How many of you think Jesus will return to Earth in the next 50 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well at least this thread makes a good troll playground! The jokes are really insipid, but that's for the trolls' problem, not mine.

pp - they're not jokes; they're quips.

OK, insipid quips. The insipid quips are your problem, not mine.

That's only b/c you don't understand them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's on his way but stuck in I-95 traffic.

Nope, Bay Bridge on 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no i don't take the bible literally. I think Jesus's teachings are important but don't believe in the second coming.

Jesus's teachings included the end of the world and His second coming. He was actually very detailed with it. This is in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21. I'm genuinely curious how you decide which teachings to follow and which not to, or perhaps how you've decided which teachings that are recounted are genuine and which are not.

Thinking the teachings of Jesus are important can mean accepting the sensible, loving things Jesus said, knowing that such a stance will make Christians comfortable

[Anonymous]

no i don't take the bible literally. I think Jesus's teachings are important but don't believe in the second coming.

Jesus's teachings included the end of the world and His second coming. He was actually very detailed with it. This is in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21. I'm genuinely curious how you decide which teachings to follow and which not to, or perhaps how you've decided which teachings that are recounted are genuine and which are not

Thinking the teachings of Jesus are important can mean accepting the sensible, loving things Jesus said, knowing that such a stance will make Christians comfortable

Here's the thing, folks. Jesus did NOT write down his beliefs - and neither did Muhammad. Apparently, the Quran was written by Muhammad's companions.

So why should any "believer" feel compelled to embrace the entirety of the gospels if the stories were secondhand accounts? (perhaps the equivalent of our definition of secondary sources today)

If scholars found evidence supporting that Jesus was indeed literate (inconclusive, yes?), then Jesus would have documented his own miracles perhaps. If you know you're placed in this world to make some waves and you're raising people from the dead and feeding many from a few loaves, don't you think YOU'D be the one to write down your experiences? Furthermore, while not many were literate at the time, there still should have been other primary accounts from those who witnessed his miracles.

I believe that other non-Muslim sources captured pieces of Muhammad's life - for example, the Greeks. This is not the case with Jesus.

We have nothing other than the four gospels.

[Anonymous]

And the shroud of Turin.^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

no i don't take the bible literally. I think Jesus's teachings are important but don't believe in the second coming.

Jesus's teachings included the end of the world and His second coming. He was actually very detailed with it. This is in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21. I'm genuinely curious how you decide which teachings to follow and which not to, or perhaps how you've decided which teachings that are recounted are genuine and which are not

Thinking the teachings of Jesus are important can mean accepting the sensible, loving things Jesus said, knowing that such a stance will make Christians comfortable

Here's the thing, folks. Jesus did NOT write down his beliefs - and neither did Muhammad. Apparently, the Quran was written by Muhammad's companions.

So why should any "believer" feel compelled to embrace the entirety of the gospels if the stories were secondhand accounts? (perhaps the equivalent of our definition of secondary sources today)

If scholars found evidence supporting that Jesus was indeed literate (inconclusive, yes?), then Jesus would have documented his own miracles perhaps. If you know you're placed in this world to make some waves and you're raising people from the dead and feeding many from a few loaves, don't you think YOU'D be the one to write down your experiences? Furthermore, while not many were literate at the time, there still should have been other primary accounts from those who witnessed his miracles.

I believe that other non-Muslim sources captured pieces of Muhammad's life - for example, the Greeks. This is not the case with Jesus.

We have nothing other than the four gospels.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1

Either you believe the bible or you don't. It's a choice. Allow those who do the peace in their choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The gay and tranny stuff may indicate we have gone way over to the dark side and it may signal the second coming to cleanse the earth.

He didn't show up for WWI, the Holocaust, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So I doubt the "gay and tranny stuff" will do the trick. And BTW that's not so new anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

no i don't take the bible literally. I think Jesus's teachings are important but don't believe in the second coming.

Jesus's teachings included the end of the world and His second coming. He was actually very detailed with it. This is in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21. I'm genuinely curious how you decide which teachings to follow and which not to, or perhaps how you've decided which teachings that are recounted are genuine and which are not

Thinking the teachings of Jesus are important can mean accepting the sensible, loving things Jesus said, knowing that such a stance will make Christians comfortable

Here's the thing, folks. Jesus did NOT write down his beliefs - and neither did Muhammad. Apparently, the Quran was written by Muhammad's companions.

So why should any "believer" feel compelled to embrace the entirety of the gospels if the stories were secondhand accounts? (perhaps the equivalent of our definition of secondary sources today)

If scholars found evidence supporting that Jesus was indeed literate (inconclusive, yes?), then Jesus would have documented his own miracles perhaps. If you know you're placed in this world to make some waves and you're raising people from the dead and feeding many from a few loaves, don't you think YOU'D be the one to write down your experiences? Furthermore, while not many were literate at the time, there still should have been other primary accounts from those who witnessed his miracles.

I believe that other non-Muslim sources captured pieces of Muhammad's life - for example, the Greeks. This is not the case with Jesus.

We have nothing other than the four gospels.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1

Either you believe the bible or you don't. It's a choice. Allow those who do the peace in their choice.

Not really, there are lots of in-between beliefs --people who believe the OT but not the NT, people who believe certain things literally and others metaphorically, people who have their own, unique interpretation of the bible and then there are people identifying as Christians who know (and care) very little about Bible teachings.

As for allowing Bible believers peace -- no one is stopping you from having your beliefs. They are tolerated in the US. What is also tolerated is open discussion and dissent -- not only about religion about everything -- as long as civil laws aren't violated in the process.

Also, at this point in history, the majority of people who are bible believers (or religious in any way) were indoctrinated as children to think that way. This is not a choice. Lots of people drop their beliefs as adults, but it's unlikely that so many people would have ever believed such things if they hadn't been told as children by their parents and church authorities that certain unsubstantiated claims were factual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

no i don't take the bible literally. I think Jesus's teachings are important but don't believe in the second coming.

Jesus's teachings included the end of the world and His second coming. He was actually very detailed with it. This is in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21. I'm genuinely curious how you decide which teachings to follow and which not to, or perhaps how you've decided which teachings that are recounted are genuine and which are not

Thinking the teachings of Jesus are important can mean accepting the sensible, loving things Jesus said, knowing that such a stance will make Christians comfortable

Here's the thing, folks. Jesus did NOT write down his beliefs - and neither did Muhammad. Apparently, the Quran was written by Muhammad's companions.

So why should any "believer" feel compelled to embrace the entirety of the gospels if the stories were secondhand accounts? (perhaps the equivalent of our definition of secondary sources today)

If scholars found evidence supporting that Jesus was indeed literate (inconclusive, yes?), then Jesus would have documented his own miracles perhaps. If you know you're placed in this world to make some waves and you're raising people from the dead and feeding many from a few loaves, don't you think YOU'D be the one to write down your experiences? Furthermore, while not many were literate at the time, there still should have been other primary accounts from those who witnessed his miracles.

I believe that other non-Muslim sources captured pieces of Muhammad's life - for example, the Greeks. This is not the case with Jesus.

We have nothing other than the four gospels.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1

Either you believe the bible or you don't. It's a choice. Allow those who do the peace in their choice.

Again, by quoting from ONE source, Hebrews in this case, you're proving nothing. It's circular reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the shroud of Turin.^^

What does the shroud prove? nothing

That doesn't mean the shroud is evidence of a miracle, however, de Wesselow told LiveScience last year. He believes natural chemical reactions caused by a decomposing body and anointing oils could have created the body imprint on the shroud, which may have then been used as evidence of Christ's resurrection.

http://www.livescience.com/28276-shroud-of-turin.html
Shroud of Turin Real? Debate Resurrected

So while the shroud may be authentic and could possibly support that Jesus was real, how does this support his resurrection?

It doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Nobody can replicate it. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody can replicate it. End of story.

Never say never, honey bun.

The world was flat, remember?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody can replicate it. End of story.

Never say never, honey bun.

The world was flat, remember?

Do some people really believe this kind of stuff? Jesus coming back, really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody can replicate it. End of story.

Huh? This doesn't even faintly pass as reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody can replicate it. End of story.

Never say never, honey bun.

The world was flat, remember?

Do some people really believe this kind of stuff? Jesus coming back, really?

of course! I pass a church each day on my way to work that often puts up an advertisement for a session on the apocalypse, which is when Jesus will return.

makes me chuckle