Why christainity is a real religion

last SG · 2009-11-17T07:44:26+00:00

If i have no faith in god no matter how much good deeds i go, i will go to helli go kill someone tomorrow then convert

apologist SG

Dr. van Voorst may be a Christian but he is a Christian scholar & he is right in saying that scholarly consensus dismisses it as a reliable source for the historical Jesus. According to Princeton University's Program in Judaic Studies website, with reference to the Toledoth Yeshu (http://www.princeton.edu/~judaic/toledotyeshu.html) :

In academic circles, the book has been dismissed as a reliable source for historical events and was at best considered as “a polemical satire against Christianity based on inversions of New Testament narratives” (David Biale), or, at worst, as “an instructive evidence of a regrettable popular psychosis” (Bernát Heller).

As for your question as to how the Church knew which books to include in the Bible, it's simple. Let's restrict the discussion to the New Testament [NT] for now. It comprises of the gospels, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Matthew, Mark & John make up Jesus' inner circle & were all his apostles. Luke was also prominent in the early church. The rest of the New Testament was mainly written by Paul. There's the letter/s of James & Peter also, who were apostles & thus leaders in the early church. These people all wrote letters and historical records for the early church, which became the Bible. The early church all lived within the time of the NT writers thus it's easy for them to know who the 12 apostles were and which were their writings/letters.

Or picture this: Suppose the leadership of a mega church in Singapore were to send out a circular to all its member cells, departments, etc. People in the church would easily recognise it as from their leaders. But suppose you, ThunderFbolt, were to try to masquerade as one of their leaders and spread a heretical doctrine, don't u think it would be easy for their members to tell that u're really not one of their leaders?

To use your soft drink analogy, a Coke fan can easily tell a Coke [the Bible- the real thing, pun intended, haha] from something close like the Pepsi, & even more so from something so much different like F&N orange [Toledoth Yeshu]

apologist SG

Anyone interested in joining a Christian apologetics fellowship group [not cyber one but real life meet up] please message me with your email so we can talk further.

ThunderFbolt SG

Since you guys here are so pissed off for some reason, I am going to stop here for a moment and post my answer a few days later. It was never my intention to "win" or "lose" this discussion, as this is supposed to be an exchange of ideas, which is a means to both show my views and see other people's views, as opposed to a debate that decides the future of all mankind. Nothing we say here will put a blot in history anyway.

Larryteo SG

Atheists are actually part of the bible's prophecy. From revelations, during the end times, life would go on as normal until suddenly disaster comes and kill 1/4 of mankind. Ever since the disciples started spreading christianity, and in the last few centuries, christians did not dare to disbelief in God, until in the 1800s when Darwinism came about, and in this century the big-bang theory. Thus, In britain alone only 33% of the population actually believe in the Judeo-christian God now. In the past century Britain had almost it's full population believeing in Christ.

apologist SG

I think ThunderFbolt has contributed fairly, substantially & maturely to this forum. I am not pissed off at him.

Larryteo SG

What makes him think people are pissed off at him =/

Dawnfirstlight SG

I'm not so bothered about the history of events so yeah don't talk so much on what actually happened. I may not know it well but I'm more concerned about the lives, both of them lived.

My bad on the part I said Jesus was God, Jesus was the Son of God, its like 1am dude then.

The main point is my last 3 paragraphs.

No offence please.I am not trying to be funny but trying to understand more about christianity and your thoughts. Since Jesus is God or Son of God, why he did not appear to humans as God but reborn (should I call reborn or do you christians say that he was reborn?) as human. Do christians believe in rebirth? If I see from a buddhist angle point of view, he is God but reborn as human. Your thoughts please.

apologist SG

reborn means to be born again, or to be born a second time. Jesus was born of Mary, Christians do not say He is reborn because, God was only born in the flesh as Jesus once on earth.

If by rebirth u mean reincarnation, then no, Christians do not believe in reincarnation.

As to why God appeared to humans as a human (Jesus) & not as God, there are many aspects to this answer, but one of the major reasons is that God's plan was for Jesus to come to earth to die/pay for our sins.

noahnoah SG

chc said chiristanity

is not a religion at all le

apologist SG

Actually Christianity is a religion, going by the usual understanding/meaning of the word religion, that is a a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. But I know what some people mean when they say that Christianity is not a religion [though I don't think they should use the word religion that way]. They mean that Christianity is not like most religions, where good works earn your way to heaven. Also Christianity is unique in that it has a personal loving God who wants to have a personal relationship with humans, unlike many other religions where u have often times (angry) god/s who one must appease. Because of these unique beliefs in Christianity, some people say Christianity is not a religion.

laffin123 SG

I said I was not going to interfere here anymore but -.- HELLO? NO ONE IS GOING TO WIN IF ALL OF YOU KEEP GIVING UNRELIABLE CLAIMS AND SOURCES LIKE THAT- AS I SAID, DEBATE ABOUT ARCHEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE PROPHECIES!

ThunderFbolt your claims about those stuff is UNRELIABLE . If the disciples stole Jesus' body, then where did they put it? Also, there were more than 50 witnesses who saw Jesus the 4th day after he was persecuted and killed on the cross. It CANNOT be a hallucination, since many people saw it The witnesses were also purely peasants, even the disciples themselves and not LAWYERS. Also, Jesus appeared for 40days, hallucinations don't happen to multiple people, and neither do any actually last for more than a day. But people witnessed Jesus and his living body for 40days. Another thing is that the disciples THEMSELVES WERE KILLED AND PERSECUTED WHILE SPREADING THE NEW FAITH. And how were they killed? WORSE OFF THAN JESUS. From being beheaded to being boiled alive! With some logic, no one would go to that extent to lose their life to spread a LIE! WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR LOGICS? DID YOU EVEN READ THE BIBLE OR WAS YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF IT MADE UP OF PURELY HEARSAY?

About the books of the bible. Actually, the bible is made of 66books by 44men. These 44 men did not know each other, and they were from 3 different continents. How were the books put together into one? Actually, there was more than 66books written about witnessing God. However, only books with the criteria of being witnesses of christ and certain key people were selected for the book. The books WERE NOT CHOSEN AT RANDOM.

hi Larryteo, please read below and for discussion:

The 3 faiths Judaism, Christianity and Islam were born from an account of a man Abraham, who claimed that a god appeared before him. This is the start of a monotheism faith. Since then, a lot of religious scriptures were written. Many accounts of event were shared among the 3 faiths and sub-sects.

Within Christianity, it was split into many separate churches and denominations. Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE) was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity. He needed a single canon to be agreed by all the Christian leaders in order to help him unify his empire. The assembled copy of the christian bible was gathered in the council of Nicaea and was agreed it was the word of god. Of course they were many scriptures deemed not suitable for assembly into the bible and they were not considered.

Please say which part you agree or not disagree. For serious discussion only.

apologist SG

Originally posted by laffin123

He needed a single canon to be agreed by all the Christian leaders in order to help him unify his empire. The assembled copy of the christian bible was gathered in the council of Nicaea and was agreed it was the word of god. Of course they were many scriptures deemed not suitable for assembly into the bible and they were not considered.

Simple question, simple answer. A quick cursory reading at Wiki tells me that The council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. It had to do with resolving 5 particular doctrines/issues plus some other matters. They are, to quote Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea):

The agenda of the synod included:

- The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being;

-The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation

-The Meletian schism;

-The validity of baptism by heretics;

-The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

laffin123 SG

Originally posted by laffin123

The agenda of the synod included:

- The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being;

-The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation

-The Meletian schism;

-The validity of baptism by heretics;

-The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

apologist,

your recommendation on this wikipedia page say this line ".. it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea ..." under the overview section. Doesn't it concern the canon of scripture ?

googoomuck SG

Of course I would prefer my children to respect me from their hearts (or conscience, or brains, whatever). However, I don't go condemning the children who don't respect me to the pits of Hell for all eternity. That isn't being a good father.

You are not a good father too if you allow children to disrespect you.

A father loves all his children but must discipline them when they are bad.

John 3 : 16-17

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Light has come to the world and is within man's reach. Man must choose either light or darkness. He cannot love darkness(evil) and yet wish for eternal life.

Larryteo SG

I somehow feel we are clearing up the mess martial has made.

BadzMaro SG

i understand your reasoning, which is also thought of before and named Pascal's wager.

however, i would like to point out 2 flaws.

1. how do you know that Christianity is the true religion? there are so many out there, what if your choice is wrong? if you chose the wrong one, would the right one send you to hell anyway? then your years of supporting the wrong god is wasted.

2. if this is why you chose the religion that you are in, even if you are right in choice of god and religion, would god take you into heaven just because you support him due to a bet that he exists? would he not be able to see what your intentions are for choosing him?

I am not saying to go against religion though, just to choose a religion for the right reasons.

apologist SG

Originally posted by laffin123

apologist,

The term 'canon of Scripture' refers to the collection of books that are considered scripture. At the council of Nicaea, they discussed & debated mainly the 5 issues mentioned, based on what was already regarded as scripture. Thus the canon of scripture, & the doctrines that were derived from scripture, are 2 separate things, the latter of which were discussed at the council, not the former, according to Wiki.

apologist SG

Is BadzMaro reasking ThunderFbolt questions here? ? [he left the body of his post blank]

Rooney9 SG

I read about Buddha that he already said he was not the one and that the one is higher than him that is coming. That's where Jesus came. There's a loophole here.

Jesus claimed to be God; Buddha claimed that there was no God as we understand him. Jesus healed people in front of witnesses; Buddha died of exposure, unable to heal even himself. Jesus worked miracles and fed multitudes; Buddha denied himself and starved his own body.

I read about Buddha that he already said he was not the one and that the one is higher than him that is coming.

which source did you read from? your reading was not particularly skillfull wasnt it. anyone can say anything.

Dawnfirstlight SG

Have you guys thought of those who have no religion (free thinker) but still leading a happy,healthy and long life than those who are very religious? Taoism says it depends on one's fate and luck. Buddhism says it is because he had accumulated merits from the past and present life, though it is fated but fate can be changed if one has done extreme good deeds in this life (ill fate will become better fate) and one has done extreme bad deeds in this life (good fate will become ill fate). What is christianity explanation for this group of free thinker who has no religion but leading a better, problem free, healthy and long life than those who are reiligious. Please disregard their life after death. Your thoughts please.

« Previous Page Next Page »