A question for Christians

[naomi24]

You're told Jesus died for you personally because God loves you, and this appalling death was necessary in order for your sins to be forgiven. Of course, God is omnipotent, apparently, so we cannot possibly believe there was no other way, but that aside, I would hate to think that someone deliberately planned to torture and execute a man on my behalf, so given a choice, would you have allowed it to happen?

[naomi24]

Ann, rest assured I have read the bible, and I suspect rather more than you have. I find it very strange that rather than asking me what I meant, you again quote a biblical verse as though you think that somehow verifies your belief. It doesn't. Actually, perhaps it isn't strange that you haven't bothered to ask me what I meant. You probably don't want to know.

Elderman, as I said, Christianity didn't exist at the time of Christ. Jesus and his disciples were Jews and I don't believe they ever had any intention of becoming anything other than Jews. Christianity is manufactured - and where religion is concerned, it is not alone.

Would you like to answer the question, Elderman? It's one of principle.

Incidentally, Elderman - and Ann - you do realise the New Testament (or the 'Greek' if you like) has undergone many amendments over time to make it fit the purpose, don't you? You can't believe all you read, you know.

[Ankou]

wildwood, my apologies, for a brief moment i thought you actually believed what you were saying.

crisis averted.

:o]

[LogicA]

Boxtops starts out with an unattributed characterization that is afterwards used by Naomi, both unscientificallly and illogically arguing against explicit texts of the Bible. EG, to boxtops, the Bible says the exact opposite of your first sentence, it corrects you on two points :


"God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation."

[Elderman]

//rest assured I have read the bible,//

So I am sure you are aware that with the coming of Jesus Christ, an individual’s enjoying a proper relationship with God and approaching him acceptably in prayer depended on acceptance of Jesus Christ. As the Son of God stated: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (Joh 14:6; Heb 10:19-22) Those who became followers of Jesus Christ were spoken of as belonging to “The Way,” that is, they adhered to a way or manner of life that centered around faith in Jesus Christ, following his example. The Latinized Greek term Khri•sti•a•nos′, found only three times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, designates followers of Christ Jesus, the exponents of Christianity.—Ac 11:26; 26:28; 1Pe 4:16.

As I mentioned in my previous comment
,// “It was first in Antioch [Syria] that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.” (Ac 11:26) It is possible, then, that this name was used as early as the year 44 C.E. when the events surrounding this text occurred, although the grammatical structure of this phrase does not necessarily make it so; some think it was a little later. At any rate, by about 58 C.E., in the city of Caesarea, the term was well known and used even by public officials, for at that time King Herod Agrippa II said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.”—Ac 26:28.//

It is most unlikely that the Jews first styled Jesus’ followers “Christians” (Greek) or “Messianists” (Hebrew), for they would not reject Jesus as being the Messiah, or Christ, and then tacitly recognize him as the Anointed One, or Christ, by stamping his followers “Christians.” Possibly the heathen population may have nicknamed them Christians out of jest or scorn, but the Bible shows that it was a God-given name; they “were by divine providence called Christians.”—Ac 11:26.

Yes, they were Jews, but Jesus’ teachings showed them up as not being true worshippers of God – hence on Jesus’ death, the Mosaic Law became obsolete – a new law “The Kingly Law” came into operation.

[naomi24]

LogicA , logic and science do not appear to be your forte.

Perhaps you would like to answer the question. It concerns principles.

Elderman //So I am sure you are aware that with the coming of Jesus Christ, an individual’s enjoying a proper relationship with God and approaching him acceptably in prayer depended on acceptance of Jesus Christ.//

//hence on Jesus’ death, the Mosaic Law became obsolete – a new law “The Kingly Law” came into operation.//

I am aware of none of that - but then I depend upon verifiable history.

[birdie1971]

Elderman - “... the heathen population may have nicknamed them Christians out of jest or scorn, but the Bible shows that it was a God-given name; they “were by divine providence called Christians.”—Ac[ts] 11:26.”

You must surely understand that what you are suggesting is circular reasoning? You're suggesting that Christians (when Jesus was alive) were an individually identifiable group because it says so in the book of Acts in the New Testament.

You're saying that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.

You may think that this is a great argument. Many Christians do. What they conveniently overlook (apart from the absurdity of circular reasoning) is the fact that the Bible is not a contemporary document. It was not written by anyone who was alive at the time of Jesus. Every single story encoded in the Bible is an orally transmitted, second hand account (at best) and has been heavily edited prior to publication.

Naomi is absolutely correct. Jesus was a Jew as were his disciples. Christianity did not exist at the time of Jesus. It was in fact, invented and popularised by Saint Paul (of Tarsus).

[chakka35]

I am frequently bemused by people (Ann and Elderman are the latest) who quote the bible, and particularly the NT, without making any effort to establish the authority of such quotations. As naomi says, many of us - including atheists like me - know a lot about the NT and in particular about how it came about. If you did that, Ann and E, you'd know that we have no idea who wrote the gospels, that they were written many years after the suppposedtime of Jesus by people who never knew him, and that it is therefore foolish to quote them as if they had historical authenticity.

Better to think for yourself than rely on quotes from people about whom you know nothing.

[naomi24]

//I am frequently bemused by people (Ann and Elderman are the latest) who quote the bible, and particularly the NT, without making any effort to establish the authority of such quotations. //

I'm even more bemused by those who quote the bible as authoritative fact but completely ignore anything that doesn't fit into their philosophy. Ann has stated that Jesus was God's only son. I've told her he wasn't. Wouldn't you think she'd be just a little bit curious about that?

[flobadob]

Not particularly naomi, as these people just spew on and on without any regard for anyone who might dare to point out the spuriousness of there assertions.