We do not know of God's name. There is no reference of it. Jesus only referred to God as Father.

there is reference to it...those before Jesus refer to god as yahweh, others called God Allah and so on...and God has provided them and others a way to Heaven without Jesus ...Jesus is the christian's way but God is the only way

what ever religon you are as long as you accept jesus as the son of god you can enter into heaven

Christianity has it's own " what ever" religions....Germanic Christians, Jewish Christians,agnostic Christians, Satanic Christians, but as long as they wish to make the claim of being a Christian then they have no choice but to accept Jesus ....Jesus does not have to be accepted in the other religion...only God has to be accepted

Please note: the three concepts of "wisdom", "instruction" and "knowledge" are distinctly unique, albeit related concepts. The quote does not indicate the relationship between these three, it is handling the three as independent of each other as far as motivation or need to switch from one to another is considered.

It also allows the possibility that a fool will fear the Lord, and is beginning to know.

The whole quote is humorously void of meaning, if you consider it is a news release by God, who is supposed to be a good communicator.

I have decided long ago that God is not a good communicator. He is not moral in the human way, and he is mean. He also is not logical. These are the true characteristics of the God of the Bible, in which I believe most fervently. I just don't believe the humans' (other humans') interpretation of it, which is skewed toward explaining the words of the Bible in a way that agrees with humans' desire how our Lord God ought to be, and does not take into consideration how the Bible says God actually is. His character traits are not what we so ****ing desperately want Him to have. Come to terms with this, and the Bible will lose the perceived logical contradictions that it is replete with.

Excellent point. The reward-punishment learning tool as a given by God.

Does not aid social learning. Most social knowledge is congenital. I was born without the pre-learned programmed knowledge, and it took me at least forty-five or fifty years to get to the point in social interactions where I did not seem completely clueless. Social clues, when interpreted by the mind of an Asperger's human, are widely contradictory or not indicative whatsoever. It is well-neigh impossible to learn social behaviour in its finer points when you rely completely on the reward-punishment mechanism of teaching or learning.

--------------

I assert that if social learning is doggone hard using only the reward-punishment system, then moral learning is well-neigh impossible. Even God admits in the Book of Job that the reward-punishment teaching tool is not applicable to moral teaching.

Therefore I assert that religions, particularly Bible-based religions, are not based on teaching knowledge or wisdom or morals. It is based on a fear-driven educational paradigm, in which people are made to fear to sin, and to try their best not to sin; and they are TOLD what the sins are; but this is rote memory learning, not some sort of behaviour modification technique or cognitive convincing of what's good and what's bad.

I am not going to debate this from the point of view of the Holy Bible. Because the Bible does not give any indication whether God gave a free will to the Angels, and if He did, whether He chose to not influence their free will directly, and alter the angels' will before they resulted in direct actions.

I am just saying that the assertion that Satan failed due to his own decision is not completely obvious. Angels existed before creation, as described in the Genesis; as did a lot of other material as well as conceptual things. Geographic concepts even such as directions and distances. Genesis does not give us a clue whether Angels were created or had existed to that point from the beginning of time, similarly to God, directions, distances, gravity, darkness and waters. This means if God did not create the Angels, then the angels are not created like men or like anything else; to talk about their motivational mechanisms is futile. Attributing "will" to Angels is also futile. Whether that will be free or governed directly by God.

There is no reference whatsoever in the Bible to settle this big question.

I am not saying you are necessarily wrong; but I am saying you are taking ideas out of the air, and they can't be shown to be this way or that, therefore the chances that you are dead on right is almost zero, if you consider that any other statement on the subject of Angels' motivation is also just as valid as yours, and only one can be true; therefore the true one has a chance of 100 percent to be true, but to guess at the true one, since the guesses can be infinitely varied, has an perfect chance of not getting the truth at all.

-----------

The above can be verified by the Bible and logical conclusion.

I personally don't see where Jesus ever even claimed to be the son of God. When I read the Christian Bible it appears to me that a bunch of people are attempting to make a case for that, but nothing they actually attribute to Jesus indicates that he ever made this claim himself.

In fact, I see no reason to even accept that the words they attribute to Jesus actually ever even came from the man Jesus. Esepcially not in the precise form that they claim to quote him.

Even the gospels themselves have Pilot interrogating Jesus on this very matter and after the interrogation Pilot says that he sees no merit in the charges that Jesus is even guilty of such blaspheme.

So as far as I can see. Jesus himself never even made any such claim. Almost all of the things that had been attributed to Jesus would have been the same things that any Eastern Mystic would have claimed. For example, "I and the Father are one" is a statement of pantheism, it's not a claim to be the son of God. Especially not an "Only begotten Son". If Jesus claimed to be the son of God he only did so in a pantheistic sense meaning that we are all children of God. In fact, he even said, "Whatever you do to your brother you also do unto me". That's as pantheistic as it gets.

In fact I know for sure that the gospels have Jesus saying, "Ye are Gods". So there you have it.

So what's to accept? Christian's delusions?

I think I'll pass on that.

It's because He, logically, cannot have a Christian name. God's existence predates Christianity, and He is not borne to parents or anyone who could give Him a name that would stick. Humans tried, but got stuck in the project either with naming Him the concept that He is and represents (God) or with naming Him with His attributes (Lord, Almighty, etc.) This latter worked for humans, like Small, Black, Strong, Green, etc. But it never evolved to be a name for God. I don't know why. I suspect because His lineage goes from Father to Son, and then it abruptly ends there. A smith had to have many-many generations of issues that were also smiths, before the last name stuck. ... nothing... God... God... nothing, is not enough in number of generations for humans to give the thing a name.

I am even surprised that the word God is capitalized. It's equivalent to saying that "my Jellyfish ate my Godlfish". Jellifish and goldfish are names of species, not individual names like "Fred". We did not name god God; it is a general word to describe any one deity. To capitalize it is like to say ..."Grumpy, my third Wife, brought in the Bowl of Sediment from the River." Linguistically it does not jive. Just because there is only one such thing, its language identifier (word) is still not equivalent to its proper noun descriptor (name). I capitalize God out of deference to the language.

i keep seeing "jesus says"... wasn't jesus a man? did god say that he (jesus) was his son or did jesus say that? did god say we are not to put any other before him? in the old testament, it doesn't say anything about the only way go get into heaven is through jesus... did god change his mind? i'm confused on what i keep reading on here... iyt seems to me that if jesus is the ONLY way into heaven, then god made a mistake in the old testament... don't both the bibles contradict each other? but they were both written by god, right?

All contradictions go away if you simply accept the following:

1. The "God" of the Old Testament (or Torah) is mythology.
2. Jesus was actually a Mahayana Buddist Bodhisattva.
3. Jesus renounced the ways of the Old Testament (or Torah)
4. Jesus taught pantheism (we and god are one)
5. Jesus was accused of blaspheme (i.e. claiming to be Yahweh)
6. Jesus renounced the charges, and thus the claim.
7. Pilot agreed that Jesus was not claiming to be Yahweh.
8. The mob crucified Jesus anyway.
9. Decades later some bozos wrote rumors that Jesus was Yahweh's only begotten son.
10. Those rumors became the basis of Christianity.

Luke 3:22
“As he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my Son, who I love; with you I am well pleased.”

And no in the old testament it wouldn't mention Jesus, he hadn't been born. Jesus is the new testament. In the old testament you accepted God into your life and followed the rules he has set forth and for forgiveness you sacraficed something to be forgiven for your sins. That is why Jesus is refered to as the ultimate sacrafice, the coming of Jesus and the fullfillment of the old testament made that particular thing void. Now all we have to do is accept Jesus as lord and savior and do our best, when we trip and stumble in our path of life Jesus offers forgiveness.

If you like that book you should read Alice in Wonderland. She has all sort of strange things happen to her too.

so god was wrong? he made a mistake in the old testament?

No, everything works in steps/processes.

Definition of Testament = a covenant, esp. between god and humans

The old testament or old covenant was fullfilled with the coming of christ. Just as the day will be fullfilled with the coming of night.

I hear a lot of individual so-called "Christians" offer this up as their personal view, however, I'm totally unware of any official form of Christianty that has done away with the Old Testament as having been "Fullfilled".

On the contrary, a lot of moral values they preach come from the Old Testament. In fact even some of the works that have been cannonized into the New Testament (such as the writings of Paul) serve mainly to re-hash the teachings of the Old Testament (or Old Covenant as you would put it).

It seems to me for the "New Covenant" to actually make any sense, and be respected as such, then the Old Covenant would need to be discarded along with any writing in the New Testament that actually rehash the teachings of the "Old Covenant".

In short, I personally feel that it's basically hypocritical to claim that Jesus represent a "New Covenant" whilst simultaneously demanding that the "Old Covenant" teachings still remain the basis for morality.

I other words, I don't buy it. It doesn't fit in with what the Christian religions are actually demanding. It's hypocritical with repsect to what they actually PREACH.

You can see Jesus fullfilled it here

Matthew 5:17
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Jesus NEVER said to continue to follow the old laws. He NEVER did. We are to follow his teachings he is the way the light the path to eternal life.

More power to you!

I'm all for it.

Just try getting a position teaching Christianity that way with the endorsement of the mainstream organized clergy.

Good luck!

I'm pretty sure you'd find yourself in the same boat with Bishop Carlton Pearson.

It's just isn't going to be accepted by the mainstream religion. They would denounce your version of "Christianity".

People get it in their head that as long as they accept that Jesus was the son of God they can come up with anything they like and call that "Christianity".

But trust me. It doesn't work that way.

lol why? That's what christianity is, it's entire way is based on the New Testament.