There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[free radical]

Today I learned atheists are self-abusive and they like it. They will fit right in at home in Hell. That's why they don't give their lives to Christ. They can't see the joy and the peace in Christ living the perfect life so we may be Christlike so no longer it is we who live but He lives in us by the Holy Spirit. Atheists are too afraid to take that leap of faith always in control of self. What a heavy load.

You don't even know your Jebus very well bro,

Btw your hell is just as Imaginary as god


http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm

For I am come to SET A MAN AT VARIANCE AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND THE DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW. And a MAN'S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.

-Matthew 10:35-36

Not only does the Bible claim that Jesus came to set man at variance against members of the family, but he demanded that anyone wishing to become a disciple must hate them:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
-Luke 14:26

Whoever calls Jesus "Prince of Peace" obviously never read the Gospels, for he never claims to have come for peace sake, but rather to divide the family:


Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
-Luke 12:51-53

And Jesus reveals the bribe and reward for forsaking your family:

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
-Matthew 19:29 [also see Luke 18:29-30]

 

[free radical]

There is nobody here who wants to saved. Probably the closest opportunity you will get to receiving Christ is if you experience massive tragedy, perhaps lost loved ones, terrible illness, and number of other things that all weigh on you at once that get you to question life and reality, what's it all about, what are we doing here, what's the purpose and all that. Potentially maybe 1 in 300 of you will realize all things sum up in Christ and then you will be saved. The other 299 are going to burn in the lake of fire for all eternity which is sad and pathetic! but it is what you want. You would rather have that then be with God and experience His love. Two words come to mind when I think of atheists: they are masochists and sadists.2,

You cruising for a gay S&M lover bro?
Try your local church I hear the preachers are all hot for that shyt,,

Btw we have Nothing to be saved from,neither do you

http://jhuger.com/this-is-your-death

 

[George S]

You were brainwashed..
SIN is just a Self Inlicted Nonsense...imho

Rape, murder, crime are a sin. Since rape, murder and crime are not unhealthy according to you, this shows how decrepit you are. Thank God Hell exists for people like you otherwise God would not be loving.

- - - Updated - - -

I just wanted to provide my encore post. Bye.

Just in case you want to come back.

For your edification, there are immoral acts and sins and they are not necessarily the same. A sin is an offense against a god-command. What qualifies as sin varies by religion.

Rape, murder and slavery are immoral acts and sins in some, but not all, religions. That God, Yahweh/Jesus/Holy-Spirit ordered the Jews to rape, murder and enslave. But it is okay when God commands it.

Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro Dilemma arise here. Have you studied theology? No? I didn't think so.

 

[Angry Floof]

 

[Cobalt]

I feel really unhealthy when I am on an atheist forum for too long so I have to leave at least until next year.

If you must plan on coming back, how about we schedule it for a year and a month? That way you can tell us how the rapture went for you on 9/14/15.

 

[revivin]

immoral acts and sins and they are not necessarily the same

Immoral acts are always sins whether against God or men or self. In fact any sin against people is a sing against God. And any sin against God is unloving towards people for God always has our best interest at heart.

When I talk to an atheist it is like talking to someone who is a total degenerate in his thoughts and actions.

 

[Angry Floof]

immoral acts and sins and they are not necessarily the same

Immoral acts are always sins whether against God or men or self. In fact any sin against people is a sing against God. And any sin against God is unloving towards people for God always has our best interest at heart.

When I talk to an atheist it is like talking to someone who is a total degenerate in his thoughts and actions.

That's in your mind, not ours. Your religion is a disease.

 

[Ford]

Has it been a year already?

 

[revivin]

Has it been a year already?

It feels like it

 

[Angry Floof]

Does it feel like agape?

 

[revivin]

Does it feel like agape?

Yes I felt a gap in the post as well. Do you feel a draft?

 

[credoconsolans]

Is there any particular reason this thread isn't already closed?

 

[revivin]

Is there any particular reason this thread isn't already closed?

It's because the opening post is so awesome! You know that. Stop avoiding the OP! shutting your mind down to reality.

 

[DBT]

You know that. Stop avoiding the OP! shutting your mind down to reality.

The OP is nothing more than a collection of unsupported assertions based on someone's idea of reality. Someone's idea of reality is not necessarily an accurate match with actual reality. A Hindu is a Theist but a Hindu wouldn't agree with you. He, along with practically every other Theist, whatever the version of God or gods, has his own version of 'reality.' You can't all be right, Old Chap. More likely than not, you are all wrong, Reality is far more mind boggling than all the little Theistic versions of 'reality' put together.

 

[revivin]

You know that. Stop avoiding the OP! shutting your mind down to reality.

The OP is nothing more than a collection of unsupported assertions based on someone's idea of reality. Someone's idea of reality is not necessarily an accurate match with actual reality. A Hindu is a Theist but a Hindu wouldn't agree with you. He, along with practically every other Theist, whatever the version of God or gods, has his own version of 'reality.' You can't all be right, Old Chap. More likely than not, you are all wrong, Reality is far more mind boggling than all the little Theistic versions of 'reality' put together.

There are no assertions in the opening post. They are evidentially derived. That's its power.

Only in Christianity is the correct God understood because nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

By the way what did you think of my g-string in post #231? It's totally out of character for me.

 

[DBT]

The OP is nothing more than a collection of unsupported assertions based on someone's idea of reality. Someone's idea of reality is not necessarily an accurate match with actual reality. A Hindu is a Theist but a Hindu wouldn't agree with you. He, along with practically every other Theist, whatever the version of God or gods, has his own version of 'reality.' You can't all be right, Old Chap. More likely than not, you are all wrong, Reality is far more mind boggling than all the little Theistic versions of 'reality' put together.

There are no assertions in the opening post. They are evidentially derived. That's its power.

I must have missed the evidence that supports your contentions. Can post a brief list as it relates to these contentions?

Only in Christianity is the correct God understood because nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

But we don't have eyewitness accounts. We have a collections of accounts written well after the alleged events, not even written by the so called witnesses that are claimed to be eye witnesses, but not supported or proven by independent sources ...the writer may be mistaken. The stories may have been embellished over the years, etc.

By the way what did you think of my g-string in post #231? It's totally out of character for me.

Quite revealing.

 

[revivin]

I must have missed the evidence that supports your contentions. Can post a brief list as it relates to these contentions?

No worries. Check out the OP.

But we don't have eyewitness accounts. We have a collections of accounts written well after the alleged events, not even written by the so called witnesses that are claimed to be eye witnesses, but not supported or proven by independent sources ...the writer may be mistaken. The stories may have been embellished over the years, etc.

The accounts we have were written very shortly after their events and their testimony goes right back to the cross as we can do with Acts not mentioning Paul's death or Paul's writing in 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 saying he spent 15 days with Peter, with John and James also. Paul's and James' conversion from eyewitnessing stand out. So embellishment is not possible here since it goes right back the cross. Critics need something to go on. I also like how Polycarp said he was a student of John and Clement of Rome said he knew Peter. The multiple corroboration is simply too much to overlook and is certainly better than for anything we have in antiquity. I would suggest even if we had more it would not be good enough for you, so God's proof is perfect! Christians go with the evidence so we should not be subjected to ridicule for believing in the evidence and its conclusion.

1. Paul recounted the oral tradition he received (1 Cor. 15) from the original Apostles he spent time within just five years after the cross (Gal. 1 & 2), but likely he would have heard about it much sooner than that since he was a persecutor of Christians before being saved;
2. they set up churches based on the resurrection of Jesus (in Acts and Paul's epistles);
3. the fact that James, who did not become a believer until after he saw Jesus resurrected, was an Elder of the church of Jerusalem; and
4. various second generation Apostles reported they knew the original Apostles who testified to them that they had seen Jesus alive from the dead.

If embellishments were added over time so that the ending of the account became the resurrection of Jesus, then the original disciples would have given an account which would not have included the resurrection. But these earliest sources are the best evidence we have, and there are no early sources contradicting their eyewitness testimony.

http://biblocality.com/forums/showt...od-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach&p=8354#post8354

Pretty amazing huh? Now is the time to give your life to Christ. If not now when? It will only get harder to do so as you age and you won't change your mind after death.

 

[DBT]

Oral tradition may be flawed, it may have been embellished by Saul/Paul for his own purposes, it may have been embellished even before Saul/Paul heard the accounts. Eyewitness accounts are not always reliable, if there are ten witnesses to an event there is probably going to be ten differing versions of that event, even if it happened last week, yet alone two thousand years ago...at a time when accurate reporting was not on anyone's agenda. This is hardly first class evidence.

 

[revivin]

Oral tradition may be flawed, it may have been embellished by Saul/Paul for his own purposes, it may have been embellished even before Saul/Paul heard the accounts. Eyewitness accounts are not always reliable, if there are ten witnesses to an event there is probably going to be ten differing versions of that event, even if it happened last week, yet alone two thousand years ago...at a time when accurate reporting was not on anyone's agenda. This is hardly first class evidence.

You actually concede it is first class evidence because you can't improve on it. It's God's perfect proof so you are without excuse. None of the Apostles contested the eyewitness testimony in various group settings and they went to their deaths as martyrs never changing their tune. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. As for Paul's oral recollection within 2 years after the cross, he also had his own experience, and he spent time with James and John and 15 days with Peter who were the original Apostles. All these are multiply corroborated points. You would expect nothing less from God and I can't think of anything better.

Paul came to Christ through an experience which he thought he encountered the risen Jesus objectively with others present with him whom also at that moment had seen the light, fell to the ground, heard the voice and may have seen the man, but did not understand what was happening as Paul was talking to Jesus. He was killed for his testimony. In fact, he was almost killed 7 times in the Bible before his final martyrdom in 65 AD to Nero. He certainly knew he was going to die a horrible death and all he had to do was give up the faith.

His testimony is not based on some belief, but what he saw with his own eyes like the other Apostles in various group settings. Christianity is the only religion in the world that has this.

 

[DBT]

Oral tradition may be flawed, it may have been embellished by Saul/Paul for his own purposes, it may have been embellished even before Saul/Paul heard the accounts. Eyewitness accounts are not always reliable, if there are ten witnesses to an event there is probably going to be ten differing versions of that event, even if it happened last week, yet alone two thousand years ago...at a time when accurate reporting was not on anyone's agenda. This is hardly first class evidence.

You actually concede it is first class evidence because you can't improve on it.

Not at all. It would be far better in terms of 'evidence' if it had been corroborated by independent sources, casual witnesses, passersby, Roman soldiers, etc, who had no axe to grind or any connection to the alleged eyewitnesses as reported in the NT, but were astonished enough by the events to make a written report. That would count as better evidence, but still problematic.