IS IT TRUE ? ~ Anything out of the ordinary ~ Post here

2D4 wrote:

I will mark the ones I disagree on red and those I agree with green. Yellow for things that do not make sense to me. Orange: wrong and questionable. Olive: Right but with a questionmark or sidenote. I can explain myself on request.

Adoptionism - God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
Albigenses - Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil. (These should be two ism's really, they are not logically connected in any way)
Apollinarianism - Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human. (this one I didn't get. Will he overshadow or be overshadowed ?)
Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being. (lesser than who ?)
Docetism - Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
Donatism - Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister. (this is so true)
Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation. (this is a rather disputable description)
Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
Modalism - God is one person in three modes.(who knows)
Monarchianism - God is one person. (> there is only one true god)
Monophysitism - Jesus had only one nature: divine.
Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross (In a way he did)
Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws. (He theoretically could obey his laws, he just chooses not to. Yet he is affected by the fall .. who would not be?)
Semi-Pelagianism - Man and God cooperate to achieve man's salvation. (this is very true)
Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man. (how does this contradict ? he was made holy and at the same time a part of the holy trinity)
Subordinationism - The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.
Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods. (I don't know but it's possible)

Those are quite a lot of heresies You only reject 2 of these heresies? By agree, do you mean you agree it's possible or agree it's true?

Also, a clarification of Albigenses: A heresy during the middle ages that developed in the town Albi in Southern France. This taught that there were two gods: the good god of light usually referred to as Jesus in the New Testament and the god of darkness and evil usually associated with Satan. Anything material was considered evil including the body which was created by Satan. The soul, created by the good god, was imprisoned in the evil flesh and salvation was possible only through holy living and doing good works.

heresies ? what ever. I have an opinion .. you have an opinion. You can't call mine a heresy
just beacouse you have another idea, that's called spiritual arrogance.* I believe in God
just like you do so. Marked green is something I believe to be true. Olive is something I considder to possibly be true, but something I keep an open mind on. what is so difficult about that ?


* I don't take that lightly .. The catholic church
has called millions heretics and tortured them and used the very same
argument. Does that mean they were right ? Is the world really flat ?
Was it okay to rob people of their rights and money and gather all those
riches - even though jesus specifically tried to teach us that is wrong -
No it wasn't .. yet countless people have been murdered using that same
claim.

2D4 wrote:

heresies ? what ever. I have an opinion .. you have an opinion. You can't call mine a heresy

According to Biblical doctrine, I can.

A heresy is a doctrinal view that deviates from the truth, a false teaching. We are warned against it in Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11,24, 2 Peter 2:1, etc.

I am not here to offend you or to alienate you, I am simply correcting (Proverbs 12:1).

2D4 wrote:

just beacouse you have another idea, that's called spritual arrogance. I believe in God
just like you do so. Marked green is something I believe to be true. Olive is something I considder to possibly be true, but something I keep an open mind on. what is so difficult about that ?

We are warned about heresies (2 Peter 2:1). Heresies depart from the truth of God and distance you from Him.

2D4 wrote:

* I don't take that lightly .. The catholic church
has called millions heretics and tortured them and used the very same
argument. Does that mean they were right ? Is the world really flat ?

How does Christian doctrine teach the world is flat? If not, then it is not a heresy.

Second, this is really just the Flat Earth Myth. Scholars in the Middle Ages did not believe the earth is flat. This is a common historical myth.

2D4 wrote:

Was it okay to rob people of their rights and money and gather all those
riches - even though jesus specifically tried to teach us that is wrong -
No it wasn't .. yet countless people have been murdered using that same
claim.

This has nothing to do with what heresy is.

Adoptionism — Jesus was adopted by God.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
John 1:1-3,14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (a reference to Exodus 3:14, where God says "I AM who I AM").
Colossians 1:16-17 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Albigenses — There is a good god and an evil god.

Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39, Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy32:39, 2 Samuel 7:22, 1 Kings 8:60, 2 Kings 19:15, 1 Chronicles 17:20, Nehemiah 9:6,Psalm 18:31, Psalm 86:10, Isaiah43:10, Isaiah43:11, Isaiah44:6, Isaiah44:8, Isaiah 45:21, Mark 12:29-34, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Timothy 2:5.

Docetism — Jesus was not human.

John 1:14: “The Word became flesh.” Jesus’ humanity is one of the first tests of orthodoxy (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). Jesus was born (Luke 2:7). He grew (Luke 2:40, 52). He grew tired (John 4:6) and got thirsty (John 19:28). He got hungry (Matthew 4:2) and was physically weak (Matthew 4:11; Luke 23:26). He died (Luke 23:46). And he had a real human body after his resurrection (Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 27).

Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature, God and man. The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9). Jesus' divine nature was not altered. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3).

He worshiped the Father (John 17).
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He prayed to the Father (John 17).
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
He died (Rom. 5:8).
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

Jesus knew hunger (Matt. 4: 2), thirst (John 19: 28), and physical depletion (John 4: 6). Jesus suffered pain and when lacerated, he bled (1 Pet. 3: 18, John 18: 1-34). Jesus was made a "little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2: 7). Jesus was tempted in "all points" (Heb. 4: 15). Alluding to Jesus' human nature, Paul wrote: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2: 5, see John 1: 1-14).

Jesus, then, was fully human and fully divine. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9).

Donatism — Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.

No, it does not.

Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid.

The problem with Donatism is that no person is morally pure. The effectiveness of the baptism or administration of the Lord's supper does not cease to be effective if the moral character of the minister is in question or even demonstrated to be faulty. Rather, the sacraments are powerful because of what they are, visible representations of spiritual realities. God is the one who works in and through them and He is not restricted by the moral state of the administrant.

Kenosis — Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.

Kenosis entails that Jesus was not fully divine. If Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world. The correct doctrine is the Hypostatic Union, that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9) and did not give up any divine attributes while as a man on earth.

Other problems with Kenotic Theology

1. It destroys the integrity of the atonement.
2. It distorts the Christian view of the incarnation.
3. It denies the immutability of God.
4. It undermines the monotheistic distinctive of the Christian faith.

Modalism — God is one person in three modes.

Modalism fails to account for greater than 70 passages in Scripture where the Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned together as distinct from one another and as interacting with one another. In Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:16-17), the Father speaks and the Spirit descends upon Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsamane (Mark 14:36) and hanging on the cross (Luke 23:46), Jesus himself prays to Father. John’s Gospel is full of reference to the three person’s relations, not only in their speaking to one another (John 17), but in actions such as “sending” (John 14:24-26; 20:21) and “loving” (John 3:35; 14:32; 15:9). The epistles also show the three persons as distinct. Galatians 1:1 teaches the Father raised the Son; 1 John 2:1 teaches the Christ is an advocate between humanity and the Father; 1 Peter 1:2 teaches different roles for each Person of God in the salvation of man; the relationship between the Father and the Son is given as the modal for the fellowship between believers (1 John 1:3).

Semi-Pelagianism — Man and God cooperate to achieve man's salvation.

False.

Pelagianism contradicts many Scriptures and scriptural principles. First, the Bible tells us that we are sinful from the moment of conception (Psalm 51:5). Further, the Bible teaches that all human beings die as a result of sin (Ezekiel 18:20; Romans 6:23). While Pelagianism says that human beings are not born with a natural inclination towards sin, the Bible says the opposite (Romans 3:10-18). Romans 5:12 clearly states that Adam's sin is the reason sin infects the rest of humanity.

Semi-Pelagianism essentially teaches that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God's grace on our own. The same Scripture passages that refute Pelagianism will also refute Semi-Pelagianism. Romans 3:10-18 definitely does not describe humanity as only being partially tainted by sin. The Bible clearly teaches that without God “drawing” us, we are incapable of cooperating with God's grace. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). Like Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism is unbiblical and should be rejected.

Subordinationism — The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.

Subordinationism is not the same as Christ's subordination to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28) which concerns Jesus' continued state of being a man (1 Tim. 2:5) by which he lives forever to intercede for us as a high priest (Heb. 6:20; 7:25). The error has different forms, but it is primarily the teaching that the Son is not eternal and divine (Arian Subordinationism), and is, therefore, not equal to the Father in being and attributes.

The misunderstanding often arises from failing to realize that having different roles does not mean a difference in nature. A husband and a wife have different roles in the family (she bears children, he does not, she is the mother, he is the father, etc.), but the fact that they have different roles does not mean they are different in nature. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different roles, but are all equal in nature and attributes.

We can say that there is a subordination of the Son to the Father in role (as a father-son relationship would naturally have), but we also say that subordinationism (difference in nature) is wrong. Again, John 6:38, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." From this verse we can conclude, at least, that the Son voluntarily subjected himself to the will of the Father and is doing the Father's will.

(From theological sources.)

did you... write all that?
If so, congratz on being an expert on christianity!

haha looks like Carl has it made, and you have nothing to lean on except that you have an "opinion" 2D4.

BTW nice signature hat...

you say opinion like its a bad thing. i say religion like its a foolish thing.
maybe were both wrong? If i could have a bit of proof that there is an afterlife, il convert.
but hat, u cant prove that god dont exist cuz um.. thers no proof!!

youre starving in a desert. really hungry. you have never lied, cheat, stolen, never commited any sins. you are a "perfect" person. you have been praying for food.
you die the next day, with an empty stomach.

someone in my class got hit by a car and had no pulse or heartbeat for 20 minutes. dead for 20 minutes. he didnt see god or anything.

how can you prove the bible isnt just to brainwash you? so many people thinking the same thing, taking it all in for a fact. thats so scary...

I appreciate all the work you put into your answer Carl and when I have recovered from work I will surely take a look at it but you are wrong if you think I am going to quote and requote every single word i wrote and debate for the sake of debating. I have made my point and if you refuse to admit you understand it then that's your buisniss. You are clever enough to write all this stuff so it will be hard to convince us you really did not get my point. I really hate this nitpicking and hair splitting on every word .. so find yourself someone who shares that hobby.

I understand what heresies are .. but you don't own the truth .. that truth is based on interpretation of bible texts and they can also be explained differently - and they have been many times over - In fact it's common knowledge that the bible is one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted books known to man. Wars have been waged for this reason and many atrocities have whipped the earth in "Gods" name. Be ever so carefull not to add some more pain in your desire to be right. Be humble, it's the right thing to do for a christian.

As far as I know the people and the church did believe the earth was flat at one time .. but maybe I am misinformed ? That doesn't mean my point is invalid.

The Catholic church did those things .. and they still are far from immaculate .. to put it mildly...

Just because you write a lot doesn't mean you are right ... I have read a small part and allready saw things that didn't make sense at all, for the logical mind that is. You made this .. but I do not agree you have it made

There are many beliefs .. and people have even more ways to believe it. Who are you to call the people who do not agree with you a heretic ? Do you not see you just have an opinion ? a tiny drop of wisdom in the ocean of truth. At least I admit I have an opinion and I am not claiming I am right and everyone else is wrong. Regardless of what you will say, I considder that a step ahead.

Ps. I can see you have only focussed yourself on where we differ in opinion and have not given my words - saying it's important to see where we have common ground - any considderation. I don't see this as a christian at all .. but unfortunately many christians only think they are christian .. and they forget to ask themselves, what would jesus have done ?

iN GOD I TRUST™ wrote:

haha looks like Carl has it made, and you have nothing to lean on except that you have an "opinion" 2D4.

Is that your opinion ?

jesus would be a strait edge punk, imo.

opinions aren't necessarily bad, but when you have an opinion like "there are 234527634655435457u6578657563454353464568365865874565345123456587683656345234 people on earth" its obviously wrong.

how can you prove that some aethiests arent just trying to make you not believe in God so you will spend eternity in hell? Thats so scary... lame thought hat, lol.

"youre starving in a desert. really hungry. you have never lied, cheat, stolen, never commited any sins. you are a "perfect" person. you have been praying for food.
you die the next day, with an empty stomach." Um.. cool, that's supposed to be proof?

Wolfy was dying, and then he did die for a while, he heard God say" it's not time yet" and then he came back down to earth.

And there have been many similar stories to wolfy's and I'm sure many similar stories to your classmate. So I guess theres not proof there.

Christianity is not based off of "proof" it is based off of faith.
Aethiesm is based off of blind stumbling.

@2D4, um yea I guess so, your point is? And Carl is simply trying to make you understand the truth, because this is a pretty serious business.

I will give a comment on DOCETISM, to start with

Your first description said: He was divine but only seemed human. The second: He was not human. Allthough at a first glance these statements mean the same they do not. I agreed with the first not with the second. I believe jesus to have been both divine and human, making him also seem human and to many in his time seem only human ... He was also human so the second statement does not apply. Clear example of how easily these errors* sneak in.

*In this case: My error: I misuderstood "only seemed human" to mean that he seemed human but was a divine person
clothed in a human form (as if his body was a mask or a disguise hiding his devinity, wich I and many gnostics believe to be true..) NOT that he was a divine being that did not posses a body but somehow maneged to magically fool everyone into believing he did. In other words: He did have a body

9[QUOTe]0~ @2D4, um yea I guess so, your point is? And Carl is simply trying to make you understand the truth, because this is a pretty serious business.{9qOuTe)}--

Very serious .. that is why I am taking it very seriously when someone is claiming to own the truth. Doing
that is not only apprehensive but also eliminates any possebillity to have a fruitfull discussion.

iN GOD I TRUST™ wrote:

opinions aren't necessarily bad, but when you have an opinion like "there are 234527634655435457u6578657563454353464568365865874565345123456587683656345234 people on earth" its obviously wrong.

how can you prove that some aethiests arent just trying to make you not believe in God so you will spend eternity in hell? Thats so scary... lame thought hat, lol.

"youre starving in a desert. really hungry. you have never lied, cheat, stolen, never commited any sins. you are a "perfect" person. you have been praying for food.
you die the next day, with an empty stomach." Um.. cool, that's supposed to be proof?

Wolfy was dying, and then he did die for a while, he heard God say" it's not time yet" and then he came back down to earth.

And there have been many similar stories to wolfy's and I'm sure many similar stories to your classmate. So I guess theres not proof there.

Christianity is not based off of "proof" it is based off of faith.
Aethiesm is based off of blind stumbling.

@2D4, um yea I guess so, your point is? And Carl is simply trying to make you understand the truth, because this is a pretty serious business.

thats some of the most immature and closed minded bullshit ever written.
IM NOT AN A(e)THEIST. I DONT FOLLOW ANY RELIGION, THIEST OR ATHEIST.

Your running away from the truth with the desert scenario.

Wolfy also continues to do mind altering drugs. tell me you can say he wasnt tripping balls on lsd or something when he saw god. plus, god hasnt really saved him, because he hasnt come here in about 3 months. i dont want to discus that.

About "opinion."

IN MY OPINION, everything is OPINION. if you actually thought for yourself instead of getting someone else to think for you and possibly brainwash you. its so gross that people fall for it.
instead of me explaining my thoughts, why dont you think what this opinion theory could be. i wont even post in this thread until someone can explain what i mean, and hopefully expand.

I was just reading about lil baby jesus, and he and mary are baddasses. mary had sex with a spirit and jesus has no dad. so isnt jesus a bastard? just a random thought.
EDIT
lolol mary was a jew y u battle jews christans y??

First off I think that it is quite ironic that you claimed my statement to be immature. Secondly, I was not "running" from the "truth" of your desert scenario because there is no truth in it, considereing you said "you're" whereas I obviously am not anything you stated in your "thought". An incomplete thought at that since there is no obvious statement or question in it. But I suppose you could be asking where you would go? Well, if you were in a desert and never sinned you are either a very young infant or Jesus. And I suppose it would have to be the latter since infants do not know how to pray, since they are not yet capable of understanding God (my opinion) but it cannot be the latter since Jesus is no lnger dwelling n this earth in an earthly body. So that scenario is an impossibility and therefore would never happen in real life.

I guess another possibility of you posting that would be that you are wondering why God did not grant him any food. Well the answer to tat could be that the man had no faith in God with no personal relationship with Him but only wanted to survive or it could be because God wanted him to die, so that he could be in paradise.

I think that it is quite rude that you believe that Wolfy "continues to take mind altering drugs". If I really wanted to I could contact Wolfy's doctor that was with him that day and ask him if he was on drugs when he was dead for that period of time. God did save him because he lived to tell me about it, God never told him he would live forever, he just said that it was not yet time for him to pass away for good.

If you do not believe in any god(s) or godess(es) then you are atheist, correct me if I'm wrong.

In my opinion I think its quite mindless to believe that I do not have to think, that is to say, that all my thinking is done for me and by believing in the Bible I have become brainwashed. If you actually thought at all about this you would know that that statement is completely false.

In my opinion not everything is an opinion. An opinion is "time is going by really fast" or "time is dragging on" but saying "60 seconds make up 1 minute" is not an opinion, it is a fact. So in my opinion your opinion theory is a bad one, but remember it is only my opinion, so you should take no offense in it.

TheHat wrote:

you say opinion like its a bad thing. i say religion like its a foolish thing.
maybe were both wrong? If i could have a bit of proof that there is an afterlife, il convert.
but hat, u cant prove that god dont exist cuz um.. thers no proof!!

youre starving in a desert. really hungry. you have never lied, cheat, stolen, never commited any sins. you are a "perfect" person. you have been praying for food.
you die the next day, with an empty stomach.

someone in my class got hit by a car and had no pulse or heartbeat for 20 minutes. dead for 20 minutes. he didnt see god or anything.

how can you prove the bible isnt just to brainwash you? so many people thinking the same thing, taking it all in for a fact. thats so scary...

Why am I a Christian? Because of the evidence from cosmology, the evidence from the nature of contingency and necessity, the evidence from design in the initial conditions and constants of the universe, the proper foundation and description of morality found in Christian theism, the existential accuracy of Christianity in describing the human condition, the incompatibility between rationality and naturalism as opposed to theism, the reliability of historical scriptures as confirmed by archaeology, the consistent revelatory nature and prophetic fulfillment of scriptures (especially those concerning the messianic prophecies), and, of course, the historical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Those are a few I can recall at the moment.

I will also repeat a message I wrote to someone on another website:

"3. historical scriptures. I guess the bible does have some historical truth,but the most important parts of the bible lack any historical proof."

Archaeological findings have repeatedly confirmed the historical reliability of historical scriptures contained in the Bible. Some of these include, among many others (too many to be listed here):

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

But how does archaeology demonstrate the Bible to be reliable and unique among all the holy books of world religions?

1. Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the Bible.

2. The Bible's message of a loving Creator God who interacts in the affairs of mankind and has provided a means of salvation stands in sharp contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as, revealed by archaeology.

3. Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred—something that lies beyond the capability of mere men.

One example is the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem after Jesus' death and prediction. Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:2. The temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE during the Siege of Jerusalem.

"4. No historical proof exist of the death,and resurrection of Jesus."

1. Historical 'proof' is different from historical 'evidence.' We do not have proof of the extraordinary claims made about Alexander the Great's conquests in the 4th century BC, but we do have evidence. Most historians, and reasonable people, agree his conquests really did happen, due to historical and archaeological evidence.

2. Archaeologists studying ancient civilizations by uncovering ruins and examining artifacts, are with increasing success confirming the accuracy of the Biblical texts. Sir William Ramsey's vindication of Luke's writings is a classic example. The findings of archaeology have in fact reversed the opinions of a number of former skeptics. Among these is the scholar Dr. William F. Albright, who writes:

"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."

Such findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical opinions on the historicity of the gospels. These details would not have been accessible to writers of later generations, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in 70 A.D.

Additionally, outside the Bible, Jesus is also mentioned by his near-contemporaries. Extra-Biblical and secular writers (many hostile) point to Jesus' life, including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud.

The historian and scholar Gary Habermas has cited a total of 39 ancient extra-Biblical sources, including 17 non-Christian, that witness from outside the New Testament to over 100 details of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

3. There are several facts agreed upon by historians that support the resurrection. These minimal facts are strongly evidenced and regarded as historical by the large majority of scholars, including skeptics.

3a. The first fact is that Jesus was killed by crucifixion. What ancient sources attest to this fact? The four Gospels, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Greek historian Lucian of Samosata, the pagan historian Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud. The extremely skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan noted, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical ever can be."

3b. The second fact is that Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. Several sources attest to this fact. The apostle Paul reports his interactions with the disciples (Peter, James, and John) on this topic. All four Gospels record the fact that the disciples saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion. The apostolic fathers Clement and Polycarp both report the resurrection appearances as well. The atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann said, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."

3c. The third fact is that the church persecutor Paul converted. The fact that Paul converted after being hostile to Christianity and its followers is confirmed by Paul himself, but also by Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen. These other sources also report that not only did Paul convert, but that he was willing to die for his beliefs.

3d. The fourth fact is the conversion of the skeptic James, Jesus' half brother. The Gospels of Mark and John both report that James was not a believer in Jesus while Jesus was alive. Paul records the fact that James saw the risen Jesus. Luke records in Acts that James became a leader in the Jerusalem church, as does Paul in Galatians. We know that James was even martyred for his beliefs from Josephus, Hegesippus (as reported by Eusebius), and Clement of Alexandria (as reported by Eusebius).

3e. The fifth fact is that Jesus' tomb was empty. All four Gospels allude to the empty tomb and Paul certainly implies the empty tomb in 1 Cor. 15. Several persuasive arguments have been made to support the historicity of the empty tomb. According to Oxford University church historian William Wand, "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history."

There are several other historical facts that support the resurrection, but these are a few.

2D4 wrote:

I understand what heresies are .. but you don't own the truth ..

I never claimed to 'own' the truth. Do we as Christians hold the truth? No, the truth holds us.

2D4 wrote:

that truth is based on interpretation of bible texts and they can also be explained differently - and they have been many times over - In fact it's common knowledge that the bible is one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted books known to man.

The fact that it has been interpreted differently does not mean it lacks a correct interpretation, 2D4. Would you interpret "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," in John 14:6 as meaning "There are other ways of coming to the Father?" Would you believe that a labelled bottle of rat poison has no meaning, simply because some people might interpret it as mayonnaise?

2D4 wrote:

Wars have been waged for this reason and many atrocities have whipped the earth in "Gods" name. Be ever so carefull not to add some more pain in your desire to be right.

I do not mean to cause pain, 2D4, only to lead people closer to Christ and to the knowledge of God.

2D4 wrote:

Be humble, it's the right thing to do for a christian.

But there is a difference between being humble and gently correcting others based on scripture, 2D4. I have no malevolent intention behind this.

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid. ― Proverbs 12:1

2D4 wrote:

As far as I know the people and the church did believe the earth was flat at one time .. but maybe I am misinformed ? That doesn't mean my point is invalid.

It's a common historical myth. I find it surprising that it is still perpetuated through schools.

2D4 wrote:

The Catholic church did those things .. and they still are far from immaculate .. to put it mildly...

The Church is a community, the body of Christ. Just because some people in the Church have done bad things does not mean the body and community of Christ has been defiled, does it? We are, as Christians, in the business of reconciliation after all.

2D4 wrote:

Just because you write a lot doesn't mean you are right ... I have read a small part and allready saw things that didn't make sense at all, for the logical mind that is. You made this .. but I do not agree you have it made

Which parts do you think did not make sense? I might need to clarify them.

2D4 wrote:

There are many beliefs .. and people have even more ways to believe it. Who are you to call the people who do not agree with you a heretic ?

I do not call people who disagree with me (that would be a lot of people) heretics, but those who contradict scriptures and Christian doctrine.

2D4 wrote:

a tiny drop of wisdom in the ocean of truth. At least I admit I have an opinion and I am not claiming I am right and everyone else is wrong. Regardless of what you will say, I considder that a step ahead.

Indeed.

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

I suppose that you at least agree that Gnosticism, with its declaration of everything material as 'evil,' directly contradicts "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good' in Genesis? This does not require a lot of biblical exegesis to see the disparity.

Heh, i know this sounds lame but... ditto! ^^

Carl, you could become a very good teacher or something. I already see God working in your life and he's given you some great insight.

Carl I really like the fact you put work into it and no one can say
you are not bright . I may not agree with you on everything .. but
that's my loss As uninformed as I am I have a few questions, for
anyone who has an ear let him hear.

What happened to jesus after he came back to life ? Where did he
live ? how long did he live ? why did the apostles write no accounts
(as far as I know) about him after the resurrection as they do about
him before he was crucified ? I mean in the sense that he came back
to live but it seems he did not have a life afterwards .. did he eat ?,
travell .. ? teach ? or did he simply appear every now and then ?

Who are the men that decided which books should be admitted to the
bible and which were not fit ? and who gave them the authority to do
so ? What was the purpose and motive of composing a book like the
bible ? Who was it intended for ?

Is it true that the jews were waiting for their messahiah and rejected
him (jesus) when he came, since they did not believe it was him and
is it true that they are still waiting for their saviour to come ? and if so
what characteristics should this jewish deliverer meet ?

Do you believe bible prophecy can predict for us the end time and when
it will take place ? From signs given in scripture like the rebuilding of the
temple, the drying up of the river euphrates and you may know a few
more ?

iN GOD I TRUST™ wrote:

If you do not believe in any god(s) or godess(es) then you are atheist, correct me if I'm wrong

Heresy ! Blasphemy ! Multitheism ! lol

there are plenty of accounts of Jesus after the resurrection. I'd give you a few but I think Carl would be more suitable for questions like those but I guess I can answer a few...

Yes its true about that the jews are waiting for a Messiah, the Jews wanted Jesus to come and become an Earthly king in an Earthly kingdom, but instead he was a Heavenly king that was part of the Heavenly Kingdom. They wanted him to rid them of the romans, but instead he rid them of their sins.

The Bible prophecy can help us predict the general time when it the end is going to happen but never the exact date. You just have to be prepared for any day that Jesus may come.

And as to your last paragraph... lol!

iN GOD I TRUST™ wrote:

Heh, i know this sounds lame but... ditto! ^^

Carl, you could become a very good teacher or something. I already see God working in your life and he's given you some great insight.

Thanks, IGIT. Those are very kind words.

2D4 wrote:

What happened to jesus after he came back to life ? Where did he
live ? how long did he live ? why did the apostles write no accounts
(as far as I know) about him after the resurrection as they do about
him before he was crucified ? I mean in the sense that he came back
to live but it seems he did not have a life afterwards .. did he eat ?,
travell .. ? teach ? or did he simply appear every now and then ?

He appeared to many after His death on the cross and His resurrection. For the next 40 days he continued to teach his disciples. He appeared to St. Peter (Luke 24,John 21), to the 12 apostles, to Mary (Matthew 28:9–10, John 20:14–18), to Thomas (John 20) to more than 500 men and women (1 Cor. 15:6), to St. James, and to St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5-8), before His ascension (Luke 24:50–53, Acts 1:9-12).

See: What happened after the Resurrection?

2D4 wrote:

Who are the men that decided which books should be admitted to the
bible and which were not fit ? and who gave them the authority to do
so ? What was the purpose and motive of composing a book like the
bible ? Who was it intended for ?

I'm far too tired to write another series of paragraphs, I hope you can forgive me for that

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.

See:
When were the gospels written and by whom?
Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ?

The concern of the writers of the New Testament, and the historical witnesses they provided, was to preserve the record of Jesus' life and teaching, to show how this fulfilled the Old Testament laws and prophecies, and to ensure that it was faithfully preserved and implemented in the doctrines and practices of the church. For example Papias (60-140 AD), whilst providing information on the gospels, exhibits a strong preference for 'the living and abiding voice' of those who had direct knowledge of the Apostles and early church leaders.

Nine of the Letters of Paul were addressed to churches, one a personal letter, and three (known as the Pastoral Epistles) to his assistants, Timothy and Titus. The letters to the churches were mostly completed between 51 and 61 AD. They were widely used and quoted during the remainder of the first century and the early part of the second. Irenaeus specifically names most of the books that form the present day New Testament, including the Gospels, Acts, all of Paul's letters and Revelation.

2D4 wrote:

Is it true that the jews were waiting for their messahiah and rejected
him (jesus) when he came, since they did not believe it was him and
is it true that they are still waiting for their saviour to come ? and if so
what characteristics should this jewish deliverer meet ?

I believe it varies between different Jewish sects. You would have to ask them, unfortunately, since this is more about modern Judaism than about Christianity.

2D4 wrote:

Do you believe bible prophecy can predict for us the end time and when
it will take place ? From signs given in scripture like the rebuilding of the
temple, the drying up of the river euphrates and you may know a few
more ?

Perhaps, though that is a major branch of study in Christian theology, called eschatology.

Remember, though, that none of us know the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36).

Thanks Carl

For all your time and efforts. I agree with IGIT that you
are very knowledgable and have good insight. Perhaps
I will respond when I have digested all of this. Many
questions remain, but they have since long I guess.

Is it true

Spoiler:

Congratz! Happy eatings!

Yeeeaaa!!!!!!!!! 2D4 is a pro chef now!

Was it Kraft storebought, canuck style or good style with cheese sauce and crackers?

custom handmade cheesesauce with dutch eidam cheese. It was a little filling ..

Ive been so bored tonight. So what do you guys think about the x-seed 4000?


I have no idea what its for, i dont see why you couldent just hollow out a mountain. but maybe its some nuclear safety thing. i have no idea lol