The Birth of Christ

Good ole Pastor Turnip Truck.

I'm surprised that the troll recognizes that his ancestors are from Latin America. I'd put pastor Jimenez up against the con man's Ratsdinger and Francis any day. Listen for five minutes side by side and you all decide who's preaching God's Word and who's the Sadducee.

Just another chicken fuucker.

That's a very perverted statement that speaks volumes about your character. A normal person would not accuse another of beastiality because of the tan of his skin.
Yet you identify with a religious leader who has covered up crimes against children.

Does he take a chicken on stage with him?


Just another woman hating snake oil salesman.

No wonder you like him so much.

He is speaking about someone that you despise.

HC,
You are quite possibly the greatest salesman Lucifer ever employed. You are the epitome of everything christ despised and the polar opposite of all he taught . There’s a special place in hell for folks like you.
Christ taught love, not hate.

Lmao his "tan skin"

You and your buddies here are the ones that turn the honorable away from him. A Christmas message on the Sunday after the holiday and everyone can see who it is to show up and turn others from Christ.

^^^^^ This

In spades.

Just click the link...........

As if a Protestant religious leader has never done the same?

I’m a confessional Protestant myself but can tell you there are very few Baptists out there with the insights of Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI.

Of those few, the man in your posts is most definitely NOT one of them.

No need for videos, I have several Bibles, & God's holy Spirit.

The way you use my Savior's Name shows what you think of Him. His Name is Jesus Christ. You don't insert your adjective as His middle Name Jack.
I love who Jesus loves and hate who Jesus HATES.
"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

H/C: That video is way too long. Can you summarize it for us? What is your relationship with that preacher? Curious.

Hahahaha!

What shame.

Crappy is an anti Christian troll.

I am not sure what he is. I think he has worked himself up into some sort of craze.

Worse. He's tiresome.

If your that tired, you might want to stop working so hard against threads about the birth of Jesus.

JT,

Do you have a problem with my post of a Christmas message?

Jiveturkey said,
"I feel honored, couldn't come from a better group of A-holes. Most important day of the year besides Christmas"

Sounds to me like you recognize the birth of the Savior and value Him.

What were those teachings/ doctrines of devil's?

The Church of Holy Remuneration and Donation

picupload

Aww....now Crappy is pouting.


Bwess his widdew heart.

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

What religion does that sound like???
It sounds like the one that I used to belong to before I trusted Christ as my Savior. Seafood on Fridays because they didn't consider it to be meat. Hmmm.
Who was forbidden to marry???
I think it was the dudes that we were taught to call"Fathers."
In fact they are still forbidden to marry all the way up to Francis, who calls himself "Holy Father."

"The Beast adopted new raiment and studied the ways of Time and Space and Light and the Flow of energy through the Universe. From its studies, the Beast fashioned new structures from oxidised metal and proclaimed their glories. And the Beast's followers rejoiced, finding renewed purpose in these teachings."

—  The Book of Mozilla, 11:14

Religion is violent.

Religion is the illusion of knowledge and wisdom.

In religion, the gravitational pull is away from treating people well and toward some kind of rule keeping rather than relationship building. People sometimes create a religious belief where they’re right with God by following rules or rituals or traditions, and it’s OK for them to not treat other people well. They think going to church on Sunday, memorizing Bible verses, or not eating bacon makes them right with God. But, no matter what one does or doesn’t do, if one doesn’t treat other people well, then they’re not right with God.

Jesus made it crystal clear what the mark of being one of His followers is. A religion where rules and rituals and traditions replace the priority of treating other people well is the polar opposite of following Jesus, according to Him. People have been mistreated in the name of religion; and people have been mistreated in the name of Jesus. People have been rejected in the name of Jesus…when Jesus died for these people. I just don’t think Jesus is fond of it when self-professed ‘Christians’ mistreat people that He died for.

Jesus said that the thing that is going to distinguish you, the thing that should be a stamp on your behavior and a stamp on your lifestyle, is the way you treat other people. He’s telling us to love other people the way that He loves us. And not to substitute that for rules or rituals or traditions. He doesn’t want His followers to be characterized by and distinguished by rules and rituals and traditions. The priority of following Jesus is how we treat other people.

The violence visited on the Hebrews was punishment for their rebellion against God.

Would that be a loving god?

Yes.
Yes. What would happen if you let your children run wild?

Loved his SNL skits!

Violence would be the morally incorrect solution.

Teach them a better way than resorting to violence. What happened to "though shalt not kill"?

That was man's" solution " to the baby Jesus after the wise men / God's people approached Herod.
Love personified came into the world.
King Herod and all Jerusalem were troubled.
Herod murdered all of the toddlers and infants.
Guess what?

Matthew says that Herod died.

Where did his immortal soul go?

Where did the babies go?

Oh my antlers. Was I inappropriate again?

Well god did same in the OT, slaughter was all the rage back then. Actions of superstitious savages are hardly worthy of respect.

Are you holier than Jesus?

The people today who don't want to retain God in their knowledge treat children just like Herod did.

Where is an independent account of Herods slaughter of infants?

Matthew 2

"And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt"

I understand the gifts paid for the flight to Egypt.

Where did Herod"s soul go?, Paul's, Pilate's, Nebuchadnezzar's? Saul's? We don't know if they accepted God's offer of repentance through salvation. There are accounts that Pilate repented, he is a saint in the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition. There is no record that Paul recanted. Judas certainly seems to have repented. He realized he had done wrong, threw the money back at his co-conspirators, and was so distraught that he committed suicide. I fail to see how one could repent more than that. If you repent and are allowed to receive a heavenly home you might be surprised who is there with you and who is missing.

Too deep for me, I'll just Trust in Our Lord.

I really don't understand people that claim Christ didn't happen, and it's all a myth, but spend so much time trying to troll and ridicule people that are believers. If it is all a big scam and there is no God, then why do they spend any time from their short and only life here on Earth, reading post about Jesus and responding to them? I don't troll atheists or other religions, it never occurs to me. What do they gain?

No doubt that would have been handy if Joseph didn't have enough in reserve for the unexpected journey and stay in Egypt.
If this were the case, God's timing was perfect.

Symbolically the Gold represents Jesus' royalty as King of kings.

Frankincense was used in the Old Testament meat/ meal offerings. It started with Aaron and his sons. It was a burnt offering and also made into bread for the priests. It represents Jesus as the offering

Myrrh was used in the anointing oil as a main ingredient.
Not only the King's like David, but the priests were anointed.
Jesus is our High Priest that ever makes intercession for us.

It's a very interesting study.

A good guess would be a bad experience with the church or religious people. I’ve always wondered if there is something deeper inside that nags at the mind. To invest so much energy on something that doesn’t exist is a curious thing.

That is a good question that I had for quite a few years. When I studied the Reprobate doctrine, it started to make sense.
Romans 1 is God's list of what characteristics can develop in someone He considers Reprobate. They don't want so much as a real baby Jesus Christmas post the Christmas Sunday. Why would the guys on the top three quarters of the previous page do everything they can to criticize, debate, malign...?

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things..."

When I see someone exhibit those characteristics over and again, I Mark them down and reject them. Why?
They are not interested in the things of God. Some like to debate, but that's because it feeds their pride. It's not like having a conflict and establishing their reason for believing. They are hard core unbelievers who hardened their hearts against the good news and there's no convincing them otherwise. That's always been ok with me, it just saves time for others.
That's not good enough for them. They follow and malign and attack the messengers because they can't fight God's powerful Word. That's when they twist the truth and do everything they can to do their fathers will......intimidate believers and turn unbelievers from the gospel. They are unified by their fallen spirits who work as unified forces.
This is spiritual warfare and those spirits know it.
Bob Brown apparently got blasted as did Renegade for a time.
Praise the Lord! 🤜 🤛

Happy, do you believe that every person that has not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior will burn in hell?

It might help you understand my desire for others to come to know Christ if you understand that I take what He said very seriously.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
John 3:18, 36

That's His opinion as he expressed to a devout Jew who approached Jesus wanting to know more.
There are biblical reasons that I believe that children and those who are handicapped by a childlike mind are safe in the Lord.

What about the monkey wrench of Matthew10:28?

So, other than children and retards, you are good with what I asked?

I expect there are hundreds of millions in the last 2,000 years that never heard of Jesus. Maybe there is something to reincarnation. Someone that is a PHD professor educated in economics and sociology told me a few years ago that there are now as many people alive on earth as the number of our human predecessors. I don't know that I believe that. Jesus sort of hinted at reincarnation. Maybe a chance for someone that missed out in a previous life. I don't know but God could do it.

Something else somewhat unrelated to this discussion I wonder about. Was Jesus married? He was considered a Rabbi and I do believe an unmarried man was not eligible to be a Rabbi. Another thing about Jesus that has me wondering is the virgin birth thing. The bible has two genealogies of Jesus listing Joseph as his link to King David. During Jesus' lifetime wasn't he thought to be Joseph's natural son? Did Jesus ever say he was not? Did the virgin birth claim arise later after his death and resurrection? He could of still been the Messiah even if conceived and born by conventional means.

What is written in the Gospels is not an independent account.

To question is not to ridicule. Everyone should question beliefs, especially one's own.

What Jesus said seems to me like it's self explanatory.
He offered the man a free gift. Receiving it is based on whether or not Nicodemus believes on the Son of God.
If he doesn't want to believe that, he remains condemned and the wrath of God abides on him.

It's a choice. You can take it or leave it. The benefits or consequences are according to your decision. Details below.

You shouldn't believe it, because it's not true.

The two genealogies don't match at all. There's absolutely no way they could both be true.
So much for inspired by an all knowing god....heck he can't even get the genealogies to match.

So it's ok for religious people to travel the world to know on people's door to try and convert them, but it's unacceptable for the non-religious to debate you on an internet forum?

Really?

And who started this thread?

Was it started by atheist trying to proselytize, or one of the Christian Zealots?

Don't waste your time explaining the genealogies guys.
It won't matter to the snipper.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Because there is no honest explanation.

Happy Camper. And I am wondering about him. I suspect there is an interesting story of a troubled man.

My post has nothing to do with you.

You just made my point. Why do you care? If somebody in another religion talks to me, I just politely turn them down and we part ways. I might even discuss my Church with them.....I certainly don't get angry.

7/22/20 – (Explanation for HC’s personality disorder?)
Believe it or not, this happened to me at a mall.
Instead of a hoe, it was a steel "I" beam and security gate chainlink. Free fell full speed with no resistance out of the ceiling directly onto my head. Nearly killed me. This happened the day after I insulted my very smart, awesome Dad. I was arrogant, frustrated and said something unkind to him. This wasn't karma. It was God humbling me, by using a store attendant who purposely pushed the button to drop it on my head.
The medical physicians said that I had no hope of recovery.
The Good Lord (The Great Physician), gave me healing in spite of my sin. I deserved to die that day.
It's not supposed to happen but my brain works now. Some would say otherwise and might be right.
Couldn't remember so much as a 7 digit phone number from the page to dial.... after studying it a while.

Doesn't sound like much has changed.

6/21/20 – (Happy Caamper is violently attacked by a “phag” who sends him “flying off a hill”.)
The same thing happened when I was a little boy and a phag came up to me out of the blue like that.
My head split open on a solid steel gas meter way below, after flying off the hill.


TBIs, Traumatic Brain Injuries, he's just not right in the head.

You remind me a a guy I once had a spirited conversation with. He challenged my statement that the NIV Bible I had given him was the “word of God.” He got a triumphant look on his face and pulled down a KJV and showed me how the verses didn’t match! I was incredulous as this guy was no fool, successful in life and pretty well educated. How could he not understand the concept of “translation.”

I explained that the NIV and the KJV were just different translations by different people at different times. The look on his face was one of the sudden recognition ….. and then of absolute rage….he saw that I was right in my explanation but could not bring himself to admit his error. He closed off the conversation by loudly proclaiming…. again…. that neither Bible could be right because the words weren’t the same. I thought that this was “triumphant indignation” by a guy who was totally wrong…. knew it, but could not admit it.

You see, he was happy, secure and self confidant in his ignorance. His ignorance allowed him to believe all kinds of untruth.

He did not seek any truth and in fact was repelled by it.

Now, if AS really wanted to understand the “two genealogies” issue, he could easily do an internet search and see a number of logical and well thought out studies and explanations. BUT…..AS does not want to. He is simply comfortable in his ignorance and it looks like he is going to stay there.

If anyone wants to study this issue, simply do an internet search of the “two genealogies of Jesus.”

I've read those alleged "explanations", they are nothing of the sorts, and do no comport with the words on the paper.

As for the variances in translations etc., again not consistent with what would be expected from the all powerful, all loving, all knowing creator of the universe.

Hastings,

I don’t see the virgin birth of Jesus as being an essential belief; Christianity doesn’t rest on the virgin birth of Jesus. The most significant element of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. If someone can predict their own death and resurrection…and pull it off…I’m not real concerned about how they got into the world. Christianity rests on the resurrection of Jesus.

We don't have a first hand account. What we have is written by believer's decades after the described events....with some embellishment in order for Jesus to fulfil prophesy, errors and all.

God raised Jesus from the dead. Matthew who was an eyewitness tells us so and wrote about it and believed it, Mark who knew eyewitnesses wrote about it and believed it, Luke who thoroughly investigated these things wrote about it and believed it, Peter who was an eyewitness wrote about it and believed it, John who was an eyewitness wrote about it and believed it, and James (the brother of Jesus) who did not follow Jesus during His earthly ministry, who showed up late to the game, who shows up after the resurrection and becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church, believed his brother died and was buried and rose from the dead, and referred to his brother as his Lord.

There are actually more than 15,000 New Testament manuscripts (from fragments to complete New Testaments) - 5,000 in Ancient Greek alone - way more than what exists for any other ancient Jewish, Greek, or Roman historical literature. Historians typically consider themselves fortunate to have ancient manuscripts numbering in double figures…!

The oldest known fragment of the Gospel dates to A.D. 125...within one generation of the documents original composition. At least several centuries elapse between the oldest existing copies and the original composition of most other ancient historical works. And the Gospel was written within living memory of all of the writers. Our best surviving biography of Alexander the Great comes from nearly five hundred years after his death...! And it’s considered extremely reliable…!

Back then, as today, writers of history wrote from particular perspectives and chose which information they decided to emphasize and which information they decided to omit. They depended on prior sources, written or oral, that they believed conveyed reliable and accurate information. Non-believers of the historicity of the Gospel clearly do not hold all of ancient recorded history to the same standards that they ‘selectively’ apply to the Gospel. The Gospel reports real events and real teachings of Jesus. Non-believers clearly don’t like that. But there it is.

That mentions eyewitnesses, but from the eyewitnesses themselves we have nothing. We don't know what they saw.

If someone were to write a biography today of Caesar, John F. Kennedy, Douglas McArthur, or Saladin…to discount them outright because none of them were a “first hand account” or because they were all written “decades after the described events” would be ludicrous.

Why can't you just answer the fuqking question? Jfc, I didn't ask you some complicated bullsheit, just answer yes or no. Wtf is wrong with you church flunkies?

There are multiple lines of evidence to support the existence of John F Kennedy, Caesar, et al.

The same is true of the historicity of Jesus. Clearly.

”With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. ...the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. ... like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.” - Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman is a foremost and world renowned biblical scholar with baccalaureate, masters, and PhD levels of education in biblical studies (including Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). And he’s an agnostic/atheist whose writings often attack Christianity and its historical claims. And even he asserts that the central claims about the historicity of Jesus…a Jewish rabbi who had followers, who was crucified on the orders of Pontus Pilate during Tiberius’ rein as emperor…are substantiated by source documents outside of the Gospels and other New Testament manuscripts. He is emphatic in saying the Jesus undoubtedly lived. And he provides these references in his book:

‘Did Jesus Exist…? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth’

He says that out of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who teach at major schools/universities throughout North America and Europe, he’s not aware of any of them who has any doubts that Jesus existed.

But it’s OK with me if others choose to believe whatever they choose to believe.

Well, some comment….. often we see what we want to see….. this characteristic seems to be found in both secular and non-secular worlds.

The explanations in fact do “comport” with and are consistent with actual genealogies. I doubt that you even read the articles and tried to see how indeed there is no contradiction. Simply two descriptions presented from two viewpoints.

But, that is not what you want to see. You want to see irreconcilable differences. Like the man who “proved” to me that the “Bible” could not be the word of God because the verses used different words. As long as I knew that man, he would never acknowledge his inconsistency. He was emotionally secure in his “cocoon of ignorance” …… and would not leave it.

Also, note your comment…..”…. not consistent with what would be expected from the all powerful, all loving, all knowing creator of the universe….” A mere man is deciding how the Creator should act? Doesn’t work that way.

You also left out some “all knowing creator” characteristics….. one being holy and without sin…. Pure…..and not abiding with sin.

Genetic fallacy is when you discount the reliability of information based on the source rather than on the merits of the information. It’s easy for some to discount information based on the source of the information rather than on the merits of the information. But…we also know this…that advice in particular should be judged on its merits rather than on its source. But it’s easier…and especially more palatable…for many to fall for the genetic fallacy.

Source impacts reliability, and therefore merits.

So, instead of looking at the actual merits of the information, it is judged based solely on its origin.

If one chooses to see things that way, then so be it. For them.

Did I say solely on it's origin, or did I say source impacts reliability?

Genetic fallacy, clearly the topic of my post, is when the information is judged based solely on its origin, rather than on its merits.

One’s confirmation bias on these matters is OK with me; even if I disagree with it vehemently, it’s still OK with me. I’m not threatened by it. Others can believe whatever they choose to believe, it affects me in no way whatsoever.

I don't believe you understand the Genetic Fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

It’s OK with me if you choose to believe whatever you choose to believe.

Paul was not an eyewitness, he never met Jesus. The mention of eyewitnesses is not the same as having multiple eyewitness accounts telling us what they saw.

We only have the gospels, and as mentioned, the earliest written decades after. Paul did not appear to be aware of some of the things written after his time.

Nothing you’ve said negates anything I’ve said regarding the historicity of Jesus. And nothing you’ve said negates anything Bart Ehrman’s said regarding the historicity of Jesus either.

There are very good reasons why scholars and historians are determinately unanimous in accepting that Jesus lived and was crucified by the Romans. Ehrman details these in his book.

But it’s OK with me that you choose to believe whatever you choose to believe.

2 Corinthians 4:4

Apostle Paul accomplished more in a few years than any of us will accomplish in our entire lifetimes. No one will know any of our names in 2,000 years; no one will quote us. None of us will say things that will endure through the ages. 2,000 years from now, nobody’s gonna be talking about anything that any of us ever said or did.

He got on a boat that none of us would ever dream of getting on, and went across the Mediterranean to dangerous places; he got beat up, snake-bit, stoned, shipwrecked, and on and on and on. And he planted all these churches around the Mediterranean to reach Gentile people like most of us, and the reason we know many of the things we know today is not because of what he thought, but because of what he did. And he did it without Motrin and electricity. Pretty incredible, really.

It's not what I say, or what I ''choose to believe,'' but what the historical records support. There may have been a historical figure, a Yeshua, upon which the legend was constructed, first through oral transmission, then written about decades later. I'm inclined to think that there was a charismatic preacher as the foundation of Christianity, just not like what the gospels describe.

For instance, some scholars see similarities between Paul’s epistles and material in Mark and Luke, which suggests that those authors had access to Paul’s epistles.

It’s clearly what you “choose to believe” about what the historical records support.

It's not unanimously accepted....not even close.

Ehrman says that out of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who teach at major schools/universities throughout North America and Europe, he’s not aware of any of them who has any doubts that Jesus existed.

Nope, it is what is written in the material itself and the timeline for the collection of works , gospels, Paul's letters, etc, that paints a picture of history....incomplete as it is.

Being incomplete, we may never know what really happened.

Hey Happy Flapper, are you gonna answer my fuqking question or not?

Given how extraordinary Jesus's life was it's extraordinary that there are no first hand accounts of it. Copied third hand stories still don't amount to much.

Nope. There is ancient evidence for Jesus from non-Christian sources; sources that Ehrman and thousands of other biblical scholars and historians put stock in. He refers to these sources in his book about the historicity of Jesus. And the non-Christian historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is considered by them to be excellent…even by scholars and historians who are agnostic/atheists. But you “choose to believe” otherwise about the historical record.

But that’s OK; it’s OK with me that you choose to believe whatever you choose to believe.

You can lead them to water antlers, but you can't make them drink. Their eyes have been blinded by satan. So called "deep thinkers" believe that they are more intelligent than God.

I realize that we are supposed to try & bring them to Christ, but many have so much hate for the Truth, that it is very hard to witness.

Not true. He's debated Scholars with doubts.

It’s absolutely and unequivocally true that he made the above assertion. It’s straight from his book. And no skeptical scholar is as prominent today as he is.

But it’s cool with me that you choose to believe otherwise.

What first hand non Christian sources do we have?

Surely you don't consider mentions by Josephus, Tacitus, et al, as being first hand accounts?

You've been provided with the gospel over a hundred times and still reject it.
You are going to hell. That is your choice. I get no joy from that. Jesus was very specific as was the great commission given to the disciples. There's a whole book written on it, John.

Jesus said MANY are going there. I don't have any opposing opinions. He was right, just as He always is.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

I suggest listening to the videos if that is still possible.

Your definition of first hand accounts and the scholarly definition of first hand accounts…also referred to as primary sources…are quite different.

Shocker.

There are many non-Christian primary sources that Ehrman references in his book that mention Jesus. He even asserts that “Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind” in reference to these documents of historical record that mention Jesus.

There are zero of your definition of “first hand accounts”
of any ancient historical figure in existence.

But it’s OK with me that you choose to believe that the ancient historical record that mentions Jesus should be held to a higher standard than all of the other ancient historical records that mention any other ancient historical figure.

I’d consider a rejection of original sin (aka total depravity) which is very clearly taught in scripture you’re heterodox.

According to the Bible isn’t something we do; it’s something that we are. There is no one righteous; not one. Including kids and those who are mentally slow.

So you take the Catholic view that all sinned when Adam sinned?

Either way, we are all guilty of sin by choice.
It's not spelled out in Scripture like it is in some dogmas of denominations what the particular age of accountability is.
I don't think that there is a particular age. God only knows and that by individual.
There are examples like Acts 8. God sends His messenger, Philip an evangelist to lead a man to Christ. He was open to hearing the gospel. Some hear many times and say no to it until their hearts harden against the Lord. I believe that God gives to whosoever will. It's a matter of volition/ choice.
Others need the seed watered a while before the fruit of salvation appears.

HC, if you truly believed that every person who has not been "saved" is going to hell, whether or not they had ever heard the gospel, then you should sell everything you have and spend every spare minute of your time traveling to the ends of the earth to warn them. You shouldn't be spending your time on 24HCF warning those who have already heard. You're a fuqking flake and you know it.

When I post a weekly sermon, like the Birth of Jesus, and you trolls do your best to drive away the hundreds who sometimes read or listen, you do waste too much of our time.
You are welcome to go join Bob Brown or Rene'50.

Answer me you little bitch.

You mean small-c catholic as in the historic Christian faith (vs Roman Catholic)? If so yeah… Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all understood this truth because they all studied scripture.

Romans 5:12 is clear; Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men

Erwin never debated Robert Price?
Are you sure about that?

So you are not going to answer the man, just threaten him?

Are you so blind that you cannot understand that simple answer???
I have no opinion other than what Jesus, the apostles and prophets have said.
There is no threat. It's a clear statement of fact for all who choose to trust in good deeds of the law or any religious rituals to be saved. Have you so much as ever told a lie?

No, he ain't gonna answer, he don't have an answer. He is full of sheit.

'First hand account' just means a witness telling the reader or listener what what saw. It's not complicated. To witness means seeing the event.

This is not according to me, it's not personal definition. It's not controversial.



Your defense strategy is shocking.


As pointed out, Josephus, Tacitus, et al, wrote what they had heard. They did not know Jesus, they had never seen him....and there is some controversy surrounding Josephus's account;

''The Testimonium Flavianum, a brief passage in Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus (37 - ca. 100 AD), is widely considered the only extant evidence besides the Bible of the historicity of Jesus Christ. In the sixteenth century the authenticity of this passage was challenged by scholars, launching a controversy that has still not been resolved.''


There are examples, Plato was a student of Socrates, Plato knew Socrates personally wrote about the life of Socrates. The existence of Caeser is supported by multiple lines of evidence from the time period;


The evidence of a historical Julius Caesar consists of several extensive mentions by the historian Sallust, (86-34BC); a biography by another historian, Suetonius (c75-120AD) as well as one by Plutarch (46-127AD). Chapter after chapter by the historian Appian (c95-165AD) relate complex chains of events in which Julius Caesar was intimately involved. There are the many other critically important mentions too, for example in the works of Cicero, Dio Cassius, Livy, Lucan, Valerius Maximus, Vitruvius, Catullus...
What is the epic story of Pompey the Great without Julius Caesar? What gaping holes would there be in the stories of Cleopatra or Mark Antony without Julius Caesar? Or for that matter of Octavian, Cicero and Cato? So much of Roman history depends upon this one man he is like the centerpiece of its history...
In addition, we can find numerous inscriptions and monuments, statues and coins. There is not enough material to satisfy my appetite, (I am still hoping for textual material to be rescued from Herculaneum) but there is, undeniably, quite a bit of historical evidence that a man named Julius Caesar did indeed exist.





Still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat the fallacy.

Somebody supposedly wrote something from 399 B.C.E. and you choose to believe it. You have no proof that it’s true, but you still choose to believe that it is. It was allegedly written by Plato and you choose to believe that. You have no proof that it was actually written by Plato, but you still choose to believe that it was.And, as Ehrman points out in his book, the same can be said of the non-Christian historical record regarding Jesus.

That is what you choose to believe.

I choose to believe otherwise. Paul was a fire breathing Jewish Pharisee who hated Christians with a passion, thinking he was doing God's work. He was one of the upcoming men in Judaism. Then he met Jesus. Many come to know Jesus through the Bible or by being convinced of the truth by friends or a pastor, or directly by the Holy Spirit. Paul met Him head on, getting knocked down in the dirt and slapped up side the head. Jesus knew what Paul was capable of and hand picked him to be the leading missionary of all time. Jesus also said that he would teach Paul what he would suffer for doing His work. And Paul did suffer. He was beaten and imprisoned. He was chased out of cities and came close to being murdered a number of times. In the end he was murdered by Nero.

This!^^^^^^^^^^

Some who profess to follow Jesus denigrate Paul and say he preached a religion that was not from Jesus. That's not true at all. Jesus came to the Jews and He taught a message specifically to them. All of the disciples were Jews because that's who Jesus came for initially. The OT says that the Jews would reject Him and that's exactly what they did. It was time to go beyond the Jews and Jesus picked Paul specifically to do the job.

After his conversion, Paul disappeared into the desert for 3 years. There are hints in the Bible that he spent that time being taught by Jesus personally. An apostle was, by definition, one who had been taught by Jesus to be a teacher and Paul claimed that title. When Paul came back, he was on fire and it never went out as long as he lived.

I'm not convinced Socrates did exist, and believe it's more likely he did not. They story of his death doesn't read like history, it reads like fiction, similar to sacrifice of other fictional exhausted beings.

It's still not what I choose to believe. It's the multiple lines of evidence that supports the existence of Socrates. He is not only written about by Plato, his student, but others who have no skin in the game, no vested interest, Socrates is not their Messiah, not someone they worship like a Prophet or God, just a philosopher who taught in the Agora.

Which doesn't mean that Plato did not embellish the story or that everything that is written about Socrates is a hundred percent accurate, just that it's highly likely that there was a Socrates, a Philosopher who taught in the Athenian Agora;

''Let us start with the evidence in works written in Socrates’ own lifetime. This has an advantage in that these works are most likely to be first-hand accounts, written from a fresh memory and for an audience familiar with Socrates himself and before any tradition could have arisen of the “Socratic discourse” as a literary genre that could take liberties with history. . . .

The most important single source is the satire by Aristophanes in his comedy the Clouds, produced in 423 and followed by a second edition some years later where the poet tells us (II. 518 If.) that the first edition was not successful and where certain features, notably the debate of the Just and Unjust Arguments and the final burning of Socrates’ school, were either added or radically revised.

How far can a comedian go? Whether Aristophanes’ real target was Socrates himself, the subversive tendencies of the Sophistic movement, the apparent absurdities of Ionian “science,” or just ‘long-haired intellectuals” in general (and the contrasts we find so obvious between these various elements may not have been at all so obvious to their contemporaries), his selection of Socrates as his chief butt must surely mean that Socrates was known to a fairly wide audience, and vaguely associated with the “modem” tendencies.''

Plato and Xenophon have much in common. They both knew Socrates personally (Xenophon [Mem. III 6.1] mentions Plato en passant in a way suggesting considerable intimacy with Socrates.) . . . . .

Plato himself, as we have seen, is naturally regarded as our main source for Socrates, though only in his earliest dialogues. This does not, however, mean that nothing in the later dialogues can be used. The change in Socrates’ role in the dialogues is a gradual one and the fact that he is sometimes abandoned shows that Plato thought of himself as in some sense following Socrates for the rest of the time. . . .

Finally we come to Aristotle, our only substantial later source. Barring pure invention, whatever Aristotle tells us about Socrates must come from further sources, and his value to us depends on what these sources were, and on how reliably, and so with what purpose, he used them. If he had only the sources that we also have ourselves his value would be only that of a highly intelligent modern colleague; his opinion would be just one among others. But this does not follow if it turns out simply that everything he tells us can be traced to some otherwise available source. Such a conclusion might be disappointing but it would still be valuable for us if Aristotle chose his material from sources far exceeding those available to us now. It would show which sources he thought reliable on the point in question, and would suggest that the lost ones were either not among these or did not contradict those we have. That his sources did vastly exceed our own no one would doubt, and though it is only natural that he should make much use of Plato’s writings, there are many things he tells us-such as that Plato, not Socrates, “separated” the Forms, or that Plato’s earliest teacher was Cratylus which it is hard to see how he can have got from the dialogues.

There is other evidence discussed by Lacey but it is less direct than the points I have copied above. So we have the testimony of contemporaries, each presenting his own perspective, two students, one satirist ridiculing the great man.''

Yes it is. Clearly. You choose to believe what you’ve copied and pasted. Bart Ehrman believes the non-Christian historical record that mentions Jesus. And I believe the non-Christian historical record that mentions Jesus.

The Jews were under the Law and Jesus represented that law. The Gentiles were NOT under it and never had been. Paul didn't teach the Law to them because it didn't apply to them. The Jews and Gentiles were entirely different and had to be approached differently. That's where the conflicts came. The other apostles (all Jews) were all under the Law and had to be taught that it didn't apply in the case of the Gentiles. It took some compromising before they accepted that fact. Peter ran into it head on when he met Cornelius. The idea that a Gentile could be a spirit filled believer shocked their systems and entirely changed the church. But, it prepared them for sending Paul out into the Gentile world. God used Cornelius to prepare them for what He was gonna to do.

It’s been said by some that Paul invented the things he'd done and how he'd been converted. However, Luke investigated carefully what he wrote in Luke and Acts. Luke didn't get his information from Paul. He got much of it from the people he talked to, eyewitnesses to the events. He would have talked to Ananias about how Jesus sent him to restore Paul's eyesight and how Jesus said that he would teach Paul what he must suffer for Jesus’ ministry. Luke has been called the greatest historian in history because of his thorough methods of investigation. His words can be trusted.

Some say they rely on the 4 gospels alone because that's what Jesus taught. That's fine if you're a Jew. The rest of us are not Jews. We're Gentiles and God sent us our message through Paul and the other NT authors. Everyone benefits from the 4 gospels, but us Gentiles also benefit from the rest of what God's telling us.

But even for the Jews, the Law was no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus fulfilled…as in ended…the necessity of the Law. He didn’t abolish the Law by fulfilling it...He just made it obsolete by fulfilling it. Jesus said that nothing in the Law would “disappear” until everything in it was “accomplished.” It ‘was’ accomplished, and then the Law began to disappear. Jews throughout the Roman world started abandoning strict adherence to the Law to follow the resurrected Jesus.

That transition came to an abrupt end on August 6 in AD70. Ancient Judaism ended…wholly and completely…signaled by the temple’s destruction...just as Jesus predicted. The Old Covenant wasn’t needed anymore...it had been fulfilled and replaced with a new, and better covenant.

Les Feldick, said Paul took the Gospel to the East, the religions of opium dens, not rights for women or any minorities.

That's just a bunch of word play.

I copied and pasted useful information relating to why Socrates most likely existed. You ignored all that was explained in the article, only to repeat your mantra 'you choose to believe'

It is the evidence that counts, not belief.

The funny thing is, you don't appear to accept multiple independent accounts relating to Socrates - Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Aristophanes and others.....yet try to invoke the words of Josephus, who didn't know Jesus, had never seen him, wrote about what he had heard, some of which was modified by Christian Scribes to suit their ends, as evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Can you see the absurdity and double standard of taking this line?

No.

So the devil made you do it ?

Free will has nothing to do with it ?

I know youhave a reason for saying no just trying to figure why.

Like my doctor said about my heart event, the lucky ones have symptoms.

That may hold for sin as well.

The term "free will" tells us nothing about human behaviour, the means, drivers, how we are able to think, what we do think or why, or why we do whatever it is we do.

Nope. Those are your words, not mine. I never made that assertion.

Nope. But I’m cool with you believing whatever you choose to believe.

You clearly choose to believe the evidence that suits your agenda, and you clearly choose to deny the evidence that doesn’t suit your agenda.

Have you ever told a lie?

It's based on what you said about independent sources that support the existence of Jesus.

Are you saying that you don't accept Josephus, Tacutus, et al, as being reliable?

I don't believe anything, I look at the evidence. "Choose to believe" is your Strawman.

I'm sure Bristoe has told a whopper or two in his lifetime, but it is definately your specialty.

I'm telling you the truth.
There's not one of us who hasn't told a lie.
That puts anyone who has done nothing more than lie in a big problem.

Revelation 21:8

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

According to the Bible, where do we deserve to go, heaven or hell?

You seem to love the sin and repent cycle that you are perpetually locked into - you dirty little bitch.

Mouser,

What are you going to do about this dilemma you're in?

"For the wages of sin is death..."
Romans 6

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
Rev. 20

You can't pay for your past sins by promising to be perfect from now on (false definition of repentance.)

I'm exempt from sin - it's a construct of your belief system.

Romans 6 Goes on to say...
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Since we can't save ourselves anymore than jump to the moon, God offers forgiveness. Who does that come through?

The real question is, are you gonna go tell everybody that hasn't heard and save them from hell, or are you just gonna sit here and babble your bullsheit to people that have already heard?

Why does the bible describe God breaking the very rules that are said to be from God? Not to kill, not to steal, not to lie, etc? It tells us that God sent 'lying spirits' in order to deceive, hardened the heart of the Pharoah, killed the firstborn of Egypt, ordered slaughter and rape......Why this double standard?

I speculate that when there was competition amongst a selection of gods made to the superstitious that the bad-ass berserkers were more likely to stand out, at least in the OT. Once the sale was made it was moderated a little bit in the NT.

Because if Crappy was as annoying face to face as he was here he'd probably get a beat down.

Wish that mf'er would go do some missionary work with some cannibals down in the Amazon. I would pay some tithes to fund his trip.

Sl,

You've heard that there is no amount of good works that can be added to the sacrifice of Christ.
Do you realize that if you sold your kidney and filled shoe boxes with money to send to all of the little black kids in Africa, it wouldn't pay for one sin?

No, THIS is the issue mirage.

Get your ass down to the Amazon and do some real missionary work.

I think they could use a preacher in Afganistan.

Forgiveness for what? For the sake of argument --- if we are created and we are flawed, we have been created flawed and fallible. Who then is to blame? The Potter for creating flawed vessels, or the vessels for being created flawed?



"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4

Pfft...His alabaster white ass would bust a sweat just walking by an Adidas Outlet Store.

🦫

Did Adidas open an outlet store in Kabul!

Guy asked me if I wanted to buy some Adidas on the beach in Mexico

Yes, you clearly do choose to believe the evidence that suits your agenda, and you clearly do choose to not believe the evidence that doesn’t suit your agenda. You choose to believe that as well. It’s OK with me that you choose to believe what you want to, and that you choose to not believe what you don’t want to.

There's plenty of people here that speak English that are going to split hell wide open.
What are you going to do about this dilemma you're in?

"For the wages of sin is death..."
Romans 6

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
Rev. 20

I don't have an agenda. I merely point to the evidence (which you ignored). The evidence supports the reality of a Socrates who taught in the Athenian Agora. I don't need to believe this. The evidence is there. You can dispute the evidence if you like.



I can't choose to believe; the evidence is either there or it is not. The evidence for Socrates lies in the accounts of multiple people who lived at the time and knew the man, one of them - Aristophanes - being a critic of Socrates.

Which is not to say that some didn't embellish the story of Socrates, only that it's likely that he existed, was a philosopher and taught in the agora.

For the record, I think that was a real Charismatic Rabbi/teacher- 'Jesus/Yeshuah' - upon which the mythology of the son of God/messiah/blood sacrifice was built.

Yes you do.You point to the evidence that suits your agenda. But you deny the evidence that doesn’t suit your agenda.Yes you can, and you do.

Your beliefs are OK with me. I’m not threatened by them. I’m not bothered by them. You choose to believe what you want to, and you choose to not believe what you don’t want to. Your beliefs are yours. I’m cool with it.

One more time.

(BACK ON TOPIC)



What do you do about ...

Ecclesiastes 7:20 ?
"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

Romans 3:10, 23; 5:12
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

There's a false teaching that we are responsible for Adam's sin.
We certainly inherited the nature to sin, however the children are not punished for the sins of the father. That's where the unbiblical practice of infant baptism comes from. ALL of us sin because we have chosen to sin. We are therefore under condemnation as long as we continue to justify our own righteousness. We are not righteous according to God. The righteous one gave Himself for us to suffer in our place so we can choose to receive His gift for free by faith in Him. Jesus on the cross was just as innocent at His age as he was lying in the manger......

What do you think about that?

(BACK ON TOPIC)

I don't have an agenda because it suits you to believe that. You say it as a means of defense, a way of dismissing an opponent and inconvenient arguments without having to address what is said.

You do the very thing you accuse me of, and make real attempt at addressing the points being raised.

But, in your own words, "that's what you choose to believe."

laffin’

I’m cool with your agenda, and I’m cool with your choice to believe or disbelieve what you do.

I do find it funny, and very telling, that you consider me to be “an opponent.”

That's the best you have. Which is not much.