i provided biblical supportIt isn't that big a difference if you could prove it. The problem is that you can't prove it and haven't even attempted to prove it.
apparently god would have preferred it if people were unaware of their wrong doing... ignorance is bliss.
You are correct in your appraisal. It would be much better if people could run their own lives without sin. I believe that God would like that also. For that reason God is willing for the world to suffer while we go through the learning process just as a parent must be prepared for a child to fall off his bicycle while learning to ride it. I just happen to be one of those children that has no desire to fall during the learning process and will only want Him to let go when I am am totally confident that I won't.
Stop polluting the forum with this thing!I don't want to ...