Heaven Is for Real!

[Apathy]

I understand that you are not interesting in becoming a Christian. I thought we were just talking about it. I hope we can have that conversation without insulting each other.

I dont believe I called you a name...

It does not meet the definition of a cult.

Whats your definition of a cult?

Are you sure that is the verse you wanted to quote? I can find no reference in any standard search to a 30th verse in the second chapter in the book of Mark. It seems that the second chapter of Mark ends with verse 28.

Typo I meant 3:28-30

28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

30Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

And you still have not found a girl who thinks that you are an attractive, good catch? Wow! What is wrong with them!

it turns out God gave woman good taste

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I dont believe I called you a name...



Whats your definition of a cult?


Typo I meant 3:28-30

28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

30Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

the Standard deff of a Cult as I have been told is normaly a Religus sect that the group falls apart when the leader dies or is removed from the group.

IE if 10 people worship me...and then I die...and they move on and no one worships me after death ....Cult

if I die and 100 years from now, people still worship me..Religion.

 

[nobull]

the Standard deff of a Cult as I have been told is normaly a Religus sect that the group falls apart when the leader dies or is removed from the group.

IE if 10 people worship me...and then I die...and they move on and no one worships me after death ....Cult

if I die and 100 years from now, people still worship me..Religion.

"There are many men who have sought to be God, but only one God who sought to be man so He could save those He deeply loves from an eternity separated from Him"

regards
doug

 

[Dr.Who]

You say that they wrote them...but how many do we have actual copys of there writing on it? what we know today is translated and has been rewritten countless times, with many writers adding or changing or taking away things...

Also we all know how people can believe things greatly, but not based on any actual facts, and think they saw things. As I suggested, many other faiths have people who "witnessed" so many things...that often contradict the bible...it does not make them all true.

The originals were copied so many times in whole or in part that there is no doubt about what was in them. copies were made of copies and in the process some mistakes were entered into the text. There was a time when we could not have distinguished between the mistakes and the original text. But that is no longer true. Today we can know with a certainty virtually every word of the New Testament as it was originally written. Sadly there are a lot of people (most people who do not follow the science of analyizing ancient writing) perhaps most people, who do not know that there have be great improvements in knowing old writings of all sorts. I guess I am trying to say that unless you are a "records archeologist" of some sort (or have followed the field) no one would expect you to know that.

We not only know what the words were but in most cases who the authors were. Those who made the copies knew the authors and verified that they were who they said they were. IN other words the earlier copies we have said that they were copying so and so. Then the people who copied those said they were copying so and so. Then the poeple who copies those...

 

[Dr.Who]

I dont believe I called you a name...



Whats your definition of a cult?


Typo I meant 3:28-30

28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

30Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Could happen to anyone. Don't worry about it.

I think there just may be room for a valid and reasonable interpretation in there that allows for forgiveness. It is not something that I have specifically investigated.

 

[Dr.Who]

I dont believe I called you a name...

Name calling is not the only way to insult. I was thinking that perhaps I used the wrong word and should have used the word "offense". But I checked the definition of insult and it fits.

I would think that you would understand that telling a Christian that Christianity is a cult is insulting with no further explanation.

I also want to clarify that I don't really mind being insulted but I think that we can have a better and ore productive conversations without it.

 

[dogtowner]

Could happen to anyone. Don't worry about it.

I think there just may be room for a valid and reasonable interpretation in there that allows for forgiveness. It is not something that I have specifically investigated.

That one is unforgivable. Question is did he actually do it.

 

[jjanejayne]

Was there ever any doubt ?

I never had any doubt.

 

[nobull]

I never had any doubt.

great response...thanks
doug

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The originals were copied so many times in whole or in part that there is no doubt about what was in them. copies were made of copies and in the process some mistakes were entered into the text. There was a time when we could not have distinguished between the mistakes and the original text. But that is no longer true. Today we can know with a certainty virtually every word of the New Testament as it was originally written. Sadly there are a lot of people (most people who do not follow the science of analyizing ancient writing) perhaps most people, who do not know that there have be great improvements in knowing old writings of all sorts. I guess I am trying to say that unless you are a "records archeologist" of some sort (or have followed the field) no one would expect you to know that.

We not only know what the words were but in most cases who the authors were. Those who made the copies knew the authors and verified that they were who they said they were. IN other words the earlier copies we have said that they were copying so and so. Then the people who copied those said they were copying so and so. Then the poeple who copies those...

If we knew what it was..then there would not be different versions of the Bible...also you mistakenly think that it was simply "errors" in the translation..parts where changed for reasons outside errors...The only way to know what was truly written..is to have the originals...written at that time...and mostly all we have is early copies...often that don't match up to ones found later in all areas.

 

[dogtowner]

If we knew what it was..then there would not be different versions of the Bible...also you mistakenly think that it was simply "errors" in the translation..parts where changed for reasons outside errors...The only way to know what was truly written..is to have the originals...written at that time...and mostly all we have is early copies...often that don't match up to ones found later in all areas.

Some portion of all them were in the oral tradition if you really want to get picky. But the beauty of it all is that the Holy Spirit will, if asked, any potential vagary you might have in a way perfect for you to understand.

 

[nobull]

If we knew what it was..then there would not be different versions of the Bible...also you mistakenly think that it was simply "errors" in the translation..parts where changed for reasons outside errors...The only way to know what was truly written..is to have the originals...written at that time...and mostly all we have is early copies...often that don't match up to ones found later in all areas.

There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity. From the voluminous number of ancient manuscripts, to the very early dating of the documents written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (some only 15 years after Christ’s death), to the multiplicity of the accounts (nine authors in 27 books of the New Testament), to the archaeological evidence—none of which has ever contradicted a single claim the New Testament makes—to the fact that the apostles went to their deaths claiming they had seen Jesus in action and that He had come back from the dead, Christianity sets the bar in terms of providing the proof to back up its claims. The New Testament’s historical authenticity that it conveys a truthful account of the actual events as they occurred is the only right conclusion to reach once all the evidence has been examined.imho

doug

 

[Dr.Who]

I never had any doubt.

I had lots of doubt. I was an active an educated atheist. I always said that the likelihood of there being a God (and by inference heaven) was less than the likelihood of my being hit by lightning. Of course that is not a very high bar since the likelihood of being hit by lightning is far higher than one might think,

Now, having considered more than I had before I have changed my mind. Not that I think there are any iron-clad arguments either for or against. For me the moment of change was the result of a personal experience with God that is quite sufficient for me to believe but which I would not expect people who have not had that same experience to be greatly influenced by.

 

[Dr.Who]

If we knew what it was..then there would not be different versions of the Bible...also you mistakenly think that it was simply "errors" in the translation..parts where changed for reasons outside errors...The only way to know what was truly written..is to have the originals...written at that time...and mostly all we have is early copies...often that don't match up to ones found later in all areas.

If you want to believe that Paul, for example, wrote a chapter, then people who knew him copied it and said that they knew him and that it was from him but that they copied any significant portions incorrectly you may. But you would be demanding a higher level of perfection from this process than just about anybody demands from either any other ancient document or even any contemporary documents. That level of proof that you are requiring is so high that it is unreasonable.

The different versions of the bible are due to different interpretations from Greek. There are different manuscripts but we can know which differences come from errors and even when the errors crept in. It does not even matter if the errors were added intentionally or accidentally.

The level of agreement among early manuscripts is astoundingly accurate! You are welcome to find any significant difference between manuscripts and show them to us. (best on a new thread)