The debate "Jesus will come back and at the least expected time" was started by
September 3, 2016, 11:34 am.
36 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 49 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
blakelovesjesus posted 25 arguments, fadi posted 41 arguments, thereal posted 1 argument, neveralone posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 28 arguments, blakelovesjesus posted 10 arguments, Vayney333 posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Bman192837465, dalton7532, thereal, armygirl44, shalini, Qbsoon, sabrina, ElvisKim_22, jack_tim_45, Hijumi, neveralone, KiwiSheepTrainer and 24 visitors agree.
fadi, phantrash55, scrumnug, Vayney333, Nemiroff, historybuff, tony, makson and 41 visitors disagree.
your right about Noone having that authority, but kings and local faith leaders have throughout history invoked the lords name to persecute others. as have other religions since the dawn of time.
I was not specifically targeting christians, nor was I saying those actions actually represented christianity.... I'm just quoting what history tells us. kings/leaders raise the cry, and peasants respond. Christ and other religious figures may have been completely against it, but their names were used as a tool in wars.
though no one in Christianity is in a power to do that. the Pope is only toward Catholics not Christians. the only one we follow is Jesus.
but still able to a point. I have seen angry people who hate religious people and wished them harm. now this isn't all of atheist but neither is the Christians u are putting on show as murders. though some were they were misguided by a man and fancy words. this has happen before and his name was Hitler. that is why we only take the word of God so we don't get mislead like that.
it's not about numbers but motivation. rallying around an all powerful and personal God is much more persuasive, especially if it promises bear rewards for eternity. religion, regardless of its truth, is a powerful tool for those in power to abuse.
atheism promises no such rewards and no unified source for its commandments. it is much less likely to motivate people into a "righteous" anger.
also atheist don't have as many people as religious. I think that the religion part doesn't matter. if u tear thus to its bones these wars were about two dif. groups with dif. ideas that had enough people to fight. every war has been like this. thus us probably why atheism hadn't had one isn't because hey aren't religious but because they don't have enough people.
yes we all will die. then we will stand before Jesus and he will ask u if u followed him. he was, is, and always will be the son of God. so raising from the dead is probably a party trick to Him.
if people were killing because of atheism and were actively persecuting people who had religious beliefs, then it would be an atheist war. however an ordinary struggle over land or power has nothing to do with atheism, just like the same would be true in religious nations having mundane disputes.
however, once you declare a war a holy fight in the name of God (like the crusades) it becomes religious whether God supports it or not. many wars in religious nations become religious because religion is very effective at mobilizing the masses. I don't think an atheist call to arms will be as persuasive as a divine mission to masses. thus few wars took on an atheist theme.
atheist have no religion only a lack of one.
how can a dead person even come back. jesus was a noble man and he died the same way that we all gonna die someday.
people can always be cruel and greedy. but a great many terrible things have been done because they genuinely believed God wills it.
that article has nothing to do with atheists killing people for their religion. it has to do with atheists killing for political power.
both stalin and Robespierre got into fights with religious groups and did terrible things. but it wasn't because if their religion, it was to maintain or extend their political power.
by all means, try to prove they did these things for religion.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder that literally took 3 sec. just saying. everyone makes mistakes no matter there religion or lack of one.
I think you'll have a hard time finding examples of atheists burning people to death for their religious beliefs.
people can make mistakes. no matter what religion they are or if their atheist.
and that is why Christians spent 2,000 years murdering people who dared to believe something else?
Jesus called us to love one another. so we can be prepared when he comes back.
I disagree I would honor ur stance on this and read it even though I am not on ur side in this debate because it is an debate not an argument so both sides should be open to the other. including mine.
providing references to church history almost 2000 years ago would require a fair bit of time and effort. and I know that second I provide it you will either not read it or just summarily dismiss it. so forgive me for not wasting my time.
Back this up with evidence, Who are you to say the church had these, answer the question.
they existed until the church hunted them down. they were certainly aware of their existence. they just didn't like what they had to say.
the early church was constantly having schisms and clashes between different branches of Christianity or bishops with different views. there was no central church authority to enforce their will on the others. it was only in the 4th century when a central version of Christianity began to take over and destroy the others.
How do you know the church had these books? We don't know they may have been lost then also.
@blake. yes that is when they were found by us. that is not when they were written. they were written around the same time as the rest of the Bible. the church decided they didn't like them and branded them heresy and destroyed every copy they could find. it took that long to find a copy they missed.
@biggns. first of all the gospel of mary is mary Magdalene, not the virgin Mary. please actually read what I write. secondly, the fact that this book exists in no way proves that Jesus or god exists. I read a book about Harry Potter, he's not real either.
Jesus of Nazareth was probably a real person. that is as much as historical evidence can say. there are virtually no references to him from non biblical sources. I've said that your God isn't real. I've said that Jesus might never have actually existed, because there is no certain evidence. but I can't, and never have, said that Jesus did not exist.
what if the gospels of Thomas and peter?
Actually, historybuff, The so called gospel of Judas wasn't found in Egypt until the 1970's and the gospel of Mary Magdalene was found until 1896. By this time the Bible was already made, how could they exclude these? Also, we have no clue if they are actually what they say they are. We know the Bible is what it says it is because of how early it was founded and the power behind it.
Historybuff, in other debates ive heard you say that God nor Jesus was real, in this one your contradicting yourself by saying that one of the gospels that was excluded from the bible was about the virgin Mary and her son JESUS! Heres proof that most not all Atheists are retarded.
I'm not a god, or any other fictional character. but the fact that the early church edited the Bible and left out other books is established fact. there was for example a book of judas and a book of Mary Magdalene. these books were cut because they didn't fit what these bishops and priests wanted the Bible to say.
Who are you to say that the early church made these decisions, the early Catholic Church made some bad decisions, but they never excluded other books. Who made you God?
but this precludes the idea that the Bible was written by God or by the apostles. because it was edited by men long after their deaths. whether or not the books of the Bible were "Divinely inspired" or not, once a group of men sit down and edit it it is now inspired by men who had their beliefs and goals.
when u write something do u not reread it and take out parts that are not required or if u made a book would u not take out parts that don't go with the whole? this is the same thing. when Jesus was a baby there was probably not much going on and really it doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things. I mean if u wrote a biography would u include all the details of ur baby hood?I hope not.
as to the excludes books of the Bible. have a look at http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
there were lots of Gospels that didn't make the cut. there was a gospel of Judas for example. there were the so called infancy Gospels that described the early life of the virgin Mary and Jesus. but they decided to exclude all of these because they didn't fit the version of Chris they wanted to create.
there were many versions of early Christianity. these included adoptionism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionites, gnosticism, Marcionism, montanism and lots of other beliefs.
the idea that early Christianity was one set of beliefs is completely rediculous. they were attacked as heretics because they didn't believe what the bishop of Rome told them to believe. despite him not having the authority to tell them what to believe as they hadn't made up the papacy yet.
Jesus is going to come back, whether you like it or not, every knee will bow every tongue will confess.
there is no evidence there was more then 1 common set of beliefs in the early church. besides the occasional heroic, nobody did anything till Martin Luther.
what books are you talking about that got cut out?
yes. that is exactly what happened. Christian belief varied pretty significantly. that's why there were like dozen books of the Bible that they cut out. because they didn't like them.
they edited or completely ignored any parts of religious texts that disagreed with what they thought Christianity should be. that is why Christianity circa 100 ad is very different from Christianity circa 1000 ad.
in the early stages the "Pope" hadn't been invented yet and so people were free to believe what they wanted. they decided what the Orthodoxy should be and used charges of heresy to destroy anyone who disagreed.
incidentally, that is one of the reasons the Roman empire fell. the powerful bishops kept fighting to the death over trivial things and causing religious turmoil.
are u saying that: there were many different beliefs in the early church time, then the most powerful Bishops picked the belief they liked best and made it doctrine?
the bible was made way latter, the apostles didn't omitt anything from the bible cause the bible wasn't around then. they taught people though speeches and letters. the church all knew what the proper belief was. when a heroic came up, the church shut him down. you have the problem with when the church shut down the heroic, and made the facts everyone believed doctrine.
fadi, in short, no they didn't. and even if they had, the Bible was heavily edited later. so there is no way to know what the disciples actually wrote.
alex, I have no idea what you are trying to say. but since very little of what the "apostles" wrote can actually be verified, there is no way to know what they taught. the Catholic Church edited the Bible to suit themselves. they omitted many books of the Bible because they didn't like them.
Jesus taught his apostles belief A. the apostles taught belief A, and expanded it as needed (council of Jerusalem). the early bishops taught belief A. crazy heroic starts to teach belief B, Bishops state "belief A is correct (outline what belief A is) belief B I'd incorrect" simple
no actually the john and mathew were two of jesus's disciples didn't they write the part of bible so the statement is not true
but there was "church" as we think of it today. there was no central authority. there was no agreed upon Bible. the was no consensus on what the teachings of Jesus actually were.
decades later the bishops of Rome would force their will on everyone and decide what Christianity would be. Jesus and the disciples didn't decide what Christianity would be. the Bishop of Rome and his lackies did long after the disciples were dead.
the last words of jesus before his Ascension were "all power is given to me n heaven and on earth: go therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you" the apostles did exactly that. they listened to jesus.
Jesus clearly gave all power on heaven and earth to his followers. he put Peter in charge. the priority of the early church was not to A. make a power steal B. write everything down. it was to educate people about Jesus Christ, baptize and convert them. I think you can understand that reasoning.
the bishop of Rome was not in charge. there was no "church". each bishop or priest taught whatever they felt was the correct teachings. it was after the Bishops of Rome made up a justification and made themselves the "Pope". a title they made up to steal power.
Peter, the apostles, early baptized Christians were what made up the early church. it was much smaller, and the "Pope" was called the "bishop of Rome", it was still the church.
There is no physical church.
it means he will support the church as being a disciple who witnessed for jesus and who he was martyred and became an example for the church to follow
and Peter didn't build that church. it was built later by the subsequent Bishops of Rome. they accumulated more and more power until they invented the position of Pope so they could force their will on everyone.
Peter was the rock on which the rock on which the Church was to be built.
the church did start claiming their authority later by saying that is what Peter and therefore god wanted. but since I have yet to see the word Pope appear anywhere from Peter I find that extremely dubious. and even if he had said it, that doesn't mean it is what Jesus would have wanted.
He established the Church by his principles.
Im not saying that. And yes, Christ established the Church upon simon peter.
Jesus changed the church, he restored it to the way it should be. How do you know the books were changed later and not written by the Disciples?
The pre-Catholic Church is the Catholic church. It was designated upon Peter to be the first Pope, and with Peter rose the Church on earth. The reason for thr ecumenical council in 325 was to unite Christendom.
Then, for what reason might I ask did it emerge?
except the views of Protestantism are very different to the views of pre Catholic church Christianity. protestantism is a radical change from Catholicism which was a radical change to pre Catholic church Christianity. you didn't go back to how things were you just changed them further.
Christianity was terrible back them, but the thing is, Martin Luther came and started the protestant Reformation, and that Got the church back to the correct views
you seem to be mistaken. prior to Christianity becoming accepted in the Roman empire there was no central church. there were dozens of varying ideas of what Christianity actually was.
in this period Christianity was fairly peaceful, but what Christians believed varried wildly. it is only after the creation of a central church that Christianity began to enforce their views on everyone. if you didn't conform you would be punished or killed. Christians went from the oppressed to the oppressors.
Christians were killed in the early church, I was rather unclear.
If Christianity grew only by oppression, then how can one explain the early church? Frankly, if they found you at that time, you were dead pretty soon. And why upon the revelations of the gospels, did people not reject it? People of Jerusalem saw things that occurred, just as the other followers mentioned in the text. If they had not truly experienced these occurences, one would figure there would be outcry. We in the 21st century seem to be quite snobbish: we assume thay everyone who came before us was ignorant and had no instinct as to determine what was right or wrong. The early church contained people who saw the miracles, and others attested to the same. Everyone was fully aware that so and so eas martyred, but they continued to spread the message despite facing death.
I admit, not they best question to ask, knowing the outcome, but Christians Nevers killed people, not the real ones, the people who claimed to be did, and once again I am yet to see evidence. Back up your assertions my friend.
that doesn't even make sense. there are regions older than Christianity. how could they survive this long if they're false?
you assume that the amount of time something is believed or the number of people who believe it is somehow evidence. just because you convince a large number of people of a lie doesn't turn it into the truth.
Christianity has lasted this long by ruthlessly holding onto people. they dominated people's lives. and if you converted to another religion they killed you. if your beliefs varied with the main view, they punished you. if you persisted they killed you.
in short, Christianity has lasted this long because they killed or suppressed everyone who tried to object or come up with new ideas. and now that modern society has stopped them from doing that they are slowly dieing out.
Let me ask you this, how could Christianity be false if it has lasted this long?
that website isn't Wikipedia. if you had bothered paying attention it is rational wiki. not Wikipedia.
I am debating I told you that the Bible's authors are unknown, but it is extremely unlikely that it was authored by anyone who met Jesus. I then provided a link to a website giving a more detailed explanation as to why this is true.
all you've done is call me a liar and quote scripture. for someone criticing me about debating, you haven't even tried to refute my points.
look at Scientology. they have only existed a couple of decades and likely have millions of members (firm numbers are not available). the number of people who believe something is not evidence of its validity. there are like a billion Hindi's in the world too. if Christianity were right then there are billions of people worshiping fictional characters.
he is not fictional are you nuts to think that jesus who has 2 billion followers today was a fictional character you are really weird
because it is not by using websites that you win a debate but by debating and you don't debate linking wikipedia will not prove that you are right
of course not. no one is going to expect a fictional character to show up. how weird would that be?
no one know when he'll come back and no one is going to expect that moment
does no one read the websites I'm linking? I've provided a couple of them now.
look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament
Back up your assertions with evidence, evidentiary support do you have for your assertions
except that there is considerable evidence that your scriptures were not written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. most of them were written at least 50 years after the death of Christ. they were then heavily edited and changed.
why would anyone believe your scriptures are the word of God?
What more do you need than scripture, when ultimately it's all God's words anyway?
basically I provide evidence, you quote scripture that you have no idea who wrote it. you really suck at debating.
If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
I'd be careful what you say
so not only are you hearing voices in your head, you have also gone deaf? you really need a doctor.
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
I hear one voice, and that's God's voice, none other.
so you hear voices telling you things about the Bible?
Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God.
please don't try to derail the topic by deflecting towards me.
so your evidence that the Bible was written by the apostles is that God talks to you and told you this? if that's true I would strongly suggest you consult a doctor. hearing voices is a very serious medical condition.
Let me ask you something historybuff, have you ever done something wrong?
The early Catholic Church was later proved wrong by Martin Luther. The way I know that the Bible was written by the apostles is God has shown me the truth. Those who don't know him can't know the truth. If you don't seek the truth your will never find it.
Well. Jesus died so we could live, Jesus was a man, and because a man who was a perfect payed the price, they cancel out like on math. Jesus did nothing wrong, so if we except him, we become right with God.
Have a look at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament The bottom line is that no one can be certain who wrote much of the new testament. No one can prove that it was written by an apostle. If the church tells you otherwise it is a lie. They have no evidence other than that their tradition says so.
And the concept of Sin came from christianity. The idea that all humans are sinners and must atone for it ie "the chains of sin" was created by the early christian church. They used this concept to force people to do what they said. Ie if you don't give us money you will spend years in purgatory. This was a very common church practice. Or using their religious authority to amass a vast fortune and huge tracts of land all over Europe. Those "chains of Sin" were very profitable for the church.
Adam and Eve are entirely fictional characters and therefore what they did is completely irrelevant.
wrong adam put them on us and jesus broke them for as sin was brought by a man it was destroyed by a man with no sin at all
He died for you, and there's nothing you can do that will make me stop saying that. I can feel he is chasing after your heart. Peruse him.
And there's no way you know whether he's real or not, you've never drawn close to him in anyway. If we're Christian, he would be more real to you then to anyone else.
Where is your proof? You told me this is a debate app, yet you are yet to give me evidence to your blaintant claim.
except that it is Christianity that put the "chains of sin" on us in the first place. they then used those chains to dominate people and enrich themselves.
and that still doesn't address the fact that the disciples didn't write the Bible. and even if they had it got edited and changed afterwords so that there is no way to know who's beliefs you are now following blindly.
it is not slavery it is freedom from the chains of sin
no but rather because they were against the techings of jesus transferred to us through his disciples
and repeating the same dogmatic lines over and over again is not debating. if you just want to talk to people about how great Jesus is go find a Christian chat room. this app is for debating. that means actually listening the evidence I provide and either agreeing or trying to refute it, not completely ignoring and saying we should all be enslaved to a mythical being.
you just make it sound like slavery. does talking like that work on anyone?
Listen up, whether you like it or not, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord
no it really wasn't. 95% of people couldn't read. there were very few copies of the Bible available to read for those who could read.
travel between regions was much more limited than it is today and there was very little ability to communicate between regions. when regional differences sprang up there was very little ability to stop it until it had alot of followers. that is why heresies sprang up so often and were so popular.
there were several councils to decide which books would go into the Bible and which would be excluded because the priests didn't like them.
no it was as hard as it is today
lol just because the Bible is hard to change now doesn't mean it hasn't been changed dozens of times already.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
no thank you man for proving that the bible can not be changed
That's not proof, that's a blatant claim
it would be very difficult to change the Bible today. there copies if it everywhere and virtually everyone is able to read it.
when the Bible was written very few could read it and it had to be copied out by hand so there weren't that many copies. making changes then would have been very easy.
but that isn't really the main issue since the Bible wasn't written by the apostles in the first place. it was written by a bunch of different people any where from 40 to 100 years after the death of Jesus.
Historybuff, I am yet to find accurate proof to your claim
here is a question can you change a religious book today no because the people will simply regard it as a heresy and you will end up being described as heretic no one will believe the people will not allow it to happen besides that i as a Christian believe that god will not allow it as well but because your an atheist i can tell you that it is impossible by my earthly calculations that a holybook can be changed
well what you are talking about are copies of the original writings of these apostles so they are the same exactly the same
look at the section on the new testament. if https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible
the historicity of the Bible is not what you seem to think it is.
have you never looked into who wrote the Bible other than what the church says?
at best the author ship of the Bible is dubious. parts of it may have come from letters from the apostles, but none of it was actually written by them. it was all written later. and then edited after that. it is highly unlikely that any of the Bible is an actual quote of an apostle, much less from Jesus.
man john and mathew were jesus's disciples do you disagree on that as well
That link just says that the disciples wrote and other authors and was later collected into one book. They didn't change anything the original authors wrote though
historybuff, That's just a full on lie from the enemy. The Bible was written by all his selected disciples. If your trying tell any Christian that the Bible was written by dudes that didn't even know him, you are wrong. How could John right revelation if it was just his imagination. The Bible and the word of God are so real to Christians that one day you will do anything to have this love and forgiveness, but, it will be too late. That's is unless you repent and make Jesus your savior.
no they didn't. letters from them are supposedly included in the Bible. they most certainly did not write the Bible however.
no the bible was written by the apostles themselves take john mathew were the disciples of jesus so how could you say that
he already explained how the apostles didn't talk about the Trinity. they had never heard of it.
I already told you that the Bible was written long after Jesus' death by men who had never met him.
we already explained how the Trinity took centuries to become doctrine. it was not a core Christian belief. the first Christian father to use the word Trinity was in the late 2nd century. that is well over 100 years after the death of Christ before anyone started talking about a Trinity.
jesus said it with his tongue and thus jesus established the principal of trinity and thus no one can challenge god no matter who he is if someone is a Christian he has to believe in the trinity
secondly you are lying he did believe in the trinity for you to change the word of god to change the word of god to serve your ideology is not right the bible is crystal clear it established the trinity and the bible is my only source
it was a doctrine established by the very words of our lord
"Might not have given it importance"? Eusebius was a theologian, a biblical scholar, a bishop, and exegete. I think he placed considerable importance on the bible, and I'm pretty sure much more than me or you
If the trinity is so firmly established in the Bible, why did it take hundreds of years to become doctrine?
let them say what they want this is religion they might have not given it an importance but the bible is clear the trinity is established in the biblical texts so please do not make false claims
let them say what they wanna say it is the bible that is my source
christian baptized and will baptize in the name of the father the son and the holy spirit
mathew 28 after jesus's resurrection
When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, ?All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.?
To God?s elect?who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood (1 Peter 1:1-2).
The Samaritans baptized in the name of John the Baptist. When they heard Paul, ?they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus? (Acts 19:5). Paul did not ask them to be baptized in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit; he was content with baptism in the name of Jesus
When the historian Eusebius of Caesarea quoted this passage from the Gospel of Matthew, he did not mention therein ?the Father? or ?the Holy Spirit?; rather he said: ?They went to all nations to spread the Gospel, relying on the power of Christ who said to them: ?Go and teach all nations in my name.??
(Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea, p. 100)
Also, Adolf Harnack says in his book 'The history of Dogma':
This concept of trinity which speaks of the ?Father, Son and Holy Spirit? is something strange that was never uttered on Christ?s lips. It did not exist at the time of the Apostles. Moreover, it was never mentioned until a later stage in the development of Christian teachings and Christ never spoke of it when he was preaching and teaching after he rose from the dead. Paul knew nothing of that either, because he did not quote anything that he attributed to Christ that urged spreading Christianity among other nations".
it is not mentioned in the other three Gospels which all narrate the story of Christ entering Jerusalem riding on a donkey. Even in mark, describing the same situation Mark says ""He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" - NOTICE: No mention of anything vaguely close to trinity, yet same situation
here is the proof
well jesus says All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19)
You have one version of the Bible. Others don't mention the trinity. How do you feel qualified to say who is or is not Christian? Actually, could you give me the biblical verse with the word trinity in it?
you are wrong the arian were heretics the nestorians were heretics so any church that does not obey the the basic fundamental building blocks of christianity is not a Christian group
no it is not a 15 th century view but rather a true christian view based on profound christian beliefs
let me make it clear any group must believe in the trinity ,death and resurrection of jesus and the divine and human natures of jesus so that they will be able to call themselves christians it is not a political party to which any one likes can enter into it is a religion that has it's bases if you believe in them you are one of them so the christian groups are
protestants Catholics orthodox anglican and some smaller churches such as the assyrian church of the east
other than that they are not christian churches
fadi your view of religion would be fine in the 15th century. "you don't believe what I think Christianity means so you're a heretic"
unfortunately for you, you were born into the 21st century. there are alot if different sects of Christianity and there always have been. there has never been a time where all Christians could agree on what to believe.
i don't care what the wikipedia says i have the bible
and anyone who does not believe in the trinity is a heretic you call them christians ,the christians don't so they are not christians
no to deny the trinity is a denial of god and thus they were or are not christians
Stating your opinion doesn't constitute an argument. There are Christians who do not believe in the trinity. Here is the Wikipedia link to some info on the subject.
so you are just going to ignore everything he said? you have looked at 2 Bibles and you think that means all Bibles are exactly the same? it is a proven fact that Bibles have had differences. I'm not why you are just ignoring that like a child.
to be a Christian you must follow Christ. many Christian groups do not believe in the Trinity. they were still Christians. just a different sect of Christian.
what you are saying is not true although it is not official christians are united in their hearts and souls
i read the protestant bible and the Catholic one they are exactly the same
So anyone who does not belie what you believe cannot be Christian, even though the Catholic Church was originally divided on the subject?
I provided a link to an article comparing verses in different bibles to see how much the message itself had changed. It is heavily slanted to was the author's own belief in what is the "right" translation, but it does illustrate that there are variations within the Bible between versions.
If you would like to learn more about the various versions of the Bible and their varied changes in messages, there are books about it from Amazon to help you.
So in short notice, not all versions of the Bible are identical.
what iam saying is that Christians all believe in the trinity and any who does not is simply not a Christian
no to him
Maybe it's just God giving you a second chance
I'm not in any way calling all Christians stupid. I am simply saying that anyone who claims that all versions of the Bible are identical is quite obviously wrong. If there were no differences, why do some sects believe in the Holy Trinity and other not?
On a somewhat related note, you really need to spout less platitudes and more arguments. Trying to convert people to your sect of Christianity does not further your argument. Those who agree with your definition of saved are already in agreement with you and those who do not are unlikely to be converted by you spamming "Accept Jesus". If you want to make an honest effort to save people, be less obnoxious and insulting and talk to them, not at them.
I threw a Bible verse, are you talking to me?
nope the one who is wrong is you
nope you are wrong to believe that all 2 billion christians in the world are stupid by the way you are very ignorant secondly support your claim with bible verses that prove what you say but you just throw false statements without backing them
2000 years of grace- not a cult and you still have time to seek the truth. Are you interested in the truth?
Then you are wrong. Glad we sorted that out.
no man you have eyes and you don't see and you have ears but you do not hear for you refuse to believe in facts that are present in font of your eyes
the only one blind is you. you blindly follow a 2000 year old cult.
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
I'll pray for your forgiveness, For you have been blinded, but Jesus can set you free.
well if he did he would be a zombie. and if zombie Jesus ever shows up you will want to be ready with a shotgun.
Jesus is going to come and we have to be ready.
So you believe the contents of every version to be identical other than translation errors?
versions are not edition they are translation made by different people
sadly it is a truth that the bible has been heavily edited. today there are 50 different versions of it JUST in english.
Really the least expected time would be yesterday since it would be impossible for anyone else to travel in time to do it.
you claim this without any evidence but i bet that you must try and change a holy book to know the amount of scrutiny you would face as a matter of you can not change a holy book
how do you know it was written by the apostles? Bible scholars don't even claim to know who wrote them
Also, the original manuscripts are not heavily copied, as evidenced by the number of contradictions, insertions and deletions in various Bibles over time. The bible of today is nothing like the original manuscripts
first of all they were written by the apostles and later copied secondly the blood of the apostles proves that he was risen
The originall manuscripts are heavily copied not edited
so your only evidence is the Bible then. which was written decades after the death of Jesus by men who had never met him. it was then heavily edited by other men to suit them. and you think this is trustworthy as evidence? and then base your life on its teachings.
The tomb is empty we are free
well the evidence is the testimony of his disciples who confirmed their testimony by dying for their faith and thus on the blood of our saints our church was built so we are a church of martyrs a church whose adherents were persecuted for the seldom reason of being christian
no he was the first to be risen
why do you walk on this earth? because your parents had sex and have birth to you.
Jesus of Nazareth probably existed. but he was a human like any other. maybe he claimed to be the son of god. maybe other people made up those claims after his death. either way there's no evidence it's true.
So you agree that he lived and walked on this earth? Why do you believe he walked on this earth
like never since he was just a human and he's been dead for 2000 years.