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?
Anonymous wrote:Nobody can replicate it. End of story.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Nobody can replicate it. End of story.
Never say never, honey bun.
The world was flat, remember?
Anonymous wrote:Nobody can replicate it. End of story.
Anonymous wrote:And the shroud of Turin.^^
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.
Anonymous wrote:Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1Anonymous 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.
Either you believe the bible or you don't. It's a choice. Allow those who do the peace in their choice.
Anonymous wrote:Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1Anonymous 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.
Either you believe the bible or you don't. It's a choice. Allow those who do the peace in their choice.
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.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1Anonymous 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.
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 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.
Anonymous wrote:He's on his way but stuck in I-95 traffic.
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.