The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

[dylanvb]

“My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”
‭‭James‬ ‭1‬:‭2‬-‭8‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

I will continue to put my hope in Jesus Christ.

 

[go_deep]

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” He said to them in reply, “An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it...
Matthew 12:38-39

 

[dylanvb]

And believers don’t understand nonbelievers are not trying to take away their faith.

Really? Please tell us why you are still posting in this thread then? Are you asking questions for yourself? In search of faith for yourself?

I ask these questions because any time someone has tried to have a discussion you combat it. It doesn’t seem like you are here to learn.

 

[Beagle1]

I have been asked before why I posted in this thread - it’s an interesting topic. In the future when someone starts a religious thread maybe they should say opposing viewpoints are not welcome. A discussion is not telling the other side only what they want to hear. You give reasons why and I give reasons why I disagree. Learning is not a one way street. If a poster started a thread about the benefits of the 6.5 Creedmoor round would it be wrong for other posters to disagree and give their reasons why?

 

[go_deep]

I have been asked before why I posted in this thread - it’s an interesting topic. In the future when someone starts a religious thread maybe they should say opposing viewpoints are not welcome. A discussion is not telling the other side only what they want to hear. You give reasons why and I give reasons why I disagree. Learning is not a one way street. If a poster started a thread about the benefits of the 6.5 Creedmoor round would it be wrong for other posters to disagree and give their reasons why?

I think we're the frustration comes in is that, maybe not all, but some of you questions have been answered with fact, physical evidence, documented historical data, and you still refute. So, it just comes off that you want to argue against anything that may point to Christ, proclaim Christ, or anything that could even sort of accidentally elude to Christ.
To me physiologically it screams that you are truly deep down struggling with it, and are being pulled, all be it kicking and screaming towards Christ.

Christ's peace be with you

 

[dylanvb]

I don’t think the OP meant for this thread to be a discussion rather more so giving thanks and glory to God. Go back to the first page and non believers side tracked that and now here we are, 48 pages later going in circles.

 

[Yoder]

@Yoder : What's the genesis of your screen name?

Might you be a mennonite?

Thanks,

Eddie

From what little I know about my family history a lot of Yoders are Amish and Lutheran. I would guess Mennonite too but I don't know. There were a lot of Mennonites where I grew up, but I didn'tknowany that were Yoders. My family was Lutheran. Religion was not a big part of my life growing up.

 

[Yoder]

And did you read what I read?

It was initially stated no one died for a lie. I cited examples where that was wrong. You then brought up the apostles’ belief in the resurrection and the suffering they endured because of it. I pointed out sincerity of belief does not equal truth.

You pointed out their sincerity was based on eyewitness accounts. I have previously pointed out that there are many valid reasons to question these accounts and they are not verifiable.

It's like I'm speaking Chinese. If I personally witness a crime, I saw it. I know it's true. If I tell the police, they can either believe me or not. It doesn't change what I saw. The Apostles were eye witnesses. They know if Jesus rose from the dead or if it was some kind of farse. Every explanation you have given of zealots killing themselves were not eye witnesses. They believed a story told to them. Every other Christian that was not an eye witness to the resurrection would fall into that category. I have to decide to believe or not. I don't believe the Apostles would die for something they absolutely knew with their own eyes was false. Nobody would. Devils advocate, maybe they were all high on mushrooms. But they saw him and never rebuked him again.

 

[Bugger]

I don't believe the Apostles would die for something they absolutely knew with their own eyes was false. Nobody would. Devils advocate, maybe they were all high on mushrooms. But they saw him and never rebuked him again.

Since you mentioned the taboo subject first..

 

[Beagle1]

You are speaking Chinese. We don’t have a recent police report from an interview with an eye witness to a crime here.

What we do have is Paul and the Gospels recording oral traditions that were passed down over the previous 25 - 70 years. There were no eye witness interviews only hearsay passed down for a couple generations. And as to the Gospels they were written by unknown authors. The early church only added apostolic names to the Gospels in the second century.

 

[dylanvb]

You are speaking Chinese. We don’t have a recent police report from an interview with an eye witness to a crime here.

What we do have is Paul and the Gospels recording oral traditions that were passed down over the previous 25 - 70 years. There were no eye witness interviews only hearsay passed down for a couple generations. And as to the Gospels they were written by unknown authors. The early church only added apostolic names to the Gospels in the second century.

these claims are constantly proven false.

 

[Beagle1]

these claims are constantly proven false.

False? No. I understand why you would prefer Winger’s position. But both religious and secular scholars widely agree that the Gospels were written 35–70 years after Jesus’ death by unknown authors, and the names were attached in the second century. They rely on oral traditions, not direct interviews. This is not controversial, it’s the mainstream view among most biblical scholars, including many Christian ones.

Now compare that to the Qur’an, which was compiled shortly after Muhammad’s death. It has a well-documented chain of transmission and stronger manuscript evidence. If we accept the Gospels as trustworthy based on oral tradition decades later, shouldn’t you for intellectual consistency also accept the Qur’an’s claims, which have an even better historical chain?

If we’re applying the same standard, then either we trust both scriptures’ supernatural claims or neither. Belief in the Christian resurrection or Muslim divine revelation according to their sacred texts is based on faith , not indisputable historical evidence.

 

[go_deep]

False? No. I understand why you would prefer Winger’s position. But both religious and secular scholars widely agree that the Gospels were written 35–70 years after Jesus’ death by unknown authors, and the names were attached in the second century. They rely on oral traditions, not direct interviews. This is not controversial, it’s the mainstream view among most biblical scholars, including many Christian ones.

Now compare that to the Qur’an, which was compiled shortly after Muhammad’s death. It has a well-documented chain of transmission and stronger manuscript evidence. If we accept the Gospels as trustworthy based on oral tradition decades later, shouldn’t you for intellectual consistency also accept the Qur’an’s claims, which have an even better historical chain?

If we’re applying the same standard, then either we trust both scriptures’ supernatural claims or neither. Belief in the Christian resurrection or Muslim divine revelation according to their sacred texts is based on faith , not indisputable historical evidence.

Sorry, any man who take a 6 year old child as a wife has no moral ground to stand on in my life.
Zero comparison between the two, Jesus Christ and Muhammad.