Sweetestgirl11
Fairy Rings; very cool indeed. Thanks for that.

But Jesus wasn't a "messenger" Jesus was the son of God coming to give us the new covenant.



No child is condemned. Someone that does not know right from wrong can't possibly be judged for their actions righteously.

Well there you go.

Then it can't be important to believe that the Bible has anything to do with God.

How in any way does that infer that? A child never had the chance to even believe in God or not, therefore is not accountable for not believing. We will be judged for the choices of actions we take in life, if one has not had the chance to make a choice there would then be no judgement for making an action for there was none.

But that wasn't what you said.

You said, "Someone that does not know right from wrong can't possibly be judged for their actions righteously."

Well, clearly many people including myself do not believe it is wrong to reject ancient Hebrew mythology as the hateful works of mortal men.

Therefore you're basically in agreement with what I've been saying all along. It's asinine to believe that a righteous God would condemn people for not believing in ancient Hebrew books.

But nevertheless you KNOW right from wrong, you KNOW of God, ect. You willingly reject God and refuse to believe. So therefore there is an action and is what you will be judged on. A child is barely learning and has not had the chance to make a solid decision for choice of action on believing or not believing.

And besides that, it is what I said the fire time. I just didn't get into as much detail the first time.

First time I said "Someone that does not know right from wrong can't possibly be judged for their actions righteously."

Second time I said "A child never had the chance to even believe in God or not, therefore is not accountable for not believing."
-----------

Put it together and you have a child not being accountable for they could not possibly be held accountable for their actions because they do not know right from wrong nor have had the chance to make a decision on anything of such.

Europe is not a country, its a continent which France is part of!

Cowboy wrote:

You willingly reject God and refuse to believe.


That's totally false.

I do not reject God, nor to I refuse to believe in God.

I reject ancient Hebrew fables which I see as being filled with hatred and bigotry. That has nothing at all to do with God.

And YES, I do confess with all HONESTY and SINCERITY that I cannot know with absolute certainty that there is a God. Thus I am ultimately agnostic (i.e. without that knowledge).

That is merely the truth. And if God wants to change that truth all He/She/It/Them need to do is make themselves known to me in no uncertain terms, then I can say that I know with absolute certainty that there is a God. But they would truly need to prove that they are. In fact, even then I could not be sure that they aren't just some highly advanced aliens trying to trick me into thinking that they are God.

I need to keep an open mind, and above all else be HONEST.

In fact, if I need to LIE to get to God that can't be good.

But apparently that's what you would have me do.

You would have me LIE and try to pretend that the ancient Hebrew fables actually appear to makes sense to me. THEY DON'T!

They don't makes sense to me Cowboy. They appear to be total nonsense and filled with the devious ploys of men who were trying to lay a guilt complex on the masses to control them using fear and guilt.

That's precisely what the Bible appears to be to me. And I see absolutely nothing divine in any of it.

So what would you have me do? LIE to myself and everyone else, including any God that might exist, just so I can try out for a possible free ticked to "Disney Heaven"?

That would be a totally insincere and cheap thing for me to do.

Nope, if there exist a God, then my SINCERITY and HONESTY necessarily must be good enough for that God.

And to be perfectly honest about it, if sincerity and honesty mean nothing to God, then I want no parts of any such God.

Honesty and sincerity must come first. And I honestly and sincerely feel that the biblical account of God is disgusting and cannot possibly be true.

What more could you want?

I give you honesty and sincerity and it's not good enough for your evil God.

Well, in that case, I don't think much of your God.

Cowboy wrote:

You willingly reject God and refuse to believe.


That's totally false.

I do not reject God, nor to I refuse to believe in God.

I reject ancient Hebrew fables which I see as being filled with hatred and bigotry. That has nothing at all to do with God.

And YES, I do confess with all HONESTY and SINCERITY that I cannot know with absolute certainty that there is a God. Thus I am ultimately agnostic (i.e. without that knowledge).

That is merely the truth. And if God wants to change that truth all He/She/It/Them need to do is make themselves known to me in no uncertain terms, then I can say that I know with absolute certainty that there is a God. But they would truly need to prove that they are. In fact, even then I could not be sure that they aren't just some highly advanced aliens trying to trick me into thinking that they are God.

I need to keep an open mind, and above all else be HONEST.

In fact, if I need to LIE to get to God that can't be good.

But apparently that's what you would have me do.

You would have me LIE and try to pretend that the ancient Hebrew fables actually appear to makes sense to me. THEY DON'T!

They don't makes sense to me Cowboy. They appear to be total nonsense and filled with the devious ploys of men who were trying to lay a guilt complex on the masses to control them using fear and guilt.

That's precisely what the Bible appears to be to me. And I see absolutely nothing divine in any of it.

So what would you have me do? LIE to myself and everyone else, including any God that might exist, just so I can try out for a possible free ticked to "Disney Heaven"?

That would be a totally insincere and cheap thing for me to do.

Nope, if there exist a God, then my SINCERITY and HONESTY necessarily must be good enough for that God.

And to be perfectly honest about it, if sincerity and honesty mean nothing to God, then I want no parts of any such God.

Honesty and sincerity must come first. And I honestly and sincerely feel that the biblical account of God is disgusting and cannot possibly be true.

What more could you want?

I give you honesty and sincerity and it's not good enough for your evil God.

Well, in that case, I don't think much of your God.






If this was true then the bible would be more centred around the government. Would have instructions to give money to the government and much more along those lines. The bible/religion controls no one. It is still nevertheless up to the person individually. So therefore your theory doesn't work for even as of today there are people whom claim to be Christian, then go off and kill their neighbour and or any other sinful action.

Well, it was centered around government back in those ancient times.

Religion wasn't always like it is today. In fact, today's Christianity is but a ghost from the past and it's rapidly winding down. Give it just a couple more generations and there won't be anything left but "Designer Christians". The orthodox religion will be totally gone. It's already almost gone today. Protestantism as seen to that. It's becoming more divisive ever passing day.

Tithes used to be TAXES! Back in the biblical days you didn't give a donation, you PAID 10% of your wealthy, and it was collected like TAXES.

Don't kid yourself. Christianity was indeed extremely centered around government back in it's heyday. It gave the King the AUTHORITY of GOD!

In fact, I'm certain that there are places in the Bible where it states that to blaspheme that King is the same as to blaspheme God.

I'm not sure where that's at exactly, but I'm certain it's in there because that was one of the vivid tell-tale signs that men were using these stories to prop up the authority of human Kings.

Christianity was indeed extremely entwined with Human Kings.

In fact the very collection of fables that we call the "Holy Bible" were indeed canonized by King James. And that didn't even happen until 1600 years after the the birth of Jesus.

Christianity and the writings of the Bible were highly associated with control of the masses and these writings were kept up by the people in authority.

Surely you don't think these stories were written and preserved by random peasants.

I apologize for hitting reply instead of quote, my post was more towards the post in general not any specific post on it.

I just see so many posts that seem to attack either atheism or religion. I meant it to be a general meaning not towards religion or atheism in particular. I personally have no problem with either side, I choose to not be religious at this time, as I do not agree with the God the bible portrays.

There is a lesson in your scenerio...

10, Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
11, And he said, A certain man had two sons:
12, And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
13, And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14, And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
15, And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16, And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
17, And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18, I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20, And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21, And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
22, But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
23, And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
24, For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
25, Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26, And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27, And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28, And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29, And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30, But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31, And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32, It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Question: "What is the meaning of the Parable of the Prodigal Son?"

Answer: The Parable of the Prodigal Son is found in Luke chapter 15, verses 11-32. The main character in the parable, the forgiving father, whose character remains constant throughout the story, is a picture of God. In telling the story Jesus identifies Himself with God in His loving attitude to the lost. The younger son symbolizes the lost (the tax collectors and sinners of that day, Luke 15:1), and the elder brother represents the self-righteous (the Pharisees and teachers of the law of that day, Luke 15:2). The major theme of this parable seems not to be so much the conversion of the sinner, as in the previous two parables of Luke 15, but rather the restoration of a believer into fellowship with the Father. The main difference being that the owner went out to look for what was lost in the first two (Luke 15:1-10), whereas in this story the father waited and watched eagerly for his son's return. We see a progression between the three parables from the relationship of one in a hundred (Luke 15:1-7), to one in ten (Luke 15:8-10), to one in one (Luke 15:11-32); demonstrating God’s love for each individual and His personal attentiveness towards all humanity. We see in this story the graciousness of the father overshadowing the sinfulness of the son, as it is the memory of the father’s goodness that brings the prodigal son to repentance (Romans 2:4).

We will begin unfolding the meaning of this parable at verse 12 in which the younger son asked his father for his share of his estate; which would have been half of what his older brother would receive; in other words 1/3 for the younger, 2/3 for the older (Deuteronomy 21:17). Though it was perfectly within his rights to ask, it was not a loving thing to do as it implied that he wished his father dead. Instead of rebuking his son the father patiently granted him his request. This is a picture of God letting a sinner go his own way (Deuteronomy 30:19). We all possess this foolish ambition to be independent, which is at the root of the sinner persisting in their sin (Genesis 3:6, Romans 1:28). A sinful state is a departure and distance from God (Romans 1:21). A sinful state is also a state of constant discontent. Luke 12:15 says, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” This son learned the hard way that covetousness leads to a life of dissatisfaction and disappointment. He also learned that the most valuable things in life are the things you cannot buy, nor replace.

In verse 13 it says he traveled to a distant country. It is evident from his previous actions that he had already made that journey in his heart, and the physical departure was a display of his willful disobedience to all the goodness His father had offered (Proverbs 27:19, Matthew 6:21, 12:34). In the process, he squandered all his father had worked so hard for, on selfish, shallow fulfillment, losing everything. His financial disaster was followed by a natural disaster in the form of a famine which he failed to plan for (Genesis 41:33-36). At this point he sold himself into physical slavery to a Gentile and found himself feeding pigs, a detestable position and job to the Jewish people (Leviticus 11:7; Deuteronomy 14:8; Isaiah 65:4; 66:17). Needless to say he must have been incredibly desperate at that point to willingly enter into such a loathsome position. And what an irony that his choices led him to a position in which he had no choice but to work, for a stranger at that, the very things he refused to do for his father. To top it off, he apparently was paid so little that he longed to eat the pig’s food. Just when he must have thought life could not get any worse, he couldn’t even find mercy among the people. Apparently, once his wealth was gone, so were his friends. The text clearly says, “no one gave him anything” (vs. 16). Even these unclean animals seemed to be better off than he was at this point. This is a picture of the state of the lost sinner or a rebellious Christian who has returned to a life of slavery to sin (2 Peter 2:19-21). It is a picture of what sin really does in a person’s life, when they reject the Father’s will (Hebrews 12:1, Acts 8:23). “Sin always promises more than it gives, takes you further than you wanted to go, and leaves you worse off than you were before.” Sin promises freedom but brings slavery (John 6:23).

The son began to reflect on his condition and realized that even his father's servants had it better than him. His painful circumstances helped him to see his father in a new light and brought him hope (Psalm 147:11, Isaiah 40:30-31, Romans 8:24-25, 1 Timothy 4:10). This is reflective of the sinner when he/she discovers the destitute condition of their life because of sin. It is a realization that apart from God there is no hope (Ephesians 2:12, 2 Timothy 2:25-26). This is when a repentant sinner “comes to his senses” and longs to return to the state of fellowship with God which was lost when Adam sinned (Genesis 3:8). The son devised a plan of action. Though at a quick glance it may seem that he may not be truly repentant, but rather motivated by his hunger, a more thorough study of the text gives new insights. He is willing to give up his rights as his father’s son and take on the position of his servant. We can only speculate at this point, but possibly to repay what he had lost (Luke 19:8, Leviticus 6:4-5). Regardless of the motivation it demonstrates a true humility and true repentance, not based on what he said but was willing to do and eventually acted upon (Acts 26:20). He realized he had no right to claim a blessing upon return to his father’s household, nor did he have anything to offer, except a life of service, in repentance of his previous actions. With that he was prepared to fall at his father’s feet and hope for forgiveness and mercy. This is exactly what conversion is all about, ending a life of slavery to sin, through confession to the Father and faith in Jesus Christ, and becoming a slave to righteousness; offering ones body as a living sacrifice (1 John 1:9, Romans 6:6-18, 12:1).

Jesus portrays the father as waiting for his son, perhaps daily searching the distant road hoping for his appearance, in that he noticed him while he was still a long way off. The father’s compassion assumes some knowledge of the son’s pitiful state, possibly from reports sent home. During that time it was not the custom of men to run, yet the father ran to greet his son (vs.20). Why would he break conventionalism for this wayward child who had sinned against him? The obvious answer is because he loved him and was eager to show him that love and restore the relationship. When the father reached his son not only did he throw his arms around him but he also greeted him with a kiss of love (1 Peter 5:14). He was so filled with joy at his son’s return that he didn’t even let him finish his confession. Nor did he question or lecture him; instead he unconditionally forgave him and accepted him back into fellowship. The father running to his son, greeting him with a kiss and ordering the celebration to begin is a picture of how our Heavenly Father feels towards sinners who repent. God greatly loves us, patiently waits for us to repent so he can show us His great mercy, because he does not want any to perish nor escape as though by the fire (Ephesians 2:1-10, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Corinthians 3:15).

This prodigal son was satisfied to return home as a slave, but to his surprise and delight was restored back into the full privilege of being his father’s son. He had been transformed from a state of destitution to complete restoration. That is what God's grace does for a penitent sinner (Psalm 40:2, 103:4). Not only are we forgiven but we receive a spirit of sonship as His children, heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, of his incomparable riches (Romans 8:16-17, Ephesians 1:18-19). The father then ordered the servants to bring the best robe; no doubt one of his own (a sign of dignity and honor, proof of his acceptance back into the family), a ring for the son's hand (a sign of authority and sonship) and sandals for his feet (a sign of not being a servant, as servants did not wear shoes, or for that matter rings or expensive clothing) (vs.22). All these things represent what we receive in Christ upon salvation: clothed in the robe of the Redeemer's righteousness (Isaiah 61:10), made partakers of the Spirit of adoption (Ephesians 1:5), feet fitted with the readiness that come from the gospel of peace prepared to walk in the ways of holiness (Ephesians 6:15). A fattened calf was prepared, and a party was held (notice that blood was shed = atonement for sin ~ Hebrews 9:22). Fatted calves in those times were saved for special occasions such as the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:26-32). This was not just any party; it was a rare and complete celebration. Had the boy been dealt with according to the Law there would have been a funeral, not a celebration. “The Lord does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him.” (Psalm 103:10-13). Instead of condemnation, there is rejoicing for a son who had been dead but now is alive, who once was lost but now is found (Romans 8:1; John 5:24). Note the parallel between “dead” and “alive” and “lost” and “found”—terms that also apply to one’s state before and after conversion to Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5). This is a picture of what occurs in heaven over one repentant sinner (Luke 15: 7, 10).

Now to the final and tragic character in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the oldest son, who, once again, illustrates the Pharisees and the Scribes. Outwardly they lived blameless lives, but inwardly their attitudes were abominable (Matthew 23:25-28). This was true of the older son who worked hard, obeyed his father, and brought no disgrace to his family or townspeople. It is obvious by his words and actions, upon his brothers return, that he is not showing love for his father or brother. One of the duties of the eldest son would have included reconciliation between the father and his son. He would have been the host at the feast to celebrate his brother’s return. Yet he remained in the field instead of in the house where he should have been. This act alone would have brought public disgrace upon the father. Still the father, with great patience, went out to his angry and hurting son. He did not rebuke him as his actions and disrespectful address of his father warranted (vs.29, “Look” instead of addressing him as “Father” or “My Lord”), nor did his compassion cease as he listened to his complaints and criticisms. The boy pleaded to his father's righteousness by proudly proclaiming his own self-righteousness in comparison to his brother’s sinfulness (Matthew 7:3-5). By saying “this son of yours,” the older brother avoids acknowledging that the prodigal is his own brother (vs. 30). Just like the Pharisees, the older brother was defining sin by outward actions, not inward attitudes (Luke 18:9-14). In essence the older brother was saying that he was the one worthy of the celebration and his father had been ungrateful for all his work. Now the one who had squandered his wealth was getting what he deserved. The father tenderly addresses his oldest as “my son” (vs. 31) and corrects the error in his thinking by addressing the prodigal son as “this brother of yours” (vs. 32). The father’s response, “We had to celebrate” suggests that the elder brother should have joined in the celebration as there seems to be a sense of urgency in not postponing the celebration of the brother’s return.

The older brother’s focus was on himself and as a result there was no joy in his brother’s arrival home. He was too self-consumed with issues of justice and equity that he failed to see the value in the fact that his brother had repented and returned. He failed to realize that “anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there I nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him” (1 John 2:9-11). He allowed anger to take root in his heart to the point that he was unable to forgive or show compassion towards his brother, and for that matter the perceived sin of his father against him (Genesis 4:5-8). He preferred to nurse his anger rather than enjoy fellowship with his father, brother and the community. He chose suffering and isolation over restoration and reconciliation (Matthew 5:24, 6:14-15). He saw his brother’s return as a threat to his own inheritance. After all, why should he have to share his portion with a brother who has squandered his? And why hadn’t his father rejoiced in his presence through his faithful years of service?

The wise father seeks to bring restoration by pointing out that all he has is and has always been available for the asking to his obedient son, as it was his portion of the inheritance since the time of the allotment. He never utilized the blessings at his disposal (Galatians 5:22, 2 Peter 1:5-8). Just like the Pharisees had a religion of good works. They hoped to earn blessings from God and in their obedience merit eternal life (Romans 9:31-33, 10:3). They failed to understand the grace of God, and failed to comprehend the meaning of forgiveness. It was therefore not what they did that became a stumbling block to their growth but rather what they did not do, which alienated them from God (Matthew 23:23-24, Romans 10:4). They were irate at the fact that Jesus was receiving and forgiving “unholy” people, failing to see their own need for a Savior. We do not know how this story ended for the oldest son but we do know that the Pharisees continued to oppose Jesus and separate themselves from his followers. Despite the father’s pleading for them to “come in” they refuse and were the ones who instigated the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:59). A tragic ending to a story filled with such hope, mercy, joy, and forgiveness.

The picture of the father receiving the son back into relationship is a picture of how we should respond to repentant sinners as well (1 John 4:20-21, Luke 17:3, Galatians 6:1, James 5:19-20). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23). We are included in that all and we must remember that “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” apart from Christ (Isaiah 64:6, John 15:1-6). It is only by God’s grace that we are saved, not by works that we may boast of some goodness that we perceive to be our own (Ephesians 2:9, Romans 9:16, Psalm 51:5). That is the core message of the Parable of the Prodigal Son.



© Copyright 2002-2010 Got Questions Ministries.

The God of the Bible is loving and patient... and not a Bigot.


big·ot

big·ot [bíggət]
(plural big·ots)
n
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views


[Late 16th century. < French ]


-big·ot·ed, , adj
-big·ot·ry, , n
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Yes government tried to use religion to control the people i'll agree with that. But that's not where Christianity came from nor it's purpose. I said "if this was true THE BIBLE" would be more centred around the government. There is very little about the government in the bible. And no the bible gives no power to government in any way, so no it didn't keep no one in "authority". Nobody has "authority" over us except God himself.



Well "i'm certain, I think, i've read" none of those work my friend. You're spreading speculated guesses now. Give me some verses or something, then we'll talk.



Could not have been, again or otherwise it would give more authority to the government. It would give more power to the government and less to the general population. Unless you can give some verse references we're done with this.

If I went to the bother would it make any difference to you?

Of course it wouldn't. Your method of support for the doctrine is to simply dismiss what you don't care to see anyway.


You make up your own speculated guesses.

You claim that Jesus brought mankind a "New Covenant" with God. Show me where the gospels have Jesus actually stating this.

Otherwise it's just your speculated guess.

As far as I can see Jesus stated that he did not come to change the laws and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.

So your claim that Jesus came to bring a "New Covenant" from God is total speculation on your part that can't even be backed up by the gospels.

Besides, I've already pointed out the fact that science has revealed to us that death, disease and all manner of imperfections, (inluding thorns on plants) existed long before mankind ever roamed the planet, so Hebrew mythology has been proven to be nothing more than a man-made myth that has no more merit than the Greek Mythology of Zeus. No speculation required there. We can just clearly see that the Bible is nothing more than a fictional story make up by men.

I have also shown that it makes no sense for a supposedly unwise God to deal with sin at one point in time by drowning out the sinners, and then having such a huge change in heart to later send his son to be crucified to pay for the sins of human sinners, so God can forgive them without them having to prove their own sincerity by making their own sacrifices.

Your speculated guesses of how you think this story could be made to work, simply don't work.


Yes, it's true that my theories on the Bible are indeed my very own speculation. I don't deny that for a moment. The point that I've been making is that my speculated guesses make more sense than the speculated guesses that you've been offering, IMHO.

I dismiss the entire Old Testament as nothing more than man-made mythology. In light of the scientific fact that mankind cannot be blamed for bringing what we perceive to be "sin" or "evil" into the world, dismissal of the Old Testament as pure mythology makes perfect sense. This also eliminates a multitude of contradictions and absurdities associated with those stories.

Then, of course, the question of who Jesus was must be addressed. Well, even the Jews and the Muslims believe that Jesus was just a mortal man, potentially a "prophet" of sorts, but a mortal man none the less. So what was his agenda?

Well, my speculated guess is that he was trying to teach the moral values and life philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. This fits in perfectly with what was actually happening at that time in history. Mahayana Buddhism was at it's peak at that time. It was extremely popular in India and was clearly also known to Jewish sages. In fact, many Jews themselves at that time viewed God in a far more pantheistic sense than Christians do today. So the views of Mahayana Buddhism would fit in with much of Jewish beliefs at the time, and Jesus was supposedly a Jew.

The bottom line for me is that the teachings of Jesus are in perfect harmony with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism, especially in terms of the philosophy of the "Great Vehicle" which is what the term "Mahayana" actually means. They weren't concerned with the precise dogma of how you perceive God to be, they were more concerned with karma (how you behave). And that was indeed the focal point of the teachings of Jesus.

In fact, if you want a real eye-opener on this read Deepak Chopra's book "The Third Jesus".

So in the end, my speculated guesses all have a very sound basis and leave no contradictions of any kind.

However, your speculated guesses have no basis. You're speculated guess is that Jesus supposedly brought a "New Covenant" to mankind. A "Change of Heart" from how God used to deal with mankind in the Old Testament.

Can you show me any verses from the New Testament that have Jesus specifically stating that he is bringing a "New Covenant" with God with "New Laws" to replace the "Old Covenant Laws"?

If you can't do that, then where is there any basis for your speculated guess?

As far as I can see the gospels have Jesus claiming that he did not come to change the laws, and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until all be fulfilled.

Now unless you can show where Jesus states otherwise, then your speculation has absolutely no grounds to stand on at all. It's pure speculation with no basis to it at all.

Where does Jesus state that he has brought a "New Covenant of Laws" from God to replace the "Old Covenant of Laws"?

Show me precisely where that is supposedly stated by Jesus in the gospels. Otherwise, you have no basis for your speculation at all.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
===================================================

This shows Jesus came to fulfil the old laws, old covenant, old testament. And the new testament is our new laws, new covenant between man and God, which is taught through the teachings of Jesus.

When it says things as death is the only reward for sin, this does not mean death of our mortal bodies. This is referring to death of our souls, the being of our very existence.

And lol I don't rightly care what "science" says. The theories and laws ect of science change about every day with no findings, at least every year. NOTHING in science is exact and or fact for sure for eternity. It all revolves around theories... and we all know a theory is nothing more then an educated guess.

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isa 7:14
------------------------------------

fulfilled with the birth of Jesus. Immanuel means God with us. And as Jesus told many of times "The father and I are one".
==================

"But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2
-----------------------------------

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And you Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, are not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of you shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." Matt. 2:1-6; Luke 2:1-2


I can find more if you wish that shows Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament/old covenant.

Cowboy wrote:

You willingly reject God and refuse to believe.


That's totally false.

I do not reject God, nor to I refuse to believe in God.

I reject ancient Hebrew fables which I see as being filled with hatred and bigotry. That has nothing at all to do with God.

And YES, I do confess with all HONESTY and SINCERITY that I cannot know with absolute certainty that there is a God. Thus I am ultimately agnostic (i.e. without that knowledge).

That is merely the truth. And if God wants to change that truth all He/She/It/Them need to do is make themselves known to me in no uncertain terms, then I can say that I know with absolute certainty that there is a God. But they would truly need to prove that they are. In fact, even then I could not be sure that they aren't just some highly advanced aliens trying to trick me into thinking that they are God.

I need to keep an open mind, and above all else be HONEST.

In fact, if I need to LIE to get to God that can't be good.

But apparently that's what you would have me do.

You would have me LIE and try to pretend that the ancient Hebrew fables actually appear to makes sense to me. THEY DON'T!

They don't makes sense to me Cowboy. They appear to be total nonsense and filled with the devious ploys of men who were trying to lay a guilt complex on the masses to control them using fear and guilt.

That's precisely what the Bible appears to be to me. And I see absolutely nothing divine in any of it.

So what would you have me do? LIE to myself and everyone else, including any God that might exist, just so I can try out for a possible free ticked to "Disney Heaven"?

That would be a totally insincere and cheap thing for me to do.

Nope, if there exist a God, then my SINCERITY and HONESTY necessarily must be good enough for that God.

And to be perfectly honest about it, if sincerity and honesty mean nothing to God, then I want no parts of any such God.

Honesty and sincerity must come first. And I honestly and sincerely feel that the biblical account of God is disgusting and cannot possibly be true.

What more could you want?

I give you honesty and sincerity and it's not good enough for your evil God.

Well, in that case, I don't think much of your God.






God has tried much, God has even allowed his only begotten son be crucified for you. It's not up to God for you to find him, that is your job if you wish to really find him. Seek and ye shall find. Of course if you do not truly seek full heartedly you will never find. Not saying you have or haven't, just stating a fact.