Resurrection according to the bible

last SG · 2008-07-14T02:01:14+00:00

You didn't get what I wrote. read them again and this time take time to think. After that then reply back if you like. But how do can believe in the NT when...

domonkassyu SG

Well I'm not planning to switch to Protestant anytime soon.

Yes I'm beginning to see your reason domonkassyu,

The ones who are against what I wrote are mostly ordinary people while a Catholic pastor said plainly that theologically I was correct that a dead person would not be resurrected immediately but would be in a state of resting until God raised him to life.

I've had an encounter with a Catholic monk or at least who is now been given the brown robe that I knew he was once a man but he no longer is and that he has received power from God. I still remember pretty well that he was well built and I at once wanted to be like him. I thought If he could make it so could I. Whatever he endured in his life I could too. I said these things to him through my heart because I was tempted by his power. hahahahahah I've never felt wanting to be anybody else even until this day aside from that well built monk.

So I think I'll be a minority among the Catholics for now.

maybe u should start by goin to the gym?also, i do not urge u or any one to join the protestant church or sth..but what i do urge all who wishes to be God's follower to read the bible and differentiate humans doctrine and God's word.

domonkassyu SG

It can be argued that it was the Catholic Church who gave us the NT hmmm? It was she who determined which books were inspired by comparing its writings against her own teachings? Please remember that the first time the 27 book canon existed was in the 4th century haha.So how can the CC teachings be way off the marked of her own Canon hmm? It is plain illogical.So unless Christianity is false (a possibility as stated by Islam)), I concur Catholicism teachings are truly the historical expression of Christianity hmm.

this is a reason why i have not joined any churches or watever it is out there. it was the pagan roman emperor who "persuaded" the rabbis and followers of JC to compile the bible we have today. while some scriptures were not included, what we have now that is known as the bible is still trustworthy enough as ALL scriptures are INSPIRED of God.

Miracles&Prophecies SG

Gym eh. LOL. I don't think anyone alive or ever alive is even close to the shape of that broad shoulder and such prominent chest. I would say only superheroes in comics books to be a close match yet they are still not a match. Hahahahhaha. I now understand from science-tv that the shape of that kind of body is actually that of an ideal body of a man.

Yes I now read the bible when I feel to. It's not a habit I'm used to. But now I understand more especially about death and resurrection than my whole life before.

grandmaster89 SG

Where is your proof that pagan roman emperor 'persuaded' the Catholic Church to compile the 27 NT Canon? The compilation was the result of nearly 3 centuries worth of studies. Book by book were declared inspired - starting with the sypnotic Gospels in the 2nd century by the Catholic Bishop St Irenaus. Note that Rome was still persecuting the Church in that era.

And since you are quoting 2 Tim 3:16, if your exegesis is true, why isn't the other 10 odd gospels declared true as well? Why not the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of (Proto) James etc? Those other Gospels also claimed to be inspired like 2nd Book of Timothy, but yet they were rejected...why? Its simply because self-claim isn't a method of proof. 2 Tim and the other 26 books were deem Scripture simply because it was corrobated by Catholic teachings of the 2-4th century. Hence it is akward to state the Bible (one of the many Catholic 'invention" like purgatory etc) doesn't support Catholicism :)

domonkassyu SG

Yes I now read the bible when I feel to. It's not a habit I'm used to. But now I understand more especially about death and resurrection than my whole life before.

the monk u says...remind me of uther the lightbringer from warcraft...hehe.

you are starting to look at the creations of God and basing it with the bible.a good move..from it,faith will grow stronger and truth will be shown to you as to what are words of God and of men.may Yodh Heh Waw Heh continue to bless you as u search zealously for his will

domonkassyu SG

can go wiki and search..wiki pretty good..if we are to say the bible we have now is a mere collection of books chosen by men.(no matter who started it), it will mean we will have nothing to fall back on.it is safe to say the 11 disciples of JC who are with him even now, what they had preached will be good.and their letters to congregations and to others is good spiritual food.it is a source that is from the son of God directly.

as for the gospel of judas, i read abit of it and seriously imo, it definitely serve to contradict the nature of God.its just like saying God purposely created satan to tempt men and angels to prove God is better and that satan is really a faithful servant to God but has to be destroyed.it will be so unfair of God to do it..

hence, though the bible does not contain all the scriptures be it found or still lost.it will suffice till armageddon.

and yes.RC has invented lots of "christians" teachings

grandmaster89 SG

hence, though the bible does not contain all the scriptures be it found or still lost.it will suffice till armageddon.

and yes.RC has invented lots of "christians" teachings

Such a strange response. The Gospel of Judas is wrong because it contradicts what the sypnotic Gospels claimed? And the Sypnotic Gospels are true because it can be found in my 4th century Bible....dear me...the early christians must be time travellers.

Hence, how did the Early Christians determine which books were inspired and which were false when there was no benchmark of faith (no bible yet)?

grandmaster89 SG

.it is safe to say the 11 disciples of JC who are with him even now, what they had preached will be good.and their letters to congregations and to others is good spiritual food.it is a source that is from the son of God directly.

and yes.RC has invented lots of "christians" teachings

Ahh but only it was easy to prove that the 12 Apostles really did wrote the epistles and gospels. But none of them could be easily verified. That is why the very first "Bible" was created a heretic called Marcion which consisted of mainly 2/3 of the Gospel of Luke.

We can easily view historical evidence of the Catholic Church selecting books and deeming them as inspired.

"For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order--to the Corinthians afirst...there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world...Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing...to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all." The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

domonkassyu SG

Hence, how did the Early Christians determine which books were inspired and which were false when there was no benchmark of faith (no bible yet)?

u mean checking the wiki is strange??for one, JC during his ministry has often quoted the so called Old Testament or the hebrew scriptures and one often will hear him say, it is written.hence forth, the books he quote from cannot be false. he was there when the writers were inspired by God himself, JC was also there when the things happened.hence we are quite clear on the hebrew part. now for the greek scriptures or New Testaments.the apostles were taught directly by the man.JC also said they were filled with Holy Spirit so that it might lead them to teach the word in different tongues.(by this i do not mean the queer practice of churches now that members starts to make strange utterance n sounds they call speaking in tongues).

n the sacarstic note of time travel, nope. but things got carried down.

domonkassyu SG

We can easily view historical evidence of the Catholic Church selecting books and deeming them as inspired.

dude. if we were to factor in catholics, den nth will make sense.no matter how pure a teaching is originally, it will always turn out quite differently.jus like how humans always have to screw up..

wilsonhao SG

I know for sure that it has not occured for the past 2008 years, and neither has it now. People during the 10th to 20th century has been waiting for it, and now people still waiting for it. Kind of dubious like is it something real or just methorphoric

wilsonhao SG

essentially u r not very correct.but not totally wrong..most religions are wrong..and most do not have faith in man..man can only do so much..but the point u put up is valid for modern christiandom..which of cuz is very flawed too..

MOST, but not ALL.

domonkassyu SG

jesus himself says the end is near isnt it?

domonkassyu SG

MOST, but not ALL.

most mordern christiandom is flawed..almost all..

« Previous Page