Are you going to reply Campbell?
Hey wvpeach. I just wanted your opinion on who created the world.
[SIZE="4"]Did the Father create the world?
Did the Son create the world?
OR did both the Son and Father create the world?[/SIZE]
Take care
I have gone through the posts in this thread with interest. This is indeed a complex topic. Father? or The Son? or was the Holy Ghost also involved? I recall reading about a huge debate in the Middle Ages about how many angels can sit on top of a pin. The debate raged on and various church factions came to blows. However, no one asked the basic question: "What proof in the first instance that angels exist?" Only after that is established can we worry about their size in nano terms.
Now the question on the creation of earth asks us to decide between the Father and/or the Son. It assumes it is one of these two or a combination. In that case, I am entitled to ask the questioner to proves first the existence of the father and his son and the holy ghost.
We can discuss who created the earth after that first investigation is done conclusively. Thank you.
One of the main reasons Christians believe the Bible is because of it's prophecies, unlike other religions, both the New and Old Testaments write history before it happens. And since God alone knows the future, the Bible is a Book which has God's fingerprint on it. To say the Father did this, or the Son did this, or the Holy Spirit did that is no proof unless there were other factors that supported those statements. And that is where prophecy comes in. Jesus Christ fulfilled over 300 prophecies of the Old Testament, and that is how we Christians know who Jesus Christ is today. The prophecies in the Old Testament that speak of Jesus were written about Him, before Jesus was even born. The Bible is just packed with prophecy, especially the last days prophecies. The Bible tell us that before Christ would return that the Jews would return to Israel, they would retake Jerusalem, Jerusalems East Gate would remain sealed and all attempts to open it would fail. So much of what is happening to day is talked about in the Bible. And the reason the Bible could predict all of this, is because the one who authored it knew the future.
I'm sorry but I never said the Book of Revelation was more important than the four Gospels. I did say most of the prophecies in the Bible (ARE NOT) found in the Book of Revelation. And no, I was not referring to the Book of Revelation. And I pointed out that God put those prophecies in the Bible because they are important. It is you who said , "who needs them.'' I guess the only part of the Bible that is important to you is the part that saves your pound of flesh, and forget about everyone else. And I'm sorry, I don't hear that love and compassion coming from you. My false beliefs are based on Scripture, what are your false beliefs based on? I guess according to you, sane folks are those who deny the Bible. I'm not a Catholic, I'm a Christian, and thats why I look to Gods Word first and not creeds established by men. And I do believe creeds can be correct, yet I always first go to Gods Word.
Interesting stuff there Adam Bing.
May I also add that The story of Jesus is not a unique undertaking by the religious books
Before Chritianity existed aprox 1500BC, there was a Roman god call Mithras, who like Jesus was born of a virgin mother, was born on the 25th of December carried out miraculas deeds and died for the sins of his followers, rose again after three days and walked among his followers.
Now if this is already believed by a previous religion then how can the story of jesus be unique and therefore divine?
There has been extensive secular research on the subject to suggest the possibility of the life of Jesus to have bee re-written to match Old Testament prophecies.
Why the possibility? Because :
1) There is ample precedence both within christianity and in other religions of this happening. There for example, was a clear case of a christian translator forging a paragraph into Josepheus's Histories to include a mention of Jesus because the lack of contemporary documentation on his life outside of the New Testatment gospels was embarassing.
2) When in doubt choose the option that is more logical. It is more logical that Jesus' life was re-written than to have to believe that he fulfilled prophecies.
3) The number of versions on what happened in that period are numerous. And they all differ. Even the four gospels are not in sync. The situation was so bad that Constentine had to decide which versions to choose and he choose the four from Mark, Luke, Mathew and John. So, all the more reason to suspect that the writings had been doctored after jesus death to make him a Messiah and have him fulfil prophecies.
I am not saying the above is a fact. All I am saying is that barring blind belief, it makes the most sense.
Now, for the longest of time, I considered it terribly rude to question someone else's beliefs. However, I have concluded that it is rude only if a religion does not attempt to convert others. Once it does, it opens itself up to be challenged. Hence my intense scrutiny of claims made about Christianity and Islam.
Up till now, my conclusions do not support anything the Bible or the Koran claims. I however do not have blind faith in my beliefs and am open to correction.
By Harry V. Martin
The Debate over the divinity of Christ may never end, but historical evidence has become more supportive of the fact that Jesus can be proved historically to have lived, to have been a dominant figure during his lifetime and of a major concern to the establishment of the Temple and of Rome.
Proving the historic Jesus
And that historical evidence would be also supported by the prophecies of the Old Testament, and this is evidence outside of Scripture. Also I would point out that there is the Majority Text of the Bible to be considered. There are thousands of copies of the Scriptures from many lands and may time periods, and all of them are in agreement. It is this text that the King James version is based on.
Also to say that the prophecies were written after the event happened would still not explain why the modern day prophecies are still occuring and doing so accurately.
Well, it all comes down to what one believes, doesn't it.
You stated you are not a Catholic....well, I'm Anglo-Catholic (Episcopalian) and I subscribe to the Nicene Creed, which is "based on God's word", pilgrim!
The Nicene Creed
International Consultation on English Texts translation
as printed in:
The Lutheran Book of Worship
The Book of Common Prayer (Episcopal)
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
What! Is that supposed to be based on Harry Potter or something?
And thank you for believing that creeds can be correct...it's only the basis of my faith, is all. The arrogance of some people is just astounding.
I mean, who are you , really, to pass judgment on anyone about their faith...
To me, you're just some zealot who bandies about scripture, in lieu of any factual evidence supporting your claims, which are, in essence, "faith-based".
In the Episcopal and Catholic faiths, we hold special reverence for Mary, mother of Jesus....in fact, we recite the Ave Maria...many other Christian faiths do not hold Mary in any high regard, and see her only as the vessel for Christ. Are we wrong, and you're supposed to be right?
Absolutely not...it is the profession of ones' faith, to believe as one believes.
I don't, personally, need to know what's coming...all that is required of me is to follow Christ's example, and to love my fellow man , as I love myself (something I find exceedingly difficult, as I only fairly recently learned to love myself)....my take is, you can't tell me what to believe, or how to believe it...you can't do you properly, how in the world do you think you can do me?\
Keep your brand of religion to yourself, because I ain't buying...and I dare say, neither is anyone else.
By Harry V. Martin
The Debate over the divinity of Christ may never end, but historical evidence has become more supportive of the fact that Jesus can be proved historically to have lived, to have been a dominant figure during his lifetime and of a major concern to the establishment of the Temple and of Rome.
Proving the historic Jesus
And that historical evidence would be also supported by the prophecies of the Old Testament, and this is evidence outside of Scripture. Also I would point out that there is the Majority Text of the Bible to be considered. There are thousands of copies of the Scriptures from many lands and may time periods, and all of them are in agreement. It is this text that the King James version is based on.
Also to say that the prophecies were written after the event happened would still not explain why the modern day prophecies are still occuring and doing so accurately.
Still doesn't explain why the story of jesus christ is a rip off from another religion.
Before you say rip off, you better get the real story. Hope this link works for you.
Jesus is Not A Copy Of Mithras: Another Atheist Myth Debunked
[no subject] - alt.philosophy | Google Groups...
That link did not work.
However we can all find sites that subsribe to our ideas.
The fact is the story portrayed in the bible about jesus is not new or unique, other religions have used the same story before.
I used to believe Jesus had actually walked the earth, but I am not so sure anymore, for me the bible is not reliable enough as a historical document, especially as it was put together some 300 years after the fact.
Could you reasonably expect anyone to believe you, had you told them of stories from the 18th centuary, with nothing but word of mouth as fact. This is pretty much what happend in the creation of the bible. At no point was a documented account of Jesus ever kept during his years of teaching. most people of the time were illiterate and certainly very very few were skilled enough to write books, thus all the stories are of word of mouth with no solid evidence for coraburation.
You may well be able to point me in the right direction and show me certified evidence to the exsistence of Jesus apart from the bible.
There is really quite a bit of written historical information out there which often comes from sources that would be considered anti Christian. What is of intrest is how often these sources support the Biblical account. Some of this evidence will be found in a write up by Grant R. Jeffrey titled, Historical Evidence About Jesus Christ.
Grant R. Jeffrey Ministries
Often names and places that were lost to history yet recorded in the Scriptures are being uncovered by archaeologist.
Historical proof of the Bible
Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that is was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples.
Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ?
Indeed, very interesting stuff there I enjoyed reading it.
Hope these links will be of interest, very thourough investigation in my opinion
Whose History does the Bible Describe
Establishing a Chronology
Establishing a Chronology
Did the Jews and their Religion really Exist
Whose History does the Bible Describe
Those are very interesting links.
While there is all this monotheist propaganda they aim at each other - Muslims dreaming of jesus & converting OR Christian women converting to Islam - the real change taking place should cause them both more concern:
ONE: The atheists - no longer tainted by an incorrect grouping with communism - are speaking up and challenging religion directly and in an evengelical manner. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are the beacons for all of us thinking folk to follow. There is no excuse anymore for being respectful and silent against religious assault. There is a duty to respond in kind.
TWO: The vast silent millions who are uncomfortable with the evangelical natures of their monotheist religion are realizing that it is okay to object to the unpleasantness they see in the Koran and the Bible. The huge readership of Dan Brown's book was the first such surge we say recently and it seriously alarmed the theocracy.
It is our duty not to let up. Challenge every claim made and demand proof other than "The Bible says" or "the Koran say". Insist that is not good enough. Demand the same level of proof they ask for from the Theory of Evolution for example. Subject these so callled holy books to the same scientific investigation we accord to other secular claims. They do not have a religious exemption anymore.
That is an evangelical site. You need to seek a bit further for credible evidence that the % of Muslims converting to Christianity has increased. Please provide me some such evidence.
And yes, I say catagorically that but the Muslim and Christians toting conversion figures are being liberal with the truth. I am giving you every opportunity to shoot me down by providing a credible third party source.
So, for example, if there has indeed been a dramatic increase in conversions, then the news media should have picked it up, No? CNN, NBC? How about The Wall Steet Journal? Or atleast Fox News? Give me something. I am not dogmatic and tend to readily agree when confronted with real evidence.
