Has Your life been better since becoming a Christian?

[Guest shiloh357]

Can you point me to a source where I can find this 125 manuscript?

I did not claim to see the manuscript, and don't have address for you, if that is what you are asking. But that is neither here nor there.

And do you not believe that almost a century of time is prone to legendary development?

That is possible, but you seem to be forgetting about the Divine element in operation. Are you a Christian? Don't you believe that God is able to preserve His Word? Or do you believe that the Bible is just a bunch of man made stories that probably never happened?

And who are we to know that these "canonical" gospels are not really "gnostic" gospels?

Because the message of the New Testament is the polar opposite to the gnostics. In fact, the book of Colossians is a refutation of gnosticism. The reason we know that the Gospels are not gnostic is because they teach that Jesus came in physical body. Of the heresies that had infiltrated the congregation in Colosse, was that Jesus did not actually come in a physical body.

In my mind, the Gospel of Thomas seems just as "canonical" as the other three. (I don't include John, I dislike John. He seems a bit anti-semetic and much more gnostic than Thomas.)

Well then, there is a major disconnect there, because John being Jew, and focusing as He did on Jesus as the Passover Lamb and a Torah observant Jew, could hardly be classed as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, there is nothing 'gnostc' about John's book.

I have a hard time believing that the life of Jesus was accurately portrayed by the gospel writers(whoever they were). I personally don't think Jesus would have agreed with just about any of the stuff that Paul wrote.

Okay, so what standard are you operating from? What is the objective, OBSERVABLE evidence that supports your conclusion? I mean, if you are going to say in one breath that the gospels do not accurately protray Jesus, and then claim that Jesus would not have agreed with Paul, I have to wonder how you can make a fair assessment of what Jesus would or would not agree on if you believe the chief source material about the life of Jesus is so fundamentally flawed in in the first place? I see a glaring internal inconsistency in your premise.

Jesus was always faithful to Yahweh and the Jewish Law.

How do you know? You just said jesus' life is not accurately portyayed. It is kind of hard to take your position seriously when you operate under such internal inconsistencies in your logic.

[ColleenLovesMischief]

I became a Christian February 25, 1995 at the age of 18. I had a very rough childhood, and was seeking relief in Jesus. Life continued on just the same for many yrs. Last yr was filled with much struggle and at one point I felt God had turned his back on me. It's not that being a Christian will necessarily make our lives better. Salvation gived us that handle we can cling to in the hard times. We meet our best friend for eternity, and He will never leave us hanging.

[Guest]

Puzzle, puzzle!

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck......

If your bible is infallible, then I shouldn't be able to find any mistakes or discrepancies.

This is the "I could care less" contempt of a confirmed non-believer toward the Christian's Holy Bible!

What Do you base your Christianity on?

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:24)

I'll keep searching, you keep believing.

This shows the disdain of a determined non-believer toward Believers and their testimonies!

What do you base your Christianity on?

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.: (Matthew 6:33)

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:31)

I'm afraid I have not been given the gift of faith.

This is a clear statement of non-belief!

Did you say you are a Christian?

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" (Ephesians 2:8)

"And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith." (2 Thessalonian 3:2)

No Faith, No Salvation!

Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

[systemstrike_7]

Can you point me to a source where I can find this 125 manuscript?

I did not claim to see the manuscript, and don't have address for you, if that is what you are asking. But that is neither here nor there.

Well, I'm afraid I cannot take this statement seriously until I find info.

That is possible, but you seem to be forgetting about the Divine element in operation. Are you a Christian? Don't you believe that God is able to preserve His Word? Or do you believe that the Bible is just a bunch of man made stories that probably never happened?

I'm starting to wonder if I was am a Christian or not. I tried to have faith, but failed miserably. I don't doubt the fact that Yeshua of Nazareth was a real man, but I often wonder how badly his followers turned him into legend. Especially Paul, seeing as how Paul never even saw the guy.

Because the message of the New Testament is the polar opposite to the gnostics. In fact, the book of Colossians is a refutation of gnosticism. The reason we know that the Gospels are not gnostic is because they teach that Jesus came in physical body. Of the heresies that had infiltrated the congregation in Colosse, was that Jesus did not actually come in a physical body.

Your kidding right? Well they are hardly polar opposites. They both center around the Jesus as God. The only reason they differ and seem "heretical" is because you grew up believing that John was a good guy. Well, what if Thomas was the good guy? Or the Gospel from the Hebrews? You should try reading Paul's letters, but read them without gospel colored glasses on. You will find that Paul hardly believed the Christ of the gospels. His Christ and Yahweh had no personality. Why? Well, he had plenty of his own!

Well then, there is a major disconnect there, because John being Jew, and focusing as He did on Jesus as the Passover Lamb and a Torah observant Jew, could hardly be classed as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, there is nothing 'gnostc' about John's book.

There is everything gnostic about John's book!! Why does it differ so much from the synoptics if John was an eye witness? There is a lack of evidence to show that John the disciple was actually the author of this book. He often has Jesus referring to himself as God, but why not Matthew and Luke? You talk to any unbiased literary critic and he/she will tell you that John was an anti-semite. John's gospel is different, eerily different. And written curiously late, even when you give it the earliest possible dating.

Okay, so what standard are you operating from? What is the objective, OBSERVABLE evidence that supports your conclusion? I mean, if you are going to say in one breath that the gospels do not accurately protray Jesus, and then claim that Jesus would not have agreed with Paul, I have to wonder how you can make a fair assessment of what Jesus would or would not agree on if you believe the chief source material about the life of Jesus is so fundamentally flawed in in the first place? I see a glaring internal inconsistency in your premise.

Well you have to consider what is myth and what is historical. No doubt Yeshua of Nazareth lived, but who was he? I see you have not refuted the fact that the synoptics(mark, matthew, luke) do not agree with Paul. He was raised in a Jewish setting, and gained the support of Jews. He must have been following the Jewish law to do so, or else he would have been considered a heretic. Now, I believe Paul started alot of this mythology. Seeing as how he gains most of his knowledge from his "vision", he was free to fill in the gaps. It would seem that Paul took alot from these "mystery religions" that were very prominent in that time era. Well, Jesus lived of course, and there came about two types of Christianity. Jewish and Pauline. Well Pauline won the support of the vast majority in the future church, while the Jewish Christianity sect died out, and quite quickly. Here's a good article to read to clear some of this up: http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

Well, how easy would it be for these Pauline Christians to mythologize the Jesus story to better conform to their theological agendas?

Jesus was always faithful to Yahweh and the Jewish Law.

How do you know? You just said jesus' life is not accurately portyayed. It is kind of hard to take your position seriously when you operate under such internal inconsistencies in your logic.

[systemstrike_7]

Puzzle, puzzle!

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck......

Then it could be me.....acting like a duck.

I don't quite understand the intention of your post.

Were you just trying to tell me that I am not a Christian?

Well you can go ahead and label me whatever you please. I will keep my relationship with God, no matter what you say.

So keep quackin'........

[maguschris]

Puzzle, puzzle!

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck......

Then it could be me.....acting like a duck.

I don't quite understand the intention of your post.

Were you just trying to tell me that I am not a Christian?

Well you can go ahead and label me whatever you please. I will keep my relationship with God, no matter what you say.

So keep quackin'........

"there always seems to be enough religion to incite war, but never enough to instill tolerance"

[systemstrike_7]

Puzzle, puzzle!

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck......

Then it could be me.....acting like a duck.

I don't quite understand the intention of your post.

Were you just trying to tell me that I am not a Christian?

Well you can go ahead and label me whatever you please. I will keep my relationship with God, no matter what you say.

So keep quackin'........

"there always seems to be enough religion to incite war, but never enough to instill tolerance"

So true, so true....

"In God We Trust. I don't think it would sound any better if it were true." -Mark Twain-

[Guest]

Amen!

[Guest shiloh357]

Can you point me to a source where I can find this 125 manuscript?

I did not claim to see the manuscript, and don't have address for you, if that is what you are asking. But that is neither here nor there.

Well, I'm afraid I cannot take this statement seriously until I find info.

Well you can check around at websites dedicated to Christian apologetics. You did not merely ask for info. I gave you info. You asked to see a 125 A.D. copy. What I said is common knowledge in the theological community. Here is a website that has pictures of some fragments of said manuscripts, it is a start I suppose>>>Ancient NT Manuscripts

That is possible, but you seem to be forgetting about the Divine element in operation. Are you a Christian? Don't you believe that God is able to preserve His Word? Or do you believe that the Bible is just a bunch of man made stories that probably never happened?

I'm starting to wonder if I was am a Christian or not. I tried to have faith, but failed miserably. I don't doubt the fact that Yeshua of Nazareth was a real man, but I often wonder how badly his followers turned him into legend. Especially Paul, seeing as how Paul never even saw the guy.

Why would they have turned him into a legend, given that the "legend" was costing them their lives. If they consciously turned Jesus into a legend, human nature being what it is, would not have caused them to die for something/someone they had ficitionalized or embellished. No one would willingly undergo, torture and imprisonment and a slow, agonizing death for something they don't really believe in, or know is not true. As for Paul, he claims not only to have seen and spoken to Jesus on the road to Damascus, but to have been taken up into heaven, at one point, in 2 Corinthians 12.

Because the message of the New Testament is the polar opposite to the gnostics. In fact, the book of Colossians is a refutation of gnosticism. The reason we know that the Gospels are not gnostic is because they teach that Jesus came in physical body. Of the heresies that had infiltrated the congregation in Colosse, was that Jesus did not actually come in a physical body.

Your kidding right? Well they are hardly polar opposites. They both center around the Jesus as God. The only reason they differ and seem "heretical" is because you grew up believing that John was a good guy. Well, what if Thomas was the good guy? Or the Gospel from the Hebrews? You should try reading Paul's letters, but read them without gospel colored glasses on. You will find that Paul hardly believed the Christ of the gospels. His Christ and Yahweh had no personality. Why? Well, he had plenty of his own!

Sorry, but apparently you don't understand Gnosticism, or you are not willing to be completely honest Gnosticism and its relationship to the claims of the New Testament

Gnosticism basically teaches that:

• The Material universe is flawed and evil
  
• The Material universe was created by a Demiurge, a lesser god created by the true God who exists in another realm
  
• The human soul, a divine spark, is fallen captive to matter, in the realm of the senses. One must develop spiritually by ridding one's self from being entangled with the material universe and return ones' self to the true source of light, God.
  
• Only the elite can accomplish the task of removing one's self from being enmeshed and entangled with the material universe. This option for spiritual development is not available for all persons.
  

That is not, by any means, an exhaustive list of their beliefs and there are different kinds of Gnosticism and variations exist depending on what part of the world you live in.

If you are going to claim that the book of John is "gnostic," then the onus is on you to qualify and present objective evidence to support that assertion. Gnostics who accepted Christ rejected Jesus as having come in a Physical body, which means they would have rejected the Gospel of John with the synoptics. My basis for accepting the validity of John's account has nothing to do with John being a "good guy." In John chapter 21, Jesus eats with the disciples near the shore of the Sea of Galilee. He does this to prove that it is really Him, and not an apparition. An apparition would not eat fish and bread. In doing this, and in many other ways, John's gospel can be demonstrated to not have been gnostic in origin or in doctrine.

Well then, there is a major disconnect there, because John being Jew, and focusing as He did on Jesus as the Passover Lamb and a Torah observant Jew, could hardly be classed as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, there is nothing 'gnostc' about John's book.

There is everything gnostic about John's book!! Why does it differ so much from the synoptics if John was an eye witness? There is a lack of evidence to show that John the disciple was actually the author of this book. He often has Jesus referring to himself as God, but why not Matthew and Luke? You talk to any unbiased literary critic and he/she will tell you that John was an anti-semite. John's gospel is different, eerily different. And written curiously late, even when you give it the earliest possible dating.

Nothing you have said lends in credence to your assertion. I am Jewish. I forgotten more about anti-Semitism than people like you know. I know anti-Semitism when I read it, and see it. I have been the victim of it. John's gospel presents a Jewish Jesus who was Torah observant, and any claim of anti-Semitism is just blowing smoke. John focuses more on Jesus outright claims to being God than do the synoptic writers, but so what? The synoptic writers demonstrate and reveal a Jesus who had the power to forgive sins, who had personal power over death, and who even received worship from men. Jesus demonstrates Himself to be God just as much in the synoptics.

As I said, none of the "evidence" you provide speaks to the issue of Gnosticism. All you are doing is blowing smoke and parroting what you have heard other critics say. I doubt you really know what you are talking about.

Okay, so what standard are you operating from? What is the objective, OBSERVABLE evidence that supports your conclusion? I mean, if you are going to say in one breath that the gospels do not accurately protray Jesus, and then claim that Jesus would not have agreed with Paul, I have to wonder how you can make a fair assessment of what Jesus would or would not agree on if you believe the chief source material about the life of Jesus is so fundamentally flawed in in the first place? I see a glaring internal inconsistency in your premise.

Well you have to consider what is myth and what is historical. No doubt Yeshua of Nazareth lived, but who was he? I see you have not refuted the fact that the synoptics(mark, matthew, luke) do not agree with Paul. He was raised in a Jewish setting, and gained the support of Jews. He must have been following the Jewish law to do so, or else he would have been considered a heretic. Now, I believe Paul started alot of this mythology. Seeing as how he gains most of his knowledge from his "vision", he was free to fill in the gaps. It would seem that Paul took alot from these "mystery religions" that were very prominent in that time era. Well, Jesus lived of course, and there came about two types of Christianity. Jewish and Pauline. Well Pauline won the support of the vast majority in the future church, while the Jewish Christianity sect died out, and quite quickly. Here's a good article to read to clear some of this up: http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

The article you present with is too large to comment on here, is full of factual errors. It claims that Paul was a hellenized Jew, but the Bible says that Paul was a Pharisee, who rigorously opposed Hellenism, and according to Paul in Acts 26, he considered himself a Pharisee even after becoming a Christian. Secondly it says that the book of John was written by Greek convert named John, even though the book claims the Jewish apostle John as its author in John 21:24-25 (I can provide a more thorough demonstration of the Jewish John's authorship of the gospel, if you like). The author makes up fake contradictions between Paul and Jesus and claims that Paul's teachings are borrowed from mystery religions, yet fails to explain how this can be when Paul's teachings stand in direct opposition to every other mystery religious system of the day. Paul constantly draws from the Torah, he employs Rabbinic midrashim literary forms as as well as the "light to heavy" hebrew construct in is reasonings. Frankly the author of your article is tragically mistaken in his analysis of Paul.

The synoptic Gospels are in complete agreement with Paul when the two are allowed to speak for themselves, and are not interpreted through the lens of some second rate, half-baked, wannabe "scholar" like the guy you presented.

[systemstrike_7]

Well you can check around at websites dedicated to Christian apologetics. You did not merely ask for info. I gave you info. You asked to see a 125 A.D. copy. What I said is common knowledge in the theological community. Here is a website that has pictures of some fragments of said manuscripts, it is a start I suppose>>>Ancient NT Manuscripts

Interesting site. I compared it to a secular site, and found that they have different conclusions on many of the same documents. And these earliest copies are fragments. We can gain no information on how alike they are with the copies we have now from a few sentences.

Why would they have turned him into a legend, given that the "legend" was costing them their lives. If they consciously turned Jesus into a legend, human nature being what it is, would not have caused them to die for something/someone they had ficitionalized or embellished. No one would willingly undergo, torture and imprisonment and a slow, agonizing death for something they don't really believe in, or know is not true. As for Paul, he claims not only to have seen and spoken to Jesus on the road to Damascus, but to have been taken up into heaven, at one point, in 2 Corinthians 12.

I sometimes wonder if Paul is just a mere liar. Alot of literary scholars believe he is, without a doubt. He no doubt invented Christianity as we know it. Please point to me some non Pauline scripture that has Jesus telling us to throw away the old testament laws. I'm begging at this point.

Sorry, but apparently you don't understand Gnosticism, or you are not willing to be completely honest Gnosticism and its relationship to the claims of the New Testament

Gnosticism basically teaches that:

• The Material universe is flawed and evil
  
• The Material universe was created by a Demiurge, a lesser god created by the true God who exists in another realm
  
• The human soul, a divine spark, is fallen captive to matter, in the realm of the senses. One must develop spiritually by ridding one's self from being entangled with the material universe and return ones' self to the true source of light, God.
  
• Only the elite can accomplish the task of removing one's self from being enmeshed and entangled with the material universe. This option for spiritual development is not available for all persons.
  

That is not, by any means, an exhaustive list of their beliefs and there are different kinds of Gnosticism and variations exist depending on what part of the world you live in.

If you are going to claim that the book of John is "gnostic," then the onus is on you to qualify and present objective evidence to support that assertion. Gnostics who accepted Christ rejected Jesus as having come in a Physical body, which means they would have rejected the Gospel of John with the synoptics. My basis for accepting the validity of John's account has nothing to do with John being a "good guy." In John chapter 21, Jesus eats with the disciples near the shore of the Sea of Galilee. He does this to prove that it is really Him, and not an apparition. An apparition would not eat fish and bread. In doing this, and in many other ways, John's gospel can be demonstrated to not have been gnostic in origin or in doctrine.

Gnosticism is not a specific religion or practise. I don't know where you got this information, but this is a few of many DIFFERENT beliefs. Some gnostic cults merely believe that Jesus never claimed to be God. Some (such as the Jewish Christianity) merely practise Jewish Law, but still believe everything else about Jesus. And yes, the church named this "cult" heretical and gnostic. There isn't a gnostic bible, or a gnostic set of rules that you have to follow to join the gnostic club. In all reality, gnosticism is just a set of beliefs that vary or add on to the norm.

Nothing you have said lends in credence to your assertion. I am Jewish. I forgotten more about anti-Semitism than people like you know. I know anti-Semitism when I read it, and see it. I have been the victim of it. John's gospel presents a Jewish Jesus who was Torah observant, and any claim of anti-Semitism is just blowing smoke. John focuses more on Jesus outright claims to being God than do the synoptic writers, but so what? The synoptic writers demonstrate and reveal a Jesus who had the power to forgive sins, who had personal power over death, and who even received worship from men. Jesus demonstrates Himself to be God just as much in the synoptics.

I'm not going to argue about the anti-semitism in John. If you can please find an article or essay written by a literary critic, you will find that they come to the same conclusion. I suggest you read "Jesus and Yahweh; The Divine Names" by Harold Bloom. He is probably the best literary critic to ever walk the face of the earth and he takes an unbiased view into the bible.

As I said, none of the "evidence" you provide speaks to the issue of Gnosticism. All you are doing is blowing smoke and parroting what you have heard other critics say. I doubt you really know what you are talking about.

I'll put it this way. After I became a Christian, I decided to start reading the bible. Well, after I had read the New Testament in its entirety, I could not believe that this was divinely inspired. I wish I could believe that the bible is infallible. But my common sense begs me otherwise.

The article you present with is too large to comment on here, is full of factual errors. It claims that Paul was a hellenized Jew, but the Bible says that Paul was a Pharisee, who rigorously opposed Hellenism, and according to Paul in Acts 26, he considered himself a Pharisee even after becoming a Christian. Secondly it says that the book of John was written by Greek convert named John, even though the book claims the Jewish apostle John as its author in John 21:24-25 (I can provide a more thorough demonstration of the Jewish John's authorship of the gospel, if you like). The author makes up fake contradictions between Paul and Jesus and claims that Paul's teachings are borrowed from mystery religions, yet fails to explain how this can be when Paul's teachings stand in direct opposition to every other mystery religious system of the day. Paul constantly draws from the Torah, he employs Rabbinic midrashim literary forms as as well as the "light to heavy" hebrew construct in is reasonings. Frankly the author of your article is tragically mistaken in his analysis of Paul.

The synoptic Gospels are in complete agreement with Paul when the two are allowed to speak for themselves, and are not interpreted through the lens of some second rate, half-baked, wannabe "scholar" like the guy you presented.

Let us all resort to name calling. Please continue.

It's not that they aren't in agreement, its the fact that Paul has decided to record no information of the LIFE of Jesus. He says nothing about his miracles or walking on water or virgin birth or flight to egypt. Nothing. It would seem that Paul only believes in a Jesus that died, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven. Of course he draws from the Torah!! But you have to remember that Paul got all of his information from a vision! He didn't read it, or learn it, he just somehow had a divine revelation. When someone is giving me infallible doctrine, i get a bit shaky when the doctrine comes from an hallucination. Acts has Paul meeting with the disciples directly after the conversion on the road to damascus. Well, Paul says they met three years after the event. Why the contradiction? Did the author of Acts not want the people to think that Paul was independtly preaching his own message of salvation without the help of the disciples? Well Paul has no problem with this. He often boasts about his vision. Apparently, he doesn't need the disciples. I would have to argue that the synoptic gospels were written around Paul's teachings. The synoptics, and especially John, were written on the basis of John's teachings, and then used oral tradition to fill in the gap. We all now how mixed up oral tradition can get. Have you ever played that game where you stand in a circle and someone whispers some story to their neighbor? You then proceed to tell the person next to you and you keep going until it makes the full circle back to the originator. Well, it never fails that the story get horribly messed up, and this is in a period of maybe 10 minutes!! Think about a decade! Or a half century!