Why you should only pray to Jesus

Originally posted by RBHILL
First off I saw a sermon today on it.

Jesus is the only one that is alive that has past on.

Praying to Mary or Buddha or to a muslim god or anyone else these people are all dead. The Bible says no to contact the dead. It is like doing a saiyans if you pray to anyone but Jesus.

Jesus was born of woman, that makes him human, humans can't live 2000 years, therefore jesus is dead, end of story.

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Jesus was born of woman, that makes him human, humans can't live 2000 years, therefore jesus is dead, end of story.

But who was His Father? Besides, we're not claiming He's skulking in a cave waiting to return. He ascended up to Heaven AFTER dying and rising again, proving to all those faithful to Him that He will do the same for them.

One cannot dismiss the Resurrection unless one--out of hand--dismisses the slightest possibility of God existing. If you accept that God may exist, the evidence for the Resurrection speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Darfius
But who was His Father? Besides, we're not claiming He's skulking in a cave waiting to return. He ascended up to Heaven AFTER dying and rising again, proving to all those faithful to Him that He will do the same for them.

One cannot dismiss the Resurrection unless one--out of hand--dismisses the slightest possibility of God existing. If you accept that God may exist, the evidence for the Resurrection speaks for itself.

So Jesus will make the faithful rise after death and then they will ascend to heaven just like Jesus? Correct ?

Originally posted by Darfius
But who was His Father? Besides, we're not claiming He's skulking in a cave waiting to return. He ascended up to Heaven AFTER dying and rising again, proving to all those faithful to Him that He will do the same for them.

One cannot dismiss the Resurrection unless one--out of hand--dismisses the slightest possibility of God existing. If you accept that God may exist, the evidence for the Resurrection speaks for itself.

One cannot dismiss the Resurrection unless one--out of hand--dismisses the slightest possibility of God existing. If you accept that God may exist, the evidence for the Resurrection speaks for itself.


This statement is nonsense; I accept the possibility that God might exist. However, the evidence for the Resurrection, besides the Bible, is non-existent thus it cannot "speak for itself" as it doesn't exist. You may wish to believe in the Resurrection but that is a matter of faith, not evidence.

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
So Jesus will make the faithful rise after death and then they will ascend to heaven just like Jesus? Correct ?

Absolutely correct. At the Rapture:

15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

1st Corinthians

Originally posted by no1marauder
One cannot dismiss the Resurrection unless one--out of hand--dismisses the slightest possibility of God existing. If you accept that God may exist, the evidence for the Resurrection speaks for itself.


This statement is nonsense; I accept the possibility that God might exist. However, the evidence for the Resurrection, besides the Bible, is n ...[text shortened]... exist. You may wish to believe in the Resurrection but that is a matter of faith, not evidence.

Jesus existed in history. We know this from Josephus and Tacitus.

To deny the Gospels as truth, one must come up with a reason. Why believe Alexander the Great's biographies but not Jesus'?

The Jews, Romans and early Christians knew where His tomb was (Joseph of Arimithea). It was empty.

The disciples went from destroyed and terrified after His death to triumphant and boldly proclaiming His resurrection after He appeared to them.

The disciples were beat daily. Went starving. Were tortured. Were eventually killed for teaching this. They clearly weren't insane. They weren't liars...

Within a few weeks of Jesus' proclaimed Resurrection, thousands of Jews had abandoned the Law of Moses to embrace Jesus Christ as Messiah. After doing this, they were cast out of their homes and communities and were exiled. If you'd like to believe they were each and every one gullible and didn't care for God enough to make sure, I cannot understand such thinking.

I, however, went where the evidence led.

Oh, and what would make Saul (Paul) go from killing one of the Apostles to living and dying as one?

Originally posted by Darfius
Jesus existed in history. We know this from Josephus and Tacitus.

To deny the Gospels as truth, one must come up with a reason. Why believe Alexander the Great's biographies but not Jesus'?

The Jews, Romans and early Christians knew where His tomb was (Joseph of Arimithea). It was empty.

The disciples went from destroyed and terrified after His ...[text shortened]... and what would make Saul (Paul) go from killing one of the Apostles to living and dying as one?

We've been all through this.

A) Josephus and Tacitus wrote 60-80 years after Jesus' death aand had no first hand knowledge of him;

B) There is no doubt that Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia, existed; we have proof of his existence through ancient records of several cultures. Proof that somebody exists, however, does not prove that all the stories told about them are true; did George Washington cut down a cherry tree?

C) The tomb story is ridiculous as proof; we don't know where the tomb is, do we? There is also a perfectly reasonable explanation for a tomb to be empty if someone takes the body. And don't tell me the tomb was guarded, that's only in the Bible and seems highly unlikely;

D) The only way we know what the disciples did is because they claimed it. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, other religions have fanatical followers, so a Resurrection is not necessary for strong beliefs.

E) Where is your proof of the assertion about thousands of Jews following Jesus right after the Resurrection? There is no contemporaneous record of such a thing. But I can understand people being gullible, Darfius.

Saul see D above.

You believed in Christ first, then you look at very few facts and mold them into something to support your pre-existing view. Just admit it, Darfius, the "evidence doesn't speak for itself" regarding a Resurrection; you believe in it through faith and not reason.

Originally posted by Darfius
Absolutely correct. At the Rapture:

15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mo ...[text shortened]... he Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

1st Corinthians

So the faithful, will at some point be like Jesus, as in raised from the dead and then ascended to heaven. And we know that this is a fore gone conclusion because it is in the bible. Therefore technically we could say that the faithful are already the same as Jesus in this respect .

So if Jesus and the faithful dead are the same status and we are allowed to contact Jesus through pray, there should be no problem contacting the faithful dead through pray either.

A) Josephus and Tacitus wrote 60-80 years after Jesus' death aand had no first hand knowledge of him;

They had access to royal records. It's not like they pulled this out of thin air. Josephus saw that James, the brother of Jesus had been interrogated and killed by Herod. Tacitus saw that Nero had blamed the Christians for the great fire in Rome and that they had formed for following a man called 'Christ'.

B) There is no doubt that Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia, existed; we have proof of his existence through ancient records of several cultures. Proof that somebody exists, however, does not prove that all the stories told about them are true; did George Washington cut down a cherry tree?

Who wrote down that he did it and what movement started as a result?

C) The tomb story is ridiculous as proof; we don't know where the tomb is, do we? There is also a perfectly reasonable explanation for a tomb to be empty if someone takes the body. And don't tell me the tomb was guarded, that's only in the Bible and seems highly unlikely;

Why would they feel the need to keep track of an empty tomb?
Who took the body?
Of course it was guarded. Do you think they hated Jesus enough to kill Him but not enough to make *sure* His disciples couldn't steal His body and bring Him back to haunt them? It backfired.

D) The only way we know what the disciples did is because they claimed it. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, other religions have fanatical followers, so a Resurrection is not necessary for strong beliefs.

No, we have historical records of the Apostles' deaths. All except John. Key word is 'fanatical', no1. What was fanatical about them? Were they helping people at an 'insane' rate? Were they preaching eloquently with a 'crazy' glean in their eyes?

E) Where is your proof of the assertion about thousands of Jews following Jesus right after the Resurrection? There is no contemporaneous record of such a thing. But I can understand people being gullible, Darfius.

It's in the book of Acts. Again, why should I or anyone doubt it? You've yet to give a reason.

Saul see D above.

Saul was a fanatical Christian killer. Why would he leave Judaism for Christianity?

You believed in Christ first, then you look at very few facts and mold them into something to support your pre-existing view. Just admit it, Darfius, the "evidence doesn't speak for itself" regarding a Resurrection; you believe in it through faith and not reason.

I studied, accepted Christ and then studied more. In that order. On the contrary, I believe in the resurrection primarily through reason. The only faith I have is that the God I know exists will keep His promises to me, and He's never lied in history, so that only takes a small amount of faith.

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
So the faithful, will at some point be like Jesus, as in raised from the dead and then ascended to heaven. And we know that this is a fore gone conclusion because it is in the bible. Therefore technically we could say that the faithful are already the same as Jesus in this respect .

So if Jesus and the faithful dead are the same status and we are allo ...[text shortened]... Jesus through pray, there should be no problem contacting the faithful dead through pray either.

Foregone conclusion and present day reality are seperate things. The dead in Christ are still sleeping. They're waiting for the trumpet call. They can no more hear you than the man in the moon. Besides, the Bible explicitly states that Jesus is the only mediator between man and God.

Originally posted by Darfius

I studied, accepted Christ and then studied more. In that order. On the contrary, I believe in the resurrection primarily through reason. The only faith I have is that the God I know exists will keep His promises to me, and He's never lied in history, so that only takes a small amount of faith.

What about the Rainbow promise, as in no more floods ?

Originally posted by Darfius
[b]A) Josephus and Tacitus wrote 60-80 years after Jesus' death aand had no first hand knowledge of him;

They had access to royal records. It's not like they pulled this out of thin air. Josephus saw that James, the brother of Jesus had been interrogated and killed by Herod. Tacitus saw that Nero had blamed the Christians for the great fire in Ro ...[text shortened]... s promises to me, and He's never lied in history, so that only takes a small amount of faith. [/b]

There's so many misstatements in this post, I don't know where to start. James was killed 50 years before Josephus' writings and is not mentioned at all in Josephus. There is no historical record of Nero blaming the Christians for a great fire in Rome; this is pure myth. Tacitus called the story of the resurrection a "pernicious superstition"; hardly a ringing endorsement of your "self-evident" truth.

George Washington chopping down the cherry tree was in an early biography of his. I think George had something to do with a significant political movement; maybe you could tell me what it was.

I'm tired of your absurd tomb argument; even according to your Bible, Pilate considered Jesus unimportant - why would he bother to guard his tomb? Pilate didn't even know who Jesus was!! How many tombs of executed prisoners were guarded by Roman soldiers, Darfius?

I do not consider the Bible "proof" of what it asserts, as I do not consider any ancient history as proof in and of itself. In the Illiad, Achilles can only be killed by shooting an arrow into his heel; do you believe that to be a historical fact because the book has places in it that we know existed? Of course not. Claims which are extraordinary require solid evidence; the actual evidence for the Resurrection is near zero. Believe in it if you choose, but stop pretending there is any independent proof of it besides some of Jesus' discuiples claiming it happened.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's so many misstatements in this post, I don't know where to start. James was killed 50 years before Josephus' writings and is not mentioned at all in Josephus. There is no historical record of Nero blaming the Christians for a great fire in Rome; this is pure myth. Tacitus called the story of the resurrection a "pernicious superstition"; hardly a ringing endorsement of your "self-evident" truth.

George Washington chopping down the cherry tree was in an early biography of his. I think George had something to do with a significant political movement; maybe you could tell me what it was.

I'm tired of your absurd tomb argument; even according to your Bible, Pilate considered Jesus unimportant - why would he bother to guard his tomb? Pilate didn't even know who Jesus was!! How many tombs of executed prisoners were guarded by Roman soldiers, Darfius?


No1, get off your stupid *()&**(^ high horse ok ? For Pete's sake you sound asif he's making it all up and you JUST HAPPENED TO BE RETURNING FROM YOUR TIME CAPSULE AND KNOW EVERYTHING FOR A HISTORICAL FACT!

You've been studying the Bible for what , a few months now ? Last month you've never even heard of James's ossuary, yet now you're some expert.

Comon dude... you made me type in caps.

Bite me, Pcaspian.

Actually I have to correct my statement about Nero: Tacitus does say that Nero did try to blame the Christians for the fire but their actual persecution was for other other reasons. His portrait of Christ and the Christians, however, isn't very flattering:

Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of "hating the human race.

When I'm wrong I'm wrong, but the passage hardly shows that this author put very much stock in Christianity.

EDIT: Wow, not my night; James is mentioned in book 20 of Josephus, seperate from the mention of Jesus. This is the only mention of him, however, and he is a pretty minor figure in Josephus' detailed history of Judea. Nothing to show that Christianity had any mass following in an early period.

Originally posted by RBHILL
First off I saw a sermon today on it.

Jesus is the only one that is alive that has past on.

Praying to Mary or Buddha or to a muslim god or anyone else these people are all dead. The Bible says no to contact the dead. It is like doing a saiyans if you pray to anyone but Jesus.

that WAS alive and passed on...

And didn't Mohammed live at one point as well? Moving mountains and all that business?