"but Jesus would never JUST hang around sinners"

[Stann]

Fair enough I guess???
There is stuff that cannot be backed up with tangible evidence, such as the existence of God. I have gotten personal proof of God's existence, which is why I never left the Christian faith despite going through a period of intense doubt and questioning long ago. But that proof I received wouldn't be enough to convince others that God exists.

We do agree that God does exist. We only differ in our belief of what substance constitutes that God and what demands / expectations that God has placed on our existence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They are, but in this case these people were like..... especially known in the Jewish society for being big time sinners. Prostitutes, tax collectors, etc.

Then this doesn't make sense. Either Jesus hung around with sinners, and he himself was a sinner, or he became a hermit.

 

[Colin norris]

I feel like there's some balance between "Jesus hung out with sinners" and "Jesus ONLY hung out with sinners so He could tell them to repent", but I'm not sure what it is

If you believe there was a Jesus, little wonder you have problems with basic lies.

Establish his existence before you start belting the ears of Every one.

 

[evenifigoalone]

If you believe there was a Jesus, little wonder you have problems with basic lies.

Establish his existence before you start belting the ears of Every one.

Jesus'existence is like,... Actual historical fact my guy. You do not even need to be Christian to acknowledge this. Hell, you don't even have to be a theist to acknowledge it.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Then this doesn't make sense. Either Jesus hung around with sinners, and he himself was a sinner, or he became a hermit.

Ho-kay. So if you're not familiar, there's an argument in Christian communities about what Jesus's example was when it comes to interacting with people who are seen as "especially" sinful. Some say well, He was buddies with those people and partied with them and never preached to them. Others go the OTHER extreme and say no, He only ever interacted with them to preach and tell them to repent.

In the OP I say that I think the truth is somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[Colin norris]

Jesus'existence is like,... Actual historical fact my guy. You do not even need to be Christian to acknowledge this. Hell, you don't even have to be a theist to acknowledge it.

I challenge you to provide the irrefutable evidence he ever existed as historic fact..Bible quotes don't come into it.

If it's f asct, it would be acknowledged by science etc. It hasn't.
I'm saying you have nothing and are a liar.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I challenge you to provide the irrefutable evidence he ever existed as historic fact..Bible quotes don't come into it.

If it's f asct, it would be acknowledged by science etc. It hasn't.
I'm saying you have nothing and are a liar.

The Bible Says Jesus Was Real. What Other Proof Exists? | HISTORY

Some argue that Jesus wasn't an actual man, but within a few decades of his lifetime, he was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians.

www.history.com

Badabing badaboom. Pay up please. And actually read the entire thing.

 

[Colin norris]

The Bible Says Jesus Was Real. What Other Proof Exists? | HISTORY

Some argue that Jesus wasn't an actual man, but within a few decades of his lifetime, he was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians.

www.history.com

Badabing badaboom. Pay up please. And actually read the entire thing.

Ooooooooh. So you taking the word of illiterate sons of sand and Thornbush, warring tribes of violent homeless fools then confirm it with the bible?
Don't make me vomit.
You'll believe anything without evidence.

If the resurrection was bullshit, which it was, it means he is buried there somewhere with those other two.
How would you feel if his DNA was recovered and they found he did have a father of human origin? That would throw your beliefs out the door.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Ooooooooh. So you taking the word of illiterate sons of sand and Thornbush, warring tribes of violent homeless fools then confirm it with the bible?
Don't make me vomit.
You'll believe anything without evidence.

If the resurrection was bullshit, which it was, it means he is buried there somewhere with those other two.
How would you feel if his DNA was recovered and they found he did have a father of human origin? That would throw your beliefs out the door.

You must have been goofing off the day that they taught reading comprehension in school, cuz the article is written by an entirely secular source and the article does not use the Bible as proof in the slightest. If you actually read it, you would know it talks about two historians, Josephus and Tacitus. One was a Jew, the other a Roman who didn't believe in Jesus's divinity in the slightest.

Ok, so I prove that a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Roman government existed, so you change the subject. This is a logical fallacy known as "moving the goalposts". Look it up.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Also interesting to note, Socrates is considered a real historical figure and yet the only evidence we have that he existed is that he's mentioned by three other philosophers. We don't even know for sure what he philosophized, because these sources conflict with each other when speaking of him.

 

[SweetSue92]

That's why our civil laws are based on ethics not morals. Morals change and vary from culture to culture. Ethics do not.

Ethics are basically just written rules. Your workplace has ethics. So does mine. So yes they change.

????

 

[Colin norris]

You must have been goofing off the day that they taught reading comprehension in school, cuz the article is written by an entirely secular source and the article does not use the Bible as proof in the slightest. If you actually read it, you would know it talks about two historians, Josephus and Tacitus. One was a Jew, the other a Roman who didn't believe in Jesus's divinity in the slightest.

Ok, so I prove that a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Roman government existed, so you change the subject. This is a logical fallacy known as "moving the goalposts". Look it up.

Listen up godbotherer. I done care who you quote from any book you like, you have no evidence any of your silly gods ever existed. You're references are purely biblical because the stupid story is not quoted anywhere else on earth.

If it were supported by science, it could gave credibility. So, unless you get irrefutable evidence, you're just mumbling the same Jesus junkies crap they all do.

You will more I never moved the goalposts and the pressure is on you to perform. I know you can't so bow out before I crank it up bit and really start on your hypocritical religious beliefs.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Listen up godbotherer. I done care who you quote from any book you like, you have no evidence any of your silly gods ever existed. You're references are purely biblical because the stupid story is not quoted anywhere else on earth.

If it were supported by science, it could gave credibility. So, unless you get irrefutable evidence, you're just mumbling the same Jesus junkies crap they all do.

You will more I never moved the goalposts and the pressure is on you to perform. I know you can't so bow out before I crank it up bit and really start on your hypocritical religious beliefs.

Woooooow. Like, you either didn't read the article at fucking all beyond the preview, or you're just THAT much in denial. Cuz the article definitely had sources outside of the Bible. It's an article by the History Channel, my guy. They don't have a Christian bias.
Yeah, this is going nowhere. I could say anything at all and you'd deny it just because you don't want to hear it. So I'm not going to waste my efforts. Pearls before swine, you can lead a horse to water and all that.

 

[Colin norris]

Woooooow. Like, you either didn't read the article at fucking all beyond the preview, or you're just THAT much in denial. Cuz the article definitely had sources outside of the Bible. It's an article by the History Channel, my guy. They don't have a Christian bias.
Yeah, this is going nowhere. I could say anything at all and you'd deny it just because you don't want to hear it. So I'm not going to waste my efforts. Pearls before swine, you can lead a horse to water and all that.

History channel? Wow. They've been known to produce docos at a loss.

Have you told science you have discovered the truth? Why didn't you say something years ago? You could be famous?

Grow up dickhead. You have nothing but blind faith. Youve been conned and embarrassed about it.

 

[ding]

Woooooow. Like, you either didn't read the article at fucking all beyond the preview, or you're just THAT much in denial. Cuz the article definitely had sources outside of the Bible. It's an article by the History Channel, my guy. They don't have a Christian bias.
Yeah, this is going nowhere. I could say anything at all and you'd deny it just because you don't want to hear it. So I'm not going to waste my efforts. Pearls before swine, you can lead a horse to water and all that.

He's a troll. Not a very good one, but one nonetheless.

He's got an ax to grind. Pay him no attention.

 

[ding]

Jesus'existence is like,... Actual historical fact my guy. You do not even need to be Christian to acknowledge this. Hell, you don't even have to be a theist to acknowledge it.

Yeah, there are ~24,000 written manuscript which chronicle his 3 1/2 year ministry. Early Christians wrote about him, Jewish historians wrote about him and secular historians wrote about him. He's probably the most studied person in the history of the world. Western civilization was founded on his teachings. Not bad for a convicted criminal who was put to death by the super power of the day.

 

[ding]

Ho-kay. So if you're not familiar, there's an argument in Christian communities about what Jesus's example was when it comes to interacting with people who are seen as "especially" sinful. Some say well, He was buddies with those people and partied with them and never preached to them. Others go the OTHER extreme and say no, He only ever interacted with them to preach and tell them to repent.

In the OP I say that I think the truth is somewhere between the two extremes.

Jesus taught everyone to become the best version of themselves. Being perfect does not mean doing perfect things. It means to BE perfect. To exist perfectly. So when one makes mistakes - which we all will - we should be truthful to ourselves about ourselves. That's how we exist perfectly.

The Greek word for repent is "metanoia." Metanoia means to change your mind. Our thoughts, the flow of consciousness which determines our behaviors, can change. Metanoia has to do with moral activity, but goes beyond that. Jesus was teaching that we could change our mind about how we treat people. We don’t have to be unforgiving and cynical. We can change our mind about being negative. We can think positive thoughts and walk in faith instead of doubt. We can change our minds about sin. Rather than being caught in the strongholds of consistent habits of lust or selfishness, for example, we can experience freedom and selflessness. Jesus would not have told us to change unless it was possible and attainable. The Bible is full of words that speak about change. Repentance, metamorphosis, transformation, conversion, resurrection, rebirth, renewal, regeneration, healing and transfiguration.

So I believe that regardless of who Jesus hung around, Jesus was teaching everyone equally.

 

[Clyde 154]

You see given his basic philosophy I don't see how he could tell anyone they were a sinner; he more likely said, if you are a sinner please change your ways you are hurting yourself most of all. Sin is subjective to each and every one of us. That's why he said do not judge others. That's for god to do. But of course the religion named after him had to change the meaning of much of what he purportedly said when they named him a god.

Subjectivity would be your example of a post. You presented nothing but personal opinion with the expectation that you would be believed because you believe. In other words your faith is subjective. The scriptures are OBJECTIVE in the fact they read the same for everyone. You suggested (subjectively) that sin is subjective and you can't be condemned if you don't condemn yourself.

Question? If these subjective statements are true........why the need for Christ Jesus? We will all simply judge ourselves and plead ignorance. Even modern jurisprudence declares this position as a logical fallacy. "Ignorance is no excuse".

The LAW/ORACLES contained in both the Old and New Testaments condemn no one. The purpose of a law is to define sin.....where there is no law there can be no sin possible....there is no sin in the animal kingdom because animals cannot choose between morality and immorality as defined in God's law.

Everyone is born into a world filled with sin.....because FREE WILL exists. Example: God was sorry that He even created man on earth because by majority men were choosing unrighteousness/evil over righteousness/good. ( Genesis 6:5-6) God could not have known how man would choose beforehand. No one is born a sinner....... Sin is the transgression of the LAW (1 John 3:4). All sin is "unrighteous" (1 John 5:17)

When sin is mentioned in scripture its always "your sins" or "thy sins" Example Acts 3:19, 22:16). Man is judged by how he lived, by what he has done....not because he was born into sin .......he is judged in comparison to the words of the Christ, as it is the Christ that is our advocate that stands between our sin and God. (Matt. 12:48) On judgement day.......the BOOKS WILL BE OPEN. (Rev. 20:12)

Read be enlightened. A lesson from the Old Book, "The soul WHO SINS (not was born with sin) shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked upon himself." -- Ez. 18:20

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ho-kay. So if you're not familiar, there's an argument in Christian communities about what Jesus's example was when it comes to interacting with people who are seen as "especially" sinful. Some say well, He was buddies with those people and partied with them and never preached to them. Others go the OTHER extreme and say no, He only ever interacted with them to preach and tell them to repent.

In the OP I say that I think the truth is somewhere between the two extremes.

The problem here is, what difference does "the truth" make? People aren't interested in "the truth", they're interested in making their own truth. They cherry pick the Bible at will to make it fit what they want.

 

[ding]

The problem here is, what difference does "the truth" make? People aren't interested in "the truth", they're interested in making their own truth. They cherry pick the Bible at will to make it fit what they want.

The truth always matters.

Can you provide an example of cherry picking the Bible to make it fit what they want?