KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

What If Jesus Was Never Born?

▼

What If Jesus Was Never Born?

Thank God He Was

from JoeUser Forums
What if Jesus Christ was never born? What would it be like here and in the rest of the world? Would it make a difference at all? It is a thought provoking question isn't it? What if Jesus had never been born?

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in politics. Our representative form of democracy rests on explicitly Christian principles of church and state. So do our principles of free speech and religious tolerance. In fact, the very founding of this nation was motivated by the goal to establish a Christ-centered community. If Jesus was never born, there wouldn’t be a United States of America, at least as we know it today.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in education. The world’s oldest universities were all founded on Christian principles, so that students could grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. The same is true of nearly every one of the first one hundred colleges and universities in America. Eventually people would have developed institutions of higher education, but there would be no Oxford, no Harvard, no Yale, and no Princeton. Furthermore, Christians have always been pioneers in promoting literacy and universal education. Even America’s public school system is part of the legacy of Puritan education. To this day, linguists are working all over the world, in the name of Jesus, to put native languages in written form and teach people to read the Bible.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in literature, music, and the arts. There would be no Messiah for Handel to write into his famous oratorio—no Christmas music at all. There would be no Pieta by Michelangelo, and no Last Supper by Leonardo. There would be no cathedrals in Europe, no Hagia Sophia or Notre Dame. There would be no Gospels and no New Testament, and therefore no story of the prodigal son, no parable of the good Samaritan, and no Sermon on the Mount. There would be no Divine Comedy by Dante, and no Paradise Lost by Milton.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in science and medicine. It was the Christian worldview—with its insistence on the rational order of the universe and man’s dominion over creation—that gave rise to modern science. Followers of Jesus Christ were also pioneers in the art of medicine. The first hospitals were established by Christians who believed they had a God-given responsibility to heal the sick.

If Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make in charity and the protection of life. It was the followers of Christ who first introduced the Roman world to disinterested benevolence, to helping someone who couldn’t help you in return. Pagans were amazed to see that Christians not only took care of their own needy people, but also provided for other people’s poor. It was also the followers of Christ who first abandoned the nearly universal practice of infanticide. The birth of Christ taught them to protect the lives of their own children, and to rescue foundlings and orphans.

Humanly speaking, none of this would have happened if Jesus was never born. What I have said so far is only just the beginning, of course, and it is also true that many wrong things have been done in the name of Christ—that is a topic for another occasion. But simply in terms of secular history, the life of Jesus Christ has had a far greater and more positive influence on the world than anyone else in history.

But to bring what I have said closer to home, if Jesus was never born, what a difference it would make to your own destiny. You would have no atonement for your sin, no resurrection from the dead, no hope of eternal life, and no Savior to call a friend.

What if Jesus was never born? But Jesus was born. As the angel said to the Christmas shepherds: “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:12). And the rest, as they say, is history.


Link
religion
31,175 views 203 replies
Reply #176 from JoeUser Forums Top
PS......where did you get the above? Did you really open up a bible or did you go to some site that's anti-Christian that points out the bad stuff by taking scripture out of context? Just curious.


I read it. I actually remember the phrase from reading long ago. I had to search on biblegateway.com to find out what book and verse it was, though. And I don't really care how many times Pharaoh hardened his own heart. My point was there is evidence in the bible that God used his powers of influence to change the course of events. And he did. Over and over and over again. I have no judgment about that other than it happened (according to the bible. And it did - in black and white)

And, I don't spend any time on any anti anything sites. I have absolutely no desire to disprove Christianity. But if a Christian states that something is a fact when it's an opinion, I'm going to ask for objective (aka scientific) evidence, because TO ME - stating opinion without evidence, as if it is fact, is the same as lying. That's my opinion.
Reply #177 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean, at one point He even regrets making humans...I don't think He thought us through as much as He should have.


Heh, well he started over once (flood) and it didn't help any. Probably should have scrubbed the whole project. But as I am pursuing in another thread, he seems to need something from us.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #178 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok, I am missing something. "I will harden Pharoah's heart" is pretty clear. And if it isn't clear what it is, it's clear what it isn't. It isn't "And Pharoah will harden his own heart."

Explanation how you got from God doing it to Pharoah doing it, please.
End of quote


Heheh, I have the answer. Oh, wait...you won't believe me if I told you, because it's from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

Never mind. :D
Reply #179 from JoeUser Forums Top
And I don't really care how many times Pharaoh hardened his own heart. My point was there is evidence in the bible that God used his powers of influence to change the course of events. And he did. Over and over and over again. I have no judgment about that other than it happened (according to the bible. And it did - in black and white)
End of quote


Well you have to care if you wish to make logical statements Ock. You have to get your facts straight before you shoot your arrows. Right?

Even if you're right about God using his powers....doesn't he as Sovereign God have that perogative? Doesn't a father in any household in America have the right to use his parental powers to pull strings if need be to make sure his family is protected?

I know from reading and studying about this God of scripture that all his motives are clear. He is a righteous God who makes right decisions. You may not want to accept them or honor them, but it doesn't make God less righteous.

Now that I have a bible in front of me I'll give you the real facts. You do what you like with them but at least you'll have them.

Ten times it was said that Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart, 7:13, 14,22, 8:15,19,32; 9:7,34,35; 13:15 and then 10 times that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, 4:21,7:3, 9:12, 10:1,20,27, 11:10, 14:4,8,17. The first two times were predictions to Moses that this would happen. Paul used this as an example of the will of God and of his mercy toward men. Seven times Pharaoh hardened his own heart BEFORE God first hardened it.

Oh, wait...you won't believe me if I told you, because it's from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
End of quote


well then get into the same scripture and join us..... ;) 
Reply #180 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, wait...you won't believe me if I told you, because it's from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
End of quote


Hey, spill it. I'll at least consider it even if I don't believe it. :)

~Zoo
Reply #181 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey, spill it. I'll at least consider it even if I don't believe it.
End of quote


Mmm...okay. This is what the JST says:

"And Pharoah will harden his heart, as I said unto thee; and thou shalt multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt."

Ex. 7:3

Ex. 7:13
"And Pharoah hardened his heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said."

There you go. Don't bash it, you asked for it...;)
Reply #182 from JoeUser Forums Top
There you go. Don't bash it, you asked for it...
End of quote


So it was a prediction? That simplifies things.

~Zoo
Reply #183 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes Zoo it was a prediction. I've said that many times.

Also Cedarbird what you wrote here is exactly what I have in my bible with the exception of "I will harden his heart". So now we'd have to go to the original Greek and see who has the right translation.

But it was still a prediction to Moses as to what was coming down the road. The fact is Pharoah hardened his heart 10 times before God started doing so.

Reply #184 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if you're right about God using his powers....doesn't he as Sovereign God have that perogative? Doesn't a father in any household in America have the right to use his parental powers to pull strings if need be to make sure his family is protected?


Absolutely. And humans need parents and/or Gods to learn how to behave because they aren't born with it. Right and wrong are learned, not innate.
Reply #185 from JoeUser Forums Top
And humans need parents and/or Gods to learn how to behave because they aren't born with it. Right and wrong are learned, not innate.
End of quote


Yep, pretty much.

~Zoo
Reply #186 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also Cedarbird what you wrote here is exactly what I have in my bible with the exception of "I will harden his heart". So now we'd have to go to the original Greek and see who has the right translation.
End of quote



That's the point of the Joseph Smith Translations, it's fixes to the original Bible that's been screwed up by thousands of sectarians putting in their own nonsense.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what the original Greek and Hebrew say. They're still not originals - they're still copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of erroneous transcripts.

So I'll stick to the God-inspired one that Cedarbird posted. Only makes sense, since the Bible all the rest of you schmucks use is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy . . . etc. adnauseam till the end of the earth.

I'll pass. Thank God he calls prophets to clear up this crappy confusion . . .
Reply #187 from JoeUser Forums Top
Frankly, I couldn't care less what the original Greek and Hebrew say. They're still not originals - they're still copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of erroneous transcripts.
End of quote


And that's absolutely wrong. We have over 5,000 ORIGINAL copies from which all the other copies or translations have come from. So you may want to check into that SC.


That's the point of the Joseph Smith Translations, it's fixes to the original Bible that's been screwed up by thousands of sectarians putting in their own nonsense.
End of quote


So everybody's wrong all thru the centuries but the Mormons? Did you know the JW's have their own special translation as well? How do you know they're not right and we're both wrong?

I'll pass. Thank God he calls prophets to clear up this crappy confusion . . .
End of quote


you mean....prophets that come out of the Mormon faith? Otherwise all the prophets of old can't really be trusted?



Reply #188 from JoeUser Forums Top
We have over 5,000 ORIGINAL copies
End of quote


original copies of copies of copies. It's not the one that Moses wrote. It's not the one Isaiah wrote. If it's not the one they wrote, then it's not original, is it? How can it be original if there's 5,000 of them? They're copies! To call a copy original is total poppycock.

Otherwise all the prophets of old can't really be trusted?
End of quote


Not after all the "fun" the sectarians have with their words, not all the time, no. If the prophet was here, live, yes - because it wouldn't be seen through 18,000 different lenses like how we have the Bible today.
Reply #189 from JoeUser Forums Top

So everybody's wrong all thru the centuries but the Mormons? Did you know the JW's have their own special translation as well? How do you know they're not right and we're both wrong?
End of quote


You tell us we're wrong all the time. Why can't we think that we're right; do you have more right to your opinion than we do?
Reply #190 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Original Copy" is an oxymoron.
End of quote


Yep. If you think about it, there's no such thing as an 'original' of any book, except for the version that the author takes to the printer. Thus, 'original pressings' are really (and correctly) referred to as 'first editions'.

And guess what? None of those '5.000 ORIGINAL copies' are genuine, real 'first editions'. It's not straight from the mouth of those prophets - it's straight from the 1,457th pen than copied the scroll.
Reply #191 from JoeUser Forums Top
SC,

Tell me, as a historian, where are the tests that you apply to any piece of literature of history to determine if it's accurate or reliable?



Reply #192 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hello Everybody,

This  is my first post on this jazzy new JU format.  It took me about 15 minutes just to figure out how to log in! Bear with me please.

OCK posts: #202

Ok, I am missing something. "I will harden Pharoah's heart" is pretty clear. And if it isn't clear what it is, it's clear what it isn't. It isn't "And Pharoah will harden his own heart." Explanation how you got from God doing it to Pharoah doing it, please.
End of quote

God sent Moses to ask Pharao to let the Jews go, and that means that He meant Pharoa to do so. God would not, therefore, then have deliberately prevented Pharao from doing so. The sense is that God permitted Pharao to harden his own heart. It is but a Jewish mode of speaking. Exodus 8:15 has, "And Pharao seeing that rest was given,  hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded." God permitted it just as He permits men to sin even in our own days, if they are determined to do so.

 

Cedarbird,

The Douay Rheims version has 7:13 as "And Pharao's heart was hardened, and he did not harken to them, as the Lord had commanded." Same with 8:32; likewise 9:7, 35.

Anyway, we see from reading the whole chapter in context that Pharao was himslef the effecient cause of his heart being hardened, and not God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #193 from Stardock Forums Top

KFC POSTS:

....God using his powers....doesn't he as Sovereign God have that perogative?
End of quote

You bet!

God has set the rules by which we understand right from wrong. His standards decide right from wrong...they are absolute.

OCK POSTS:

Right and wrong are learned, not innate.
End of quote

It's true we do learn about right from wrong as we grow...

In every one of us there is an innate sense of right and wrong. It's the inward voice of conscience  which is an innate part of our being.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #194 from Stardock Forums Top

SAN CHONINO POsts:

That's the point of the Joseph Smith Translations, it's fixes to the original Bible that's been screwed up by thousands of sectarians putting in their own nonsense.
End of quote

Let's take the Book of Mormon which LDS revere as divinely inspired record detailing a vast civilization and culture of the Nephites and Manamites, who supposedly existed for centuries, built massive cities, farmed the land, produced works of art and fought large scale wars which culminated in their destruction. Where is the historical or archaeological proof to show support of the Book of Mormon? It should be easy to locate  and produce evidence to substantiate such happened.  

On the other hand, the Holy Bible tells of great battles that have been well documented using archaeological methods, and historians have obtained a most accurate picture of ancient times. By unearthing ancient monuments and entire cities, almost every apsect of life mentioned in the Holy Bible has been clarified in one way or another. They've been able to document real historical truth. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient copies of the Bible books and other literature have substantiated the translations follow the original language closely. Turns out that the linguistic genious of St. Jerome as well all those monks and nuns did a very good job after all.

 

But Joseph Smith relied upon the King James Version which translation was based upon the textus receptus, which was an imperfect edition. Scholars know now contained errors and the problem for Mormons is that these same errors show up in the Book of Mormon. Now, it seems that since SMith was a prophet of God and was translating the book under divine inspiration, he would have known about these errors found in the KJV, but he didn't. The errors went in.

 

 

   

 

Reply #195 from Stardock Forums Top

SC POSTS:

So I'll stick to the God-inspired one that Cedarbird posted. Only makes sense, since the Bible all the rest of you schmucks use is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy . . . etc. adnauseam till the end of the earth. I'll pass. Thank God he calls prophets to clear up this crappy confusion . . .
End of quote

There certainly is confusion out there. Let's examine the concept of the "fullness of the everlasting Gospel".  Mormons claim to have it in Smith and Brigham Young's writings.  Smith taught that God the Creator and Master of the universe is merely an exalted man!  and that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods or that Jesus Christ is the brother-spirit of Lucifer.  

What is in accord with Mormon doctrine is plainly at odds with the Holy Bible which teaches unity of the divine Godhead. Christ said, "I and my Father are one."

 

Reply #196 from JoeUser Forums Top

Cedarbird posts:

Why can't we think that we're right; do you have more right to your opinion than we do?
End of quote
 

Are we to believe what Christ taught or is each person to believe whatever he likes according to his type of mind? Faith in one's own power of discernment is not faith in Christ. Christ said, "I am the Truth." and Phil 2:5  tells us  "Let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus."   If all had the mind of Christ, that would be the end of all religious diversity.

We all have differing religious beliefs which we think are "right". Yet, they are different so they can't all be right.  I would simply point out that truth is consistent and that Christ did insist on unity that would be an outstanding characteristic of His Church. The unity of Catholicism is certainly as striking as its absence from Protestantism which contradictory doctrines and divisions have been occurring continuously ever since the Reformation. The problem concerns differences in teachings claimed to be revealed by the One and True God. They cannot all be teaching the truth.  

The simplest way of approaching the question as to which is the "right" religion of Christ, is the historical way. CHrist founded a Church and said the gates of Hell or forces of evil would never prevail against it, and also that He would be with it all days till the end of the world. His Church therefore, must still be here and it must have been here on earth all days since His time. That rules out all the other Churches, including yours and all the Protestant ones taboot except the Catholic Church for all the other Chruches came into existence long after Christ and have not been here all days since Christ.   

 

 

Reply #197 from JoeUser Forums Top

I did and I'm wondering why all the anomisity here?
End of quote

Here we go again.  KFC, you are as predictable as my bowels.  When anyone questions you in any way, you come out with this tired old routine: they ask, you say they're persecuting you, harrassing you, or being hostile.  You never really answer the question, you simply act as if you're being hassled because of your faith.  I've got news for you: you couldn't suffer or be truly persecuted for your faith in the USA even if you tried.  This country is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, we've even got a deity mentioned on our currency.  You're a member of the majority, NOT the minority.

If you think that Ock was being mean or hostile towards you in his response then you're in for a terrible shock when he DOES pull out the big guns and rips you to shreds intellectually.

I know I'm late to the debate here, but I usually stay as far away from your blog as I can.  Reading your insane, sanctimonious self-serving ramblings just pisses me off.

Reply #198 from Stardock Forums Top

Is this another hit and run Dharma?  So you don't think your above statments are worthy of being called harrasment or a form of persecution? 

How do your comments above help further this discussion?  Just come by for an attack?  I'm sorry you feel so led to attack me instead of debate.   If you feel this way, why come around?  Do I bother you?  When was the last time you saw me harrasing you on your blog? 

Why are you so angry all the time?  

 

 

Reply #199 from JoeUser Forums Top
ha·rass /həˈræs, ˈhærəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[huh-ras, har-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.
End of quote


per·se·cute /ˈpɜrsɪˌkyut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-si-kyoot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -cut·ed, -cut·ing.
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.
End of quote


Is this another hit and run Dharma? So you don't think your above statments are worthy of being called harrasment or a form of persecution?
End of quote


Your own statement that this might be another "drive by" indicates your own incorrectness. Harassment and persecution both require persistence.

Good game.
Reply #200 from JoeUser Forums Top
She persistently drives by. Ooo, slam.

Key word to consider... "another."