[Moparbyfar]

Couldn't resist adding my thoughts to this. ;)

The reason for my believing in the bible as God's Word is that he is more than capable of using numerous men as his secretaries to pen his thoughts, and to keep them pure down to this day, which he himself promised (Psa 12:6,7). It doesn't make sense to me that God would inspire something to be written, but then not be able to sustain it over time. The problem is certain men themselves, distorting and adding, even taking away sayings from the scriptures to suit themselves. (Something the apostles were careful not to do.) For this reason they were told to keep testing whether they were in the faith and to keep proving what they themselves were. (2 Cor 13:5)

So really if we were to study it deeply and meditate on the things we read, we'd soon discover the wonderful purpose God has for mankind and how the problems we all face will shortly be solved, and not just in a few countries but globally. Pity you won't change your mind Alt. It really is a guidebook for mankind. It's just a matter of how one chooses to use it as to whether it works or not.

:)

[Credendovidis]

I would actually like to hear your thoughts on what I said...

All you actually did in that statement was separating the 3 mono-theistic religions from all others, and declare them all 3 to be different versions describing one and the same entity.
Besides that your selection makes all other religions invalid (without providing reasoning why), I do not think that many christians and jews will agree that their god is one the same as yours, in view of the different guidance it provides.
Maybe you can explain how you see that a little more clearly.

:)

·

[N0help4u]

I don't see where Firmbeliever did that at all. She said compare all religions and see what you come up with.
I take her monolith as meaning All roads lead to heaven type thing.
I sure don't get where FB invalidated any religious beliefs.

[Credendovidis]

I don't see where Firmbeliever did that at all.

If you would follow the link she provided, you would see that in post #38 - the one she referred to !

Firmbelievers link

:rolleyes:

·

[N0help4u]

THAT IS the one I was referring to

My answer to your queries is almost the same as I always give on religious discussions regarding the different religions (especially the monotheistic religions).

It was not different religions revealed at different times,but the same beliefs of monotheism and the golden rules(or commandments).

It has been the same Almighty sending Messengers and Messages to all humanity,but each time a book is revealed(and yes I do believe in the original Bible being the word of the Almighty,and I also believe in the original Torah being revealed by the Almighty).

-each time revelations are sent, a group of people believes,some turn their backs to the revelation,which would mean there will be at least two groups of people (or could even become two different religions).
And then there will be those who form their own ideas from the revelation and this in turn may become a new religion,that makes it three different religion at least per revelation.
Not to mention those who break away from all of these groups and form their own beliefs mixed/not mixed with older beliefs before the revelation of that time(maybe follow the revelations of ages past).

And I do believe that each time a chosen Messenger is sent,some follow him or they reject him or they start worshipping him instead of the One Almighty.
Now years since the revelation, some are still following the original,while others have made changes as per their own thoughts,while others are lost in between,some reject all of these and form their own opinions on how life is to be lived.

The best thing is to do a comparison of all three monotheistic faiths books(as you already do believe in an Almighty),where you will be able to find the similarities and differences.
You may see what I said about the revelations from being the same source when you see the similarities in the books and the commands too.

I don't see what firmbeliever said as any different than the Christian teaching where the Bible talks about beware of false teaching and false prophets.

[Credendovidis]

THAT IS the one I was referring to

How can you relate that than to Hinduism, and many other multi-theistic religions?
It is like Pascals Wager : if it is valid to reject one or more other gods, why can't the single god you believe in not be rejected also ?

Let's just wait for Firmbelievers reply...

:rolleyes:

·

[ScottRC]

I do not think that many christians and jews will agree that their god is one the same as yours, in view of the different guidance it provides.

Here's one Christian who does not... ;)

Jesus was either God incarnate or simply some nut... calling him a "prophet" does not cut it for me.

Peace be with you.

[N0help4u]

I can not argue that either.

Who is Jesus?  Lord, Liar or Lunatic

Who is Jesus: Claims

In his famous book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.(emphasis: web author)"

Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim, when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? He said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim.

[Credendovidis]

Here's one Christian who does not.... Jesus was either God incarnate or simply some nut .... calling him a "prophet" does not cut it for me.

So you say that Jesus was either "God incarnate" or "simply some nut", but not a "prophet".
Besides that the "either/or" suggests doubt about Jesus as Christ, it also rejects with "not a prophet" Judaism and Islam... That leaves only one more religion to reject ! You're almost there !

:rolleyes:

·

[N0help4u]

It means you either believe Jesus was the son of God not merely a prophet. Sure he was a prophet in a sense, but he was much more than a prophet.

IF YOU BELIEVE Jesus was NOT the son of God then you ARE calling him a liar, a lunatic or a nut.

JUST as anybody that would walk right up to you today and claim they are the Messiah
You would either believe they are the Messiah or you would call them a liar, a lunatic or a nut

So what in that does not make sense to you?

[ScottRC]

So you say that Jesus was either "God incarnate" or "simply some nut", but not a "prophet".

I do say that...

Jesus makes many claims that he is God... for instance (Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48) - Jesus forgives sins, and only God can forgive sins... so that is why I say that he either was what he said he was, or was a friggin nut job! :D

That's why I believe to call him a "prophet" makes no sense at all...

Besides that the "either/or" suggests doubt about Jesus as Christ,

Huh?

No doubt at all on my part... I'm quite certain he was telling the truth about himself, but that's not really what the thread is discussing so we'll save that for another time.

That leaves only one more religion to reject ! You're almost there !

Hehe... you're so cute... I appreciate your comments.

God bless.

[ordinaryguy]

IF YOU BELIEVE Jesus was NOT the son of God then you ARE calling him a liar, a lunatic or a nut.

JUST as anybody that would walk right up to you today and claim they are the Messiah
You would either believe they are the Messiah or you would call them a liar, a lunatic or a nut

So what in that does not make sense to you?

The three choices you list (liar, lunatic, Lord) aren't the only ones. Bringing it back to the topic of this thread, the only record we have of what Jesus said was written by adherents to the new religion that grew up after he was gone. It's at least possible that they embellished his actual claims a little bit.

As far as we know, Jesus himself didn't write anything down for his disciples. Why do you suppose that is? It certainly wasn't because he didn't know how to write. I suspect it was because he grew up in a book-worshiping culture and saw first-hand all the mischief and foolishness that people engage in using holy books to do battle with one another.

[ScottRC]

The three choices you list (liar, lunatic, Lord) aren't the only ones.

Another choice would be______________?

It's at least possible that they embellished his actual claims a little bit.

And it would then be possible that they were totally accurate.

Why do you suppose that is?

That's a matter of opinion for sure, but one resolved quite easily with my theology... sola scriptura adherants might have different opinion, but it's again a matter of opinion.

[ordinaryguy]

Another choice would be______________?

His followers and chroniclers misquoted and embellished what he actually said.

[N0help4u]

Yes that is a claim that non believers do use. I agree

[ScottRC]

His followers and chroniclers misquoted and embellished what he actually said.

Yes, I suppose that could be said of any literal work... but my personal study of history leads me to believe the Gospels represent an accurate (if not literally perfect) representation of the Christian faith.

[Alty]

His followers and chroniclers misquoted and embellished what he actually said.

And therein lies my problem.

That's why I treat the bible as just a book, not the "word of God".

[ordinaryguy]

Yes that is a claim that non believers do use. I agree

So, to people who allow for that possibility (non-believers in biblical inerrancy), the idea that Jesus was a great prophet and teacher, but not the Son of God, isn't unreasonable at all. The conclusion that it is unreasonable depends completely on accepting the Bible record of Jesus' representation of himself as flawlessly accurate.

[N0help4u]

Yes, I suppose that could be said of any literal work.... but my personal study of history leads me to believe the Gospels represent an accurate (if not literally perfect) representation of the Christian faith.

That is your and Christians faith yes BUT ordinary guy is referring to people that say Jesus was ONLY a prophet and not the Son of God. The statement really has nothing to do with Christians it is directed toward people/religions that claim he was not who he claimed to be.

[N0help4u]

So, to people who allow for that possibility (non-believers in biblical inerrancy), the idea that Jesus was a great prophet and teacher, but not the Son of God, isn't unreasonable at all. The conclusion that it is unreasonable depends completely on accepting the Bible record of Jesus' representation of himself as flawlessly accurate.

Yeah the statement means that if Jesus was not exactly what he claims to be then the ones that say he was not are saying he was a liar basically.
Same as if somebody walked up to you and said they were the Messiah and you did not believe he was the Messiah you would have to call him a liar, lunatic or nut for making such a claim.