How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[thedickus]

I don't need to stomp around and convince myself of anything. You either don't believe any of the Bible or you are ignorant of it. If you did, you would know that the 12 disciples approved of Paul's ministry and writings as from God. Were they wrong too? Paul is certainly not mentally ill. He had experiences with the risen Christ.

Like I said, you are ignorant. Jesus ministered to JEWS under the LAW so, His message was to THEM. It was to repent and believe on HIM as their MESSIAH for Salvation. So you are wrong and it's easily provable through Scripture. Paul's Salvation message was Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, believing that He died, and rose again for our sins. Jesus claimed to be divine in many places and the Scriptures declare Him divine in many places. You're assertions are easily refuted through the Scriptures that you claim to know, but obviously do not. Yes John is one place that declares Jesus as God, but there are many others. Have you really read the Bible or are you just joking with me, pretending to know it, because you should know that if you have read it.

There are zero reputable scholars who believe that the NT writings were not written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events. Again you should your ignorance. Even the Liberal sources disagree with you. Yes, Scribes were used. Wrong again. It's too bad that you are lost. You are listening to backward thinking Liberals like yourself is what your problem is. My Faith is not dependent on the evidence, but my faith is backed up by the Evidence. You are wrong and the evidence proves it. I attended a Southern Baptist Church for a while. Maybe that is part of your problem. They don't teach anything, so that may explain your extreme ignorance of the Scriptures and the history of it.

Paul was most likely schizophrenic. From Religion, Spirituality, and Schizophrenia: A Review by Grover, Davuluri, and Chakrabarti:
"Patients with schizophrenia also exhibit religious delusions and hallucinations. Further, there is some evidence to suggest that religion influences the level of psychopathology."

Jesus was not their "messiah" for salvation, he was supposed to be their actual messiah meaning anointed one/king of Israel. Only god was supposed to be god.
This is what's maddening about trying to enlighten an apologist. You're going to refute my arguments about the scriptures being horse**** by quoting the scriptures back to me. I know the stupid scriptures. I've read them.
Faith by definition is not backed by evidence, it exists in people despite evidence.
Cite someone other than a preacher that will say the books of the new testament were written by anyone that ever met Jesus. There are none that are reputable.
For example:
"Beginning with the gospels, these are, strictly speaking, anonymous documents since their authors do not identify/name themselves. The vast majority of scholars find the various authorship traditions problematic for a variety of reasons. Matthew's traditional authorship is only sometimes defended, almost always by the most conservative, giving Matthew either full credit for the final form of the gospel or limited contribution therein. Many conservatives do not deem Matthew to be responsible for the final form of this gospel. Many scholars do, however, grant the real possibility of Luke, a short time companion of Paul and not an eyewitness to Jesus' (peace be upon him) historical ministry, as being the author of the third gospel and Acts. A number of scholars, some moderate but mostly conservatives, also defend the traditional authorship claim for Mark's gospel and, mostly conservative scholars, assign the fourth gospel, either fully or partially, to an apostle of Jesus (peace be upon him), with many crediting a later redactor for its final form.



The overwhelming majority regards the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus) to have been authored by an unknown person either (more probably) in the late first or the early second century. According to Raymond Brown, '80 to 90 percent of critical scholarship' deem Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy to be pseudonymous. (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction To The New Testament, 1997, Doubleday, p. 639, 654, 673). The consensus considers II Peter to be pseudonymous; with a few exceptions, many conservative scholars are also not too eager to defend Petrine authorship. G.A. Wells states:



R.T France declares, in his 1993 survey of Evangelical Anglicans, that today few even among evangelical Christians would try to defend its [II Peter'] Petrine authorship with any enthusiasm'. (G. A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament?: Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony, 2004, Open Court Publishing Company, p. 66).



Most regard I Peter to be pseudonymous, although there are many scholars who also defend its Petrine authorship; the Johannine epistles are widely deemed to be anonymous documents.



Considerable disputes rage among Christian scholars on the authorship of: II Thessalonians. Raymond Brown states:



Scholars are almost evenly divided on whether Paul wrote it, although the view that he did not seems to be gaining ground even among moderates. (Brown, New Testament Introduction, p. 591)



Regarding the book of Colossians, Brown says that 'about 60 percent of critical scholarship' deem it to be pseudonymous (New Testament Introduction, p. 600), and regarding Ephesians 'about 80 percent of critical scholarship' considers it to be pseudonymous (Ibid., p. 621). Hebrews is anonymous (although various scholars have proposed guesses on the identity of the author). Many regard James to be pseudonymous as Brown states 'most think it was written by someone (a disciple?) who admired the image of James as the Christian authority most loyal to Judaism.' (Ibid, p. 726). Jude is also often considered to be pseudonymous.



There are plenty of conservative evangelical scholars who also doubt the traditional authorship claims of a number of New Testament writings, considering them to be anonymous and some even to be pseudonymous. There is diversity within conservative scholarship and not many promote an inerranist view of the Bible. There are very few who do regard the Bible to be inerrant in the sense Wood presumes it to be inerrant. On top of this, there are many more moderate Christian scholars, who have a high view of the New Testament as 'scripture', but who are genuinely doubtful regarding the authorship of a number of New Testament writings and who do not deem it to be inerrant."

[thedickus]

Now that is funny! Scotty, even you gotta admit that's hilarious.

[asbrewerpro]

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! I think I'm slowly being converted with all these engaging arguments

[ScottLefler]

Now that is funny! Scotty, even you gotta admit that's hilarious.

The photo is blasphemy and it's also false. God didn't have sex with Mary and He didn't kill Jesus so that people would love Him. He killed Jesus as a payment for our sins so that we could be saved if we place our faith in Christ for Salvation.

[thedickus]

The photo is blasphemy and it's also false. God didn't have sex with Mary and He didn't kill Jesus so that people would love Him. He killed Jesus as a payment for our sins so that we could be saved if we place our faith in Christ for Salvation.

So that's what you chose to try to refute, a cartoon. Seems more up your alley. That photo is hilarious and succinct. God did have sex with Mary, Joseph Smith and 16 million Mormons disagree with you. Just like where the story was stolen from when Zeus had sex with Hercules' mother.
Poor Joseph. Can you image any time he had sex with Mary and she screamed out OH GOD!. Joseph would be all, are you thinking about HIM again Mary! Did you give him anal Mary? Did you??

[mtpockets]

[Corbets]

The photo is blasphemy and it's also false. God didn't have sex with Mary and He didn't kill Jesus so that people would love Him. He killed Jesus as a payment for our sins so that we could be saved if we place our faith in Christ for Salvation.

I don’t swing by here very often anymore, but it’s good to see that the Misc lives on… oh, wait, this isn’t misc. Well, whatever.

Have you converted to Islam since the last time I dropped into this thread? Because I know caricatures of THEIR prophet are considered blasphemous, but I’m pretty sure that few (no?) major Christian denominations share a similar view… and incidentally, if you can find any actual photos of Jesus, I’m pretty sure you’ll win over a good portion of your detractors here.

I’m also pretty certain this is the first time I’ve heard a Christian claim that god (whoops, my shift key isn’t working) killed Jesus. I always thought it was more of an “allowed him to be killed” sort of thing. But hey, direct action is a little more Abrahamaic, so maybe you’re right…

And @thedickus - Jesus, man, I’m going to wake the baby from laughing. Stop it.

[ScottLefler]

I don’t swing by here very often anymore, but it’s good to see that the Misc lives on… oh, wait, this isn’t misc. Well, whatever.

Have you converted to Islam since the last time I dropped into this thread? Because I know caricatures of THEIR prophet are considered blasphemous, but I’m pretty sure that few (no?) major Christian denominations share a similar view… and incidentally, if you can find any actual photos of Jesus, I’m pretty sure you’ll win over a good portion of your detractors here.

I’m also pretty certain this is the first time I’ve heard a Christian claim that god (whoops, my shift key isn’t working) killed Jesus. I always thought it was more of an “allowed him to be killed” sort of thing. But hey, direct action is a little more Abrahamaic, so maybe you’re right…

And @thedickus - Jesus, man, I’m going to wake the baby from laughing. Stop it.

It was God's intention that Christ be crucified for our sins. He was the only one qualified to save mankind. Before honor is humility. God the Father will glorify Christ. He will rule and reign forever.

[OldFartTom]

Scott surely this is Matthew 7:6?

[thedickus]

Scott surely this is Matthew 7:6?

I think the modern day translation of this verse is don't try to bu||-sh|t a bu||-sh|tter.

It was God's intention that Christ be crucified for our sins. He was the only one qualified to save mankind. Before honor is humility. God the Father will glorify Christ. He will rule and reign forever.

Poor Yahweh couldn't come up with a better plan than to kill a bastard with a sloot for a mother. No one should trust Yahweh anyway. He's the original liar. He told the first lie ever recorded.

[ScottLefler]

Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

[thedickus]

Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

That's some BS. We're all the children of that filicidal megalomaniac regardless of having any faith in a 2000+ year old dead jewish bastard. It's just that apparently your rule book says that having faith in a 2000+ year old jewish zombie garners favor with your mass murdering mystical being no one has ever seen or heard from. You can't trust Yahweh anyway. He told the first lie ever told when he told Adam and Eve if they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or they would die. Satan shows up and tells Adam and Eve the truth, you won't die. They ate and didn't die. Sounds like old Lucifer there was the only one telling the truth. Yahweh went and killed everyone but eight people at one point, poor old Lucifer never killed anyone. I think you're worshipping the wrong dude.

[mtpockets]

[Deathstroke]

When I get to Heaven tie me to a tree or I’ll begin to roam and soon you know where I will be.

[thedickus]

A little atheist humor for a Monday morning.
Jesus and Moses come back to earth and are walking along a beach in Florida. They're a little surprised no one recognizes them (probably because everyone is waiting for a white Jesus). Jesus looks at Moses and says whadda ya say old man, do you still got it in you? Moses looks perplexed and Jesus picks up a Big Gulp cup and scoops up some water from the Atlantic Ocean, waves his hand over it and turns it into wine. Moses says oh yeah, the old water into wine trick. Moses picks up a piece of driftwood and throws it down onto the beach, it turns into a snake and slithers away. Jesus says, the old staff into serpent trick, I read about that one. Jesus says, top this. He starts walking out ON the Atlantic Ocean. He's walking on top of the water but begins to sink a little as he goes further out. First he's up to his ankles, then his knees, then his waist, his shoulders and finally his head goes under water. He starts flailing about and Moses sees that he's not joking. Moses grabs another piece of drift wood and slams it down onto the beach and suddenly the Atlantic Ocean parts. Jesus is standing there soaking wet and he's mad. He starts walking back towards Moses and the beach, he's knocking fish out of his robes as he's walking. He stands next to Moses, scratches his head and says I don't understand it. I did it just like before. I don't know what went wrong. Moses looks at Jesus and says I know, the last time you tried the old walking on water trick, you didn't have those holes in your feet!

[Deathstroke]

https://imgur.com/a/q6M8c51

[ScottLefler]

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

[ScottLefler]

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
(KJV)

[thedickus]

"With great power comes great responsibility" Ben Parker Spider-Man 2002

[thedickus]

"You're Gonna Need A Bigger Boat" Martin Brody Jaws 1975

[thedickus]

"Gunga galunga...gunga -- gunga lagunga" Carl Spackler Caddyshack 1980

[supramax]

Here's a good one:

"That which ends is always new. That which continues is ever in fear of ending. That which ends knows the eternal beginnings of love."

[ScottLefler]

Jesus Preached the Word of God, Jesus IS the Word of God. Jesus quoted the Word of God as Authoritative from God. He expects us to obey it and will Judge all men one day by the Bible.

[ScottLefler]

I don’t swing by here very often anymore, but it’s good to see that the Misc lives on… oh, wait, this isn’t misc. Well, whatever.

Have you converted to Islam since the last time I dropped into this thread? Because I know caricatures of THEIR prophet are considered blasphemous, but I’m pretty sure that few (no?) major Christian denominations share a similar view… and incidentally, if you can find any actual photos of Jesus, I’m pretty sure you’ll win over a good portion of your detractors here.

I’m also pretty certain this is the first time I’ve heard a Christian claim that god (whoops, my shift key isn’t working) killed Jesus. I always thought it was more of an “allowed him to be killed” sort of thing. But hey, direct action is a little more Abrahamaic, so maybe you’re right…

And @thedickus - Jesus, man, I’m going to wake the baby from laughing. Stop it.

I could care less about islam. I am a Christian, not a muslim.

[supramax]

The truth shall set you free:

[thedickus]

I could care less about islam. I am a Christian, not a muslim.

Why would you want to be a christian? Jesus wasn't a christian, he was a jew. If you want to follow the teachings of Jesus you need to be a jew. Remember Jesus worshiped the same god muslims do. So don't knock muslims.

[OldFartTom]

Why would you want to be a christian? Jesus wasn't a christian, he was a jew. If you want to follow the teachings of Jesus you need to be a jew. Remember Jesus worshiped the same god muslims do. So don't knock muslims.

You're undoubtedly familiar with Acts where there is teaching that you don't need to be Jewish to be Christian and gentiles can be saved too. I can only conclude that your statements are, as before... based on selecting bits of the Bible you approve of or expedient to your conclusions and throwing out huge sections of the Bible inconvenient to your arguments to enable you to proclaim these distorted statements, which in this case is opposite to the truth, Quite obviously you don't need to be Jewish to become a Christian. You have surpassed yourself in your quest to be contraire

If you were a Bible believing Christian, likely you would see other religions as distortion or distraction away from Christianity so you would see Islam (as one example) as not being from God. It may be Your opinion that the God of all religions is the same and perhaps extending that they're all different paths to the same place. But that is contrary to Christianity (the topic of this thread).

[thedickus]

You're undoubtedly familiar with Acts where there is teaching that you don't need to be Jewish to be Christian and gentiles can be saved too. I can only conclude that your statements are, as before... based on selecting bits of the Bible you approve of or expedient to your conclusions and throwing out huge sections of the Bible inconvenient to your arguments to enable you to proclaim these distorted statements, which in this case is opposite to the truth, Quite obviously you don't need to be Jewish to become a Christian. You have surpassed yourself in your quest to be contraire

If you were a Bible believing Christian, likely you would see other religions as distortion or distraction away from Christianity so you would see Islam (as one example) as not being from God. It may be Your opinion that the God of all religions is the same and perhaps extending that they're all different paths to the same place. But that is contrary to Christianity (the topic of this thread).

I know who is attributed to having written Acts. That was Luke. Luke was a follower of Paul, and like Paul also never met Jesus or knew first hand of his teachings. Luke like Paul preached a contrary message to that of Jesus and the remaining 11 disciples. Jesus taught to keep the laws and to trust in god and repent.
There are huge sections of the bible that are pseudepigraphical and should be discounted. Paul is attributed to having written 13 books of the new testament and actually only wrote seven of them.
Jesus worshipped the god of Abraham, same god muslims worship. Jesus didn't worship himself. The very topic of this thread is presuppositional and highly flawed.
If I were a bible believing christian I'd be able to come up with much better arguments than poor Scotty can. Scotty can't come up with any solid facts to prove anything other than Jesus got turned into a jewish pinata while a bunch of Italians played pin the tail on the messiah with him.

[OldFartTom]

I know who is attributed to having written Acts. That was Luke. Luke was a follower of Paul, and like Paul also never met Jesus or knew first hand of his teachings. Luke like Paul preached a contrary message to that of Jesus and the remaining 11 disciples. Jesus taught to keep the laws and to trust in god and repent.
There are huge sections of the bible that are pseudepigraphical and should be discounted. Paul is attributed to having written 13 books of the new testament and actually only wrote seven of them.
Jesus worshipped the god of Abraham, same god muslims worship. Jesus didn't worship himself. The very topic of this thread is presuppositional and highly flawed.
If I were a bible believing christian I'd be able to come up with much better arguments than poor Scotty can. Scotty can't come up with any solid facts to prove anything other than Jesus got turned into a jewish pinata while a bunch of Italians played pin the tail on the messiah with him.

As with other posts we should agree to differ.
Say you take some film that has a plot twist and you watch up to - but just before it, you still have valid plot-facts but not at all the right perspective and I'd argue that discarding a bunch of books leaves you with a significantly different (and wrong) perspective.

The problem as I see it with all of your posts: is that you are taking a religious book, ignoring the spiritual/religious, applying historical analysis and then forming a religious conclusion. That's like measuring the effectiveness of music by measuring before/after biceps girth and concluding because there was no change music is valueless. Far better if you could analyse history historically and religion religiously, then you may understand it. Just for example... taking an academic historical approach assumes a linear timeline (so the presence of Jesus in the old testament wouldn't even be comprehended let alone examined) or that people who probably hadn't met Jesus in person (and some years) later wouldn't be able to reveal or expand his teachings with primary authority. The whole Bible, especially the New Testament must then be a baffling mess with varying levels of validity when analysed in those terms. No wonder you dismiss key chunks of it.

I can't emphasis this enough, to analyse history historically and religion religiously. Historical analysis is obviously absolutely excellent for analysing historical events/texts but will be a complete fail to comprehend the spiritual, it's like you are trying to skim plaster a huge wall... with a small electrical screwdriver. A great tool for its intended task but entirely wrong application here. You will come to the wrong conclusions.

[Deathstroke]