Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf God is the true author of the Bible, then can you explain how many Christians cannot agree on interpretation of its words?
Which verse(s) in the Bible do you think did Hitler and others base their interpretation on to support their beliefs? The fact that some nut jobs take a verse out of context does not prove anything about the validity of the scriptures.
Christians, who believe in Christ, cannot even agree who He is. A man only? God? God's son only?
In the first words of the NT, it should be made crystal clear who He is, and then move on from there to learn. But that didn't happen.
I don't trust what happened at the Council of Nicea. I don't trust the men who decided which books to include and exclude. Something seems wrong, to me.
Originally posted by chaney3I think most Christians agree on most of the important parts. I don't see why people disagreeing over something automatically means that is not valid.
If God is the true author of the Bible, then can you explain how many Christians cannot agree on interpretation of its words?
Christians, who believe in Christ, cannot even agree who He is. A man only? God? God's son only?
In the first words of the NT, it should be made crystal clear who He is, and then move on from there to learn. But that didn't hap ...[text shortened]... on't trust the men who decided which books to include and exclude. Something seems wrong, to me.
Originally posted by chaney3Jesus died by crucifixion.
Then tell me who Jesus is.
Jesus’ tomb was found empty (of his body).
The disciples claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus.
Jesus’ disciples had an early and sudden belief in the resurrection (i.e. this was not something that was invented by Christians centuries after the fact).
Paul (an enemy to Christianity) and James’ (a skeptic of Jesus) change of heart to accepting Jesus as God.
Even if we threw out the Bible entirely, these minimal facts are documented in ancient texts outside the Bible written by Christians and non-Christians. That’s why they are so accepted, even by skeptics.
https://beyondtm.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/20-b4-twenty-the-basic-facts-that-everyone-agrees-on-about-jesus-death-and-resurrection/
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo you believe that Jesus is God? If yes, then explain how many Christians believe differently. That Jesus is the Son of God, but not God.
Jesus died by crucifixion.
Jesus’ tomb was found empty (of his body).
The disciples claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus.
Jesus’ disciples had an early and sudden belief in the resurrection (i.e. this was not something that was invented by Christians centuries after the fact).
Paul (an enemy to Christianity) and James’ (a skeptic of Jesus) change ...[text shortened]... 6/03/21/20-b4-twenty-the-basic-facts-that-everyone-agrees-on-about-jesus-death-and-resurrection/
His identity should be Christianity 101, and the same across the board.
Originally posted by chaney3Do you think it really matters whether Jesus is God or the son of God? How does either belief change the overall message of the Bible?
So you believe that Jesus is God? If yes, then explain how many Christians believe differently. That Jesus is the Son of God, but not God.
His identity should be Christianity 101, and the same across the board.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYes, I think His identity matters very much. If it doesn't, then why not just worship Buddha.
Do you think it really matters whether Jesus is God or the son of God? How does either belief change the overall message of the Bible?
WHO you believe in matters just as much as what they are saying.
Originally posted by chaney3If you believe sincerely that Jesus died on the cross and payed the penalty for your sin, why would it matter if he was God or God's son?
Yes, I think His identity matters very much. If it doesn't, then why not just worship Buddha.
WHO you believe in matters just as much as what they are saying.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkRBHILL just started a new thread, armenianism, which sums up my point that there is something fundamentally wrong with not having the truth regarding the identity of Jesus. And different Christians and Catholics having differing views of Jesus seems wrong to me.
If you believe sincerely that Jesus died on the cross and payed the penalty for your sin, why would it matter if he was God or God's son?
Originally posted by chaney3"I don't trust the men who decided which books to include and exclude. Something seems wrong, to me."
If God is the true author of the Bible, then can you explain how many Christians cannot agree on interpretation of its words?
Christians, who believe in Christ, cannot even agree who He is. A man only? God? God's son only?
In the first words of the NT, it should be made crystal clear who He is, and then move on from there to learn. But that didn't hap ...[text shortened]... on't trust the men who decided which books to include and exclude. Something seems wrong, to me.
Good. You're on the right track. Now you need to learn about the doctrine of preservation. Remember what Jesus said? Not one jot or tittle will pass away? Trust God, not man.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSomeone asks you, a Christian, on a Spirituality Forum, who you think Jesus is, and you go off to some blog on the internet, copy somebody else's words, and you paste them here. How peculiar. And to top it all off, do you really think these words that somebody else wrote answer chaney3's question properly? Well, well. What a strange incident,
Jesus died by crucifixion.
Jesus’ tomb was found empty (of his body).
The disciples claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus.
Jesus’ disciples had an early and sudden belief in the resurrection (i.e. this was not something that was invented by Christians centuries after the fact).
Paul (an enemy to Christianity) and James’ (a skeptic of Jesus) change ...[text shortened]... 6/03/21/20-b4-twenty-the-basic-facts-that-everyone-agrees-on-about-jesus-death-and-resurrection/
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou think that people being guided by their moral sensibilities to try and figure out the right thing to do in given situations is analogous to finding the answer to a maths problem. I believe this is more or less a case of reductio ad absurdum on your part, and if you've actually read and understood what I have been saying in my posts directed at you, you will know why..
It is like saying there is no standard by which to objectively measure who has the right answer to a math problem. And then claiming that your answer is right, and someone else's is wrong.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk1. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then why should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
If they have the same moral stances as me then they should adhere to those moral stances for the same reason as I adhere to my moral stances. Ultimately though, I am responsible for my own moral behaviour and not theirs.
2. If you say that people should adhere to your subjective moral standard, then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow?
Asking me about this entails you simply blanking out almost everything I have been saying on this thread. I think Ghost of a Duke is right in his analysis that you just try to grind people down by asking about the same things time and time again even when they have already told you what they think, but you happen to disagree with it,
3. If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?
I've have already covered this. Why are you asking about it again? If we disagree, we disagree. Asking me the same things over and over and over again and ignoring what my stance is doesn't achieve anything.
Originally posted by FMFI agree with this post.
Someone asks you, a Christian, on a Spirituality Forum, who you think Jesus is, and you go off to some blog on the internet, copy somebody else's words, and you paste them here. How peculiar. And to top it all off, do you really think these words that somebody else wrote answer chaney3's question properly? Well, well. What a strange incident,
Frankly, I have the opinion that nobody knows who Jesus really is. They will offer their interpretation, but immediately receive backlash from another Christian on the 'real Jesus'. This one issue is baffling.
The identity of Jesus ought to be exactly the same for every person on earth, simply as a starting point.
Whether or not someone chooses to follow Him is an entirely different matter. But at least base that decision on a factual, real assesment of who He is. (Which is extremely unclear in the Bible).
Originally posted by chaney3I don't see why. All we know about him comes from what followers who'd never met him wrote about him in the decades and centuries after his death. In so far as this is a 'historical record', it is what it is, as they say. And the rest is history, as they also say. If you need as a starting point a situation where perceptions of what or who Jesus was need "to be exactly the same for every person on earth" then you are never going to have your starting point. It's never going to happen. Once you recognize this, what is the point of repeatedly demanding that there be such a starting point?
The identity of Jesus ought to be exactly the same for every person on earth, simply as a starting point.