Questions About Christianity

[TJC28]

Hi All,

I posted this accidentally in the newbie section, so it will appear twice, so I'm not spamming or anything .


I have been a life-long Christian, but I hear arguments from people who don't believe and I didn't know what an explanation would be to give to them. Anyhow, I've heard people say that since Jesus was born over 2,000 years ago, the bible isn't reliable and it's hard to prove that everything in it is true. Also, they said that during that time, "things had to be exaggerated (like his rising from the dead and other miracles) to make Christianity a dominant religion for it's time. Mainly, the argument was that the events in the New Testament were exaggerated so more people would follow and Christianity could become the dominant world religion. They also include events in Jesus' life and the crucifixion as being hard to confirm. I don't believe this, but it would be nice to have counter-arguments for people who say things like that. Thus, without being too bible-specific (speaking in layman's terms), how do we as Christians know without a doubt that Jesus was the son of God and what the bible says is always true? A little disclaimer from me: I pray everyday and notice a difference, so what detractors say doesn't influence me, but it would be good to be more informed about what I believe. :nod

 

[Carolyn]

The people you are speaking with either are very misinformed, perhaps only quoting what they have been taught or told, or else they refuse to believe the truth because they don't want to acknowledge their sin or be accountable to a Creator. EVEN a copy of the Gospel of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps due to early Christians taking refuge there. IT even included the last part of the last chapter which was not included in th Alexandrian text.
There is not much you can say to these people. Just pray that God will remove their blindness and take away their stony hearts, giving them instead a heart of flesh. PRAY That God give them grace for faith and repentance.
IT IS easier to disprove evolution than it is to disprove anything in the Bible. There are several good books, such as Evidence that Demands a Verdict, that makes a good case for Christ. Many people have been saved while trying to disprove the Bible.
But you need to be firm and convinced in your own belief so that you will not be shaken by the lies of others, including those of the father of lies, Satan himself.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

EVEN a copy of the Gospel of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps due to early Christians taking refuge there. IT even included the last part of the last chapter which was not included in th Alexandrian text.

Hi, Carolyn!

A copy of the Gospel of Mark? Did you mean to say "copy", or did you really mean "disputed minute fragment"?

 

[Vanguard]

When engaging with people like that who demand answers, validation, scientific explanation, etc. you have to keep in mind that many of those people have already made up their minds, done their research and are only trying to goad you into a fight/argument. They like nothing more than "going for the kill." You can easily disarm them by simply saying, "it is my personal faith and beliefs, just like you have your own personal beliefs. I may not agree with you, but I respect your right to an opinion" and walk away. They can't attack you on a personal level. You don't have to try and convince them of anything.

By the same token, astrophysics is not an exact science. There is theory/speculation of the big bang, black holes, dark matter, etc. but they can't "prove" those theories to be truth. If someone persists, ask them to explain the thermal dynamics of nuclear fusion at the core of the sun, and its affects on gravitational fluxes within the earth's magnetic north pole. Maybe they'll get the message that not everyone has the answers.

 

[TJC28]

Ok, thanks for the help!

 

[Davies]

Ok, thanks for the help!

Hi TJC28,

There are many things you can say to defend the faith and do it with reason. First of all, I think our role is to point the way to Jesus motivated by our love for God and concern for others who, if they don't repent and put their faith in Jesus, will perish a forever death. I think it's better to address the conscience than the intellect. If you ask them questions, taking them through the Ten Commandments, even if they disagree with everything you say, their conscience will agree with you that they are sinners. If they show any room for hearing the Gospel, then explain why Jesus had to die, taking their place, their punishment. This is how the holy God can forgive and still maintain His justice, through the Gospel. The disciples died because they would not recant they saw Jesus alive after His crucifixion. Embellishers would have quickly squealed the truth when put under the threat of death, and they all died horribly. John didn't die a martyrs' death, but he suffered greatly. The people you witness to have to take it on faith that what the Bible says is not true.

- Davies

 

[Aardverk]

Hello TJC28

You ask a very sensible question but there is not a simple answer otherwise everyone would know the truth, whatever the truth is. It is great that you have faith and, as Vanguard says, it is 100% valid to state that you have your faith and you will not be shaken from it. There are certainly people who may want to shake your faith, they may even think they are doing you a favor but faith in a loving, peaceful God is also a good thing.

You should only debate with these people from a position of knowledge - and you should therefore read more and understand the history better. It is all too easy to point out to someone a few flaws in the Bible and shatter someone's faith quite unreasonably. Far better that you accept that there are flaws and there is truth. A great deal of the Bible has a factual basis but we cannot 'prove' all of it.

The people you are speaking with either are very misinformed, perhaps only quoting what they have been taught or told, or else they refuse to believe the truth because they don't want to acknowledge their sin or be accountable to a Creator. EVEN a copy of the Gospel of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps due to early Christians taking refuge there. IT even included the last part of the last chapter which was not included in th Alexandrian text.

This is a good example TJC28 why you need to read for yourself and not rely on snippets of 'information'. The documents that were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls were not biblical or Christian documents, unless you wish to count rejected, Gnostic gospels. You will get an insight to the time in which Jesus walked the earth but not the Jesus you know from the Bible.

This link is to an interesting essay that demonstrates how many misunderstandings there are about the scrolls. The 'Nag Hammadi Library' is another 'find' of similar scrolls. You may want to check those out too but neither set of scrolls confirms anything substantial in the Bible. If anything, they contradict the Bible and perhaps indicate a rather more violent Jesus.
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/deadsea.html

IT IS easier to disprove evolution than it is to disprove anything in the Bible.

Again TJC28, I strongly suggest that you you do not repeat claims like this or you will be thoroughly defeated in debate with anyone possessing a modicum of scientific knowledge.

 

[Mike]

There are some good thoughts here. I like the point about not trying too hard to defend areas we're not equipped to cover. "I don't have a good answer, but I'll get back to you." is not the same as saying "You win.". It's easy to lose your credibility when you try to sound informed about an aspect of this conversation that you're not.

Punching holes in anything is always easier than proving it absolutely true. Just ask a prosecuting attorney who needs to have a unanimous decision by a jury.

People will need their hearts opened in order to open their minds to something they're bent against, so Davies' post is spot on!

Here is an interesting article on the evidence of the historical reliability of the New Testament.

www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4955431/k.3C35/Archaeology_and_the_New_Testament.htm

 

[from dust to life]

WOW!!!!

I'm new here, and I mean I can't believe what I just read, all on one forum too? It's like stepping in amongst friends, the answers here are truly powerful. I am feeling renewed with every post I read...

I also agree with Mike; "People will need their hearts opened in order to open their minds to something they're bent against, so Davies' post is spot on!" and the rest, like Aardverks suggestion that; "you need to read for yourself and not rely on snippets of 'information'"

If I may add, just remember that who is on our side, "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

I used to whimper when it came to debating atheists and their seemingly so powerful Big-Bang theory, all that big scientific talk about expansion of the universe proven by examining the Background Radiation, or their explanation of the beginning of the Big-bang.. the Planck Epoch, or that Gravitational Singularity, especially when I was kept from going to school most of my young life. I have about 4 years of elementary education. I mean I had to look up every other word to even try to understand what they were talking about. But you know what TJC28, I kept on saying to myself that if God is for us, who can be against us?

I also remembered David against the giant Goliath, I mean what chance did a kid have against a giant warrior with all that armor, ... right? So I started to pray to God (and even argued with Him... in my mind of course) that "why should these blasphemers win over ANY believer, even an uneducated dummy like me? I mean are you with me God, or what? There has to be a way to take these giants with all their big scientific terminologies, big words down even by someone as unarmed (unschooled) like me!"

And guess what? God made me realize that what I thought was my weakness, like the lack of understanding big scientific words and terminologies, was really my strength. Yes, ... my strength. I had to look up all those words right, but as I was learning their definitions I realized that they were using many of them out of context, or with a perverted definition. So I tackled this giant head on, and took my time to learn a little of these 'theories'. But when I wanted to go back and learn how they say it all started, I mean how this Big-bang is 'believed' to have come about, I could not find a START?

There is no agreement on how the Big bang started? Some say it was a 'Gravitational Singularity', (whatever that means?) others call it Planck Epoch, yet others believe an Event Horizon, and now I believe it is String Theory (don't ask me what that is, ... I don't think even they know?) that could be the answer to 'Everything'.

So I started asking them; "How did the universe start?", and I mean I would not accept any other explanation before they could tell me how it all started, ... right?

And guess what? The best answer they have is that it came from 'nothing'. That a tiny speck of rock (or whatever it was, no one really knows) appeared out of nothing and sat there in a point in space before space existed, in 'nothing', and it exploded like a balloon, creating space and time within itself. Really I said? How can 'something, no matter how small, reside in nothing?

So I tried to study the word 'nothing', but realized there is not much study on it because even the greatest minds can't comprehend the true form of nothing. Some great minds even admitted that they could go crazy spending too much time thinking about it.

Well I was safe in that field, I am an uneducated dummy, surely thinking about 'nothing' can't harm me, right?

So then somebody told me that scientists (actually these are not really scientists, but I call them Big Bang Evolutionary scientists. They make up fairytale stories and use science to back them up. It is really a very cultish religious group) have now determined that 'nothing' is really not 'nothing' anymore, but that there was always 'something', even like a quantum string like in 'string theory', but something was always there. Yep, ... we will just have to take their word for it. :yes

I told them that I disagree, that if I can spell n-o-t-h-i-n-g, then it had to exist.

But they told me that 'nothing' would have to be a 'perfect void' where no light or even gravity could exist, and in our universe that is impossible. They told me that even our space is not a perfect void, we have dark matter, gravity and light traveling through it all the time.

I continued to disagree, until one night as I was praying/contemplating (If you want to understand this kind of contemplation, you'll have to get the book; 'Contemplation for Dummies' ) God revealed a simple experiment that I saw as a kid that proves the existence of 'nothing'. I can prove through an experiment that nothing does exist, and that not even gravity can exist in this 'nothing', so a pin-sized universe did NOT exist in nothing, nor did it explode creating our present universe.

Sorry, ... I said too much already. But just remember that if God is for us, and Christ is IN us, then no lie, no matter how big could destroy our faith.

Odon

 

[Aardverk]

.....And guess what? The best answer they have is that it came from 'nothing'. That a tiny speck of rock (or whatever it was, no one really knows) appeared out of nothing and sat there in a point in space before space existed, in 'nothing', and it exploded like a balloon, creating space and time within itself. Really I said? How can 'something, no matter how small, reside in nothing?.....

I loved your post 'from dust to life'. I hope to see much more from you ;)

Despite you belittling your education you are obviously one smart cookie and I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you are trying to suck people in - so I will act as a 'sucker' for you

Far be it from me to try to explain the big-bang theory.... but OK, I will give it a try.

My understanding of the theory is not that the big-bang came from nothing but it came from a singularity caused by the collapse of the previous universe in upon itself. You mentioned that our universe is still expanding, well, I think the theory is that previously it stopped expanding and collapsed in on itself to a singularity.

What caused the big-bang from that singularity is way beyond my school-boy physics but, if the previous universe had collapsed, that is where all the matter came from.

Assuming that I have understood the theory something like correctly, the biggest question left to answer is where did the previous universe or indeed universes come from? The ultimate question becomes - is matter 'immortal' and always has existed or is that just God?

If we answer that matter, in any of its previous forms, is not immortal, it is only fair to ask ourselves the question - where did God come from? Which would we prefer to believe has always existed - God or Matter? And are we just making a preference choice?

I really do not know but when I have listened to dumbed down TV explanations of the big-bang, the 'evidence' presented has always seemed pretty plausible - but I did say I would act as a sucker :gah.

 

[seagullplayer]

Our best case for the cause has always and will always come from the Word.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Just keep using the Bible as your proof text. It is the living Word of God.
True conviction and softening of the heart does not come from man, but God.
Pray for those you speak with, that God will open spiritual eyes.

 

[from dust to life]

I loved your post 'from dust to life'. I hope to see much more from you ;)

Despite you belittling your education you are obviously one smart cookie and I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you are trying to suck people in - so I will act as a 'sucker' for you

Thank you Aardverk for your kind response.
No my friend, everything I said above is true, I never even learned the difference between a verb and a noun, so if my grammar is correct, it is because I try to follow a pattern that you educated people here use. I cheat, ... in a sense, ... I copy others.
Everything I know of science, BB theory, Evolution, I learned from posters on Forums like this one. First I read with amazement debates between those that knew what they were talking about, and eventually put my two cents worth in to check the water (sort of speak). Boy you should of seen all the name calling, ... you ignorant bla.. bla.. why don't you learn the basics regarding BB and evolution before you post such incoherent idiotic comments like you do? Here, they said, check this article out, ... then check that and you will see the idiocity of your comments, ... and so on.

So I did, for now 4 years these good folks on those Forums educated me. I just ignored the name calling (I was used to that all my life, 50 some years of it) and eventually realized that half the time they didn't really know what they were talking about either. So I no longer hide in the bushes and watch them tear down believers, but come right up to them and challenge these giant theories, doctrines that are in conflict of Biblical teachings.

Far be it from me to try to explain the big-bang theory.... but OK, I will give it a try.
My understanding of the theory is not that the big-bang came from nothing but it came from a singularity caused by the collapse of the previous universe in upon itself.

I know my friend, ... but look, it doesn't matter how big or how small the universe is, or what it is doing (expanding or collapsing) it has to reside IN something to be able to expand and collapse, right?
Now it is that 'unknown something' that it resides 'in' that I'm asking about, ... and since space-time resides only IN the universe (meaning our universe contains within itself space and time and not outside of it) then what is the universe itself residing in?

I know they keep changing their theory all the time, it is because of the pressure placed on them by 'real science', and in real-science as I understand the definition, it observes the world around us, what we can see and feel and experiment on, NOT what might have been, or could have been billions of years ago. I mean I have never heard (yet) anyone going back even 5 minutes in the past to observe anything, not alone billions of years, ... am I correct?

The answer can only be that the universe resides 'in nothing', ... that our universe is collapsing, or expanding in 'nothing', right?

And as I said, God has revealed to me what 'nothing' is, and I can even prove it's existence, define it scientifically through a simple experiment, and I can tell you that not even gravity can reside in this nothing, this 'perfect vacuum', not alone an entire universe with all its mass and everything.

You mentioned that our universe is still expanding, well, I think the theory is that previously it stopped expanding and collapsed in on itself to a singularity.

Yes, ... that is how the fairy-tale story goes, but that is NOT science. Stephen Hawking is a dreamer who makes up fairytale Sci-Fi stories, I doubt that he ever observed such a phenomena, do you?

I can say that a rusty old car under a tree came from an acorn and dropped from the tree, and could even write hundreds of books on how that happened right? But that doesn't make it true now does it? Nor would that be science.

What caused the big-bang from that singularity is way beyond my school-boy physics but, if the previous universe had collapsed, that is where all the matter came from.

Anything we can't re-create scientifically is just guessing. I understand what 'nothing' is, and they can't just add whatever they want in nothing, or make nothing; 'not nothing anymore'. Nothing is a perfect void that exists in God who is Everything. You see 'Everything, or God' contains even the 'nothing', but not a single speck can exist in 'nothing', ... it remains a perfect void.

Assuming that I have understood the theory something like correctly, the biggest question left to answer is where did the previous universe or indeed universes come from? The ultimate question becomes - is matter 'immortal' and always has existed or is that just God?

This I believe is the biggest question in string-theory, that maybe something very minute containing some DNA of the universe always existed, ... but scientifically this raises infinite amounts of questions instead of giving us answers. And again my main question is not answered, where would this matter (in any form) reside in? In another dimension? Then where does that other dimension reside in?
Can 'another dimension' create this physical expanding-retracting universe? How? Why would we think it does? How can we with our physical minds even contemplate 'another dimension' outside our own? That would be impossible and self defying, no?

Believe it or not, the answer is in the Bible, and can be proven through science, ... by observing the world around us, observing our mind, what we see and the things we don't see. It is because of my un-indoctrinated non-religious simple mind, the terrible lack of schooling/education that I am able to see and understand this. All the evil done to me throughout my life ended up to be the greatest blessing.
Not only has God revealed to me the understanding of 'nothing', but I can prove that light has no speed, which in turn destroys any notion on background radiation of an expanding universe. All the claimed 'proofs' of timing light at 186,282mps is a lie.

God IS the answer, so the first thing we have to do is get to know God. The tens of thousands of religions have completely blinded us from knowing God our Creator, yet just as the Bible says, "He is not far from any of us".

If we answer that matter, in any of its previous forms, is not immortal, it is only fair to ask ourselves the question - where did God come from? Which would we prefer to believe has always existed - God or Matter? And are we just making a preference choice?

You got it my friend, that's it then, ... so let's work with that. Let's take 'matter' and say it always existed, ... OK?

What is this 'matter' existing in?
How would it change/evolve to create space and time when matter initially must take up space to exist, and if it changes, then it is called distinguishing events, or 'time'. So we would already have space and time, so why would it 'create' space and time? What, is it space and time within space and time?

You see, it is all created to go against believing in God, it is as simple as that, and with the help of God we can prove it.

I really do not know but when I have listened to dumbed down TV explanations of the big-bang, the 'evidence' presented has always seemed pretty plausible - but I did say I would act as a sucker :gah.

It is ONLY plausible if we take a lot of their definitions for granted, and a lot of their hypothesis as theories. But soon as we start looking deeper, or re-read definitions that are taken for granted, like the 'speed of light' being at 186,282mps, we can see that the rest of these theories fall apart.

Please look into how they came up with the 'speed of light', and when, and you will start to see that there is something really wrong here. A conspiracy against ID that has been going on for 3-400 years now.

Again I thank the Lord and you for responding. Just like the Jack in The Box commercial says; "Think outside the box" ;)

Odon

 

[TJC28]

Whoa, thanks everyone, that was a lot of info! I think now I'm going through a phase where my faith is weak, I think I'm asking a couple questions most people ask at certain points in their lives. Such as, when he lived over 2000 years ago, how can we know with certainty that Jesus is God? And, if he is, what does that mean for Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc? I know I'm not one of those religions, but I still wonder.

 

[Aardverk]

........Not only has God revealed to me the understanding of 'nothing', but I can prove that light has no speed, which in turn destroys any notion on background radiation of an expanding universe. All the claimed 'proofs' of timing light at 186,282mps is a lie...........

......You see, it is all created to go against believing in God, it is as simple as that, and with the help of God we can prove it. .....

Again a very interesting post Odon.

I don't claim to be an expert so I won't even try to deal with most of the things you say, I will just observe that you do appear to have made up your mind not to accept any scientific 'proof' - and that is of course your privilege; many people do the same. I will ask just two main questions.

1. You effectively question the very existence of 'nothing'. If we took all of the matter and all of the energy out of the universe, what would we be left with? If we would not be left with 'nothing', what would be there? I would say, 'nothing'. What would you say?

It is similar to the dilemma, God created light and saw that it was good - but who created 'dark'? If God didn't create 'dark' then 'dark' always existed - so why can't 'nothing'?

2. One of the things that was left on the moon was a reflector to enable us to double check the speed of light. Fire a pulse of light at the reflector and it takes a few seconds before it is reflected. From that delay, the 'speed of light' can easily be calculated. We can all do that experiment for ourselves (if we have suitable equipment) so there is absolutely no point anyone lying about it. As a by-product, the experiment also proves that the reflector is indeed sitting there on the moon, still aligned as the astronauts left it - which rather removes that particular conspiracy theory.


You also asked where all the matter was and speculated (in jest?) about another dimension. We are getting beyond my level of confidence here but we both seem to have some understanding of a singularity/black hole being matter incredibly compressed beyond anything we have ever experienced or that I, for one, can't visualize. If not even light can escape, we have no way of seeing it or measuring its dimensions but we can observe the gravitational pull of these invisible, dimensionless(?) objects.

We all know that matter can be converted into energy (nuclear fission for example) and that, theoretically, energy can be converted back into matter so the concept of a big-bang, from my limited knowledge, seems plausible. Add to that the measurable 'fact' that the universe is expanding, into the 'nothingness', and I would feel rather uncomfortable dismissing a theory that certainly seems to have some, absolutely convincing, supporting evidence.

Something, or someone, must have caused, or is still causing, the universe to expand. Given the unimaginable amount of energy required to move the incredible mass of the whole universe, it must have been a hell of a big bang The expansion alone proves little but it certainly is not something which should be dismissed lightly. I would be interested to do the math to work out the energy required to get the universe to move but I don't have enough paper to write all the numbers on ;)

When trying to imagine the energy required to get things moving, just remember that planet Earth weighs only 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 tons and the solar system only weighs something like 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. If we stood back so that we could see the whole of the universe, our solar system would be so minute that we couldn't see it even with a telescope a million times better than any that we have at the moment. The weight/mass of the whole universe is mindbogglingly huge :shocked! When people talk about a big-bang, that is very much an understatement. In comparison with 'the big-bang', a nuclear explosion would be far, far less than the sound of dropping a grain of sand onto a soft carpet. Imagining it is way beyond our ability - as indeed is imagining the size of the universe.

Trying to visualize and understand these things in every day, man size, 'common sense' terms is absolutely impossible.

 

[Ned Flanders]

Hi, I have two questions:
1. God is omnipotent, therefor God is also all-knowing. He knows everything about the past, present, and future. Is this correct?

2. In heaven... it is always positive, full of joy, happiness, love, etc. There is no negative things like bad, evil, hate.

Thanks please answer and God bless.

 

[for_his_glory]

First we can not make anyone a believer in Christ as it is only by Christ drawing them to him that any of us became a Spiritually born again child of God. Throughout every book of the Bible is that of Gods witnessed as each Prophet , Disciple and Apostle wrote their testimony of what God had spoke to them. The same with us as all we have is our testimony to share. No matter who we are speaking to the Holy Spirit will always give us what to speak. When you know who you are in Christ and believe what He has already spoken to you by His word then you need no man to discourage you by their unbelief, but to only pray that they to will come to Christ as you have. The world lacks knowledge because of unbelief, we gain knowledge by faith that we believe in whom Christ said he was and as he told Peter, upon this rock (your belief) I will build my Church. Another way of putting this is upon your belief of me without others telling you who I am I now establish my Spirit in you for all knowledge and never allow yourself to be swayed from it.

Matthew 16:
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[Aardverk]

Hi, I have two questions:
1. God is omnipotent, therefor God is also all-knowing. He knows everything about the past, present, and future. Is this correct?

2. In heaven... it is always positive, full of joy, happiness, love, etc. There is no negative things like bad, evil, hate.

Howdiddledoodly Ned and welcome to the forum.

Before someone steps in with a 'mainstream' answer, I would like to comment from the heretic fringes of Christianity.

1. No, I don't believe that a compassionate, caring God would have created countless millions of people to have an awful lifetime of suffering just so that they could one day worship Him. Why would He create parasitic worms whose 'designed' life-cycle includes eating the eyeballs of little children from the inside out? The assumptions appears, to me, to be wrong. If God created the universe and us, and just left it to run its course then I don't believe that He can see the details of the future or He wouldn't have wanted all that suffering for His glory.

2. It has been argued here recently (not by me :o)that Adolf Hitler would have gone to heaven if he had repented. Whilst I would agree with the principle that people can change, I have great difficulty accepting that Adolf could have changed that much - so, IF he had repented and gone to heaven, I have difficulty thinking that he would suddenly turn into a passive 'angel' unless the plan is to emasculate and denature everyone who goes to heaven. It sounds pretty dull and boring if everyone suddenly agrees with everyone else and there is nothing to talk about except the latest fashion on how the souls over on the North side are praising God these days. :gah

 

[Aardverk]

............ief, we gain knowledge by faith that we believe in whom Christ said he was and as he told Peter, upon this rock (your belief) I will build my Church. Another way of putting this is upon your belief of me without others telling you who I am I now establish my Spirit in you for all knowledge and never allow yourself to be swayed from it......

Don't forget that 'Peter' was purposefully named 'rock' by Jesus when first he called him to be His disciple (his original name was Simon). It is easy to suppose that Jesus was well aware that Simon was the 'rock' upon which he would later ask for His Church to be built.

Matthew 16:18: Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.(NLT)

'This Rock' is not 'belief', it is the very meaning of the name, 'פיטר', 'Πέτρος', 'Cephas', 'Peter' which appears very clearly in many languages including English - 'petrified' for example. Jesus' actual words clearly meant that he specifically wanted Peter to play a central part in the establishment of the Christian Church and much of early Christianity was of course based upon the 'Gospel according to Peter' and the 'Gospel according to Mary'.

When the feuding 'Christian' factions were forced by Constantine to make peace and get together to agree what should become the official, Christian canon, The Bible, they left out The Gospel according to Mary and The Gospel according to Peter - two of the people closest to Jesus, most influenced by Jesus and most important to Jesus! There were of course a great many others like the Gospel according to Judas, The Gospel according to Thomas etc where it is easy to imagine why they were left out but not Mary and certainly not Peter - the rock on whom He wanted His Church built.

So, The Bible, as far as we know, is not something that Jesus would actually approve of. The Church is not 'built upon Peter' as He wanted, it is built largely upon the 'politician', Paul and other low profile people who Jesus probably never even knew, let alone specifically named.

Those arguing Biscops deliberately kicked out Peter, against the expressed wishes of Jesus and 'promoted' Paul instead (I'm sure you can work out why:gah). Jesus has never 'approved' the Bible, only the men who compiled it and who have gained power from it have done that. Jesus made it clear what 'rock he wanted His Church built upon' - and look what happened instead

 

[for_his_glory]

Don't forget that 'Peter' was purposefully named 'rock' by Jesus when first he called him to be His disciple (his original name was Simon). It is easy to suppose that Jesus was well aware that Simon was the 'rock' upon which he would later ask for His Church to be built.

Matthew 16:18: Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.(NLT)

'This Rock' is not 'belief', it is the very meaning of the name, 'פיטר', 'Πέτρος', 'Cephas', 'Peter' which appears very clearly in many languages including English - 'petrified' for example. Jesus' actual words clearly meant that he specifically wanted Peter to play a central part in the establishment of the Christian Church and much of early Christianity was of course based upon the 'Gospel according to Peter' and the 'Gospel according to Mary'.

When the feuding 'Christian' factions were forced by Constantine to make peace and get together to agree what should become the official, Christian canon, The Bible, they left out The Gospel according to Mary and The Gospel according to Peter - two of the people closest to Jesus, most influenced by Jesus and most important to Jesus! There were of course a great many others like the Gospel according to Judas, The Gospel according to Thomas etc where it is easy to imagine why they were left out but not Mary and certainly not Peter - the rock on whom He wanted His Church built.

So, The Bible, as far as we know, is not something that Jesus would actually approve of. The Church is not 'built upon Peter' as He wanted, it is built largely upon the 'politician', Paul and other low profile people who Jesus probably never even knew, let alone specifically named.

Those arguing Biscops deliberately kicked out Peter, against the expressed wishes of Jesus and 'promoted' Paul instead (I'm sure you can work out why:gah). Jesus has never 'approved' the Bible, only the men who compiled it and who have gained power from it have done that. Jesus made it clear what 'rock he wanted His Church built upon' - and look what happened instead

This is so EDITED that I'm not even going to go there with you as this has been discussed between you and many of us, but your Spiritual eyes and ears are shut tight against that of the Holy Spirit and I will have no fellowship with foolishness. Ephesians 5:1-12

 

[Aardverk]

This is so stupid that I'm not even going to go there with you as this has been discussed between you and many of us, but your Spiritual eyes and ears are shut tight against that of the Holy Spirit and I will have no fellowship with foolishness. Ephesians 5:1-12

As a matter of FACT 'for_his_glory', this has never been discussed between me and ANYONE, let alone you or anyone else on this forum. Check your facts.

I find it strange that you think you can insult me, and others, so often though. I wonder what makes some people think that they have that right over others

Rather than issue petty insults, perhaps you would like to try to justify your strange interpretation that 'this rock' means 'your belief' - as you claimed earlier. I appreciate that you may well not feel up to the challenge of intelligently contradicting me. Far easier to assume that false superiority and try to burn me for heresy.

In case it has escaped your attention, this forum is for debating things, including things related to beliefs. It really doesn't help to dismiss carefully explained ideas as 'stupid' (fourth word above), that just comes over as ................