KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

Are You Good Enough?

Are You Good Enough?

How Do You Know for Sure?

The million dollar question is How does one get to heaven? The prerequisite is death, and for that we seem to all agree. But after that let the speculation begin. For many life is much too busy to even think about this right now. I mean life is pretty full right now to even bother thinking that far ahead. Life has to be lived, jobs have to be done, kids have to be fed, my tv program has to be watched and I do have to sleep at least 1/3 of the day. There is just no time to think about this right now. Isn't that what we believe even if we don't come out and say it?

When I was on vacation I read a book by Andy Stanley called "How Good is Good Enough?" In his book he brings up some very good logical points that I believe many have not thought thru. Many times I hear that if one is "good enough" they can enter heaven. Obviously that is a very common belief and one that Stanley tackles in his book.

Most people believe that once you die your soul goes somewhere. Most believe in heaven, some believe in hell. In spite of all the differences out there, all share one common denominator: how you live on this side of eternity determines where you spend eternity on the other side.

If God appeared to you at the gate and asked you "Why should I allow you into heaven? how would you answer? Most people no matter if they are Christian, Hindu, or Muslim would answer with:

"I always do .......
"I never have done........."
I've done more good than bad....."
"I've tried my best to be......."

The majority of answers recall living a good life, and living a good life is another prerequisite for heaven. So then we need only to behave ourselves now and we can reach heaven. Now back to our lives.

But as you get older, you start to think more often about it even if you find yourself pushing it away from your mind. Maybe you get some bad health news, or you go to yet another funeral. Maybe it's going to a birthday party or maybe it's your own birthday that gets you to thinking about eternity. You may not talk about it, but it's there.

The mortality rate for humans is 100%, and as we get older it becomes more evident in our minds. As good as we can be, and we usually think we're pretty good, we can't really be sure we're good enough. We can hope so. But how can we know for sure? Where's the line? The standard? Is there enough time to do more good deeds to counterbalance the bad ones? Who decides? If it's God, shouldn't he have been a bit more clearer about how all this works? A mile marker would do or a mid term would be helpful.

But hey we have religion and their many books to help us right? We have teachers, preachers, rabbis, priests, lamas and they are all in the business of getting us to the other side. Ok, so why are we still unsure? Many even tho they have been religiously taught one way or the other are still not confident in their standing before God. Stanley puts a quote in his book from Gandhi showing that even Gandhi couldn't find certainty in religion. If he couldn't be sure can we? When questioned why he proselytized in the arena of politics but not religion Gandhi said:

"In the realm of the political and social and economic, we can be sufficiently certain to convert; but in the realm of religion there is not sufficient certainty to convert anybody, and therefore, there can be no coversions in religions."

Even what we would consider the salt of the earth people here, can sometimes have no idea where they will spend eternity of if they are good enough to enter. The best they can say is "I hope so." Why is that? If the nicest, kindest, most loving people we know here on earth can't know for sure how can we? Why don't they know? Because nobody can tell you how good you have to be to go to heaven. Nobody.

In his book Stanley talks of making dangerous assumptions. For many of us we go to bed assuming we will wake up in the morning. We don't worry about waking up to smoke filled bedrooms because we have smoke alarms. We feel safe. But do we test them? Do our extinquishers work? Do we test them? Or do we assume they work? Yet in spite of our lack of investigation we go to bed every night under the assumption that our family is safe. Since most think they are good, they go to bed assuming that if they were to die in their sleep (it happens) they would find themselves standing at the pearly gates hoping they have the right answers or enough good deeds to get in.

How many of us even take the time to test the assumption that good people go to heaven? Are we too busy? After all the logic seems fair. If you do well, you deserve good things. It's a reward for good behavior. After all, this action and reaction relationship is illustrated in all the religions. The Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Ellen White's Books etc. all tell of God's eagerness to reward good behavior in this life. So it only seems fair if you do well here, you go to heaven. Plain and simple.

Also it's logical to assume that if God is good and dwells in a good place, then it makes sense that God would surround himself with good people. Bad people wouldn't go to heaven. That's not logical. Don't we think that? We tell our kids if they're good they can go to a very special event or be treated to a very special place as a reward for good behavior.

While we know we're not perfect, at the same time we feel as though we are good enough for heaven. The truth is very few people that believe in life after this earthly one believe they aren't going to a better place. Almost 90% of Americans believe in heaven while only about 30% believe in a hell. Most that believe in hell don't think they are going there.

What other view could there be? Bad people go to heaven? Nope, can't be. Unthinkable. All the experts can't be that off can they?

I'd like to look at that next time.









"
8,191 views 62 replies
Reply #26 Top
Starting with Abraham.....a Hebrew that started it all. He was told by God and looked forward to the promises of God starting in Gen 12[/quote]

The bible is clear that no one enters heaven outside of Christ


[quote]God chose the Hebrew Nation Israel so they would be a light to a dark world. Any that chose to come to this light was saved. It's the same today the light has been given to those who follow Christ


Assuming that this is All true, and i believe that it is. You still CAN NOT stop there and ignore Gen 21.15 "I will make a great nation of him". That is referring to Ishmael.

Yes it Started with Abraham, but according to the bible it didnt end with Jesus. That is, Islam is not "outside" of "Christ". "Jesus" and "Moses" and all other "prophets" are an integral part of Islam.

Can You still say, no Saudi will enter Heaven? not consistent with the bible, is it?

God does not call a nation "Great" and odes not make it belong to "Ishmael" haphazardly, does HE?

If you say HE did, then that also applies to Isaac. You really cant pick and chose it is all what HE said or nothing. no bias.
Reply #27 Top
I believe that both evolution and creationism work well hand in hand. My belief, albeit unorthadox, on it is that they're both tools of God. We were created, and we evolved. Simple.

Nothing more simpler and more logical than that. the Creator of Man also Created the rules of eveolution and the physical laws of the universe.

From what religions say about Adam, he lived more than 950 yrs, Abraham, lived about 180. Now people live around 80 year. So God knows what kind of traits they had that we lost and what kind of traits we have that they never had, all due to HIS rules of eveolution.

What is the problem? where is the contradiction?
Reply #28 Top
I'd say myself a range of 7000-10,000 years would be my thought


My goodness KFC, Meena, the first Pharaoh of Egypt united the country and started the first Nation/Government on Earth 4500-5000 BC that is 6500-7000 years ago. And you saying that Earth itself was created only 500-2500 years before that?

May be The Ancient Egyptians were Aliens then (some people actually say that  ), since 6500 years ago they were as far from Adam as you can imagine. you cant go from Adam to Minah, development-wise even in 100,000 yrs.
Reply #29 Top
Was that directed towards me?


well this part was.......Is this based on anything substantial or is it "just your belief?"

I'm SHOCKED that you would go by some scientific mumbo jumbo, KFC, when you have "THE WORD" right there with all the numbers in it.



hahahah good , a little shock will do ya good...I just imagine you sitting there mouth wide open, hand on forhead.....hahahaha

no I believe the mumbo jumbo as you put it is based on the geneologies of scripture. The Creation Scientists of whom there are many also believe the true facts of science does not contradict the age of the earth just based on the geneologies we read in scripture.

You still CAN NOT stop there and ignore Gen 21.15 "I will make a great nation of him". That is referring to Ishmael.


oh no, I don't ignore any parts of scripture. They are a great nation, just look at what has happened starting with Ishmael. They will have a great part in end times......going against Israel will be their downfall tho. This is also written about Ishmael:

"......Behold you are with child and shall bear a son and shall call his name Ishmael; because the Lord has heard your affliction. And he will be against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." 16:11-12.

Later we see in Chap 21 this boy grew and becomae an archer living in the wilderness which eneded up being the Sinai peninsula. He became a man of war. Not much has changed by looking at his descendants. The scripture has been fulfilled and again it shows the accuracy of something written in 1450 BC to be very accurate.

Can You still say, no Saudi will enter Heaven? not consistent with the bible, is it?


Still say? I've never said a Saudi wouldn't enter heaven . I have said Muslims are coming to Christ. Because of Abraham, ALL nations of the world would be blessed. That means even the Saudi can enter heaven. But they have to go thru the door to do so.

If you say HE did, then that also applies to Isaac. You really cant pick and chose it is all what HE said or nothing. no bias.


Remember Ishmael was not the "promised" son. Sarah took matters into her own hands by giving Hagar to Abraham. This was not supposed to happen. Laater in 22:16 God calls Isaac Abraham's "only" son. The blessing comes thru Isaac not Ismael and that scripture is very clear on.

What is the problem? where is the contradiction?


the contradiction is according to the Hebrew a day was a 24 hr day. According to Evolution it was a long process with a day meaning thousands of years. Also Evolution has man coming out of the water where it's very clear that man came from the earth in the account of Genesis. Scripture does not support Evolution. You can believe both if you want, I don't. I don't see evolution at all in scripture.

My goodness KFC, Meena, the first Pharaoh of Egypt united the country and started the first Nation/Government on Earth 4500-5000 BC that is 6500-7000 years ago. And you saying that Earth itself was created only 500-2500 years before that?


While I'm not sure who Meena was, yes, it fits. When we read of the Pharaoh in the Exodus it would have been about 1450 BC.

This was written most likely during the reign of Amenhotep II (1450-1425). We also see in 1 KIngs 6:1 that the Exodus occurred 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon's reign placing it ca.1445BC.

So the geneology would support from Adam-Moses was about 1450 years or so.



Reply #30 Top
~KFC~

This is just my belief, and what makes the most sense to me.

~L
Reply #31 Top
ok, but don't your beliefs change over time if you're basing it on what makes sense to you now? What you believe when you're 20 is not the same belief you'll have at 40. Isn't that sort of like shifting sand? It's not something you can in all reality hang onto for the rest of your life is it?

What I'm saying is isn't it better to investigate what the truth really is; something that has stood the test of time and is outside of us? Something that is firm and unchanging that you can believe at 20 and 40 and 80 and doesn't change?

It's sort of like believing and knowing that 1+1=2. You've found it to be true. It's the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. Something you can feel comfortable with and know it's the truth?

Usually what makes sense to me is not always the truth. And that's the truth!!!



Reply #32 Top
Is this based on anything substantial or is it "just your belief?"


What else is there? Peer pressure? If you accept the Bible as the literal truth you do so simply because you believe it to be so. Because most people accept the beliefs as valid? That doesn't really fit with the whole 'strait is the gate' thing.

So, I'd be interested in knowing what there is in terms of 'substance' to base it on.
Reply #33 Top
ok, but don't your beliefs change over time if you're basing it on what makes sense to you now? What you believe when you're 20 is not the same belief you'll have at 40. Isn't that sort of like shifting sand? It's not something you can in all reality hang onto for the rest of your life is it?

What I'm saying is isn't it better to investigate what the truth really is; something that has stood the test of time and is outside of us? Something that is firm and unchanging that you can believe at 20 and 40 and 80 and doesn't change?

It's sort of like believing and knowing that 1+1=2. You've found it to be true. It's the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. Something you can feel comfortable with and know it's the truth?

Usually what makes sense to me is not always the truth. And that's the truth!!!


Whose truth? Yours?

To me, what i believe *is* the truth. I believe in a truth, my truth: God is real. Jesus died for my sins. God is kind, gentle, and stern. I don't believe he plays with the world, i.e. he's "hands off." I believe that he created humans, and that evolution is a natural thing. (one of his many tools)

That's my truth. That is what i believe. I'm still open to learning and growing, and accept the fact that as i learn more, and grow more, my beliefs (what makes sense) may change. I accept the fact that is "firm and unchanging," may not be, on down the road. However, as of this moment, i have faith that I am living the right way, following God, and will go to heaven when i die.

No one knows *the* truth, because the truth for each individual is different. I can only live life. (and hope)

Hope that makes sense.
Reply #34 Top
Is this based on anything substantial or is it "just your belief?"[/quote]

What else is there? Peer pressure?
End of quote


com'on Baker, now I'm shocked at your questions....*mouth open wide, hands on forehead*

What else is there?

So I can say the sky is neon pink cuz I believe it to be so? What else is there? Well...... hello? How about the truth? The truth is what else is out there.

Jesus said we can know the truth and the truth sets us free. He also said,

"I no longer call you servants because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead I have called you friends for everything I learned from my Father I have made known to you. " John 15:15

My choice is I can accept what he said as truth or I can disregard it for my own truth. My truth is not my own. It's his truth I base mine on because he's proved himself to me in more ways than one.

No one knows *the* truth, because the truth for each individual is different. I can only live life. (and hope)
End of quote


[quote]Hope that makes sense.


no, this doesn't make sense. So you're saying 1+1=2 is only for some people who believe it to be true because we can't know for sure. It's not for everyone. We can only hope so.

Truth is relative is what you're saying. I'm saying truth is absolute. Truth is truth. Regardless if you believe it to be or not. You may believe the sky is neon pink....doesn't make it so. You may believe 1+1=5. Hey, it's what you believe right?

I talked about this "hope so" attitude right here in this article. Did you read it?





Reply #35 Top
"My choice is I can accept what he said as truth or I can disregard it for my own truth. My truth is not my own. It's his truth I base mine on because he's proved himself to me in more ways than one."


No, you BELIEVE that what is written in the Bible is what he said. It's still belief, no different than Lucas,
Reply #36 Top
No, you BELIEVE that what is written in the Bible


well you have said you not only read the bible but it's close by you. If it's not truth then why bother having it so close by? Why bother with it at all? I'm not much of a fiction reader so if I thought the bible was fiction I wouldn't bother either.

So what you're quoting most of the time you don't really believe? Really?

I believe the bible is what it says it is. It's been more scruntized than any other work of literature ever. The gospels were proven to be written by eyewittnesses and written during the time when most of the players were still alive and well able to refute what was written. While some of the later letters of scripture written by Paul were argued over, I've not heard of any discrepancy about the writers of the gospel and in which most of the sayings of Christ were recorded.

Not only that, but many historians outside of scripture, Christian or not, who wrote in the first century also vouched for the events written in these gospels. There was "no this stuff never happened" discussions or "these gospels are a lie." There was none of that.

Here are some very early first and second century writers you can read up on if you would like to get closer to the real time period....unless you'd like to stick to the revisionists POV.

Some of the more important ones are Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Tertullian, and Josephus who wrote "Antiquities of the Jews." Josephus wasn't even a Christian but was a Jewish Historian living in the first Century. He saw Jerusalem burn in 70 AD.


So, yes, I do take Christ saying HE is the truth to be truth. I believe the OT words we have today are the same words Jesus held in his hands as much as I believe when I read Homer's Iliad it also has been preserved over the years for us.

And I have something to believe outside of myself. And by doing so, my belief is well founded on the rock, not shifting sand.
Reply #37 Top
"well you have said you not only read the bible but it's close by you. If it's not truth then why bother having it so close by? Why bother with it at all? I'm not much of a fiction reader so if I thought the bible was fiction I wouldn't bother either."


Nice diversion, but what you said to Lucas was that there needed to be more 'substantial' than just belief. I pointed out that belief is all you have, as well. When you hear me claiming that I have some sort of standard higher than belief for what I, well, believe, then you can make that point.

You *believe* that the OT is as reliable textually as Homer. You *believe* that what Jesus says in the Bible is what Jesus really said. I don't see anything more "substantial" there than belief.
Reply #38 Top
no, this doesn't make sense. So you're saying 1+1=2 is only for some people who believe it to be true because we can't know for sure. It's not for everyone. We can only hope so.

Truth is relative is what you're saying. I'm saying truth is absolute. Truth is truth. Regardless if you believe it to be or not. You may believe the sky is neon pink....doesn't make it so. You may believe 1+1=5. Hey, it's what you believe right?

I talked about this "hope so" attitude right here in this article. Did you read it?


What I am saying, is...

(and I'm talking about truth, as in 'the way to god', i.e. choice of religion/faith)

You can't say that "your truth," is fact. So, how can you say that it is "the truth," when you can't.

Reply #39 Top
You *believe* that the OT is as reliable textually as Homer. You *believe* that what Jesus says in the Bible is what Jesus really said. I don't see anything more "substantial" there than belief.




Yes Baker, you're absolutely right. But this belief is based on something. It's based on something outside of ...."well I just feel it to be true." or "I'm just hoping I'm right." There is a diff. I was there I know. It's not like that now.

My belief is based on a man that said he was the truth. He said and demonstrated he was God in front of many witnesses. Would I just believe that about anybody? No. He's made himself known to me in such a way, I have absolutely no doubt that not only does he exist but that he has a love for me that is unexplainable in this realm.

Besides, it's not just me that believes this. He has the power to change lives and lives have been changed as a result of hearing the word regardless of race, color, religion or nationality.

Homer isn't doubted and yet his manuscipt evidence is not nearly what we have of the Holy Writings. Not nearly. I bet you have no problems with Homer. Why the bible? It's been tested more than any other yet you seem to rather believe your doubts than believe the truth. My guess? You don't want to adhere to it. You'd much rather be a lone ranger. I know that.

I've tested His word. I've studied it and plan on continuing and will not be done in this lifetime. I can count on it. It's a book unlike anything else I've ever read. It's the only book that author is present with you while you read it. I know you don't understand that Baker. I wish you did.

Just like Thomas, he couldn't believe until he saw with his own eyes. it took an encounter with Jesus for him to see...it's like that with all of us. Only we don't have to "physically" see Jesus to believe. He's made himself known to us...thru his word. Paul said this in Romans 10: (Paul was a real historical figure and this was a letter to Rome.)

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah said 'Lord who has believed our report?' So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

So based on this we are not saved without believing the message that is preached by those who are sent. First the Apostles and then the early church fathers and it's spread ever since. Those teaching or preaching are to base it on the bible which was given and preserved for just that purpose.









Reply #40 Top
Yes Baker, you're absolutely right. But this belief is based on something. It's based on something outside of ...."well I just feel it to be true." or "I'm just hoping I'm right." There is a diff. I was there I know. It's not like that now.

My belief is based on a man that said he was the truth. He said and demonstrated he was God in front of many witnesses. Would I just believe that about anybody? No. He's made himself known to me in such a way, I have absolutely no doubt that not only does he exist but that he has a love for me that is unexplainable in this realm."


Lol, again, you BELIEVE He said He was the truth. You have nothing substantive beyond hearsay.
Reply #41 Top
[/quote]oh no, I don't ignore any parts of scripture
[quote]

KFC, you know very well that there are a huge amount of "Human Input" in the Bible and that it was written decades after Jeusu was "Raied". So you really should be careful of what you take and what you ignore from the scripture. Any contradiction in these scriptures are due to human words not God's. You are not helping your cause by insisting that you "don't ignore Any parts of scripture".

the contradiction is according to the Hebrew a day was a 24 hr day

did God say that this is also the same "Day" duration that existed at the moment of creation?. He didnt say that, so why do you assume it? God resides outside our universe and no one knows what is His "Day"'s duration compared to our 24 hr day.The eveolution estimate of 4.5 billion years as the age of Earth could very well be true.

While I'm not sure who Meena was, yes, it fits


How does that fit? you ignoring my point completely. The time from Meenah, Egypt's first Pharoah to Cleopatra, Egypt's last Pharoah is about 4500 years.

Now, comparing Meenah's Egypt to Cleopatra's Egypt based on the documents and monuments they both left behind shows a degree of development insignificantly small compared to that betwen Adam's Earth and Meenah's Earth.

If it took 4500 years to go from Meenah to Cleopatra, going from Adam to Meenah needs much much longer than that. Adam's son didnt even know how to burry his brother, Meenah had armies, a capital for his nation, wears a crown with colors made from chemicals he extratcted from Earth, wears clothes that were "designer" quality and he designed an irrigation system that still works today based on hydraulics that is still being taught today.

Humans developed from that primitive state to that advanced one in 1450 years?

It took them 4500 years to just improve a little on what Meenah did and they would invent all that in one-third of the time?And that makes sense to you?

well, to each his/her own i guess. But that is not a logical thinking. God didnt command us to do that. you are not serving His cause by denying that when he created Adam He also Created the laws that govern his descendents' development.

Evolutions doesnt claim that Man "Developed" from water and not created, that is an extrapolation on the part of some but it is not the theory itslef. That stretch of the theory is just that, not a necessary conclusion.
Reply #42 Top
KFC, you know very well that there are a huge amount of "Human Input" in the Bible


I don't know how you get "huge" but I believe the human input was guided by the Holy Spirit. God always uses people to help people. He used men to write his words down just like Jesus used the servants to help turn the water into wine in John 2. He could have turned that water into wine without help. He didn't NEED theiir help. How about the loaves and the fishes? Didn't he use all 12 Apostles to help in that as well? On and on it goes.....I believe it's more HS than man's efforts in the writing of the gospels. I'm convinced of this because I've studied these writings at length. I don't say this lightly.

Adam's son didnt even know how to burry his brother,


where are you getting this from?

the contradiction is according to the Hebrew a day was a 24 hr daydid God say that this is also the same "Day" duration that existed at the moment of creation?. He didnt say that, so why do you assume it? God resides outside our universe and no one knows what is His "Day"'s duration compared to our 24 hr day.The eveolution estimate of 4.5 billion years as the age of Earth could very well be true.


Yes, he did. I'm not assuming. Day can be diff things. The word day in Genesis 1 means 24 hr day. Check the Hebrew yourself. Yom is the word you'd be looking for.

Humans developed from that primitive state to that advanced one in 1450 years?


Yes, they built the Tower of Babel even before what you're talking about. We see Caiin had built a city well before the first Pharaoh. The cities Sodom and Gomorroh were well built cities also before what you're talking of.

Look back just 100 years for us and see how far we've come in just that short amount of time. Now multiply that by more than 14x. I don't see a problem here. We were still using outhouses for crying out loud.

How's that logic.?



That stretch of the theory is just that, not a necessary conclusion.


Exactly. Let's just say.....we agree here.



Reply #43 Top
you BELIEVE He said He was the truth. You have nothing substantive beyond hearsay.


not exactly. What part of he has demonstrated to me don't you understand? He's made himself very near and dear to me. I was religious before so I know the diff. It's not about religion.

Do you think all those that wrote of him, Christians, historians even atheists that by writing of him during the first century only helped in proving him true are liars?

Because that's what you're saying. Heresay. Yup, sounds like Thomas. His fellow Apostles were lying to him. Not gonna believe it, Nope. If you check that story out carefully you'd notice it was an act of the will. It wasn't that he COULDN"T believe it. He WOULD not believe it.

In John Chap 6 Jesus proved himself to the people. He provided for their physical needs with the fish and bread. We see from the text that there was a great many that were following him. Why? Because he was performing miracles.

So he just finishes, not only providing for them, but by doing so abundantly. They had 12 baskets left over. When all was said and done there was a discourse between Jesus and these same people. And this just gets me....it really does. What do they ask for? They ask in 6:30....."show us a sign so that we may see and believe you." EXCUSE ME? What did he just do?

He was trying to show them the contrast between the spiritual bread and the physical. They only wanted the physical. Because they could see it. He said plainly to them...."I am the bread of life." He that comes to me shall never hunger or thirst." He was providing himself to them spiritually like his father provided the manna in the Exodus for them physically.

They just didn't "get it." Neither do you evidently. So if Jesus after performing a miracle in front of their eyes wasn't enough of a "sign" for them, how do you suppose I could even come close to explaining the truth to you? You have to desire to want it first and you must hunger and thirst after it.

I know the diff from being hungry to being full both physically and spiritually. Like I've said before.....I'm just a begger that has found some bread and I want to show the other beggers where they can get it too. But if they're not hungry, there's no need right?





Reply #44 Top
"Do you think all those that wrote of him, Christians, historians even atheists that by writing of him during the first century only helped in proving him true are liars?

Because that's what you're saying. Heresay. Yup, sounds like Thomas. His fellow Apostles were lying to him. Not gonna believe it, Nope. If you check that story out carefully you'd notice it was an act of the will. It wasn't that he COULDN"T believe it. He WOULD not believe it. "


Now you're just being obtuse. The *existence* of Jesus doesn't offer substantive proof that your *beliefs* about him are true. People believe that Mark Twain said:

"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco."


...but he didn't. Is that reason to doubt that Mark Twain existed at all? What you fail to point out is that Josephus doesn't back up any of your doctrine, or quote anything that Jesus said. Period. A mention of Jesus just offers evidence of Jesus' existence, IF you believe we're talking about the same Jesus.

Hearsay is knowledge of something you gain from others without being a witness to it. Unless you are saying you were really there, and really witnessed Jesus' works and words, then you have NOTHING more substantial than belief. You're trying to pretend I am a "doubter" when I am just honest enough to admit it.

The sad part is you are degrading your own religious doctrine. "By Faith" is the cornerstone of your dogma. Period. You, though, paint this as something more substantive, as if you can just squint really hard view Calvary in person. You, yourself have said that things substantive, things worldly and tangible, are to be trusted LESS than what we acheive through faith.

Substance is what people ask of you all the time, for which you poo-poo them as not having faith... and then you poke someone like Lucas for not having something substantive. What you can't deal with is the idea that there was a Jesus, but one who differs with what you believe. Therefore when someone questions your beliefs, you HEAR that they are questioning the existence of Jesus.
Reply #45 Top
The most insane part is, if you HAD been witness to Jesus' life, it wouldn't help all that much in terms of validating Christian doctrine. Most of what we believe in terms of that comes from Paul, and various councils and Christian theologians over the 2000 years after His death. If you put all that Jesus said in a book, at least what we have quoted, it wouldn't have many pages at all.

So even more so, you have faith that all these men, like Paul, are actually interpreting Jesus' message correctly.
Reply #46 Top
If God appeared to you at the gate and asked you "Why should I allow you into heaven? how would you answer? Most people no matter if they are Christian, Hindu, or Muslim would answer with:

"I always do .......
"I never have done........."
I've done more good than bad....."
"I've tried my best to be......."


Wouldn't the Christian answer be, "I have done nothing worthy of entrance into Heaven. I am not perfect. I have often fallen short. However, I have been washed clean by the blood of your son. He has taken my sins upon him and I am now spotless. By grace alone will I enter. By grace alone am I worthy."
Reply #47 Top
So even more so, you have faith that all these men, like Paul, are actually interpreting Jesus' message correctly.[/quote]

YES, you betcha. Because I know it wasn't really them. It was the Holy Spirit directing them....unlike Mark Twain.

I feel the HS leading in my life. It's very obvious and my life has been changed forever as a result. I imagine they too filled with the HS were able to pen the words directed and guided by the HS like Peter said. Christ also said that he would send them the HS to help them in this after he left.


You're trying to pretend I am a "doubter" when I am just honest enough to admit it.
End of quote


ok, so you're honest and I'm a liar? Is that it? You're right and I'm wrong?

By Faith" is the cornerstone of your dogma. Period.
End of quote


Faith is the cornerstone. But faith is not blind as you'd like to believe it is. Nowhere did God expect any to believe in him on faith alone. He did say those that did would be more blessed. But he always put evidence to his existence because he knows that's what we need because our faith is weak. In the OT it was the cloud that followed them and the pillar at night. He then gave many signs, words and wonders thru the OT prophets. What they said came true. Still they didn't listen nor believe. Then at last he sent his son and yet again, they chose not to believe even after he did all his miracles.

Faith is the crux yes, but he also shows me daily, he's around. He doesn't leave me in the dark.


Substance is what people ask of you all the time, for which you poo-poo them as not having faith... and then you poke someone like Lucas for not having something substantive
End of quote


I don't poo poo anybody. I'm just asking what their faith is in. Themselves or something outside of themselves. The reason you're having this hissy fit is because Lucas' answer is yours as well. If you're going to say your faith is in you then yes I'm going to ask what you are backing that up on. That's pretty scary to me. To have faith in myself for my eternal destiny when I can't seem to get to work on time most of the time.

Besides this is what Lucas said and what I was referring to. He was saying there was no absolute truth only truth as we see it. Sorry if it bothers you that I responded to him.

No one knows *the* truth, because the truth for each individual is different. I can only live life. (and hope)
End of quote


What you fail to point out is that Josephus doesn't back up any of your doctrine, or quote anything that Jesus said.
End of quote


hmmm what about the others I mentioned? You pick what you want I see to blast me with? What you fail to mention as well is the fact that Josephus not only mentions this Jesus but he also backs up the gospels with his date, time, place and events in history that are directly mentioned in scripture. Like I said....go ahead and read him. He's just one "proof" the gospels are accurate and he wasn't even Christian.

Most of what we believe in terms of that comes from Paul, and various councils and Christian theologians over the 2000 years after His death
End of quote


Well let's look at Paul shall we? Paul directly had an encounter with Christ. His life changed big time. The first thing he did was spend time with the disciples. He then took three years to put this all together and then he met directly with Peter for 15 days before he started his ministry. So I would say that he had a pretty good eye on what was going on. So yes, Paul was a pretty good credible witness to what was going on. He totally backed up the 4 gospel writers.

The councils and Christians theologians over the last 2000 years? Well I'm more apt to go back to the first century preachers and teachers and the early reformers than I am now. I do listen to only the modern preachers who are faithful to the word most of them as I do, go back frequently to the early church and the reformers as well.

[quote]If you put all that Jesus said in a book, at least what we have quoted, it wouldn't have many pages at all.


We have all we need. I don't think we could ever have enough for you to totally believe it anyway if I'm reading you correctly. It wasn't meant to be exhaustive.

"And many other signs truly did Jesus do in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing you might have life through his name." John 20:30-31










Reply #48 Top
"YES, you betcha. Because I know it wasn't really them. It was the Holy Spirit directing them....unlike Mark Twain."


You believe, you don't know.

"ok, so you're honest and I'm a liar? Is that it? You're right and I'm wrong?"


If you are trying to tell Lucas that you have something more than faith, then yes, you are lying to him.

"Faith is the crux yes, but he also shows me daily, he's around. He doesn't leave me in the dark. "


You BELIEVE through FAITH that those things you see daily come from God, and say what you think they say. You have nothing but belief to prove it. The Philistines believed their victories came from Baal.

"I don't poo poo anybody. I'm just asking what their faith is in. Themselves or something outside of themselves."


And next week you'll be poo pooing people because they are believing what they see with their eyes and not using their faith, as you have in umpteen different conversations on evolution and everything else...

"hmmm what about the others I mentioned? You pick what you want I see to blast me with? What you fail to mention as well is the fact that Josephus not only mentions this Jesus but he also backs up the gospels with his date, time, place and events in history that are directly mentioned in scripture. Like I said....go ahead and read him. He's just one "proof" the gospels are accurate and he wasn't even Christian."


Lol, feel free to back that one up. Link it. I wanna see him quote a single WORD that Jesus said. Tell me what page to look on. It's funny when people tell me to read something and in the process prove that they haven't read it themselves. I'm aware of what Josephus is purported to have said about Jesus, are you?

"Well let's look at Paul shall we? Paul directly had an encounter with Christ."


After Jesus had died... and you know it because... he said so. Not because you witnessed the event. Again, simple faith in what someone said, hearsay testimony. Period.

What proof do you have that it was really Jesus and not the devil Paul saw? Surely not his "works". You have faith in what you believe, but you have no "truth" that you can verify, no "fact", not an ounce.


"Well I'm more apt to go back to the first century preachers and teachers and the early reformers than I am now."


I doubt you could name any other than the ones listed in the Bible. In reality most of your doctrine was honed out hundreds of years later. Your particular breed didn't even exist until the 1800's.
Reply #49 Top
Lol, feel free to back that one up. Link it. I wanna see him quote a single WORD that Jesus said. Tell me what page to look on. It's funny when people tell me to read something and in the process prove that they haven't read it themselves. I'm aware of what Josephus is purported to have said about Jesus, are you?[/quote]

I didn't say that. I never said he directly quoted Christ.......I said this:

"hmmm what about the others I mentioned? You pick what you want I see to blast me with? What you fail to mention as well is the fact that Josephus not only mentions this Jesus but he also backs up the gospels with his date, time, place and events in history that are directly mentioned in scripture. Like I said....go ahead and read him. He's just one "proof" the gospels are accurate and he wasn't even Christian."
End of quote


now the proof's on you. Where did I say he "quoted" Jesus directly? This is a game you're playing Baker....it's called twister...not unlike the old 60's game or the dance......I'd bet you'd be really good at it.

I've got the book. Right here. Since I'm much more of a book person, I've never looked Josephus up on the net before but I did tonight..since you so need me to link you....

here you go....from the link

Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.

First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned
.



WWW Link

I used Josephus to show that the gospels were credible. He's just A source not even close to be the only source.


[quote]I doubt you could name any other than the ones listed in the Bible. In reality most of your doctrine was honed out hundreds of years later.


You do really? Funny I already have....more than once even here on this thread I have.....did you miss them? Also, what about the Link I provided to you way back of all the early reformer preachers complete with many of their sermons...including Luther? BTW....I love Calvin and read him almost daily. He was before 1800 in case you didn't know.

you really need to stop "believing" your doubts Baker.
Reply #50 Top
"now the proof's on you. Where did I say he "quoted" Jesus directly? This is a game you're playing Baker....it's called twister...not unlike the old 60's game or the dance......I'd bet you'd be really good at it. "


You said that you had more than just faith to base your "truth" on. I assumed you meant that you were saying that Josephus could ATTEST TO SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE. Again, you're just posting that someone said Jesus existed and pretending that such a statement offers evidence of the truth of your beliefs.

Mohammad existed, too. Does that prove Muslims are right? I'm sure there are a lot of Atheists that believe that Jesus existed. Sorry, but you made it seem like Josephus could attest to something in the way of your faith. Not having been witness to any of it, I don't see how.


"You do really? Funny I already have....more than once even here on this thread I have.....did you miss them?"


The list you quoted only has one first century figure, Josephus, and he was neither a Christian, nor a teacher, nor a reformer, nor in any way a witness of Jesus's life and teachings. Your first quote is abysmally apocryphal, given a Jewish historian wouldn't have referred to Jesus in that way. The second betrays the first, given he refers to Jesus as "so-called".

You'll say that I'm nitpicking, but you are asserting that you have something more than hearsay. I don't see how people who lived 100 or more years after Jesus's death can be considered eyewitnesses. Therefore, you just BELIEVE what they are saying, based on faith, not their eyewitness account.

Josephus wasn't a Christian, and given such, you can't believe for a moment the first quote you list are really his words.


"He's just A source not even close to be the only source"


Post more, please. Show me another that was in the same century Jesus lived. Tacitus? Pliny? Not what you'd consider to be folks on your side of the argument. If you have any other contemporaries of Jesus that can attest to DOCTRINE it would be good to know.

Short of that, you're just proving Jesus existed, not that anything you believe is true. Like I said, there was probably really a Siddhartha Gautama. There was probably really a Muhhamed. If I offered you contemporaries that can verify their existence, would it offer substantive reason to believe Buddhist and Islamic doctrine?

Even if you had any witnesses besides the Bible to what Jesus really said, you'd still have to BELIEVE them. You wouldn't have anything substantive or objective that shows you that the doctrine itself is true. You don't have an ounce more than Lucas. Not a scrap, other than faith.