Mockingbird

To celebrate what-- their own translation of the bible? As for the number of different protestant sects, I'm not bothered by it that much, except for when the differences are in essential doctrine, such as the nature of Christ and the means of reconciliation with God. But most of them are due to differences in non-essentials. I'm not sure what your point is, tho'. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

So glad that you're OK, and were able to turn this near-tragedy into a lesson for all of us here! Way to go, NWflyer! Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

The book of Acts is believed to have been written by Luke, a physician and historian who was a close associate of Paul. Seeing the following intro. to the book, why would you doubt it was written by someone other than Luke? Acts1:1 "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God..." Note that he mentions a "former" report, and he mentions that the recipient of the report was a guy named Theophilus. If you look at the gospel which Luke wrote, you'll recognize that it is the "former" report he was speaking of at the beginning of the book of Acts. Here's Luke 1:1-4-- Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught..." Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

You mean like all these? Yeah, just LOOK at how the meaning of this verse has completely changed throughout the course of time and number of translations! Translations/versions remain awfully constant, don't they? No matter how/when you translate it, its meaning remains the same. The bible is dependable no matter which version you use.

Yeah, it WAS fun, wasn't it, Special-K? Skydivermom was awesome---- she was chompin' at the bit to get up in that sky, but she listened to Larry & Jen about the winds, checked the wind meter often, and played it safe. Fortunately, I had a headache so I wasn't even tempted! I'm glad the wind simmered down a bit so she could jump. I got to meet some neat people--- Wendy, Walt, Sherry, Patrick, Herbert, Woody, Kim, K(C!)athy... whoa--there were so many I was introduced to that I can't remember them all, and there wasn't enough time to get to know them all. But it was a GREAT crowd-- fun, friendly, approachable, crazy! Fun to see lots of familiar faces, as well!!!! Good food, too! And the Goody bags/t-shirts! Can't wait for the next boogie------ SKYFEST!! Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

I got to be there on Saturday only. I didn't jump, but others did, and everyone had a great time just hanging out in the shade , etc. Made new friends and mingled with old ones. The vibes at Skydive Temple are really nice. Funny how each dz has its own unique ambience. Thanks for a nice day and all the freebies in the goodies bag! Looking forward to getting back there sometime.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Royd, You have a way with words, and I'm glad you're here. Please stick around.

Gee, no one's told me that in a coon's age. Thanks, Paj.

or perhaps another meaningless comment from you?? cant participate? awww poor speed, trapped in the mediocrity of his chosen religion, and inability to discuss the subject intelligently, he choses to throws poo from the trees instead.... Like you just did to Speedracer, Zen? I thought his comment was kinda' funny. But, of course, that's because he and I generally agree. I'm sure you find the snide comments aimed at us from the other side a bit amusing, right?

Actually, what I said was: But if laughing helps relieve your tension, try it. I really do hope that you will consider Christ's claims more seriously some day, though. Now I bet you will find that statement condescending; I don't mean it that way. I mean it humbly and hopefully. You will never be a complete person until you are reconciled to God through Christ. (Warning: I got that insight from the bible! ) Best wishes... truly!

Royd, thank you for seeing the difference and supporting the idea which the Christians here have been trying to get across-- that our faith is built on evidence--- not PROOF perhaps--- but evidence which we have not closed our eyes to/ignored nor denied, but by God's grace have responded to with faith. These threads are overlapping a lot. It's getting difficult to keep track of what was said by whom in which thread!

Yes, and this is one reason why Christ put on human flesh and came down here. To show us God-- He said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Neither He nor His Father are imaginary, mythical beings such as those you listed.

MB Im not sure what you mean with your first comment, can you please explain? We exercise faith not based on proof constantly. All people do. So what's the big deal about not having PROOF for our faith? We (Christians or not) DO have evidence, however, for our faith... faith that when we throw out the pilot chute, the canopy will be over our heads in a matter of seconds. That's confidence based on the evidence of our past experience, our packer, our equipment, etc. So I fail to see the logic in accusing Christians of having faith without proof. Your definition of faith is the one commonly used by infidels.org, pagans, atheists, skeptics, etc. They like that definition because it lends [false] credence to their accusations that Christians don't think, they just "feel." Consider these (and notice they say nothing about a lack of logic or proof or evidence): noun: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person (Example: "Keep the faith") noun: complete confidence in a person or plan etc (Example: "He cherished the faith of a good woman") noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny (Example: "He lost his faith but not his morality") Its most basic meaning is: • noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief. — ORIGIN Old French feid, from Latin fides. ... and this is the sense in which I and other Christians use the word, "faith." My faith is based on evidence and testimony.

How was this proven by your source of information? And what IS your source; you never told me.

Everytime you jump from a plane, you believe without proof... so what's the point? When are you going to get your definitions right? What IS faith? What IS proof? What IS evidence? What is knowledge?

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." Alexander Pope

Been there, done that. I've tested my beliefs--- I'm 51 years old and have had over 30 years to do so. And what about you, dear Broken? You have unrealistic expectations--- you want a holy grail, a letter from Jesus, etc., etc., etc. You want me to prove Jesus to you, I can't. I can give you evidence-- the New Testament, and a few references from secular histories of the time-- but no "physical" proof. I can't provide "physical" proof for the existence of anyone I haven't known personally. I pointed you to the book of "Acts" for historical events and people that are mentioned in places other than the bible; I also pointed you to the book of "Acts" as an example of a historical narrative which in no way resembles myth. Jesus once told a parable about a rich man who died and who wanted Abraham to send another dead man named Lazarus (a beggar) to his house where he could warn his brothers. Abraham told him, No, your brothers have been warned by Moses and the prophets; they can read the O.T. anytime they want. The dead rich man said, No, Father Abraham! If someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will turn from their sins! But Abraham answered, If they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen even if someone rises from the dead. Like the rich mans 5 brothers, you have plenty of evidence, written by 40 different writers and compiled in one volume, with no reason to disbelieve their testimony. Christ spoke to people who saw him face to face, saw him work miracles which validated his claims, and so on; many responded in repentance and devotion. Others turned and walked away. They didn't want to follow Him. It wasn't that they were unconvinced; they just didn't want to follow Him. As I've said in the past, the act of believing/accepting involves the intellect AND the volition. If you're missing one , you won't come to Christ no matter what evidence you are given. Christ himself said "you will not come to me that you may have life" (He came in order to restore spiritual life to man and to reconcile man to God) Your heart and mind are closed to the possibility that you need Christ, as well as the demands He may put on you. Many people have been where you are now-- looking for reasons NOT to believe, looking for ammo to blow away the claims of Christ and the testimony of Christians-- and have stopped dead in their tracks to look honestly at why they had such animosity, and have sought out the evidence they thought didn't exist, and when confronted with it, were led to repentance and became followers of Christ. I've read two books by two different authors who set out to disprove the claims of Christ only to eventually embrace Him. I hope that your story ends as well. But as long as you are filled with such animosity, many of your questions seem quite insincere, except for the ones that will help you prove your case against my Savior. And now.... I'm going to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... [wrote this at 3:59 am and forgot to post it... sorry]

Incorrect.... This site Claims that its Aramaic This site Claims that its Aramaic This site Claims that its Aramaic This site Claims that its Aramaic This site Claims that its Aramaic This site Claims that its Aramaic And one more from the Encyclopaedia Britannica… This site Claims that its Aramaic Palestine-- yes. Hebrew was the language of the Jews, and Aramaic was a cognate. Sorry, my brain skimmed right over that word, "Palestine." Let me amend my statement above by expressing it as I did originally, which is that Koine Greek was the "international" language of the day. It was understood virtually everywhere in the known world; it was the most commonly understood language. The N.T. authors wrote in a language that would've been understood by the most people-- the wanted the largest readership possible. Does that make sense?

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you because you are the one making the rather unusual claim that what was accepted for centuries is now commonly understood to be incorrect. I will address your desire for "physical" evidence for the life of Christ only by saying that if you want relics or something like that, you're out of luck, at least as far as I know! If you want the word of eyewitnesses, even eyewitnesses who weren't favorably disposed to Him, look in the N.T.... also you might pick up a copy of a Bible Dictionary, such as one by Smith, or Unger or Halley, because not only will you find explanations and definitions (or identities) of people, places, and things referred to in the Bible, but also archaeological, geographical, and historical information, including secular references to the information contained in it.

Fix your links; none of them work. At least not for my browser. Check them, OK?

Common knowledge, huh? Then you should have NO problem pointing me to your sources of this so-called "common knowledge." "Common knowledge"--- that is too funny. Really, it is. I've never heard anyone make this claim... which is pretty funny considering that it's "common knowledge."

Yes, they were written in Greek, as was the rest of the New Testament. So what? Greek was the "international" language of the time. And yes, they were written in the first century, within a generation or two of Christ's death and resurrection. So? But "by authors unknown"??? Please. Where is your evidence that the gospels were not written by those same men to whom they have been attributed for centuries?

Also, where did you get your information about Aramaic? It was not the "popular language of Palestine in that age." Koine Greek was. (I thought I had sent this reply already, but found it in a window behind other windows...)

Thanks for the heads up on the edited post. I'll wait to respond until you inform me of your source(s) for the language and authorship issues, as well as the claim of "no evidence" that Jesus Christ existed.