"Unless You Prove Bible Right I Stay Non-Believer"?

[breathoflife]

Hi everyone, when we are dealing with unbelievers it is as if we are from a foreign land maybe like from another planet. We want to talk to one of these beings but there is a language barrier. We speak a language not heard or lived by. We must learn to speak in a manner that they can understand. That language is Grace. They will know you by our love one for another. The ministry of reconciliation has been given to us. Grace is not the walk of this world. When Noah came off the ark he did something that is not identified for us. Son number one discovers Noah in whatever condition his father was in and immediately goes out telling his brothers about their father. That is this world ever since the Fall. His other sons come in with a skin to cover their father and they are walking backwards. Grace is not how we are wired to walk in in this world. Lastly one problem and this seems to be quite the stumbling block for unredeemed people. The things that are often gods in this world, greed, anger etc are the very things we are called to put to death as sacrifices to our God. Some folks don’t like slaying what they worship. We are talking to those who made His sheep and we must learn to speak with His voice because His sheep will hear His voice.

[omega2xx]

On 12/10/2018 at 11:35 AM, thomas t said:

Dear community,

I hear so often from atheists, so-called agnostics, that they don't believe because they don't see any evidence that the Bible is true (here again).

But do you think it is reasonable to refrain from converting until the Bible is proven as truth?

Even if you think there is a 50% probabilty of the Bible being true it makes sense, in my view, to proclaim Jesus as Lord, already. ("Jesus, if you are there...")

Just to be on the safe side when it comes to the question where we spend eternity.

Regards, Thomas

I am late to the dance but maybe not to late.

Spiritual concepts can't be proved.  The must be accepted by faith alone.

Nothing in the Bible can be disproved.  That belief must also be accepted by faith alone.

I can prove more from the Bible than you can disprove.

Peace and joy

 

.

 

 

[A Christian 1985]

truthseekersasciencespiritual.blogspot.com/

Many authors have written books involving the interpretation of prophecy, primarily on the books of Daniel and Revelation. Few of the popular authors in this field have exhibited more than a small amount of spiritual insight, with the result that the fruits of their labor are equally capable of attainment by an unbeliever who, of course, would be incapable of any true spiritual enlightenment.

Also, the popular authors tend to interpret only those portions of Scripture that would appeal to their reading audience and to avoid portions that might be offensive and thus endanger the appeal of their books.

So Christ also having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. (Heb. 9:28)

But of that day and hour knows no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. (Matt. 24:36)

Anyone who sets a precise date for the ending of this age- regardless of source or reasoning- is wrong!

Now from the fig tree learn her parable Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. (Matt. 24:32‑34)

It has been realized by students of the Bible for more than two hundred years that the parable of the fig tree meant that Israel would become a nation again.

Israel became a nation again on May 14, 1948.

I saw one of his heads as though it had been smitten unto death; and his                               death‑stroke was healed: and the whole earth wondered after the beast; ... And he maketh the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose death stroke was healed.... that they should make an image to the beast who hath the stroke of the sword and lived. (Rev. 13:3, 12, 14)

            The Antichrist, shortly after coming to power as the seventh Caesar, will die physically from a fatal wound. The Antichrist is the one of the seven heads of the beast that is wounded fatally‑ this will not necessarily be a head wound‑ Scripture does not specify where he is wounded, only that it is a fatal wound inflicted with a sword stroke. This possibly will, but may not necessarily, be a literal sword stroke. It is much likelier that this is merely the symbolic means used to indicate a violent death. The body of the Antichrist (probably after about three days) will then be brought back to life by Satan as a counterfeit of the resurrection of Christ. How does Satan do this?

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go into perdition. And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, they whose name hath not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast, how that he was, and is not, and shall come. (Rev. 17:8)

            In speaking of the Antichrist physically (as the seventh Caesar), John says that he is not yet come: the Antichrist has not yet appeared and we will not know for sure who he is until his body is brought back to life. Yet in this verse here, John says that at the time that he wrote this, the Antichrist had already been on the earth but was not on the earth then, and would come out of the abyss when he appears again on the earth. This seems to be a contradiction with Rev. 17:10, where John says that He is not yet come. What is the reality here?

...as modern chronologers have demonstrated, that the date of the Christian era, or of the birth of Christ Himself, was moved FOUR YEARS from the true time. ...but there seems to be no doubt of the fact, that the birth of the Lord Jesus was made full four years later than the truth. ³¹⁴

What is the significance of the six days of the restoration and the seventh day of rest spoken of in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2?

Deduction based on various statements in the Bible; however, place the date of creation only a few thousand years in the past. The precise date usually found in the headings of the King James Bible is 4004 B.C., this date having been worked out by the Irish theologian James Ussher (1581‑1656). ³¹⁹

...with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. (2 Peter 3:8)

            This date of 4004 B.C. is a date indicated by the Scriptures.

As we have seen previously, Christ was actually born in the year that we record as 4 B.C. Thus, it was four of the Lord's days (exactly 4,000 of our years) from the indicated date of "creation" to the birth of Christ. Using the same reckoning, the time of the Lord's return (which will be at the beginning of the seventh day, the millennium) should be the year 1996.  If He has not returned by this time, then He has tarried because the bride still hasn’t made herself ready. 

I think that the following conclusions are both accurate and appropriate:

1. Before midnight Israeli time August 4‑5, 1982 the last 3 1/2 years before the physical return of Christ (the Great Tribulation) could not begin. Now it can begin anytime.

2. We still see through a glass darkly what the 3 1/2 years before (the first half of the last week of years) the Great Tribulation will transpire as.

3. In His mercy, the Lord has tarried. He probably should have been back no later than 1996.

 

 

 

 

[copenhagen]

On 12/13/2018 at 11:47 AM, Kristin said:

The key is believing that Jesus Christ is who He says He is. Then Salvation is from the death, burial, and resurrection of our God! Simple yet impossible. So be it. 

How can you prove to non-believers he actually existed?

[copenhagen]

On 7/12/2019 at 7:27 AM, Tzephanyahu said:

Amen!  

I'm always amazed to see how some speak of non-believers with such a careless disregard, mockery or even if it's just lightly.  It's like some have become so proud in their salvation.  What a game they are playing with their fate. 

I know you didn't say this Thomas (but I don't know how to quote from a previous page), but here's a prime example.

What a bitter sentiment.  If I was still a non-believer and heard this kind of attitude from a Christian, I'd walk in the opposite direction!  Instead, thankfully I felt warmth, acceptance and peace from the Christians I met back then.

An opinion and attitude that's all too common among Christians. "I'm better than you because I'm saved, enjoy the rest of eternity in hell." Do you want to spend eternity with someone that revels in the misery and suffering of others? Will God let someone who wishes death upon those with whom they disagree past the pearly gates?

[Tzephanyahu]

12 hours ago, copenhagen said:

An opinion and attitude that's all too common among Christians. "I'm better than you because I'm saved, enjoy the rest of eternity in hell." Do you want to spend eternity with someone that revels in the misery and suffering of others? Will God let someone who wishes death upon those with whom they disagree past the pearly gates?

Exactly.  

There are disciples I have met or know of that I can't wait to see in the Kingdom and fellowship with. To be sat by them at the wedding feast would be a privilege. 

Then there are those believers that aren't pleasant to talk with and if I saw my seat next to there's at the wedding feast I would try to swap places! 

Those type of believers are legalistic with the words of the Messiah and Paul, using them as rod to beat people with, whilst praising God for His mercy and grace.  I think such people, who drag His name and gospel though mud, are in for a rude awakening. 

[A Christian 1985]

amazon.com/s?k=9781641407922&ref=nb_sb_noss

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

THE AXIOM

 

I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness;

I did not say . . . Seek me in chaos.

--(Isaiah 5:19 D.S.V.)

 

There are two possible schools of thought pertaining to the evaluation of the #Universe that we live in.  One school of thought is embodied in the philosophy known as Solipsism. This philosophy expounds that all external reality is relative to the perception of the individual, or, in other words, all reality is subjective and cannot be described by objective analysis.  As an example, Solipsism is the belief that everything that individuals perceive is a projection of the thoughts of their mind. Taken to its fullest implications, Solipsism means that if you think strongly that an object that you perceive does not really exist, then you will cease to perceive it and it will thus disappear.  Conversely, if you think strongly enough that an object does exist, then you will perceive it and it will thus exist.  Understandably, the ardent adherents of this school of thought soon lost what sanity they had.

 

 When we lead from ignorance, we can come to no conclusions.  When we say, “Anything can happen, and anything can be, because we know so little that we have no right to say ‘This is’ or ‘This isn’t,’” then all reasoning comes to a halt right there.  We can eliminate nothing; we can assert nothing.  All we can do is put words and thoughts together on the basis of intuition or faith or revelation and, unfortunately, no two people seem to share the same intuition or faith or revelation.

What we must do is place rules and set limits, however arbitrary these may seem to be.  We then discover what we can say within these rules and limits.  The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations.¹

 

 Most importantly, Einstein presumed that all the laws of nature must be entirely equivalent in all conceivable systems of reference, differing only by uniform velocities.  Without an ether, reasoned Einstein, there is no real physical basis for absolute spatial positions or orientations; all, therefore, must be relative to the observer.  At the same time, all observers must see the many laws of nature in an identical way.²

 

 Science deals only with phenomena that can be reproduced; observations that, under certain fixed conditions, can be made by anybody of normal intelligence; observations upon which reasonable men can agree.³

 

In opposition to Solipsism is the school of thought that objective interpretation of the universe we live in is possible.  Since the validity of Solipsism would mean that it would be impossible to make logical sense out of what we are aware of, we will assume that Solipsism is invalid.  Bearing this in mind, I propose the following axiom, which we may call the Axiom of Interdependency:

 

If a “#spiritual #universe” exists, there likewise must also exist laws or principles common to both such a “spiritual universe” and to the physical universe, in order for us to be able to perceive any manifestation of such a “spiritual universe.”

 

Notice that this axiom in no way assumes the existence of a spiritual universe.  The reason why seeking objective proof of the existence of a spiritual universe is futile will be dealt with in later chapters.

 

What this axiom does say is that if a spiritual universe exists that does not have laws or principles in common with our physical universe, then we cannot be aware of it and thus it would be of no concern to us.  However, if a spiritual universe exists such that we are aware of some of its manifestations, then it will have laws or principles in common with our physical universe.  Thus, for any postulated assertion of a spiritual reality, there should be corresponding evidence of that reality reflected in our physical universe.  Conversely, it should be possible to formulate a framework of characteristics of the physical universe that will indicate the nature of the corresponding spiritual reality. Practically speaking, this axiom means that it is possible to construct a #logical theory encompassing virtually every field of science that will explain the purpose behind everything known to man.    

 

Chapter Two

 

AN EXTRAPOLATION

 

“... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”        (Isaiah 43:10)

 

      There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby #life now exists on this planet.

 

      First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created. Regardless of the great variety of legends depicting such an occurrence, all such legends have in common two things: Life was originated by some supernatural means, and some divine being or beings employed this means.

 

      Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point). Therefore, let us examine the other explanation for the origin of life and see what conclusions may be derived from such an analysis.

 

The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of #evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:

 

 Evolution is the climbing of a ladder from simple to complex by steps, each of which Is stable in itself. …That is what has brought life by slow steps but constantly up a ladder of increasing complexity- which is the central progress and problem in evolution. ²⁷

     

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?

It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

 

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

 

      Such an entity would in all practicality be:

 

1.                              #Omnipotent and

2.                              #Omniscient and

3.                              #Omnipresent.

 

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.

By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.

Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

 

Summary of Chapter Two:

 

“The fool has said in his heart; there is no God.” (Psalm 12:1)

 

     

 

 

---

 

 

 

[Daniel Marsh]

On 12/10/2018 at 11:35 AM, thomas t said:

Dear community,

I hear so often from atheists, so-called agnostics, that they don't believe because they don't see any evidence that the Bible is true (here again).

But do you think it is reasonable to refrain from converting until the Bible is proven as truth?

Even if you think there is a 50% probabilty of the Bible being true it makes sense, in my view, to proclaim Jesus as Lord, already. ("Jesus, if you are there...")

Just to be on the safe side when it comes to the question where we spend eternity.

Regards, Thomas

I always ask if they really want an answer or if they just want to rattle cages?

Simply, compare the life and person of Jesus with that of flonders of other religions and non-religions. 

Somewhere, the Bible says God's word will not return void.     

[Paul James]

On 12/15/2018 at 8:53 AM, other one said:

the Bible is a pretty large complex book....   what about it that you don't accept...

When you learn that the Bible is all about God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, then a lot of the complexity of the Bible dissolves.   We see how God worked with mankind through the ages to get His chosen people into their Promised Land, and how those people became unfaithful to God and lost their inheritance.  We see through the prophetic books the great effort that God made to try and get His people to remain faithful to Him, and His warnings about what will happen if they don't.  We also see how God dealt with pagan nations that rejected Him, but what happened when a nation did turn to Him, as did Nineveh through the preaching of Jonah.

We see through the gospels how Jesus came into the world, and died on the cross for our sinfulness.  We then see the development of the early church;  and instructions for Christian doctrine and practice through the Apostles' letters.

[other one]

Put a bit of complexity into it.....     We are told in the New Testament that we are going to judge angels.

Question....   when did God decide to do that??????