Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Christianity…

You know that, or do you think that?

In the retelling of historical events the listener is compelled to believe or disbelieve based upon faith alone. If you tell me the events leading up to and including how Custer and the 7th fought at The Little Bighorn not only am I am believing you on FAITH but you are retelling the historical events based upon faith alone. You weren’t there, you didn’t witness the battle, you didn’t and don’t know anyone involved in it nor do you have any first, second or even third hand accounts of the battle so you are basing that entire event on faith…..faith that all those eyewitnesses and all those that were told the story firsthand are telling what they saw, felt, heard and witnessed……FAITH.

According to you atheists and ANTI-theists the absence of eyewitnesses and participants that can answer your questions with firsthand knowledge means that it didn’t happen. Since you can’t question and probe firsthand or secondhand sources regarding The Battle of Little Bighorn it didn’t happen. Since your belief about the LBH is completely dependent upon FAITH you must apply the same strict scrutiny that you apply to Jesus and dismiss out of hand ANYTHING that cannot be PROVEN with firsthand sources and eyewitnesses.

Jesus’s resurrection was NOT a matter of faith for those that SAW with their OWN EYES the resurrected Jesus and heard with their own ears the words our resurrected Lord and Savior spoke to them!

Jesus most assuredly was crucified as eyewitnesses stated at the time and as the historical record indicates. Jesus most assuredly was resurrected and walked amongst us as stated by countless eyewitnesses at the time and as the historical record indicates.

Custer was a real person too but I can’t prove it. 😉

As interesting as this thread is, I'll say we should spend less time debating, and more time in Prayer, and Worship.

To all the Orthodox faithful today: “Христос воскрес”

Jesus met with Abraham? That is a leap.

A would be Baptist preacher once told me Melchizedek was Jesus. He is the priest that Abraham gave 10% of Sodom's loot after the rescue of the captives as per Genesis 14.

Folks sure do make a lot of suppositions as they glean through scripture.

Jesus met with Abraham? That is a leap.

A would be Baptist preacher once told me Melchizedek was Jesus. He is the priest that Abraham gave 10% of Sodom's loot after the rescue of the captives as per Genesis 14.

Folks sure do make a lot of suppositions as they glean through scripture.

Regarding the OP:

Do y’all think that Jesus wants to live His life through His followers as they strive to keep in step with His Spirit in them…?

Or do y’all think that Jesus wants His followers to interact with Him on the basis of rules…?

The Mosaic Covenant (Moses was God’s chosen leader of Israel at that time) was a conditional covenant made between God and the ancient Israelites…and no one else…at Mount Sinai. It was clearly not everlasting.

The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional and everlasting covenant through which all of the people in all of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:3), and it was ratified by Jesus in His New Covenant.

Paul made it clear that Christians are true children of Abraham and are heirs of God’s promise to him.

This sentiment appears to be the crux of most of the treads that you start in relation to faith. What does the highlighted option mean to you?

That isn’t a reach at all. From the creation forward Christ has been the Physical representation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That truth is brought out in the old and new testaments.

So are you now agreeing that the faith of all of the OT saints is the same faith that we are given?

Please explain or give scripture as to how they are two covenants. I see the new being the fulfillment of the old. I don't view the law as a covenant. The law was never meant to show the proper way to live. It was only meant to show that nobody could live by it without relying on the sacrifice rather than obedience to the law.

God didn't give the law to teach men to live by his laws. He gave it to show them that they couldn't live good enough and would just have to trust him instead.

Apostle Paul wrote the Law was a Teacher to lead us to Christ.

Maybe, but that does require a good bit of assumptions. I can't see God not being explicit if this would be true.

Did Jesus explicitly make these claims of being in the fiery furnace, being the high priest of Salem, being the one advising Abraham? Was he the one that ordered the tribe of Benjamin be wiped out, did Jesus himself say "Judah shall go first"?

Jesus did a lot of teaching but some of the stuff y'all ascribe to him he did not claim.

What I’ve asserted is quite clear.

Why don’t you first answer the question/s in my post, even if you think there is another option, or options…?

What I’ve asserted is quite clear.

If what you see yourself as having asserted were clear to me I would not be asking for clarification.

It’s a matter of progressive revelation. That Christ did or did not claim is an invalid argument in and of itself. The fact that Christ told us that the Law and Prophets testify about Him places the demand on us to find Him there.

I can explain it to ya’, but I can’t make ya’ understand it.

I’ve made the same assertions a great many times on these types of threads. And I’ve also explained them in detail a great many times on these types of threads.

We progressed from Jesus, to Paul, to Mohammed, to Joseph Smith, to the Jehovah Witness program and a whole bunch more mixed in. Like Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart, and Copeland, Cefro Dollar. All this progressive revelation that left Jesus in the dust is confusing to say the least. That is if you give them any credence.

Paul was the first one of record that progressed. You know, he talked to Jesus and got the OK to progress.