Merciful God?? I think not.

[Runewolf1973]

Shhh You're giving monkeys a bad name :run:

Yah, monkeys know better.

 

[Falvlun]

Yah, monkeys know better.

Not to be a party pooper, but I do believe it should be apes, and not monkeys, in the genealogy.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Not to be a party pooper, but I do believe it should be apes, and not monkeys, in the genealogy.

I thought originally they were more along the lines of lemurs. Apes works for me though. Perhaps it's all just a matter of how you wanna peel your banana.

 

[Paroxys]

The Bible from beginning to end tells ONE story, the story of Jesus Christ. The prophecies concerning him begin with Genesis 3:15. His genealogy goes perfectly through the Bible starting with the patriarch Abraham, then to Abraham's son Isaac, then to Jacob, then to Judah then to Perez, and it keeps going through the prophets and kings. A total of 64 sons are born in a straight unbroken line from Abraham to Jesus Christ.
There are no varying accounts in the Bible. One story. One genealogy. One family. One nation. One universe. One devil. One Savior. We are all sinners. Jesus died for all.
Everything in the Bible is there as it relates to Israel. IE: Cyrus king of Persia is in there because he is the king that allowed the Jews to return to their homeland. Nebuchadnezzar is there because he is the one who had the dream Daniel the prophets interpreted when Daniel was a captive there around 600 BC.
The Roman emperors are there because Jesus was born during that time.
God calls Abram out of Babylonia. God begins a family line and a nation, which is Israel in which a bloodline ( a Jewish family) will produce Jesus Christ.

The I’m Feeling Lucky Button on Google gave me this:

“There are too many differences to describe in a short answer, so I will restrict my answer to the birth and crucifixion of Jesus.

Of the four Gospels of the Old Testament, only Matthew and Luke have a story of the birth of Jesus. These can be compared:

• In Matthew, the angel appeared to Joseph and told him that a son would be born. After Jesus was born, his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod, who killed all the infants in an attempt to kill Jesus. After the death of Herod, the family returned, but then decided to migrate to Galilee. Wise men brought expensive gifts.
• In Luke, the angel appeared to Mary and told her that she would have a son. After Jesus was born, his family attended the Temple in the normal way and then returned peacefully to their home town of Nazareth in Galilee. Shepherds came twice to the stable to see Jesus. In the crucifixion narrative, Mark and Luke recorded a great darkness for three hours and the tearing of temple curtain. Matthew embellished this with an earthquake and the dead rising from their graves and walking into the city, with another earthquake to roll away the stone. John mentioned no supernatural event related to the crucifixion.

All the resurrection accounts differ. In Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw the angel who caused the earthquake sitting on the stone. The original Mark's Gospel did not mention any appearances of the resurrected Jesus, and this is absent from our earliest manuscripts. However, an ending was added later to Mark's Gospel to harmonize it as far as possible with those of Matthew and Luke.”
If the Bible tells but one story, why are there varying accounts of just this one aspect?

Which story is accurate? Elements of these stories are necessarily mutually exclusive, and again, this is only ONE ASPECT.

If I sound arrogant or pretentious I'm sorry I don't mean to be. The Bible tells the story of Jesus Christ. How he came into the world and why and how and when and where. It tells who he is. And what he did. It answers every question about HIM. The Bible is about Jesus Christ, that's it, no one else.
What has happened is many have confused themselves when really the Bible tells one story.

See above, and here’s a question, why is his name Jesus rather than say Dorian, or any other name for that matter? Here’s another… Why does Jesus give a damn? Another… What does Jesus exactly look like? One more for good measure… How the hell is virgin birth possible?

Read the promise from God to you I have posted. He doesn't respond to pride ( I don't imply you are filled with pride)

HE said to you and anyone;

AND YE SHALL SEE ME
AND YE SHALL FIND ME
WHEN YE SHALL SEARCH FOR ME
WITH ALL YOUR HEART
AND I WILL BE FOUND OF YOU
AND I WILL BE FOUND OF YOU
WHEN YE SHALL SEEK FOR ME
WITH ALL YOUR HEART.
JEREMIAH 29: 13,14

Where does it say here that God doesn’t respond to pride? It seems that’s just an arbitrary imposition of your own. By this, my “hypothetical” still stands – What if we earnestly seeked with all our heart and found nothing?

Now if an intruder entered your home would you be able to shoot him if your life was at at stake?

The implication here is that Christians would pull the trigger and shoot, hence could be killers (and sinners)?

Sinners need to be saved from the wrath to come. Christians will escape it.

So only Christians are saved? I thought Christ died for all our sins, Christian or not.

Rome is the first beast who was wounded with a deadly wound in 476 AD. Its deadly wound was healed in 1776 AD. No other place could be the revived Roman empire Daniel the prophet spoke of but America.

[FONT=&quot]Explain. In terms of similarities, 1700’s England was way closer to the Roman Empire and America immediately after the revolution.
[/FONT]

The signs of the times. All these things must happen before the return of Christ. The world is going to get so bad, only the return of Christ can fix it. It is getting now that they want to chip us with the verichip.
If evil was more widespread we would have no love anywhere. Love is still greater. His grace is still with us.

[FONT=&quot]Why? Just because the Bible says so? What makes our time so special? Why is our time so much more right for the return of Christ. I’m sorry but you’re empirically disproven here, people have been saying since the Bible has been published that their current time was the [/FONT]

Your A and B is a not proof of a non- omnipotent God. Is it alright with you that God knows something you don't know. Can you count every drop of water in the ocean? No you can't but he can.
No one can understand fully the mind of God and to think he can is nonsense. But he does give us the whole story of the Savior of us all.

[FONT=&quot]No it’s not a proof, it’s a choice, logically, you can only have either A or B. They’re mutually exclusive because a truly omnipotent and wholly good God would not create evil. If it is possible to have both evil and truly omnipotent and wholly God exist, tell me why, logically. Not just: “I don’t know, but Jesus died for your sins.”
[/FONT]

I repeat, the Bible tells one story the story of Jesus Christ beginning in Genesis.
All confusion concerning it doesn't nullify its simple and orderly story of Jesus Christ.
Many have "translated" the Bible or "interpreted it and I think all because of pride in themselves.

[FONT=&quot]So are you fluent in Latin? Have you read the original Bible in the Latin it was written? Nearly every single Bible out there is a translation, and necessarily interpretation as translation is never perfect. And you’re not answering the consideration of the Gospels not included in the Bible. What about the council of Nicaea Council and the Nicene Creed which essentially decided what should be included in Bible? Or do you not believe in this?
[/FONT]

Correction. Man sinned against God. Not the other way around.

Not implying he did. My question is, if God were truly wholly good and omnipotent, why would he create sin in the first place? Or rather, why would he allow the possibility of sin to exist?

God didn't make it complicated. We did.
I will not tell you anything except what I said that the Bible is only about Jesus Christ and no one else. Anything else there in the Bible is there as it relates to Jesus Christ.

How is this any different from "But Jesus died for your sins?"

 

[Linda777]

Paroxys;1347083]
The I’m Feeling Lucky Button on Google gave me this:

“There are too many differences to describe in a short answer, so I will restrict my answer to the birth and crucifixion of Jesus.

Of the four Gospels of the Old Testament, only Matthew and Luke have a story of the birth of Jesus. These can be compared:

• In Matthew, the angel appeared to Joseph and told him that a son would be born. After Jesus was born, his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod, who killed all the infants in an attempt to kill Jesus. After the death of Herod, the family returned, but then decided to migrate to Galilee. Wise men brought expensive gifts.
• In Luke, the angel appeared to Mary and told her that she would have a son. After Jesus was born, his family attended the Temple in the normal way and then returned peacefully to their home town of Nazareth in Galilee. Shepherds came twice to the stable to see Jesus. In the crucifixion narrative, Mark and Luke recorded a great darkness for three hours and the tearing of temple curtain. Matthew embellished this with an earthquake and the dead rising from their graves and walking into the city, with another earthquake to roll away the stone. John mentioned no supernatural event related to the crucifixion.

All this has been refuted. I don't need to go into it. There are many books out explaining all this. Difficulties in the Bible is one book. There are more but one will suffice. Why repeat what is available on the Internet or in bookstores.

All the resurrection accounts differ. In Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw the angel who caused the earthquake sitting on the stone. The original Mark's Gospel did not mention any appearances of the resurrected Jesus, and this is absent from our earliest manuscripts. However, an ending was added later to Mark's Gospel to harmonize it as far as possible with those of Matthew and Luke.”
If the Bible tells but one story, why are there varying accounts of just this one aspect?

All been refuted, explained. If I explain I will simply be repeating what you yourself could easily find if you were genuinely interested.

Which story is accurate? Elements of these stories are necessarily mutually exclusive, and again, this is only ONE ASPECT.

See my above answers

See above, and here’s a question, why is his name Jesus rather than say Dorian, or any other name for that matter? Here’s another… Why does Jesus give a damn? Another… What does Jesus exactly look like? One more for good measure… How the hell is virgin birth possible?

For openers God can do anything.

Where does it say here that God doesn’t respond to pride? It seems that’s just an arbitrary imposition of your own. By this, my “hypothetical” still stands – What if we earnestly seeked with all our heart and found nothing?

I believe what he said is true. If you don't believe it that is your choice.

The implication here is that Christians would pull the trigger and shoot, hence could be killers (and sinners)?

You're being facetious right?

So only Christians are saved? I thought Christ died for all our sins, Christian or not.

He was the sacrifice for our sins, but we must turn to him in repentance.

Explain. In terms of similarities, 1700’s England was way closer to the Roman Empire and America immediately after the revolution.

And America came right out of England, right? America is the revived Roman empire and that is a fact. Anyone who would study history and the Bible would find this out.

[FONT="]Why? Just because the Bible says so? What makes our time so special? Why is our time so much more right for the return of Christ. I’m sorry but you’re empirically disproven here, people have been saying since the Bible has been published that their current time was the [/FONT]

Time to us isn't the same to God.

No it’s not a proof, it’s a choice, logically, you can only have either A or B. They’re mutually exclusive because a truly omnipotent and wholly good God would not create evil. If it is possible to have both evil and truly omnipotent and wholly God exist, tell me why, logically. Not just: “I don’t know, but Jesus died for your sins.”

So what are you saying that we created evil? Satan did? I did not create evil. I did not created myself. I didn't ask to be here and neither did you. Evil was here when we got here. God said that he creates evil in Isaiah 45:7 and he uses the present tense.

So are you fluent in Latin? Have you read the original Bible in the Latin it was written? Nearly every single Bible out there is a translation, and necessarily interpretation as translation is never perfect. And you’re not answering the consideration of the Gospels not included in the Bible. What about the council of Nicaea Council and the Nicene Creed which essentially decided what should be included in Bible? Or do you not believe in this?

God is quite capable of preserving what he said to begin with regardless of what anyone does.

Not implying he did. My question is, if God were truly wholly good and omnipotent, why would he create sin in the first place? Or rather, why would he allow the possibility of sin to exist?

You know this is the called in the Bible the "mystery of iniquity" and we have what he said about it in the Bible. No other book has the answer for sin but the Bible. The only remedy for it is Jesus Christ since he is the one who died and rose again to get rid of it.

How is this any different from "But Jesus died for your sins?"

Sin brings death. Sin is the cause of all the pain on earth. All the tragedies on earth are the result of disobedience against the Law of Moses and any sincere honest person could easily find this out if he studied the Bible and history.

 

[Linda777]

Linda, do you subscribe to the belief that Jesus was a virgin birth?

I know that nothing is hard for God to do. Of course he was a virgin birth.
People accuse God and question God that this couldn't be.
It is a simple thing for the spirit of God to make a virgin pregnant and he did.
That is why Jesus was called the Son of God.

 

[Linda777]

No you can't because the Bible is but man's words and not the WORD of God. Besides, WHAt BiBle are you talking about? there are sooooo many.

I can prove the Bilbe is not true. But not in a few posts on a message board. It is a little more involved than that. But I can most certainly prove beyond any shadow of a doubt the Bible is not the written word of God. It involves the entire Bible from Genesis one to the Revelation of Jesus Christ 22. I can prove the Bible and secular history don't agree.
I don't believe a fairy tale and I don't look for someone to pull a rabbit out of a hat.
I searched and studied myself and God is faithful that WHOEVER seeks IT will find IT. You can't blame me for your failure to seek. IT answers, if you ask.
BUT NOT IF YOU DONT ASK, what do you do if you think you already know?

When you 'found God' did you know what you were looking for. if you did, then you found what you wanted to find. if you didn't, then how do you know now?

Here have a taste of this:

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's butt with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His butt?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's butt, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the snot out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His butt."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the butt?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's butt with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's butt often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the snot out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's butt, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's butt for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's butt He'll kick the snot out of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His butt?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His butt. Other times we kiss Karl's butt, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's butt. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His butt, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the Desk of Karl

1. Kiss Hank's butt and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the snot out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's butt or He'll kick the snot out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the snot out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's butt for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

Absurd.

 

[challupa]

I know that nothing is hard for God to do. Of course he was a virgin birth.
People accuse God and question God that this couldn't be.
It is a simple thing for the spirit of God to make a virgin pregnant and he did.
That is why Jesus was called the Son of God.
How do you explain these two discrepancies in what you have said?
The teachings of the Bible and the teachings of the RCC are as different as night and day. Peter was not a pope. Mary didn't ascend to heaven.
The priesthood is no longer needed since Jesus our high priest who came from Judah's tribe and not Levi's tells it all. Read Romans and Hebrews. Youa re way off.

If Jesus was a virgin birth then he is not the son of Joseph. You have established this truth by saying so in the first part of the above quote. Okay fair enough that is what you believe.

Now the next part of the quote. The RCC is not Christianity you have said in other posts. Now you say that the RCC do not follow the bible. However, it was the RCC that determined what would be the cannonized bible. They chose the books that would be included into the bible. The Bible is 100% determined by RCC. They left out other gospels that they decided didn't send the message they wanted sent. You just can't ignore that one very important piece of information just because you are not comfortable with it or have a dislike for the RCC (I am not RCC by the way).

Then you state that Jesus came from Judah not Levi. That is in direct contradiction to your statement that Jesus was a virgin birth. If Jesus is a virgin birth, he would not be from the house of Judah at all. He would only be affiliated with the House of Levi because that was the House that his mother Mary came from. How do you explain this discrepancy.

Personally I believe that any religion that teaches we are sinners from birth and that we should fear God is unhealthy. It divides the world, makes people have low self esteem and it makes people think that this human existence is worthless and the only good thing is to die and go to heaven.

 

[Luminous]

I know that nothing is hard for God to do. Of course he was a virgin birth.
People accuse God and question God that this couldn't be.
It is a simple thing for the spirit of God to make a virgin pregnant and he did.
That is why Jesus was called the Son of God.

No virgin birth, Jesus simply manifested himself in front of the two jews and they had to adopt him as their child.
Oh wait, does the old testimate say that the messaih had to come form David and solomon's liniage?

King James sanctioned the evangelical Bible. Some thing that the RCC included were taken away to benifit the Anglican Church.

 

[Luminous]

Absurd.

Me: Yes, Mary; how absurd indeed. Don't worry, just keep kissin ***, you'll get that million.

Mary: It is a fact that Hank exists and that Karl cannot lie!
Me: :bow:Sure ; Bye Mary have a good one. I hope i didn't burst your bubble, :wishes:!

 

[Kathryn]

No virgin birth, Jesus simply manifested himself in front of the two jews and they had to adopt him as their child.
Oh wait, does the old testimate say that the messaih had to come form David and solomon's liniage?

King James sanctioned the evangelical Bible. Some thing that the RCC included were taken away to benifit the Anglican Church.

Don't even get me started on King James!!!!! LOL

 

[faithofabraham]

I don't "believe" in a God, nor do I have "faith" in a God. I don't practice a "faith", or a "belief".

I KNOW "God" and I UNDERSTAND "God"

I don't need "faith" to reinforce that which I already KNOW and SEE and EXPERIENCE for myself. It is just simply THERE, and it EXISTS. I find it way more fulfilling to personally KNOW "God", rather than merely "believe" in a God. In truth, we ALL KNOW "God", we just don't always accept things for the way they truly are. We let thoughts of "mysticism" and "supernatural" and "faith" cloud our true vision of what is REALITY. My understanding of "God" IS REALITY. There is nothing supernatural or "mystic" about it. I don't believe in the supernatural. "God" is NATURAL. SPIRIT is natural. It is the "animate" energy of ALL things. It is the vibrational frequencies of electrons and neutrons and protons, and possibly even smaller forms which comprises ALL things. It is so small, yet part of something infinitely larger.It is the energy inside of us which make us "alive", "animated", "breathing". Even a scientist, a philosopher, or an atheist would be able to understand and accept this concept. It is only the "idol" or "deity" worshipers that "create" false gods and are led astray. Even an animal, or tree, or stone accepts this REALITY. We are ALL part of this EXISTENCE. That is "God". You don't even need to "name" it or "verify" it or "believe" it, just accept that you are part of it. You don't even have to call it "God" if you don't want to. It is just simply EXISTING in harmonic balance with everything else. It's power is found even in the very pages of the bible. If it were not for this "God" we would not even have the paper and books with which to contain the message. ALL things are as ONE. No religion or belief, or faith is strong enough to pull apart the "fabric" of EXISTENCE.

Do you get your understanding from the bible?
Are you one who opposes organized religion?
If you do get your understanding from the bible, then as soon as you define the things that you believe the bible is telling you about God, you have then become a 'religion or belief, or faith'. By simply posting the above words you have potentially made a religion following your beliefs(ideas) about God that people could follow. And i do use the word believe because until you can prove the things that you 'believe' the bible is telling you about God then your 'faith' in those ideas would be just as false as anyone elses.
I too recognize and know God, but im not above using the terms belief and faith. to believe in God and know God is the same thing. commonly beliefs or practices are just the things that define 1 religious understanding of the bible from another. the word faith can be used also in this way.

FOA