• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

leroy

Well-Known Member
Personally speaking, I agree it's not a good reason. I am agnostic with regard to a God. I am atheist with regard to Jesus. I see no justification for believing the Jesus of the gospels was real. There is no evidence such a person lived. I always say it's possible an ordinary man upon which the legend was based may have lived, we don't know. I and most secular scholars agree that the NT is not evidence, it's a statement of faith--nothing more. There's not a scintilla of evidence Jesus resurrected. I don't say "there's no evidence outside the Bible" because the Bible is not evidence. That is the general consensus outside the Christian bubble.
Perhaps I misunderstood you at some point, so if I misrepresent you, please feel free to correct me.

It seems to me that you said that you are no longer a Christian because there might be mistakes in the bible, or that there might be things attributes to Jesus that he never said.

My opinion is that you are going too far, even if true that is not justification to reject Christianity, it´s like saying that one should reject evolution because there are things in the origin of species that are wrong.


As for the evidence for the resurrection:

The consensus among scholars is that

1 Jesus died on the cross

2 The disciples (and many others) had an experience that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

The claim is that the resurrection is the best explanation for these 2 facts, if you have a better explanation feel free to share it, but until then you shouldn’t reject Christianity.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
IMO, your interpretation makes a mockery of plain English! Yes, Jesus is a prince, but he's the 'prince of life', not 'the prince of this world'!

In verse 31 'the prince of this world' is to be 'cast out'. In verse 32 it says, 'And I' (showing that 'I' is not the same as 'the prince of this world') will 'draw all men unto me'.
In verse 31, Jesus referred to Himself as the prince of this world. Jesus never said anything about being the prince of life; those are your words, not words from the scriptures.

Yes, the prince of this world shall be cast out, rejected, as Jesus was, but Jesus would nevertheless draw all men unto him after His ascension. “This he said, signifying what death he should die.”
Let's add to this two more passages in John that mention 'the prince of this world'.

John 14:30. 'Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.' IS THIS CONFIRMATION ENOUGH?! The 'prince of this world' has nothing in Christ.
Jesus was the prince of this world when He was IN this world, but AFTER Baha’u’llah (the Blessed Beauty) came, He was the Prince of this world, and Baha’u’llah had nothing in Jesus. After Me (Jesus) all will draw grace from Me (Jesus, through Baha’u’llah ), but He (Baha’u’llah ) is independent of Me (Jesus), and will draw no grace from Me (Jesus). That is, He (Baha’u’llah ) is rich beyond any grace of Mine.

The meaning of John 14:30 is explained below:

“Thou didst ask as to chapter 14, verse 30 of the Gospel of John, where the Lord Christ saith, ‘Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the Prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.’ The Prince of this world is the Blessed Beauty; and ‘hath nothing in Me’ signifieth: after Me all will draw grace from Me, but He is independent of Me, and will draw no grace from Me. That is, He is rich beyond any grace of Mine.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
John 16:11. 'Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.' Is Jesus Christ JUDGED? Or is he the Judge?

If your interpretation of this one title can be so far from the truth, what are we to believe about your other interpretations of scripture?
Jesus was not the judge, God is the judge. Jesus came in the station of the Son, not as a judge, whereas Baha’u’llah came in the station of the Father, and stood in judgment.

The verses below (7-10) refer to Baha’u’llah , who was the Comforter who Jesus sent from the Father.

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;


Verse 11 refers to Jesus, who was judged.

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

The verses below (13-14) refer to Baha’u’llah, who glorified Jesus and vindicated Jesus of judgment.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah wrote:


“We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 86
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
When Jesus was resurrected, he was the firstfruits of the harvest. This means that he was the first 'body and soul' to be resurrected. The body of Jesus was resurrected, and it was changed from a corruptible body into an incorrruptible and immortal body.

1 Corinthians 15:20. 'But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of the dead.'

1 Corinthians 15:23. 'But every man in his own order: Christ the firtsfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.'

1 Corinthians 15:42. 'So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:'
Firstly, I do not believe that Jesus was resurrected in a physical body.

1 Corinthians 15:42. 'So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:'

That means it was sown in a physical body which is subject to corruption (decay) and raised in a spiritual body which is not subject to corruption (it is incorruptible), since it cannot ever decay.

The physical body of Jesus was not resurrected and changed from a corruptible body into an incorruptible and immortal body because a physical body cannot be changed into a spiritual body that will never die. Rather, there are two different kinds of bodies, as Paul said:

--- The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.

--- For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.


What Paul wrote below is right on the money. I picked the most pertinent verses from the chapter because that helps to see it clearer. Our physical bodies will die and we will be raised as spiritual bodies. Paul says that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God and that means they cannot exist in heaven. When Paul says these dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever, he is referring to the spiritual world (heaven), which will last forever.

1 Corinthians 15:40-54 New Living Translation

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.

44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.

51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!

54 Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die,[c] this Scripture will be fulfilled: “Death is swallowed up in victory.[d]


Read full chapter
This information tells us that Jesus was not just a soul ascending to heaven. In Acts 1:10,11. it says, 'And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.'


Would the disciples have seen a soul ascending into heaven? Clearly not. They saw the risen Jesus ascend into heaven. And it follows that if the risen Jesus ascended then Daniel is referring to Jesus when he says, one 'like the Son of man' appeared before the 'Ancient of days' [Daniel 7:13,14.].
The life and death process for Jesus was no different from any other human being. When we are alive in a physical body, our physical body has a soul that animates it, but after our physical body dies, our soul leaves the physical body and is resurrected in a spiritual body.

In Acts 1:9-11, Jesus was a spiritual body with a soul ascending into heaven.

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The disciples were staring up into the sky. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky. The two men then wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky and said that the same Jesus who was taken up to heaven will return as He went to heaven. It does not say that the disciples saw a physical body go up.

Jesus ascended in a spiritual body, not on a physical body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since the disciples could not see the spiritual body the way the angels could. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits.

Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God. Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
Perhaps I misunderstood you at some point, so if I misrepresent you, please feel free to correct me.

It seems to me that you said that you are no longer a Christian because there might be mistakes in the bible, or that there might be things attributes to Jesus that he never said.

My opinion is that you are going too far, even if true that is not justification to reject Christianity, it´s like saying that one should reject evolution because there are things in the origin of species that are wrong.


As for the evidence for the resurrection:

The consensus among scholars is that

1 Jesus died on the cross

2 The disciples (and many others) had an experience that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

The claim is that the resurrection is the best explanation for these 2 facts, if you have a better explanation feel free to share it, but until then you shouldn’t reject Christianity.

My reason for dropping Christianity was primarily finding out Jesus of the gospels never lived. If he didn't live, then there were no apostles and history bears this out. Outside the Bible there's not a single mention of them in the 1st century. That good enough for me to conclude none of them were real. And if none of them were real then there were no attestations to Jesus' resurrection. So......no Jesus, no apostles = no resurrection.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And if none of them were real then there were no attestations to Jesus' resurrection. So......no Jesus, no apostles = no resurrection.
Why do you think that there had to be a bodily resurrection in order for there to be a Jesus?
Jesus could still exist absent a bodily resurrection.
There could have even been apostles absent a resurrection for as we know the apostles did not write the gospels.
Men made up stories about Jesus rising from the grave, that's all those were.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
Why do you think that there had to be a bodily resurrection in order for there to be a Jesus?
Jesus could still exist absent a bodily resurrection.
There could have even been apostles absent a resurrection for as we know the apostles did not write the gospels.
Men made up stories about Jesus rising from the grave, that's all those were.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death
I'm perfectly fine with a spiritual resurrection providing we can establish there was in fact a real Jesus who was the son of God. But in my opinion no such man existed because we have no physical evidence of him from historians from that period. But the truth is Jesus DID have a kind of spiritual resurrection when he was chosen as the avatar for a new religion called Christianity that was slowly spreading throughout the Roman empire. Previously someone who had the name Yeshua who was crucified for sedition had died and that was the end of him. Then gradually all these stories of a man working miracles began to circulate, you know like how people started claiming to see Elvis after he died. Things snowballed and we get to Constantine choosing Christianity as the official religion of the Roman empire in 325 purely for political reasons. But for that fluke Christian would have eventually died out, I believe.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. And the angels will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13 41-42

Lots of love for the lost, eh? There's plenty more "love" where that came from.

You have chosen a passage of scripture that relates to the vengeance of God, not to the ministry of Jesus.

2 Peter 3:9. 'The Lord is not slack concerning his promise [to return to judge], as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'

Why should God, having given people every chance to repent of sin, not 'draw a line in the sand'? You have a lifetime to seek your own salvation.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
In verse 31, Jesus referred to Himself as the prince of this world. Jesus never said anything about being the prince of life; those are your words, not words from the scriptures.

Wrong again.

Acts 3:15. Peter said, 'But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.'


The verses below (7-10) refer to Baha’u’llah , who was the Comforter who Jesus sent from the Father.

This is an important issue for Christians. Christians understand the Comforter to be the Holy Spirit [John 14:26], the Spirit of God in Christ. The Comforter cannot be Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah was born on earth, in Tehran, in 1817. He died in Acre, Israel, in 1892.

The Holy Spirit is sent from heaven; the Holy Spirit has no beginning or end.

Pentecost [Acts 2] marks the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Church, the body of Christ. This was the coming of the Comforter, promised by Jesus. If Baha'u'llah was the intended Comforter, then humanity would have had to wait 18 hundred years for the promise of Christ to be fulfilled. There would have been no Church for 1800 years!

Luke 24:49.
'And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.'

Jesus spoke these words before he ascended to heaven. The Ascension took place ten days before Pentecost.

I THINK, TRAILBLAZER, THAT YOU HAVE USED UP ALL YOUR WRIGGLE ROOM!
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
My reason for dropping Christianity was primarily finding out Jesus of the gospels never lived. If he didn't live, then there were no apostles and history bears this out. Outside the Bible there's not a single mention of them in the 1st century. That good enough for me to conclude none of them were real. And if none of them were real then there were no attestations to Jesus' resurrection. So......no Jesus, no apostles = no resurrection.
Well do you realize that most scholars accept that Jesus and the Apostles where real persons? What are they missing? What do you know that scholars ignore?

Outside the Bible there's not a single mention of them in the 1st century. That good enough for me to conclude none of them were real.
Why? Would you apply that level of skepticism with all historical characters? We don’t have 1st century sources for Pontius Pilate ether, do you reject the historicy of Pilate too?
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
Well do you realize that most scholars accept that Jesus and the Apostles where real persons? What are they missing? What do you know that scholars ignore?
Seeking said:
Most Scholars accept the existence of the apostles as a matter of tradition. Look for proof for them though and you come up blank.

"These 12 Men Shaped Christianity—But Were They Real?
Historical evidence of the Apostles is scarce, and some of it contradicts core Christian beliefs."

These 12 Men Shaped Christianity—But Were They Real?

Why? Would you apply that level of skepticism with all historical characters? We don’t have 1st century sources for Pontius Pilate ether, do you reject the historicy of Pilate too?

Tacitus mentions Pilate. He doesn't mention Jesus, he mention the Christus. People just assume he means Jesus but there were many Christs in Palestine in that time. Christ just means anointed one. That could be a hundred people back then claiming to be the messiah. Who else mentions Pilate outside the Bible?
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
Tacitus mentions Pilate. He doesn't mention Jesus, he mention the Christus. People just assume he means Jesus but there were many Christs in Palestine in that time. Christ just means anointed one. That could be a hundred people back then claiming to be the messiah. Who else mentions Pilate outside the Bible?
Irrelevant Tacitus is not from the 1st century, so by your standards it doesn’t count

you said: (implying that you only accept 1st century sources)
Outside the Bible there's not a single mention of them in the 1st century.
So ether change your standards or reject the existence of Pilate

My best guess is that your rejection of Christianity and the existence of Jesus and the Disciples is caused by you applying very high and unrealistic standards of evidence.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don’t know and as far as I am aware, nobody knows why Paul went to Damascus….. but perhaps I am wrong. What was his goal? Whats your point?
Then you have not studied the Bible or Paul. It tells you why he went there in the Bible. You should try to do some of your own homework at times. And doing your homework includes more than trying to cherry pick verses that support you.

9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Song, you asked:



I just showed you. Jesus threatens hell numerous times. Are threats a signs of love? God doesn't love the lost. He threatens to burn them to a crisp. Some love. :rolleyes:

Warnings are given in love. God wants us to repent! We cannot hope to spent eternity with a righteous God if we insist on living sinful lives.

Justice is a framework within which mercy has meaning.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Then you have not studied the Bible or Paul. It tells you why he went there in the Bible. You should try to do some of your own homework at times. And doing your homework includes more than trying to cherry pick verses that support you.

9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
The way I understand that verse, is that Paul went to Damascus for whatever purpose (an unknown purpose), and if he finds some Christians in the way he will arrest them…..is my understanding correct?................do you understand something different?....
(I am just sharing my own layman understanding of the verse, I have no idea if I am supposed to understand something different)


What is your point?

verses that support you.
How that verse does support you? I honestly don’t see your point and I honestly don’t understand your argument.

Why is Paul’s goal relevant? is the passage historically wrong? is there a contradiction?
Besides that verse is from Acts, not form Paul, so even if there a mistake in that Passage, it wouldn’t imply that Paul is unreliable (at most it would prove that the author of Acts is unreliable)............so whats your point?
 
Last edited:

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
Warnings are given in love. God wants us to repent! We cannot hope to spent eternity with a righteous God if we insist on living sinful lives.

Justice is a framework within which mercy has meaning.

I guess God send us to hell to burn to a crisp forever out of love too. And please, none of this "God doesn't send us to hell, we send ourselves to hell." Like hell we do! That was just invented to get God off the hook for something he's clearly guilty of doing. God is the one that pronounces the sentence, he's the one that sends us there.
 
Top