http://time-blog.com/middle_east/

Thoughts?

Knowing that J.C. sired a son with Mary Magdalene would have absolutely no effect on my day-to-day life. Discovering where a 2,000 year old man was buried truly is of no consequence to me, either. It's just historical trivia, in my book.

But if I were James Cameron, I believe I'd turn my personal security up a notch.

you know what'll be REAL funny?

It would be real funny if this is true, and Christians DONT riot, dont murder.

ya know why that would be funny? because if someone were to say something bad about the cornerstone of the Islamic faith, heads would roll (literally)

It's like a religious blooper if its true, lol.

The cave with the tombs mentioned in that article - I've heard about it somewhere before, I just can't remember where.

Well part of it seems to fit. We have a Jesus, his son, and two Marys who are assumed to be his mother and Ms Magdalene.

But who are the other two fellows? Matthew may be the apostle, but I can't work out Jofa.



Just wondering - when they first suspected that this must be the tomb of Christ, did they bother looking at the wrists and feet of 'Jesua' for nail-holes? It would be the first thing I'd do. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)



EDIT: Apparatly Jofa could be a brother of Jesus and Matthew was a common name from both sides of Jesus' family - http://tinyurl.com/274t7n



[This message has been edited by flatplat (edited 02-25-2007).]

Hi all,

I'm not too familiar with how DNA testing is done, but in my understanding, i think there needs to be something to compare one set with another.

In the article it said:

quote:But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

So if my basic understanding of DNA testing (or misunderstanding) is anywhere close, what could they possibly compare the DNA from the find that would link it to Jesus?

If anyone has some insight, please share.

On a different note...

Reguarding Mary Magdalene (and a supposed child fathered by Jesus), as best as i understand, there would be no Theological problem as long as two conditions (with a third sub-condition) are met:

1) The child was concieved in wedlock.

2) Neither Mary had not been with anyone else prior to (her husband) Jesus.

subcondition) If Mary had been with someone prior to Jesus, it would have had to have been a previous husband that had passed away.

Like i said, this is to the best of my understanding, and i didn't look into the Mosaic Law to make sure. But if this is close, if any one of those conditions are were not met, then Jesus would not be who He claimed to be, because that would mean that He had Sin and could not have been the Perfect Sacrifice for our Sins.



Aside from all that, this story sounds as if it is a rehash of one of the "stolen body myths" (which have been refuted many times and quite thoroughly).

So, to sum up.. i would think

1) that there has to be some way of linking the dna found w/ the find to Jesus and those named

2) proof that Jesus had committed adultery by either having sex outside of marriage or that Mary had sinned and it was a "passed on sin" to Jesus.

or

3) the arguements refuting the "stolen body myths" have missed something (which really goes hand in hand with number 1, i.e. a confirmation of the DNA.



This is my two-cents on this one.. i'm more than open to being shown that i missed something or was incorrect on this.

My other two-cents on the article is that it is exactly as it looks... another failed attempt to disprove Christianity (for what ever reason or agenda... or even just a way to promote a movie)

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by flatplat:

Well part of it seems to fit. We have a Jesus, his son, and two Marys who are assumed to be his mother and Ms Magdalene.



Hi flatplat,

Just wondering, in what way does Jesus' son fit? What, other than speculation, is the evidence that Jesus had a son?

God Bless,

johnny

quote: Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



subcondition) If Mary had been with someone prior to Jesus, it would have had to have been a previous husband that had passed away.

Like i said, this is to the best of my understanding, and i didn't look into the Mosaic Law to make sure. But if this is close, if any one of those conditions are were not met, then Jesus would not be who He claimed to be, because that would mean that He had Sin and could not have been the Perfect Sacrifice for our Sins.

2) proof that Jesus had committed adultery by either having sex outside of marriage or that Mary had sinned and it was a "passed on sin" to Jesus.





Hi all,

Just for clarification, here is a passage that shows what i meant by a "passed on sin":

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.



Hope that made things alittle more clear...



God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



So, to sum up.. i would think

1) that there has to be some way of linking the dna found w/ the find to Jesus and those named

2) proof that Jesus had committed adultery by either having sex outside of marriage or that Mary had sinned and it was a "passed on sin" to Jesus.

or

3) the arguements refuting the "stolen body myths" have missed something (which really goes hand in hand with number 1, i.e. a confirmation of the DNA.

Hi xtreem.

Why do you embrace the presence of "proof" when it comes to correcting misunderstandings of the Bible, but you require no "proof" in accepting that there is a God?



quote:

My other two-cents on the article is that it is exactly as it looks... another failed attempt to disprove Christianity (for what ever reason or agenda... or even just a way to promote a movie)



My two cents on your post: Another failed attempt to prove Christianity, for a very clear reason and agenda on your part - to protect your core beliefs from being misinterpreted by unbelievers.

Take care.

QUOTE Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Hi xtreem.

Hi AngryFemme.



Why do you embrace the presence of "proof" when it comes to correcting misunderstandings of the Bible, but you require no "proof" in accepting that there is a God?

How do you know that i have had no proof?

I share that proof with very few people. The people (with the exception of one person) have to know me personally for it to have any weight, whatsoever, with them... and even then i dont use it to convince them of God..... as i've said many times, "it is not my job to convince another person that God exists... that is the job of the Holy Spirit. And that is "subject" to an "agreement" between that person and God"



My two cents on your post: Another failed attempt to prove Christianity, for a very clear reason and agenda on your part - to protect your core beliefs from being misinterpreted by unbelievers.

Hmmm... "to protect my core beliefs from being misinterpreted by unbelievers"...

Can you and i agree on something?.. Either the Judeo-Christian God exists or He doesnt.

If He does. And if He has Commanded that we should go and tell the world of the Gospel, shouldnt that be what a believer should be doing?

If He does not exist, then does it really matter what my core beliefs are? Or whether those core beliefs are misunderstood/misinterpreted? [Yes, i realise that that is leaving open possibilities of other gods and religions... i do that for a reason... maybe you've noticed that i have very seldom attacked any religious belief (including those from inside the Christian Faith) apart from atheism/agnosticism. I have my reasons for that.]

When i first got on Totse, i was noticing the "contradictions in the bible" threads (and things like it, that basically say, "see, christians are irrational/illogical .: God must not exist") and trying to work from the defensive position by trying to show that those ideas are misunderstanding.

Recently i've been trying to make a transition from the defense to the offense because i've finally realised that it is continually putting out little fires along the way.... well, let me give an example (i am going to exaggerate on the example to make the point.. dont take the example too literally, it's just to make the point)..

quote:Atheologian (A): I dont believe cuz the bible has 101 contraditions.

Christian (C): Let's look at some..

<time passes>

C: Ok, we've looked at half of them, are you convinced that the ones we looked at are not contradictions?

A: Ya, i guess.... but what about the other half?

C: OK, let's look at those.

<time passes>

C: Ok, how bout now? Did we cover those well enough to convince you?

A: Well, ok, they werent contradictions, but i still dont believe that God wrote the Bible... it was just a bunch of folks that used "god" as a means for explaining things they didnt understand and then used religion as a means for keeping people in line, and then they realised that they could use religion to control and exploit and extort money......

<and on and on about one disagreement after another w/ God, the Bible and Christianity>

Anyway, what i realised was that any answer/defense, no matter how plausible or thorough (not that it would be seen that i've given such) is really just putting out one little fire, while ignoring the burning building.... the flip side of this would be the atheologian's POV that it is an active desire to not believe (dont give me the thing that atheism is not disbelief in God, but the lack of belief.... else, why would those arguing against God and Christianity even bother? what would be the point?).. so, in other words, (from the non-believer's POV), "ok, so that Christian handled that objection i had, i'll just attack from a different point (start a different fire, so to speak)".

And this "problem of fires" is a larger problem on a board such as Totse (as opposed to a one-on-one conversation), since there are more people with "fires of their own" and/or "starting fires" or re-inventing a previous "fire" (this pertains to the OP, i.e. rehashing of the "stolen body myth").

So the problem (speaking earthly):

"How to be more effective telling the Gospel to people that actively deny that the word of god, is the Word of God, when those same people dont believe in God or His Word (almost a priori)"

The answer (again, speaking earthly):

"1)Attack there basic presuppositions.

2)Show that those presuppositions are self-defeating.

3)Show that under the same conditions, Christianity has logical answers (in this, i am referring to MY failed attempt of positive apologetics reguarding 'evidentialism')

4)Provide Biblical support AGAINST the presupposition that I'M attacking and Biblical support FOR the Christian alternative.

My thought on this was that if a belief/worldview can be shown to be self-defeating and the Biblical alternative answers the same problem sufficiently, then the logical outcome should be to toss that part of the atheologian's noetic structure out the door and that the Christian answer should fill that void... but what am i doing here???... exactly the same thing that had been done with negative apologetics... putting out little fires, while ignoring the burning building, right?

The problem with this approach (even though it may be a good approach in some situations)

is the phrase "earthly speaking". In this approach, it is I who is contradicting myself... On the one hand, I'm claiming that it is God that convinces the atheologian.. but in the very next breath i am, in effect, saying it's my arguement or my idea on how to handle the problem.



So now, where possible, i'm going to try to approach the problem in kinda the way as my first post in this thread, namely,

1)repeat or point out what i am referring to [so that it's not a non-sequitor..(sp?)].

2) move to the Biblical or theological answer (as long as a passage or theological understanding comes to mind http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) )

2b) if there is disagreement on the meaning of the passage or theology, handle it accordingly i.e. same as step 1 and 2

3) Stand back and allow God to convince.

4) Dont worry about who is converted or not that is God's business, i'm just supposed to:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

and

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

5)Trust that God will take care of the "fires" as He Wills.



In short, if you and i can agree that either God exists or does not... and that Christianity is either true or not, then it follows that the Christian (me in particular, per your reply to me) should be sharing the Gospel, mainly because it is Commanded by God, so that the unsaved might be Saved.

It also follows that if God does not exist or if Christianity is false, then it doesnt really matter what my core beliefs are or whether they are protected from anything..(again, purposely leaving out the possibilities of other religions and gods)



Take care.

Thank you. You too.

johnny

quote: Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

How do you know that i have had no proof?

I share that proof with very few people.

!!!

You have proof God exists, yet you're going to horde that information to yourself and just a few select people, when you yourself believe that

quote: i'm just supposed to:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Especially when you feel it is pertinent to:

quote: be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason [b]of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

I've searched for proof my entire life. With proof, I will even be willing, as an unbeliever and secular humanist, to denounce all that I have believed thus far and be willing to investigate God further. See, that's how my belief system is structured. I examine valid claims with an open mind, weighing it against everything I've learned so far. That is how I establish what I believe to be "true". I am asking you with utmost sincerity to give me a reason, that one shard of "proof" I would require to believe in God. Would you still deny me that proof? Or were you just speaking in purely esoteric terms?

quote: Can you and i agree on something?.. Either the Judeo-Christian God exists or He doesnt.

If He does. And if He has Commanded that we should go and tell the world of the Gospel, shouldnt that be what a believer should be doing?

Absolutely. But if you're going to do it, do it well. Don't do it, and then hide behind statements like: "I share that proof with very few people", as if you belong to some special club to which I am not worthy of entering.

quote: 1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

I am asking you a reasonable question. Either you have proof or you don't have proof. If you share it with me, I promise to listen with an open mind. If you don't share it, then I have to assume you are speaking in esoteric terms and either 1) Don't want to share your God with me and others, or 2) are too meek and fearful to lay out your beliefs in order to have them dissected and analyzed by a person who is going to carefully examine each and every claim and test it against (her) own revelations of "proof" that she's learned thus far, or 3) you simply do not have the proof. What do you have to lose?

The bottom half of your entire post seemed to be a big fat disclaimer that says, in short: "It is God's job to convert the unbelievers, not mine." So I ask you:

Why give me the carrot and stick of "I have proof", if you're not willing to testify to it? If you say it is God's job and not yours, then why doesn't God intervene on this message board and help me realize the error of my thinking?

One fundamental difference between you and I (or at the very least, our belief systems) is this:

I am willing to say: Show me proof, and I will listen. I am ready to change my mind if you can convince me with rational claims of what you believe the "truth" to be.

You, on the other hand, cannot say that. You are the one who accepts your "truths" a priori, and are unwilling to listen to my reasons simply because I fall into that class of individuals who God hasn't bothered to show miracles to. You are far too good to argue with people of other denominations, except of course those pesky, un-enlightened atheists:

quote: maybe you've noticed that i have very seldom attacked any religious belief (including those from inside the Christian Faith) apart from atheism/agnosticism.

I enjoy how polite our banter has been thus far. Now, could you share that proof with me? I can't promise to believe it until I've heard it, but for the sake of politeness, could you follow through with what you've claimed?

If you have proof of God, you're not going to heaven. That's not faith, that's knowledge.

You need to believe not know.

So basically, if you ever see God, you're going to hell.

Pwnd?

Then it's a good thing that getting into heaven isn't my sole reason for wanting to know if there is a God.

And I don't believe in hell, so that particular scare tactic doesn't deter my desire to examine God in all his alleged glory.

Hi AngryFemme,

QUOTE Originally posted by AngryFemme:

!!!

You have proof God exists, yet you're going to horde that information to yourself and just a few select people, when you yourself believe that

It's far from hordeing. I've given my reasons in the past. The short reason is that one has to know me very well and personally, in order for it to have any weight, and even then, there would be now way for the person to varify my claim aside from having the same knowledge.

Let me give an example.. think of the person that you know to be the most honest person you know. And think of the person that you know to also be the person that looks at all sides of a situation before coming to conclussions (by your post, i might guess that you might be this second person.. maybe even the first).. Now consider if those two people were really one person and that person told you that without a doubt, absolutley positively, that he/she saw an invisible pink unicorn (such as the one that visits many of these threads)... Now, do you believe that person, based on that persons objectivity and honesty.. or do you still say, "well, he/she might be right, but i still doubt it, unless i see it for myself, and even then i might be deluded"??

I'm not claiming to be that "most honest and most objective" person.... that would be up to the person that i would share my testimony with.... do you see now, that although i know, there is no actual proof that i could give, for the purpose of proving to someone else? And since you dont know me personally, how much less weight could my testimony hold.

It is equally important to "horde" from other Christians (about half that i've shared it with, are Christians). I have to know them better than an unbeliever has to know me, in order to share w/ them, since it could be a terrible stumbling block to their faith. (i.e. "i must not have real faith since i dont know to the degree that john knows).

As to whether i'm meek or not.... i could not care less if someone did not believe me... or even if they thought i should be fitted for a nice white jacket w/ the very long sleeves.

The point is, i KNOW God exists. And, if it had not been for that fact, i probably would have thrown out Christianity the first time i saw Rust show the deductive PoE. But that knowledge was what made me say "wait a minute, if this is such a logically strong arguement against God, then His Word should have some answers"... which it does.i'm just supposed to:

Especially when you feel it is pertinent to:

Yes i do.... which is why i keep coming back here... and also spreading the Word in real life too (although less, since many people only want to be on the God topic for short amounts of time... more often when they are drinking or getting high, but since that isnt part of my life anymore... and since neither side can think very straight in those conditions anyway, the Evange-bar (TM) isnt going to be my pulpit LOL)

I've searched for proof my entire life. With proof, I will even be willing, as an unbeliever and secular humanist, to denounce all that I have believed thus far and be willing to investigate God further.

As Jacketch has said, "read the Book".

As God's Word says:

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

I really want NO answer from you on these questions.. they are questions for you to look into your heart for an answer to yourself.

Why are you looking for proof?

Why are you looking for proof?

What kinds of proof would satisfy you?

So, if Romans 10:17 is true, why would you ask me (or any other Christian) for proof?

See, that's how my belief system is structured. I examine valid claims with an open mind, weighing it against everything I've learned so far. That is how I establish what I believe to be "true".

And you know that this is different from me and my worldview?

The only difference is that one KNOWLEDGE. It is not merely a belief.

I am asking you with utmost sincerity to give me a reason, that one shard of "proof" I would require to believe in God. Would you still deny me that proof? Or were you just speaking in purely esoteric terms?

Speaking in "initiated" terms? You mean like "church talk"? No. It is KNOWLEDGE.

And with the same utmost sincerity, i can not and will not even try to use this as a proof for you.

Even if i could use it as a proof for you.. even if i had that ability, it is not a proof that is allowed for testing.

Deut 6:16

Matt 4:7

Luke 4:12

You say,

"I examine valid claims with an open mind, weighing it against everything I've learned so far."

and you also say,

"I've searched for proof my entire life. With proof, I will even be willing, as an unbeliever and secular humanist, to denounce all that I have believed thus far and be willing to investigate God further"

"be willing to investigate God further"???

You want me to show you something that i think even some Christians can not handle, and you are "willing to investigate the Sovereign God"??

Maybe this can put into perspective... Adam and Eve KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists... yet the whole of their decendants are in need of a Saviour for their "wanting to investigate further". The Devil KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, yet he will be eternally dammed.

Moses KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet he was not allowed to go into the Promised Land.

And you think that proof of God is something that is simply open for further investigation? You have no idea what you are asking, even if i was able and allowed to share with you.

If you really, sincerely want proof that IS open to investigate, study the books of Micah and Malachi.



If you want to dissect something of logic, start w/ Paul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galations.

And i'm not talking about commentaries... study those. If you get stuck, i would be willing to help you without giving my take on them, so as not to color your view.

If you want real help on them, ask God. And i mean that in all honesty.

Absolutely. But if you're going to do it, do it well. Don't do it, and then hide behind statements like: "I share that proof with very few people", as if you belong to some special club to which I am not worthy of entering.

It is not me that judges your worthiness. I only told you what some of the criteria that is used. I'm here providing what i am allowed to provide.



I am asking you a reasonable question. Either you have proof or you don't have proof. If you share it with me, I promise to listen with an open mind.

Perhaps it's a reasonable (honest) question.

But the promise does nothing for me. It doesnt matter if someone thinks i'm crazy. It doesnt even matter to me, if anyone believes me. Open mind or not.



If you don't share it, then I have to assume you are speaking in esoteric terms

Assume what you want.

and either 1) Don't want to share your God with me and others,

If i didnt want to share my God, would i be here? Especially when i have not tried to hide the fact that i am Christian.... YEC to boot.

or 2) are too meek and fearful to lay out your beliefs in order to have them dissected and analyzed by a person who is going to carefully examine each and every claim and test it against (her) own revelations of "proof" that she's learned thus far,

Again, apart from this one claim, when have i been unwilling to set my beliefs on the Totse table? In fact, IMO, i think i've often exposed more than most people (from any camp)

or 3) you simply do not have the proof. What do you have to lose?

It's not my loss that that's under question.

The bottom half of your entire post seemed to be a big fat disclaimer that says, in short: "It is God's job to convert the unbelievers, not mine."

Yes, disclaimer might be a good enough term.



So I ask you:

Why give me the carrot and stick of "I have proof", if you're not willing to testify to it?

I said, "... and even then i dont use it to convince them of God....." so why would it be used to convince you?

Was it a carrot & stick?

To throw some more on the table, yes i did (early in my life) accept God without the proof that you seem to be looking for. The proof that you call, "carrot & stick" came much later in life. But again, that is not to say that there was NO proof even as a young child... the sufficient proof at that time was 'that's what my family believed'.

My faith has grown since then, but that does not lessen the rationality of that proof... and that's the same kind of proof that you explain when you say, "dissected and analyzed by a person who is going to carefully examine each and every claim and test it against (her) own revelations of "proof" that she's learned thus far"...

You see, each and every person does that with just about all beliefs that we hold. We compare them to the rest of our beliefs and knowledge and see how they fit. Just because i claim one belief that differs from a belief that you have, dont assume that i took it on blind faith anymore than you have. And dont assume that my ability to analyse is less sufficient than yours (or better, for that matter) or that i accept things just because i'm told (i'm not a toddler anymore... but i am getting to the age that toddling again may be in the not so distant future http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) my wife toddles, but that's cuz she had her hips and knees replaced.. it can be quite funny when she chases after the kids http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) dont tell her i said that... hehehe )

Let's try a different thing (something i've used in the past, for someother reason)

Picture in your mind, a red bouncing ball.

Got it?

Now, prove to me that you actually pictured it.

You see, it was an expirience that i had. Can you see why one reason that i can not use it to prove God's existance? And unless you have had the same or a similar expirience, you could not know. And unless you knew me, and was able to compare what you know about me, with what i claim, the claim would be completely weightless. Even if you knew me well, it still would be open to your analysis on whether i was dillusional or mistaken. If you had the same or a similar experience, you and i would be having a quite different conversation.

It was not a carrot & stick. It was a matter of fact.



If you say it is God's job and not yours, then why doesn't God intervene on this message board and help me realize the error of my thinking?

First of all, why would you assume that i am privy to all of God's knowledge or even that one tidbit (in order to answer that question with the authority of God)?

Second, how do you know that He isnt helping you... He may well be using me to help you... He might even be using one of the athiests or agnostics or buhdist, etc., to help you.

Third, and keep the other answers in mind,

Luke 16:19 -16:31... you have Moses and the prophets...and they testify to Jesus the Christ.

One fundamental difference between you and I (or at the very least, our belief systems) is this:

We are not as different as you think.

I am willing to say: Show me proof, and I will listen. I am ready to change my mind if you can convince me with rational claims of what you believe the "truth" to be.

Who says i havent been trying to show proof that you will accept, or Rust, or anyone else on this board?

Ron Nash (he was a Christian philosopher, passed away last year) once quipped that he saw a proof for God's existence that used the number one, that had he not been a believer, he thought it would have been powerful enough to prove to him... i heard it and although it was interesting, it seemed rather trivial to me.

Why does God not allow for a "silver bullet" proof that all who heard would be convinced?... i could give you a theological answer, but a much shorter and to the point one is, cuz He did it His way for His own reasons.

You, on the other hand, cannot say that. You are the one who accepts your "truths" a priori,

And that's different from any human being, including you, in what way? We all have a priori beliefs and we build on those beliefs. But when we build on those beliefs, we are comparing them to the rest of our noetic structure.. and depending on how close to our basic core beliefs, a belief is included in our worldview or excluded.

One thing to concider is that it might look like i am more a priori prone, since you havent been with me during my path in life, so you get to see the me now, after i have weighed and measured much of what i have presented here on Totse. And i'm pretty sure that the "carrot/stick" incident happened before i was a member, so that knowledge is also a part of the me you see...IOW, if i know that God exists and something is presented that is contrary to that fact, which do you think i should disreguard?

and are unwilling to listen to my reasons

Have i not been listening? I'm sorry you feel that way... i will try to be alittle less dogmatic in the future, and listen more. But to be fair, you say you have an open mind; with your open mind, please see that if i appear to be not listening and more dogmatic, it may very well be that it is an issue that either brushes very close to that KNOWLEDGE or is directly opposed. Let me put it another way.. if you know that 2 + 2 = 4 and i would say to you, that it really equals 5, would it behoove either of us if you were open minded toward my view?.. you might be slightly tolerant enough to see where i might go with that, but open mindedness can not be traded for truth.

simply because I fall into that class of individuals who God hasn't bothered to show miracles to.

This has no bearing on my listening to you or not.

And please dont think that i consider myself better than someone because God choose to show me something. I realise that the Catholics feel that Mary was special, and that was why she was chosen to be Jesus' mother. And i realise that the Jewish people believe they were special, and that was why they were God's Chosen.

I know my life to this point, and i know i was not chosen based on my piety or purity (even now).

I'm not even sure of all the "why's", although i do think i understand some of the "why's"... but it boils down, not to the "why's" but more to responsibilities and "tasks". The responsibility or task at this moment, is discussing with you. I have no idea if you are the intended soul that is to be converted, or if it's someone passing through from a random google clik.

There is an old joke or story or something that goes alittle like this (i dont recall the whole thing, but i think the gist will be clear enough...

God says to Jim, "Jim, push that rock". Jim enthusiastically say YES, LORD. For ten years Jim pushes with all his might on the rock... each year with less enthusiasm. One day, Jim decides to stop, and he sits down against the rock, thinking, what a dummy i was, i never budged the rock. In fact, i'm not even sure that was what God told me to do... He never came to check on me, or help me out... boy, what a dummy i was.... God then shows up and asks Jim, "Why arent you pushing that rock, like i told you. Jim replies, "Lord, i'm not strong enough to push it out of the hole it's in, it's been 10 years and i didnt budge it an inch and you didnt even care enough to check on me let alone help me". God replies, "I told you to push the rock. I knew you werent strong enough to move it, but you never asked for help, but your (Spiritual) muscles are strong enough now, that i can use you for My purpose"

AngryFemme, are you so certain that God has not shown you a miracle or two? Would you recognise one if you saw? If you did recognise, what then?



You are far too good to argue with people of other denominations, except of course those pesky, un-enlightened atheists:

Thanks, that made me chuckle.

Nah.. this is just the path that my rock is on.

I enjoy how polite our banter has been thus far. Now, could you share that proof with me? I can't promise to believe it until I've heard it, but for the sake of politeness, could you follow through with what you've claimed?

More importantly than knowing me well enough for that proof to mattern to you, study those Books i suggested, and get to know God. Let Him show you proofs that are specific to you.

God Bless,

johnny

PS to Hare_Geist, if ye be listening, arrgh matey... sorry dude, i never made it to Medieval Total War II or movie night with my wife.... i gotta learn to make shorter, faster posts.... other than running for gas and a quick cleaning of the kitchen, i ended up working on this thread instead of answering the call of MTWII or working on the other thread.

quote:Originally posted by Nephtys-Ra:

If you have proof of God, you're not going to heaven. That's not faith, that's knowledge.

You need to believe not know.

So basically, if you ever see God, you're going to hell.

Pwnd?

Hi Nephtys-Ra,

Is that so?

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by Nephtys-Ra:

If you have proof of God, you're not going to heaven. That's not faith, that's knowledge.

You need to believe not know.

So basically, if you ever see God, you're going to hell.

Pwnd?

All knowledge rests on faith.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

All knowledge rests on faith.

A square has four sides. That doesn't rest on faith. That is knowledge.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

You want me to show you something that i think even some Christians can not handle, and you are "willing to investigate the Sovereign God"??

xtreem:

Thanks for humoring me and my questions. I truly did not expect any new revelations to come out, nor did I expect you to shower me with unfallible *proof* of God's existence. You just made an extraordinary claim (perhaps out of context) concerning "I have proof", and I had to call you out on it. I fully realized that most of the answers would come in the form of scripture, riddled in metaphor and presented in a manner that would rely on me to do things such as "look inside my heart" for answers ... and again, I appreciate you giving your personal testimony as to how you feel you KNOW for certain. That was quite a bit of typing on your part, and your efforts did not go unnoticed.

Since this is a (for the most part) anonymous message board and there is no possible way of really knowing what other people have experienced, I have clarify something you assumed about me:

I have been exposed to God. I have read the scripture. I grew up in multiple households that required that of me as a young person, and it is very pertinent to understand here that I did not study the Bible begrudgingly. I loved to read. I loved the stories. I loved discussing them. My entire youth was spent in either Catholic school or Pentacostal church or Baptist Bible study. I was practically a foster child until I hit adolescence - and this too is something that I feel gave me more advantages than disadvantages growing up. It exposed me to several different strains of religion, all containing pretty much the same message: Love thy neighbor, honour thy parents, don't kill, steal or covet neighbor's belongings - lessons I've carried with me throughout my entire adult life. Practical lessons. That said, I think it's somewhat fair to assume that I have had adequate exposure to the same religious material you may have had, so that puts us on an even keel.

The major difference between you and I is our Belief in Belief. Other than that, we're not much different at all. I'd like to touch on a few more things you said, but it will take some time and I have to go to work. Thanks again for your testimonies, and I hope you too will listen with an open mind to my testimonies when I get to that point.

Last thing before I go: Wouldn't one have to investigate God before finding God? You made it seem like just my stating that was a blasphemy, of sorts...

QUOTE Originally posted by AngryFemme:



I truly did not expect any new revelations to come out, nor did I expect you to shower me with unfallible *proof* of God's existence.



Hi AngryFemme,

Just wondering, have you started (re-)studying the Books that were suggested?



You just made an extraordinary claim (perhaps out of context) concerning "I have proof", and I had to call you out on it.

And that's fair enough.

...I have clarify something you assumed about me:

I have been exposed to God. I have read the scripture. I grew up in multiple households that required that of me as a young person, and it is very pertinent to understand here that I did not study the Bible begrudgingly. I loved to read. I loved the stories. I loved discussing them. My entire youth was spent in either Catholic school or Pentacostal church or Baptist Bible study. I was practically a foster child until I hit adolescence - and this too is something that I feel gave me more advantages than disadvantages growing up. It exposed me to several different strains of religion, all containing pretty much the same message: Love thy neighbor, honour thy parents, don't kill, steal or covet neighbor's belongings - lessons I've carried with me throughout my entire adult life. Practical lessons. That said, I think it's somewhat fair to assume that I have had adequate exposure to the same religious material you may have had, so that puts us on an even keel.

Thank you for sharing. I am hoping that you realize that i wasnt necessarily assuming that you have not read the Bible... or even studied it.... yes, i may have assumed that you hadn't read the Bible. For that assumption, i'm sorry. But with that said, there were specific reasons that pertained to our conversation, that i mentioned those Books.

I'd like to touch on a few more things you said, but it will take some time and I have to go to work.

This is part of the reason i hadnt responded sooner... this and the "wall beating" that Hare and i have been partaking.... well, and life in general.

Thanks again for your testimonies, and I hope you too will listen with an open mind to my testimonies when I get to that point.

Despite how i might be seen by members of this forum, i think i do approach most things quite open minded. And i would love to hear your testimony, if you so chose to share.

Last thing before I go: Wouldn't one have to investigate God before finding God?

This, yes, i suppose... but that would assume that it is solely up to us to find God... that He is playing hide n' seek.

More on this thought at a later date.

You made it seem like just my stating that was a blasphemy, of sorts...

Looking for God; using the mind that He gave you, by no means, is blasphemy.

Wanting the proof that i saw you asking for (namely, the proof that i claim to have), is not blasphemy.

Wanting that proof for the sake of looking for God or testing if He is real, is asking for something that has a high price.

quote:Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

... and i tried to point that out.



Getting that request is not something i wish for anyone, without already having Trust in God.



God Bless,

johnny