No overwhelming historical proof: Why I doubt Jesus

[loverofhumanity]

That's what I'm talking about about. Many Christians are taught to believe in a NT verse where Jesus allegedly says that he is the "truth, the life" and the no one comes to the Father except through him. They are taught that all other religions are false, regardless of how good a person is, because they believe that unless a person is "saved" they are going to hell.

We all see the problem with that when too many "Christians" merely go to church on Sunday and the rest of the week they aren't all that spiritual. Yet, they believe they are "saved" and that is what's important. The more committed Christians do try and live a spiritual life, but they will tell a person from another religion that they are wrong and that they are not believing in the true God. Of course that includes believing that God is three in one, that there is a devil and a place called hell and that unless a person is "born-again" they won't go to heaven, they'll go to hell. And that is because they believe a person can never be good enough, that a person must accept Jesus' sacrifice, to accept that he paid the price for their sins. For them, there is no other way and no other religion.

Those groups are usually some kind of Protestant denomination, but I'm sure that 2000 years ago when the Roman Church got going that they were thinking that they were the only ones right. So again, did any Christian group ever teach the true message of God and Jesus? And if not, then we can't expect a Jew or a Hindu, or a person from any other religion to accept the new manifestation and his teachings if they weren't the correct teachings. So who, if anybody, had the true message of Jesus?

What you say is very true but things are changing. The whole purpose of the Prophets appearing in the world is to foster fellowship, friendship, love and unity amongst people. Love is life and disharmony and disunity is death.

The Bible is the same now as it was 2,000 years ago but Christians have not yet learned how to make its teachings more relevant for our age. As you said they have difficulty seeing other Faiths or religionists as equals. But now the world is technologically united, attitudes of exclusiveness and prejudice are dangerous so people are being forced to reassess these attitudes. Couldn't love they neighbour be broadened into love all humanity and love your enemies be replaced with love all religionists? Of course and it is happening now.

There are sincere Christians who do love all Faiths and treat all other religionists kindly and sincerely. Not any one group takes a stance of complete tolerance but there are signs that many religions are starting to see the absurdity and danger of this superiority attitude and that it is turning people away from religion and now willingly take part in things like interfaith.

If you go to many Christian online bookstores you can now find fair and not too judgemental books on Baha'i, Islam and other Faiths that do say good things about them. These are just the very early signs of a new age of peace dawning between religions.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/index.htm

http://bahai-faith.manvell.org.uk/fragrant/catholic.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...pc_interelg_doc_20140624_ramadan-2014_en.html

I think that because of technology and that we are one country, adjustment to this new world paradigm is taking time but I have full confidence that the average Christian is sincere and reasonable and is gradually realising that the love Christ taught then - 'love they neighbour and thine enemies' must, in this age, be translated into - "Love all mankind and love all religionists'.

It is a matter of reeducating people, to broaden their vision to look past self interest and it's working. People love the idea of universal brotherhood. There will always be a small number of those who oppose it but in general most Christians will see the truth in loving all humanity. Already we have the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. For sure universal tolerance is gradually replacing fanaticism and indifference, it's just happening gradually.

"Let your vision be world-embracing, rather than confined to your own self."

"Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.” - Baha'u'llah

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Here's another Gita quote: "As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones."(Bg 2.22) But let me focus on something else. If people misinterpreted the "manifestation" and changed what the religion taught, then that religion is wrong. So if the people changed what Krishna said then is Hinduism wrong? And likewise, if Jesus wasn't virgin born and didn't rise physically from the dead, then is what most Christians teach about Jesus wrong? If so, then is Christianity teaching falsehoods about Jesus? Oh, and a few other Christian teachings... the devil/satan and hell, is that true or is that also a misinterpretation of things Jesus said?

Why would Jesus rise physically from the dead when the pre-human Jesus had a spirit body.
Rather, God resurrected the dead Jesus back in his heavenly body, and that is why the resurrected Jesus used different materialized bodies to appear before his followers. If Jesus was in his physical body then his followers would have recognized him right away.
To me, the people of Christendom are taught wrong by false shepherds that Jesus had a physical resurrection.
Some even wrongly teach that the dead Jesus resurrected himself - Acts of the Apostles 3:15

Yes, the churches of Christendom teach a non-biblical hell as being the Bible's hell ( grave ).
They teach a permanent hell. If permanent, then the dead Jesus would still be in hell - Acts of the Apostles 2:27
Satan was never in biblical hell as the churches wrongly teach, and Satan will never be in hell.
Also, mortal Satan does Not have eternal life because according to Scripture Jesus will destroy Satan - Hebrews 2:14 B

 

[URAVIP2ME]

As it states in the Bible ( for those who need a reference) God will forgive all sins. St. Paul (the very worst sinner).
Therefore, one's development helps the planet grow too. God simply means, Grow Or Die!

As it states in the Bible (for those who need a reference) God will NOT forgive all sins according to Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6.

Repent or 'perish' ( be destroyed ) - 2 Peter 3:9 ; Psalms 92:7

 

[loverofhumanity]

As it states in the Bible (for those who need a reference) God will NOT forgive all sins according to Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6.

Repent or 'perish' ( be destroyed ) - 2 Peter 3:9 ; Psalms 92:7

But God can change His Mind or make exceptions if He so wishes. He is God. His Hands are not tied. He can do whatever He wants. We cannot tell Him what He can and can't do because He is God so if He wants He can forgive everyone.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But God can change His Mind or make exceptions if He so wishes. He is God. His Hands are not tied. He can do whatever He wants. We cannot tell Him what He can and can't do because He is God so if He wants He can forgiven everyone.

God can Not lie - Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18 - so God is Not telling lies about the unforgivable sin - Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6; Psalms 92:7

 

[CG Didymus]

...The Bible is the same now as it was 2,000 years ago but Christians have not yet learned how to make its teachings more relevant for our age. As you said they have difficulty seeing other Faiths or religionists as equals...

The other question in my post is more important. Did early Christianity ever teach the truth according to what the Baha'is believe the real true is? I have to believe that even before the Universal/ Catholic Church with all their teachings got established, most Christians were teaching that Jesus rose from the dead, there is a Satan and hell, and, if a person doesn't accept Jesus as their Savior, they will go to hell. None of these things align with the Baha'i beliefs or most any other religion.

So, again, did Christianity ever teach the message of respect, love and fellowship for other religions? I don't think so. From the beginning, most believed that Jesus was God and was the only way to the Father and all other religions were wrong. Which, compared to what Baha'is are saying, is not a true message about the truth about God. So, if the Christian message, from the beginning, was wrongly interpreted and taught, then why would or should anybody from another religion ever believe it was the truth? And, that is exactly what you are saying now. That the Baha'is have the true interpretation from Baha'u'llah about Jesus. And, that Christianity today is not teaching a true message from God, but is teaching a wrongly interpreted message.

 

[loverofhumanity]

God can Not lie - Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18 - so God is Not telling lies about the unforgivable sin - Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6; Psalms 92:7

God is the creator and abrogator of His own laws. This is very important to understand. He abrogated the Mosaic Dispensation with the Christian Dispensation and that is His right.

God is the essence of truthfulness. Going against God's Covenant is an unforgivable sin but God can still choose to forgive.

Genesis 6:6
6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Genesis 6:7
7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God can Not lie - Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18 - so God is Not telling lies about the unforgivable sin - Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6; Psalms 92:7

Do we have evidence that truly evil people (not just stupid screw-ups) are destroyed forever? The entire point of Job and to a lesser extent, Jonah, is that it's more complicated than "white hat = awesome; black hat = destroyed".

 

[loverofhumanity]

The other question in my post is more important. Did early Christianity ever teach the truth according to what the Baha'is believe the real true is? I have to believe that even before the Universal/ Catholic Church with all their teachings got established, most Christians were teaching that Jesus rose from the dead, there is a Satan and hell, and, if a person doesn't accept Jesus as their Savior, they will go to hell. None of these things align with the Baha'i beliefs or most any other religion.

So, again, did Christianity ever teach the message of respect, love and fellowship for other religions? I don't think so. From the beginning, most believed that Jesus was God and was the only way to the Father and all other religions were wrong. Which, compared to what Baha'is are saying, is not a true message about the truth about God. So, if the Christian message, from the beginning, was wrongly interpreted and taught, then why would or should anybody from another religion ever believe it was the truth? And, that is exactly what you are saying now. That the Baha'is have the true interpretation from Baha'u'llah about Jesus. And, that Christianity today is not teaching a true message from God, but is teaching a wrongly interpreted message.

Yes most definitely. Christians accepted Moses, Abraham and Noah and all the Prophets gone before and they even incorporated the Torah as part of Christianity although it was a separate Revelation from God to Moses. Christianity's acceptance of the older Prophets and Old Testament are proof they accepted other religions and still do.

All religions though have problems accepting the religion prophesied to come after. This is across the board with all Faiths not peculiar to Christianity.

During the early times for the first few hundred years Christians understood the spiritual significance of things like resurrection, hell and satan as spiritual terms just as Baha'is do but over time this knowledge became corrupted not the actual text.

Also at that time it is correct to say that belief in Christ was the only true path to God. His was the latest Revelation from God then to man and superseded that of Moses.

However, since the Council of Nicaea where Christians fought over questions like the Divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, Trinity and the Papacy, a lot of man made doctrines and interpretations were introduced that were not part of the texts and which had no united support and which led to a split in the church and bloodshed. Now Christianity is over 3,000 sects.

The complete list of twenty-seven books was not firmly accepted until the fifth century AD, at which time the formal canon of the New Testament was generally recognized.(Baker illustrated Bible Handbook)

Christ provided in the New Testament for His Return so that 'the sanctuary could be cleansed)

 

[sunray]

God can Not lie - Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18 - so God is Not telling lies about the unforgivable sin - Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6; Psalms 92:7

We should be living by the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Do we have evidence that truly evil people (not just stupid screw-ups) are destroyed forever? The entire point of Job and to a lesser extent, Jonah, is that it's more complicated than "white hat = awesome; black hat = destroyed".

Yes, to me also more than white hat/ black hat.
First there would be the global international spreading news about what God's kingdom government will do for troubled mankind.
That 'spiritual work' of Matthew 24:14 is at its final stage or final phase because it is now proclaimed world wide as never before in history.
We do Not do the judging. To me, according to Matthew 25:31-33,37 Jesus, as shepherd, will do the separating work.
Who would be causing people to feel faint hearted but unrepentant wicked people at the time of Luke 21:26-28.
We can't read hearts but Jesus will. Jesus will know the point of No repentance for those wicked ones - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16

 

[URAVIP2ME]

We should be living by the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law!

Good point ^ above ^ and what is the spirit of the law ?
Isn't it having the same self-sacrificing love as Jesus displayed and taught at John 13:34-35 ?
- James 2:8

 

[Milton Platt]

According to Gospel

Jesus was well known in the vicinity of Jerusalem in the first decades of the CE. He had grown up in nearby Nazareth. He had preached to large crowds. He had been to parties with rich folks. He had healed desperately ill people, even after they died. Then He made a big altercation in the Temple. By the week of the Passion of Christ, many if not most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem knew about Him. Many knew Him by face. He had lots of followers, including The Twelve.

Then He did something that got Him the ire of the local Jewish authorities. Likely the big deal in the Temple, but who knows. They hired one of His own to turn Him in. They turned Him over to Pilate. Apparently the evidence was weak, Pilate tried to foist the problem off onto Herod. Herod wasn't buying it, so Pilate summarily ordered Jesus to be tortured and crucified, the way Jewish terrorists/ freedom fighters generally were at the time. He was scourged to within an inch of His life. Then dragged naked through the streets of Jerusalem on the busiest day of the year(last shopping day before Passover) , carrying His own execution device, then nailed to the Cross to die in front of God and everybody. Then a Roman stabbed Him with a spear.
There is also mention of a solar event and an earthquake strong enough to damage the Temple. But not all the gospel writers remember that.

If the story had ended there(as it did in the original version of the oldest gospel, Mark), nobody would remember. Jesus would be just another troublesome Jew executed by the Romans before they leveled the Temple, and kicked the Jews out of Judea. It happened often.

But the story goes on. Jesus reappeared a few days later. Better than new, only a few scars as proof that He actually was the one crucified last Friday. Thomas checked it out for himself.
Given the facts, the place and time, and human nature, there are a few things a rational observer would expect.
The first would be crowds. A bunch of people saw that Jesus guy dragged through the streets to His death. Then they spent the next couple of days eating and hanging out with family, as people do on holidays. So lots of people, regardless of how they viewed Jesus, knew about the events of Friday. Jesus, Alive!, would be a huge big deal. A secret like that cannot be kept. People would care, even if they didn't believe in the Trinity. And Jesus was around for almost 40 more days. Then He Ascended to Heaven. The crowds would be wild.
People would hang on His every Word. They would want to know everything possible about His prior life and lineage and teachings and Everything. The spot He was born, His girlfriends, the spot from which He ascended. .... People would have wanted to know everything. And would have done anything to please Him. Throw themselves against the Romans in His Name. Erect statues and monuments, take in His Holy Mother, follow The Apostles around insufferably, pass stories about seeing Jesus's own sandal once with my own eyes to the grandkids...

But none of that happened. Nothing. It is impossible to find a credible reference to Jesus's existence before the Jewish diaspora. The Romans didn't notice. The Jewish authorities didn't notice.
Hardly anyone remembered anything until Paul came along. By then, nobody even remembered where Jesus ascended. A few decades after that, people started writing things down. But the writings were vague, not terribly consistent, and extremely incomplete. The earliest ones were pretty barebones, later ones had lots more supernatural details. But there is nothing like accounts of Jesus and His story anything like contemporary with Jesus.
Nothing.
And here is the biggest gap of all. What did The Risen Lord teach, do, or say during the 40 Days? Did everyone just forget? Didn't they care? It is like Jesus went on vacation during the most momentous time He was on earth! He could have explained Trinitarianism. Produced a code of Christian behavior that would exclude the Crusades, EuroChristian colonialism, and slavery in the Americas.(just to name a few)
But none of that happened. Absolutely nothing of interest is recorded as happening during The Risen Christ's 40 days with us fallible humans.

The remarkable lack of historical evidence, when it should exist in piles, is why I doubt that the character in the New Testament is more than a legend created later, for the purposes of humans. Nothing to do with God.
Tom

I agree that someone doing all sorts of things that contradict the laws of physics, not to mention rising up out of the grave (as well as all the zombies walking through town) would have been really big news. He may or may not have existed. The only important question is what is the evidence that he actually did any of those things, except anecdotal short stories from anonymous authors that have been recopied and translated over and over? That is hardly a way for a god to communicate, is it?

 

[paarsurrey]

No overwhelming historical proof: Why I doubt Jesus

Jesus as per the modern Christianity is mythical and a brainchild of Jesus. Right? Please
Sorry, if one disagree with me. This is what I believe to be reasonable, rational and pertaining to reality. Please don't take it as personal. There is no intention of being offensive, that is my understanding about Jesus and Paul. If I am wrong, please give reasonable, rational and pertaining to reality of one's own for comparison and finding the truth in the events. If there are any questions , I will entertain them happily if I know the answers and or if the questions are valid ones and have not been answered by me in these forums. Please

Regards

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes most definitely. Christians accepted Moses, Abraham and Noah and all the Prophets gone before and they even incorporated the Torah as part of Christianity although it was a separate Revelation from God to Moses. Christianity's acceptance of the older Prophets and Old Testament are proof they accepted other religions and still do.

All religions though have problems accepting the religion prophesied to come after. This is across the board with all Faiths not peculiar to Christianity.

During the early times for the first few hundred years Christians understood the spiritual significance of things like resurrection, hell and satan as spiritual terms just as Baha'is do but over time this knowledge became corrupted not the actual text.

Also at that time it is correct to say that belief in Christ was the only true path to God. His was the latest Revelation from God then to man and superseded that of Moses.

However, since the Council of Nicaea where Christians fought over questions like the Divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, Trinity and the Papacy, a lot of man made doctrines and interpretations were introduced that were not part of the texts and which had no united support and which led to a split in the church and bloodshed. Now Christianity is over 3,000 sects.

The complete list of twenty-seven books was not firmly accepted until the fifth century AD, at which time the formal canon of the New Testament was generally recognized.(Baker illustrated Bible Handbook)

Christ provided in the New Testament for His Return so that 'the sanctuary could be cleansed)

To say Christians accepted Moses, Abraham and Noah is like saying Baha'u'llah accepted the Bab. Christianity came out of Judaism, but it separated itself and is not Judaism. But then you say "all the Prophets"? Which Prophets do you mean? And, I asked before, you had Abraham listed as a prophet/manifestation? What religion did he start? It's all part of Judaism isn't it?

And, what is up with your statement that early Christians understood the "spiritual significance" of the resurrection, hell and satan? Where did you get that from? Paul, early on, wrote his letters spelling out what Christians should believe. And that included that Jesus physically rose from the grave and thus conquered death. And, he said that if Jesus hasn't risen from the grave then they should be the most pitied people for believing a lie. Then he goes to say that but indeed Jesus has risen from the grave.

So for Baha'is to say they believe in Jesus isn't exactly the truth. Baha'is believe in their interpretation of who Jesus is and what he did? But, in a way I can see that, because I have trouble believing the NT account of Jesus also. But, it's because of all the hocus pocus stuff like walking on water, that he was born from a virgin, that dead people came out of the grave when he got crucified, that he fed several thousand people with a few loaves of bread and some fish. It sounds like myth and legend to me. But that's what many Christians are taught to believe... that it's historically the truth of what happened. And that is the problem many of us have, we can't believe it. It sounds too much like a spiritual made up tale. Like a prophet flying in the sky in a chariot. Or, a priest laying down his cane and it turns into a snake. Or, parting waters Or any of the rest of the great stories in the Bible. Yes, great stories... great spiritual stories, but absolute historical truth? I can't go that far and say I can believe that.

Now what's strange is that it sounds like Baha'is almost say that also... that those things aren't true... that they were some kind of "spiritual" thing, like a vision or something. I don't even believe that. I think it was made up... that the story needed some pizazz, so they embellished it a little. So why can't Baha'is say that? It's like you want to be too PC, or more like "SP" spiritually correct ,and not offend any other religion by saying you believe in them, but you don't follow them and you don't believe like them. Of course you get away with it by saying that God has updated his religion, and that all the other ones are now, essentially obsolete... that all the old religions are wrong now, because they're filled with traditions and interpretations from man. Convenient. It's a nice way to say that at one time you were right, but now you're messed up and now we have the new message from God to make things right. Why then aren't people flocking to become Baha'is? I think the problem is the same one that all religions have... people. People can say they believe in a religion and God or whatever, but they do so little that there is so very little overwhelming proof that their religion works or that it's the truth.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You ask some very good questions and I shall do my best to give you as correct an answer as I know.

Abraham was the Founder of the Hebrew Nation. In response to a call from God to migrate, He was told his descendants would inherit the earth. As a result Abraham through His descendants, is the Father of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Babi and Bahá'í Faiths.

Although He did not bring a religion or a book He is considered an independent Manifestation of God by Baha'is. He was initially a follower of the Sabean religion.

Bahaullah, in His Book of Certitude, explains the mysteries you speak about that of course, can't be accepted by the mind. He offers another way of understanding these verses that the mind can accept by interpreting them symbolically not literally.

Although you say Christianity separated from Judaism they still regard the prophets of the Torah as being a part of their Revelation inasmuch as they await the fulfilment of many of their prophecies. Here is a list:

Prophetic books - 17 books
Major Prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel
Minor Prophets - Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

What Paul wrote was speaking about spiritual resurrection not a bodily one. It's not a matter of being politically correct but truly understanding what Paul meant. To me it's abundantly clear he meant spiritual not bodily resurrection even 2,000 years later.

Why can't people see that today? Because unfortunately a lot of these interpretations come from the ego which wishes to exalt itself over others, seeks superiority and exclusiveness. These are signs a religion is decaying and why Christ said He would return - to once again "cleanse the sanctuary" from man made dogmas and traditions.

It's not the Baha'is saying religion has been updated. If you study all the major religions they all talk of a future return of their Prophet or Teacher. The Buddhists await the Fifth Buddha, Christians the Return of Christ, Jews the Lord of Hosts, Muslims the Qaim and Hindus Kalki Avatar. These all refer to One Promised One not six or seven Who will come to renew religion. We believe that for this age it is Baha'u'llah.

We all get old one day and die and so does religion. Every religion has an allocated time after which it will decline and die and then be superseded by another religion. The Baha'i Faith is only for a thousand years after which another Teacher will come.

 

[CG Didymus]

...What Paul wrote was speaking about spiritual resurrection not a bodily one. It's not a matter of being politically correct but truly understanding what Paul meant. To me it's abundantly clear he meant spiritual not bodily resurrection even 2,000 years later...

Problem: The NT in Luke 24:39 Jesus says that he is flesh and bone and not a ghost. So no, the NT, from the beginning, said that Jesus had some sort of physical body... a body that ate with the apostles but strangely could appear and disappear. But still, it was Jesus himself who allegedly said that he was flesh and bone. So either the NT is wrong or the Baha'is are wrong. If the NT is wrong, then Luke is wrong. If he recorded the stories wrong, then the NT is not an accurate account of what happened. If the NT is not accurate, then what is real and what is false? And, what is the truth about Jesus? Can any of the NT be trusted?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Problem: The NT in Luke 24:39 Jesus says that he is flesh and bone and not a ghost. So no, the NT, from the beginning, said that Jesus had some sort of physical body... a body that ate with the apostles but strangely could appear and disappear. But still, it was Jesus himself who allegedly said that he was flesh and bone. So either the NT is wrong or the Baha'is are wrong. If the NT is wrong, then Luke is wrong. If he recorded the stories wrong, then the NT is not an accurate account of what happened. If the NT is not accurate, then what is real and what is false? And, what is the truth about Jesus? Can any of the NT be trusted?

The Bible, we believe, is the Word of God. We believe all the Holy Books are in harmony. We see the resurrection as spiritual not physical. Even in a vision or in a dream a person can say they are real and not flesh. In a vision or dream one can fly, touch, see, hear and speak and even eat. There is no proof this was not a vision or dream.

Firstly I would like to go to the transfiguration on Mount Tabor then the resurrection.

On Mount Tabor

(Matthew 17:1–19; Mark 9:2–9; Luke 9:28–36. )

Thou didst ask as to the transfiguration of Jesus, …

"Thou didst ask as to the transfiguration of Jesus, with Moses and Elias and the Heavenly Father on Mount Tabor, as referred to in the Bible. This occurrence was perceived by the disciples with their inner eye, wherefore it was a secret hidden away, and was a spiritual discovery of theirs. Otherwise, if the intent be that they witnessed physical forms, that is, witnessed that transfiguration with their outward eyes, then there were many others at hand on that plain and mountain, and why did they fail to behold it? And why did the Lord charge them that they should tell no man? It is clear that this was a spiritual vision and a scene of the Kingdom. Wherefore did the Messiah bid them to keep this hidden, ‘till the Son of Man were risen from the dead,’ that is, until the Cause of God should be exalted, and the Word of God prevail, and the reality of Christ rise up."

The Resurrection being in similar vein

“We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after the resurrection is the same thing.”

Excerpt From: Hornby. “Lights of Guidance.” iBooks.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

First there would be the global international spreading news about what God's kingdom government will do for troubled mankind.

I am not interested in "what God's kingdom government will do for troubled mankind." I would like evidence of what it HAS done already. In areas where followers of Yahweh are numerous, I would like to see practical utopias. Have any?

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> its easy not to believe
but the hardest part is to prove it biblically

its just as simple as that
like some people who dont believe in some religions whose gods are not the creator of this reality

if the true god of love and truth
would make anyone to obey him forcefully then all humans were just like robots

imagine if humans are acting like robots
then what would be this reality look like

... . just for a thought
if we may say so ... .


:ty:




godbless
unto all always