pajarito

Then I have no idea. Just thought it interesting.

I saw a TV program the other day concerning this. It said that the Egyptians probably would not have recorded something like that. They only painted/recorded stuff that would contribute and be useful to the next life. Happy things, victories, etc. A huge defeat such as that would have been bad ju-ju.

That's just one aspect. That in and of itself does not prove its claims are true. The genealogies, verifiable locations, and testimonies just lead one to believe that it is real and truthful rather than a made up myth as some claim. The intent was not simply to tell an elaborate tale.

Maybe so... But that's not God's standard. Which one do you think will matter on the Day of Judgement? By the way, how "close" do you think you can come to the kind of life that Jesus led?

People, places, and events don't have any bearing on historical authenticity?

What do you require? One of his sandals? A toothbrush maybe? What we currently have is documentation from eye-witnesses who died martyrs deaths for what they knew was true. There’s little doubt as to the historical nature of the Bible and its detailed accuracy. It does not appear to be a fictitious story. Here is a list of ancient cities verified by the Bible. I doubt Jesus would have carved “Jesus was here” into the wall of a place that he lived or stayed but it appears that the Bible is accurate in what it states compared with what we have found so far. A more important question to ask would be “Where will you be going when you die?”

I think you misunderstand what is meant by original sin. You didn’t commit any sin by being born. However, a sinful nature has been passed down to you from generation to generation. >Just before the judge passes sentence, someone you don’t >even know walks into the courtroom and offers to pay the fine in full. >The judge can now set you free because justice has been served. Correct. It doesn’t change the guilt of the person. There is no one who is innocent. The born again Christian doesn’t go to heaven because he/she’s a good person. The born again Christian goes to heaven because he/she’s a bad person, being guilty like everyone else of breaking God’s moral law countless times, who’s been forgiven. Again… Misunderstanding of what is meant by original sin. I’ve said this before and apologize to all who are tired of hearing it. Being born again is NOT a “get out of jail free” card despite what many practice in Catholicism through confession. One should not think that they can "continue" a pattern of sinful behavior, confess their sins, and truly be forgiven. If someone does that, they should consider if theirs was a true conversion or not. The born again Christian is not without sin. They, however, make every attempt to turn away from sinful behavior and grow in their faith. It’s the difference between floating down a river of sin and swimming against the current. Becoming a born again Christian does not make your life easy despite what modern evangelism is trying to push these days in order to gain a large following. When one is born again, they enter into and become aware of a spiritual war going on right now for their souls. It is impossible to live up to the standard of Jesus and very difficult to even try.

My bad. I re-read it. I agree. God is the judge and he also established the laws.

Only if you're making up a god of your own (e.g. Idolotry; 2nd Commandment). Your god may not but the God of the Bible does. I'm sorry too. Rest up and think about it some other time. But think about it. It's more important than whatever you're working on.

Again... You are standing in court before a judge, guilty of a grievous crime, and are about to be sentenced to death because you can’t pay a fine of ten million dollars. Why not even add that the judge is your father and he loves you more than you can possibly imagine. You plead with him to let you go free because you are very sorry for what you have done. Before you stood trial you might have even done a lot of good deeds in an attempt to make up for what you had done because your conscience also convicted you. However, there has to be justice. It doesn’t matter how sorry or repentant you are or how long it’s been since. You should be sorry for the crime but that is not enough. The crime has been committed, guilt has been established, and penalty must follow. Even if the judge was your father, he would have to pass sentence unless he was a corrupt judge. Just before the judge passes sentence, someone you don’t even know walks into the courtroom and offers to pay the fine in full. The judge can now set you free because justice has been served. The point is that we are sinful and nothing sinful can enter heaven (e.g. God is infinitely holy and just). When one is born again, he/she dies to his/herself and Jesus lives within them (e.g. they are crucified with Christ; convicted of their lawbreaking). That does not mean that they are now without sin. It means that, from that point on, they should become more and more holy/righteous day by day, year by year. God whittles away at your selfishness during the course of a lifetime (however long or short that may be). God had to do what he did through Jesus because he’s the only one that could. We can’t do it for ourselves. In fact, the Bible says that “no one seeks God.” If you don’t believe me, see if you’ve kept God’s moral law. It really is applied to you. The wages of sin is death. Once born again, you die to yourself (e.g. crucified with Christ). In fact, you continue to die to your self and begin to live in Christ. He defeated death (e.g. paid your fine). Before you are born again, the Bible describes you as a “child of wrath” (e.g. enemy of God) because of your sinful nature. If one sincerely repents and trusts in the Savior, he/she has then been given the ability to become a child of God. It’s a work in progress. At first, you’re merely acting the part. Then, as time goes on, you grow and mature in Christ. If one does not “die to his/herself” and be “born again”, he/she must suffer the penalty for their transgression (e.g. hell). Sin is transgression of the law. You will be held to account for everything you have done in life one day before a holy and just judge.

I’m at work and don’t have the time to respond much. I’ll pick the most important of your questions. Some of the others seem silly, irrelevant, insincere, or mocking. If you committed a crime in our court system, would the judge simply forgive you? If he didn’t give you the justice that you deserve and he let you free without penalty, then he’d be a corrupt judge. God is infinitely both holy and just. You, I, and everyone else have broken his moral laws countless times. It is completely justified that all of us should wind up in hell for our sins. We can’t pay the penalty for our transgression and will be held to account one day for everything we’ve done. God became the perfect, sinless, sacrificial lamb in the person of Jesus to pay that penalty. It is the ultimate example of love and forgiveness.

Somebody pissed in his Corn Flakes. For sure.

I agree with you for the most part. There are many televangelists, church leaders, and people in general who use Christianity to their own advantage instead of for God. Never trust any person who says they have all the answers. I can't say that for sure about Pat Robertson. He may sincerely have good intentions but just be an idiot. I don't agree with him for the most part in any case. I think his discernment of scripture may be a bit flawed. In answer to the question in the thread title, however, "No...He never shuts up." He also does not represent all in the faith.

With peanut butter & jelly. Nutella makes the world go round. Man... Don't mess with a good thing. By the way. I didn't know what nutella was. Looked it up. Sounds good.

With peanut butter & jelly.

That is nonsensical. Added: That's like saying: - I am all powerful, all knowing, and ever present. - I built a treehouse in the front yard. - Therefore, I am the treehouse that I created.

I like sandwiches.

Listened to it. Although, according to him, I don't know if I'm rational or sane enough to converse with you concerning its content. For all his talk about intollerance, he sure appears to be very intollerant.

All three. Mmmmmm......

Sorry dude. That would push my limits to the edge. Some people just need a good ass whoopin. They beg for it. Hard or near impossible to ignore sometimes. I don't think I could.

He will be confirmed. The military argument against him is stupid. He's not the first nor will he be the last. Nothing new here by a long shot.

Gospel of Judas The Gospel of Judas was developed by a Gnostic sect in the second century A.D. and was was originally written in Greek around 130-170. This fact alone tells us that it was not authored by Judas himself. The oldest extant copy is a Coptic manuscript written in Sahidic (last phase of ancient Egyptian) in the fourth or fifth century. The gospel of Judas is included in a 62-page papyrus1 manuscript that was uncovered in Egypt during the 1950's or 1960's.2 The translator of the Gospel of Judas is Rodolphe Kasser of the University of Geneva, a leading Coptic Scholar and the contents are due to be released in April, 2006. At the date of writing this article (April 7th, 2006), the complete translated text of this pseudepigraphal writing is unavailable. However, at CNN.com we have the following excerpts: "The newly translated document's text begins: 'The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot.' "In a key passage Jesus tells Judas, 'You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.' "This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, the scholars said. "'Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom,'" Jesus says to Judas, singling him out for special status. 'Look, you have been told everything. Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star.'" "The text ends with Judas turning Jesus over to the high priests and does not include any mention of the crucifixion or resurrection."3 According to National Geographic website on the Gospel of Judas page, it says that the newly discovered gospel is, "One of the most significant biblical finds of the last century—a lost gospel that could challenge what is believed about the story of Judas and his betrayal of Jesus."4 In fact, National Geographic has invested a lot of money in its presentation. "Retired Claremont Graduate University professor James Robinson said that "early in November he learned that Kasser and several European, Canadian and U.S. scholars had signed agreements with the National Geographic Society to assist with a documentary film and a National Geographic article for an Easter 2006 release and a succession of three books."5 Is the Gospel of Judas authentic? The Gospel of Judas apparently depicts Judas in favorable terms and commends him as doing God's work when he betrayed Christ to the Jewish religious leaders. This, of course, contradicts what was written by the apostles in their gospels of Matthew and John as well as those gospels written by Mark and Luke who are under the direction of Peter and Paul. The Gospel of Judas falls into the category of pseudepigraphal writings. This means that the gospel is not authentic but is a false writing. In fact, the gospel was not written by Judas, but by a later Gnostic sect in support of Judas. Gnositicsm was an ancient heresy that taught salvation through esoteric knowledge. Gnosticism was known at the time of the writing of the later epistles in the New Testament and was rejected by the apostle John.6 The ancient writer Irenaeus (130 - 202 AD) in his work called Refutation of All Heresies said that the gospel of Judas was a fictitious history: "Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."7 We can conclude that the Gospel of Judas is not authentic, is not inspired, and was properly rejected by the early church as an unreliable and inaccurate depiction of what really happened concerning Judas. Of course, the complaint is often raised that this opinion, like that of the early church, simply rejected anything that opposed a preconceived idea. But, this complaint falls by the wayside when we understand that the early church knew which documents were authored by the apostles and which were not. God did not make a mistake when he led the Christian Church to recognize what is and is not inspired. The Gospel of Judas was never recognized by the church as being inspired. Addendum On April 9 National Geographic aired the special on the Gospel of Judas. Unfortunately, the special was below standard in its scholarly representation of both sides of the argument on the validity of the New Testament Gospels as well as the Gospel of Judas. It did not give competent counter evidences against its liberal and inaccurate suggestions regarding the formation of the New Testament cannon. The special failed miserably to adequately deal with the formation of the New Testament Cannon, how the gospels were arrived at, how we know who wrote them, and when they were written, etc. I was extremely disappointed. Here is a quick example of one of the many problems. The National Geographic show had a "scholar" who stated that most experts agree that the earliest gospels weren't written until around 60 A.D. But, the problem here is that no substantiation was offered for this opinion. Second, internal evidence in the Gospels and the book of Acts contradicts the statement. The book of Acts was written by Luke well after he wrote the Gospel of Luke. Acts is a history of the early Christian church and it does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 The book of Acts is a compilation of the early church's history. One would think that it would naturally include the death of such important figures as James, Paul, and Peter if it were written any time after their deaths. Since this book does not include such information it appears that it was written before at least the death of James (A.D. 62). Let's offer a conservative number of three years prior to the death of James which would mean Acts could have been written around A.D. 59 This would mean that the Gospel of Luke was written years before that, let's pick a low number of five years before Acts which puts Luke at around A.D. 54. Additionally, it is generally agreed upon that Mark was the first Gospel written. Therefore, Mark was before Luke. Let's pick another low number of five years by which Mark preceded Luke. This would reasonably put the Gospel of Mark at 49 AD. This is a conservative estimate and it could be that Mark was written much earlier. Therefore, very quickly we see that the statement made in the program that the gospels weren't really written until after 60 A.D. can be easily countered. The question is why is it that National Geographic did not produce competent counter arguments? Another issue is regarding Gnosticism which was not properly represented. Gnosticism basically states that God cannot become incarnate. The show suggested that gnostics were Christians, but this cannot be since they contradict one of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith -- which was also taught in the Old Testament (Zech. 12:10). John the apostle who wrote 1 John addressed the early formation of Gnostic thought in Chapter 4 when he denounced those as antichrists who denied that Jesus had "come in the flesh." National Geographic failed miserably to represent Christian theology and instead misrepresented Gnosticism, trying to make it appear that the present Christian theological system was merely the result of political happenstance. CARM concludes that it the National Geographic program was very biased and insufficiently researched. Gospel of Judas

Yes. But they might also develop a larger capacity to irrationally hate another group of people too. From Jesus???

It’s not about what makes you feel good or gives you comfort despite what modern evangelism is trying to push these days. Even a Hindu with strong belief in his religion can get a “buzz” out of chanting a word over and over again. It’s about the fallen human condition, the completely justified punishment to come because of it, and God’s provision for the salvation of those who repent and trust in the Savior. It’s about where you’re going to wind up when you die. The Apostles saw the events described in the New Testament themselves. They died martyrs deaths because of what they saw and would not cease to proclaim. It is not logical to think that anyone would die for what they knew was not true. They would not endure torturous deaths just to propagate a religion after witnessing what they did. If Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, Peter would not have requested to be crucified upside down because he thought himself not worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord. The Muslim terrorists we see blowing themselves up in the Middle East fanatically believe in what they are doing. However, the circumstances behind their deaths are in no way the same as those of the Apostles. There is no comparison.

It's not that God is "out to get you." It's all about justice for having broken God's moral law. It is completely justified for you and I to be sent to hell based on our lives. Sin will not be allowed into heaven. Does it makes sense that it would? You & I have broken God's moral law and will be held to account one day. His provision for you & I is through Jesus. He paid the fine for your transgression. However, it requires more than belief as you stated above. It requires repentance (turning away) from sin and trust in your savior. Don't believe you've broken God's moral law? Take the test in my sig line.