How Christians Believe in Jesus

[Muffled]

I am not a Christian, but I love Jesus. And I have seen and experienced major miracles myself happening in Churches in Jesus name

So, whether or not Jesus was for real 2020 years ago I don't know and I will never know for sure, and not even important to me

Most important for me is that I know Jesus is "alive" now, and that is the only thing that counts for me; living in the now

I believe it is impossible to love Jesus and not become a Christian.

 

[stvdv]

I believe it is impossible to love Jesus and not become a Christian.

I believe it is impossible to love Jesus and to become a Christian.

 

[rational experiences]

A human is taught do not false idolise

Philippians 2:9-11 ESV / 3 helpful votes
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. What Does the Bible Say About False Idols?

That status is false idolisation.

How is a name above that of every other name? Not true nor real.

First is said in science relativity for the survival of the human race...GOD O the planet is stone. First and original.

God O the stone created the Heavenly spirits interactive with cold empty space...a womb and in maths....fake reference female said space is a WOMB.

Now if a male who owns a penis to claim I am a male talks about space being a WOMB...then obviously as he talks about God as an entity of unknown history, then God is not any male is it....nor can stone be detailed to be owned by males...yet science males own that claim, preached that claim, ownership of all states natural by their owned human intentions.

If you cared to use real human reasoning, as a natural spiritually aware human.

The saying is "and who made you God?"

Therefore out of space emptiness and pressure changed the volcanic gas eruption into out of space which is not the same event of a volcano today releasing gases into a gas mass present atmosphere....so ORIGIN is gone about the Heavenly body....for any conscious perusal theme.

As a spiritual self I was taught that the status of Jesus was a really evil act, so why reverence or idolise it. Ask the Church who previously were occult scientists why you kept preaching science? The answer, I was preaching against the occult science attack, hence I had to teach the public....I was wrong.

Yet when a Preacher preaches does he claim he is wrong? No....being the biggest mistake of a spiritual life and mind for life survival. For you do not include self as being owner historically of being wrong.

As a science victim my own self, until you become that victim or live personally in health a victim of past science cause....seeing we should all be equal, of equal beauty and perfection...which is not stated in spirituality actually...for the ego disappears....when you live with self purpose.

We should not have one condition changed in our body. Yet science says our first 2 original human parents owned the same genetics for all of humanity. So just have a big look at how changed we all are. Part of the RELATIVITY teachings about life in the change to God the stone face our planet.

If you idolise self sacrifice and destruction then you are just as wrong as someone who caused it....for then it supports human reasoning to allow its causes to exist because a spiritual teaching says so. Not right in a rational spiritual life and mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On what basis do you say the NT authors are "biased sources"?

Because they are religious believers who wrote down what they believed religiously....

Was it because they refused to recant unto martyrdom?

Was it because they risked Roman persecution and persecution from their own Jewish people?

Was it because they wrote at great length and claimed some eyewitness accounts?

Was it because they cited hundreds of prophecies given hundreds of years before the NT events?

Was it because they used mishneh, standards of logic, apologetics and reason that were established centuries before they wrote?

Was it because millions trusted the God they wrote about, until 2/3 of Earth, Christian and Muslim, regarding Jesus as the Jewish prophesied Messiah?

Was it because their claims are NOT circular, since rather than being mere cross-claims of themselves, they are claiming fulfillment of OT predictions?

No, it's because they are religious believers who wrote down their religious beliefs.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because they are religious believers who wrote down what they believed religiously....




No, it's because they are religious believers who wrote down their religious beliefs.

So de facto your anti-supernatural bias is projected to say others are biased. It almost sounds doable but in this case, the writers wouldn't be "biased" but liars.

I noticed you didn't respond to any of the reasons I gave why they were honest, not biased!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You specifically said 12 writers or 12 streams or writers wrote the NT if I am not mistaken.

So who wrote Hebrews? Specific response must be known to you to make that claim. Not a general statement like “Jewish-Christians” wrote it. In that case all of these so called “12” will fall into some bracket like that. Then you don’t need 12, you could have originally said “Christians” wrote the NT. One stop shop for any question.

invalid response.

Thus, since you said 12, which of these 12 wrote Hebrews? Are you saying “Jewish Christians” are one count of these “12”? The Who are the other “11”?

who wrote Hebrews?

I believe Paul wrote Hebrews, others believe Apollos wrote it. I use "12" to denote that 12 teams of writers (authors and scribes/helpers/eyewitnesses) all went crazy near-simultaneously, risking expulsion from Jewish life and Romans persecution--not including apocryphal books--which up the number from 12 quite a bit.


Or Occam's says 12 teams of writers weren't all nuts/high at once. One man = Book of Mormon, Qu'ran, etc.


40, not 12, teams of writers, gave the Bible over 1,500 years--kings and peasants, poets and historians, shepherds and administrators--all preach the Christ.

 

[firedragon]

I believe Paul wrote Hebrews,

I know you believe that.

But see, bible scholars don't believe Paul wrote it. Its anonymous. So its between your belief and the scholars.

Your prerogative.

And you are speaking of the whole bible, I was referring to one person saying 12 people or 12 streams wrote the New Testament. Not the whole Bible.

 

[Vouthon]

But see, bible scholars don't believe Paul wrote it. Its anonymous. So its between your belief and the scholars.

And not just contemporary biblical scholars.

It was recognised by a few of the early church fathers - those fully conversant in Greek - that the sophisticated vocabulary, wordplays and syntax of Hebrews do not fit Paul's writing style.

Indeed, the church father Origen actually said according to Eusebius: "But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows” (Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11-14).

Origen wrote:

That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.
​

It is virtually impossible, based on the Greek, for Paul to have written this homily (its structured as a homily more than an Epistle).

 

[firedragon]

And not just contemporary biblical scholars.

It was recognised by a few of the early church fathers - those fully conversant in Greek - that the sophisticated vocabulary, wordplays and syntax of Hebrews do not fit Paul's writing style.

Indeed, the church father Origen actually said according to Eusebius: "But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows” (Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11-14).

Origen also wrote:

That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.
​

It is virtually impossible, based on the Greek, for Paul to have written this homily (its structured as a homily more than an Epistle).

Yes brother. This is basic curriculum. Nothing special. Everyone practically knows that Hebrews is anonymous.

But somehow, people have a habit of saying its Paul and they believe it. Well, its a faith statement which is invalid for an objective discussion.

Thanks.