Doubt

Spotlite

Senior Member
Thanks for making my point that you decided to live by your rules are not God's
See this is my point. Your response to Walt is an accusation. How do you know that Walt just decided to live by his rules? How do know he has not yet been drawn??

John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him......

I’m willing to bet that most atheist / agnostic are willing to give God a shot, if God gave them something to go with. They’re not anti-God.

Since your method is not going smoothly, I’m just trying to help you out with things to consider with your comments that may be asked of you.
 
Last edited:
See this is my point. Your response to Walt is an accusation. How do you know that Walt just decided to live by his rules? How do know he has not yet been drawn??

John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him......

I’m willing to bet that most atheist / agnostic are willing to give God a shot, if God gave them something to go with. They’re not anti-God.

Since your method is not going smoothly, I’m just trying to help you out with things to consider with your comments that may be asked of you.
My heart grew 3 sizes this day...
 

Israel

Senior Member
Hard to believe a god wouldn't know anything or anyone. Purposely ignore them and not include them yes.
Would it be as hard for you to imagine/believe how we as folks dealing with one another experience it? I don't think so.
But, am I wrong?

How deep are you? I? Any of us?

I get a hint of these things daily. Have you ever had your hints confirmed? (it's even salient this exchange takes place on a thread called "Doubt")

I don't know what sort of relationships others have on here with their spouses. It's no less salient (at least to me) that of the many, the one whom I believe to not be married presently, Walt, came the closest willing to engage on this point. It was in the matter of worship (whose definition was never established...is it singing songs? Making great protestations of faithfulness? Years devoted? Preaching? Bowing down, falling down, jumping up and down, rolling around? Praying? A recall-able history of attendances? Rules of practice? A certain willing consciousness applied? It may include some, all, or perhaps?...none)

Nevertheless Walt was able to see there is an "issue" needing addressed in practice of worship in the face of one who already knows all. It's the matter of sincerity. And sincerity particularly...of motive. This would be no matter at all if God, a god, or any god can be assigned the bin of complete artifice and/or dupe-ability. A grinning idol willing to be adorned with whatever we might festoon him. And made willing to wear a scowl toward whomever "true" worshipers decide are not willing to make the same so called, sacrifices.

I mention spouses only because the very same thing in which I so marvel at the God I seek to worship in sincerity, shows me a similar thing to marvel at with my wife. And I mention hints because there has always been a hinting toward a reality of sorts that would be made plain. And made plain as the crux of a matter. Can I exist where I am both known...and loved? Can I...be there? Can there be such?

I can't make this matter of any consequence to anyone else. If Ambush is true, and I seek only to make my bag for the dragging of everyone else, and it is peculiar to me alone, then, nevertheless I am left with it. But I can't deny its fundamental particularity. If this wearing of "faces" is all and only a matter I am called to resolve as all, or nothing of matter, again it falls only to me.

But, I have seen hints. I have seen them. We have discussed them as real things. Every man is free to say "but I didn't mean...that". Or..."that really is of no consequence". Even to such as the silly matter of an "Easter" dinner with family. Will the A/A wear the same face of zeal there, as is worn here? Will you (or any) declare there what has been plainly declared here? "There is no savior"?
Silly superstitions impede man's progress...away with all of it? (with which I do not disagree)

Some can argue "time and place, time and place", you don't know what makes for a civil man. No man would be expected to overturn his own hearth. Put what is nearest and dearest to him (such warmth) at risk. It would be an unkindness! The putting of "them" in the place of facing so very squarely what they profess as "their faith". "I wear this face for family, because I love them...so"

But, matters of convenience cut both ways. As we hear regularly. "One is simply a christian in this nation, because they are in this nation where it convenient to be so"
They merely take to it as a fish to water...no more, no less. Its simply the satisfaction of religious/superstitious bent, the convenient way, here, to have that particular itch, scratched. Let's see who is so eager about Jesus from a street corner in Tehran. Or Syria. Or Somalia. These are no less legitimately wondered over. Who has (do any?) a consistent face in all? Or, does it not matter...at all?

But one would have to be a little foolish to think these matters are not of some import...especially to the so called "believer". Consistency. An integrity throughout of same substance...unmixed, unadulterated, untainted. Why "especially the believer"?
Well, because that's what we claim to see in Jesus Christ. No taint. Clean slate maintained. Unadulterated by matters of "one face here, one there". To the very extreme of sense of "I am what I speak"...there can be found no light between or outline of distinction between what is said and His substance. And I think one would also be a little foolish to believe even disciples don't do some exploring here, even being pressed to it (they may find) of their faith. "If you are a man who only says what you mean, and only means what you say...what then...are you saying, and what do you...mean? This sounds in some way, curiously...like doubt. Seeking the meaning...of Jesus Christ.

Some might say...but shouldn't that be plainest of all to what claims His faith? Shouldn't His consistency be so obvious to all, and especially what claims Him, as none could ever escape this knowing? (Why so many "denominations?) Would that be not much different than finding fault with Aristotle for not knowing atomic structure? For Moses Maimonides to be ignorant of germ theory? Things "always there"...but yet with structures not yet in place, built upon...that lead to a showing.

That it's God's work to build these things "in a man" to an end perceived of consistency throughout, a sincerity (if you will) previously not understood, though sensed...that weight and burden of "trying to be consistent" (I can fault none for not knowing that weight) is relieved. "If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free".

Free...of trying to be sincere in the presence of One that is completely familiar with man's insincerity and duplicity (or even multiplicity of faces) worn as convenience. My wife loves me...and she knows me. In so many things and ways...she sees right through me. And stays. This I am made able to see as only the work of Christ, an ability to abide with, even those things with which she in herself cannot abide.

To the man who thinks to himself in such a situation "what's not to love?", I am sorry for his wife. But such a man does not know what he may be straddling. He needs mercy, no less. For there is a great gulf between, though he thinks to easily straddle.

God, through Christ has prepared a place where I am both known...and loved. It remains a continuous marvel to me how a man can ...be there. The how of this "can be"...is found only in Jesus Christ. And seeking Him out for what He means.
 
Would it be as hard for you to imagine/believe how we as folks dealing with one another experience it? I don't think so.
But, am I wrong?

How deep are you? I? Any of us?

I get a hint of these things daily. Have you ever had your hints confirmed? (it's even salient this exchange takes place on a thread called "Doubt")

I don't know what sort of relationships others have on here with their spouses. It's no less salient (at least to me) that of the many, the one whom I believe to not be married presently, Walt, came the closest willing to engage on this point. It was in the matter of worship (whose definition was never established...is it singing songs? Making great protestations of faithfulness? Years devoted? Preaching? Bowing down, falling down, jumping up and down, rolling around? Praying? A recall-able history of attendances? Rules of practice? A certain willing consciousness applied? It may include some, all, or perhaps?...none)

Nevertheless Walt was able to see there is an "issue" needing addressed in practice of worship in the face of one who already knows all. It's the matter of sincerity. And sincerity particularly...of motive. This would be no matter at all if God, a god, or any god can be assigned the bin of complete artifice and/or dupe-ability. A grinning idol willing to be adorned with whatever we might festoon him. And made willing to wear a scowl toward whomever "true" worshipers decide are not willing to make the same so called, sacrifices.

I mention spouses only because the very same thing in which I so marvel at the God I seek to worship in sincerity, shows me a similar thing to marvel at with my wife. And I mention hints because there has always been a hinting toward a reality of sorts that would be made plain. And made plain as the crux of a matter. Can I exist where I am both known...and loved? Can I...be there? Can there be such?

I can't make this matter of any consequence to anyone else. If Ambush is true, and I seek only to make my bag for the dragging of everyone else, and it is peculiar to me alone, then, nevertheless I am left with it. But I can't deny its fundamental particularity. If this wearing of "faces" is all and only a matter I am called to resolve as all, or nothing of matter, again it falls only to me.

But, I have seen hints. I have seen them. We have discussed them as real things. Every man is free to say "but I didn't mean...that". Or..."that really is of no consequence". Even to such as the silly matter of an "Easter" dinner with family. Will the A/A wear the same face of zeal there, as is worn here? Will you (or any) declare there what has been plainly declared here? "There is no savior"?
Silly superstitions impede man's progress...away with all of it? (with which I do not disagree)

Some can argue "time and place, time and place", you don't know what makes for a civil man. No man would be expected to overturn his own hearth. Put what is nearest and dearest to him (such warmth) at risk. It would be an unkindness! The putting of "them" in the place of facing so very squarely what they profess as "their faith". "I wear this face for family, because I love them...so"

But, matters of convenience cut both ways. As we hear regularly. "One is simply a christian in this nation, because they are in this nation where it convenient to be so"
They merely take to it as a fish to water...no more, no less. Its simply the satisfaction of religious/superstitious bent, the convenient way, here, to have that particular itch, scratched. Let's see who is so eager about Jesus from a street corner in Tehran. Or Syria. Or Somalia. These are no less legitimately wondered over. Who has (do any?) a consistent face in all? Or, does it not matter...at all?

But one would have to be a little foolish to think these matters are not of some import...especially to the so called "believer". Consistency. An integrity throughout of same substance...unmixed, unadulterated, untainted. Why "especially the believer"?
Well, because that's what we claim to see in Jesus Christ. No taint. Clean slate maintained. Unadulterated by matters of "one face here, one there". To the very extreme of sense of "I am what I speak"...there can be found no light between or outline of distinction between what is said and His substance. And I think one would also be a little foolish to believe even disciples don't do some exploring here, even being pressed to it (they may find) of their faith. "If you are a man who only says what you mean, and only means what you say...what then...are you saying, and what do you...mean? This sounds in some way, curiously...like doubt. Seeking the meaning...of Jesus Christ.

Some might say...but shouldn't that be plainest of all to what claims His faith? Shouldn't His consistency be so obvious to all, and especially what claims Him, as none could ever escape this knowing? (Why so many "denominations?) Would that be not much different than finding fault with Aristotle for not knowing atomic structure? For Moses Maimonides to be ignorant of germ theory? Things "always there"...but yet with structures not yet in place, built upon...that lead to a showing.

That it's God's work to build these things "in a man" to an end perceived of consistency throughout, a sincerity (if you will) previously not understood, though sensed...that weight and burden of "trying to be consistent" (I can fault none for not knowing that weight) is relieved. "If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free".

Free...of trying to be sincere in the presence of One that is completely familiar with man's insincerity and duplicity (or even multiplicity of faces) worn as convenience. My wife loves me...and she knows me. In so many things and ways...she sees right through me. And stays. This I am made able to see as only the work of Christ, an ability to abide with, even those things with which she in herself cannot abide.

To the man who thinks to himself in such a situation "what's not to love?", I am sorry for his wife. But such a man does not know what he may be straddling. He needs mercy, no less. For there is a great gulf between, though he thinks to easily straddle.

God, through Christ has prepared a place where I am both known...and loved. It remains a continuous marvel to me how a man can ...be there. The how of this "can be"...is found only in Jesus Christ. And seeking Him out for what He means.
I have a hint that the god of the bible was then and is now limited to imagination and pen of the authors. It is confirmed daily in here.
 

ky55

Senior Member
Thanks for recognizing that I am called by God . Maybe now is your chance to repent ask Jesus Christ into your life and I claim two converts to my witnessing .
Bro D,
all you need to do to support your claims is provide evidence that a god has chosen you to do the things he can’t seem to do for himself, and that he has given you supernatural powers to perform miracles.
If you are able to do that a lot of folks here will sit up and take notice.

Until then you are blowing smoke, passing the plate, and stroking your ego.
 

Israel

Senior Member
I have a hint that the god of the bible was then and is now limited to imagination and pen of the authors. It is confirmed daily in here.
Is that worth exploring? That particular part that God is limited by what man can imagine of Him? In any of the things a man might consider to the extremes of his thoughts, God's ability, intents, God's willingness or lack thereof, God's knowing, God's...seeing. That's interesting, if only because the believer finds, not merely something different...but the opposite.

The believer discovers God sees far deeper than once he thought or could imagine, always understands in excess of his own understanding, and exceeds in every way all of that man's (believer's) ability to capture or contain Him in words. Or be contained by the limits of his own thoughts. And will? Man finds something completely apart from a will he has known in himself, a thing he has only known as subject to all vicissitudes.

But that is not a strangeness for the believer, for to whatever are the limits of his present understanding (and his limits in that) he has already accepted that...his own limitation. He has come to recognize sight as allowance, understanding as allowance, any and all perception and conception, no less, as allowance. Things once so easily presumed to himself as his inalienable source and submitted to the discretion of his own judgments...that is what begins to become strange to him.

How strange this is allowed to appear to him is also by allowance. He cannot enter this at his will, he can neither study enough, pray nor entreat enough, practice enough (at least to any point he could even say or think of himself "I am devout" or "I was devout") to where he can confidently assert or imagine "I have earned from God" or God is placed in my debt here for such things. All is gift.

Prayer, study, practice, and even most devout attention to lending of consciousness through whatever meditations avail nothing here (perhaps all those things of which worship was touched upon in discussion with Walt) if they are entered upon as form of commerce with God. For all these, even what may seem the most sublime in exercise, are given as gift.

The who, how, what, when, and why of God's rewarding is kept incorruptible in
in-corruption. Yes, God knows all motive and intent. Whatever man may point to as point to which he believes God is in the owing for his devotion, God presents Jesus Christ as His devotion, and even the most hardened soul learns (and will) it is all that is unwise to seek to enter into horse trading with God. God's glory is there, God's appointment is there, God's choice and election is there, and all that is for man, is there. And all is appointed to His (Jesus Christ's) glory in earth.

To think God is ignorant to a resistance is both foolhardy and laughable. Or that man might couch such in the most reasonable of terms to escape detection is, no less. The discovery of life and being as gift, things once presumed to an inalienability by such as "I think, therefore I am", as if man by his own thinking secures his being is just a parlor joke. He may even discover (as God wills) the experience in touching that place where both all of thinking and all of securing to one's self is denied. It's a place well beyond reason. Or, at least, man's ability to reason out from.

What may come adorning itself to parade as "doing the will of God" as if it has lent its will to God in service to and for another must give way. These are among the things I sense most (and several of you) identify as religion and religious. What believes it can by act of its own will, will itself to God and His service.

Prisoners, however, may learn they can do nothing but occupy the place given them for lawful occupation. As gift. And so all of creation finds itself bowing, not of own will, nor desire, nor whatever corrupted form of thinking that would indicate to itself some form of innate goodness (or betterness), submission to a word.

Occupy till I come.

All is in observance of this, all is in subjection to this, all is bent...to this.
It has no choice.
 
My pastor is preaching out of Eph 5:14 this morning. It’s a good new year’s sermon. At the closing of the sermon our pastor announced that one of our long time members has pancreatic cancer and they are not sure how longer she has to live. It’s a small church and so the announcement was very traumatic to all of us, especially me cause I have been wondering if belief in Jesus really does give us eternal life. The lady has a wonderful attitude about the situation and a true peace that passes all understanding. What peace she has in her eternal security! I wonder if believing in Christ despite all the contractions, questions, mismatched theology and other things that really make no sense is worth it simply for the peace it brings when we or our loved ones and friends face death?
Is this peace she has simply a false sense of psychological security or is it something much deeper? If I am not 100% sure that Jesus died for my sins will I still get into heaven? I sincerely struggle with these questions. Maybe God is trying to speak to me about my doubt or maybe it is just life and timing.
Everyone has times where they dread the thought of death. Even Christ asked if was possible to let “this cup pass from me”.
My pastor is preaching out of Eph 5:14 this morning. It’s a good new year’s sermon. At the closing of the sermon our pastor announced that one of our long time members has pancreatic cancer and they are not sure how longer she has to live. It’s a small church and so the announcement was very traumatic to all of us, especially me cause I have been wondering if belief in Jesus really does give us eternal life. The lady has a wonderful attitude about the situation and a true peace that passes all understanding. What peace she has in her eternal security! I wonder if believing in Christ despite all the contractions, questions, mismatched theology and other things that really make no sense is worth it simply for the peace it brings when we or our loved ones and friends face death?
Is this peace she has simply a false sense of psychological security or is it something much deeper? If I am not 100% sure that Jesus died for my sins will I still get into heaven? I sincerely struggle with these questions. Maybe God is trying to speak to me about my doubt or maybe it is just life and timing.
Here's a few things I would say. You have to make the decision, but there's ample enough evidence in the scriptures for you to do so. Please keep in mind that you have posted this thread in the AAA forum. You are not going to get very much support for the Christian belief here. Some of these guys thrive on stripping people in situations such as the one you find yourself away from their faith.

1) Either Christ is exactly who he said he was or he was a lunatic. There's no middle ground here. To that I would say: He is the ONLY one who has ever died and bodily rose again.

2)Christ is either good for every promise he ever made or he is good for none. Again, no middle ground.

3) If you are not 100% sure Jesus died for your sins will you get into heaven. That's a toughie. First and foremost, you must understand that your getting into heaven is not dependent on what you have done, but what Christ did. His death atoned for your sin. Period. It's a gift. All you have to do is accept it, accept him as your savior, repent of your sins and follow his lead from here on. If you have done and are doing that, you are saved regardless of how you feel. Again, your salvation is not a result of what you have done, but what Christ did, and what he did was good enough. His resurrection is proof to you of that.

Why don't you speak to your pastor. Like I said, everyone goes through this, everyone has doubt at times. It's not a reflection of your salvation status. Even John the Baptist and Christ wrestled with death. John sent his disciples to ask Christ if he was truly the one after John HAD ALREADY PROCLAIMED HE WAS, and Christ asked if it was possible to "let this cup pass from me."
 
1. Elijah raised the son of the Zarephath widow from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-22).

2. Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite woman from the dead (2 Kings 4:32-35).

3. A man was raised from the dead when his body touched Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20, 21).

4. Many saints rose from the dead at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 27:50-53).

5. Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:5-8; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5, 6).

6. Jesus raised the son of the widow of Nain from the dead (Luke 7:11-15).

7. Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Luke 8:41, 42, 49-55).

8. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44).

9. Peter raised Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:36-41).

10. Eutychus was raised from the dead by Paul (Acts 20:9, 10).

So besides #4 & #5 , there were at least EIGHT people that were bodily raised from the dead.

If you know the history of the ancient cultures you would also know that Jesus was not a lunatic but just one of many over thousands of years that preached the way he did. The embellishments written long after he was dead made him into more than he even claimed.
 
1. Elijah raised the son of the Zarephath widow from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-22).

2. Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite woman from the dead (2 Kings 4:32-35).

3. A man was raised from the dead when his body touched Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20, 21).

4. Many saints rose from the dead at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 27:50-53).

5. Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:5-8; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5, 6).

6. Jesus raised the son of the widow of Nain from the dead (Luke 7:11-15).

7. Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Luke 8:41, 42, 49-55).

8. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44).

9. Peter raised Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:36-41).

10. Eutychus was raised from the dead by Paul (Acts 20:9, 10).

So besides #4 & #5 , there were at least EIGHT people that were bodily raised from the dead.

If you know the history of the ancient cultures you would also know that Jesus was not a lunatic but just one of many over thousands of years that preached the way he did. The embellishments written long after he was dead made him into more than he even claimed.
You are correct in the list of those who were raised from the dead. I was trying to keep it simple. What I should have said is “Jesus is the only one who foretold ( correctly) that he would rise from the dead after 3 days upon dying for our sins. The fact that you have alluded to should not be missed: in that God is the One who raised them all. Had Christ’s atonement for our sins not been deemed sufficient he WOULD NOT have been raised. He was, thus it was. It’s not an understatement when it’s said that all of Christianity rests on the resurrection.
 
1. Elijah raised the son of the Zarephath widow from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-22).

2. Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite woman from the dead (2 Kings 4:32-35).

3. A man was raised from the dead when his body touched Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20, 21).

4. Many saints rose from the dead at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 27:50-53).

5. Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:5-8; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5, 6).

6. Jesus raised the son of the widow of Nain from the dead (Luke 7:11-15).

7. Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Luke 8:41, 42, 49-55).

8. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44).

9. Peter raised Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:36-41).

10. Eutychus was raised from the dead by Paul (Acts 20:9, 10).

So besides #4 & #5 , there were at least EIGHT people that were bodily raised from the dead.

If you know the history of the ancient cultures you would also know that Jesus was not a lunatic but just one of many over thousands of years that preached the way he did. The embellishments written long after he was dead made him into more than he even claimed.
I’m sorry, but I can’t for the life of me think of ONE person throughout history who preached as Christ did. There’s been many who claimed to be God from before the Pharohs down through David Koresh, but not one preached with his authority, message and not one exercised his power. Even Josephus documented he performed miracles.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
1. Elijah raised the son of the Zarephath widow from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-22).

2. Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite woman from the dead (2 Kings 4:32-35).

3. A man was raised from the dead when his body touched Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20, 21).

4. Many saints rose from the dead at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 27:50-53).

5. Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:5-8; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5, 6).

6. Jesus raised the son of the widow of Nain from the dead (Luke 7:11-15).

7. Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Luke 8:41, 42, 49-55).

8. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44).

9. Peter raised Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:36-41).

10. Eutychus was raised from the dead by Paul (Acts 20:9, 10).

So besides #4 & #5 , there were at least EIGHT people that were bodily raised from the dead.

If you know the history of the ancient cultures you would also know that Jesus was not a lunatic but just one of many over thousands of years that preached the way he did. The embellishments written long after he was dead made him into more than he even claimed.
But why Jesus above the others? What is it about him that’s attracted so many for so long?

In order to pass stories to the next generation, wouldn’t people have to be able to connect somehow, other than Grandma said, to carry it on as true?

But more than just pass it on, actually live the story.
 
I’m sorry, but I can’t for the life of me think of ONE person throughout history who preached as Christ did. There’s been many who claimed to be God from before the Pharohs down through David Koresh, but not one preached with his authority, message and not one exercised his power. Even Josephus documented he performed miracles.
When you stop at one without researching for any others it is no surprise that you can't think of any others.
Your Josephus example has been disproven many, many No wait, MANY times in these threads already.
But, carry on with it.
 
But why Jesus above the others? What is it about him that’s attracted so many for so long?

In order to pass stories to the next generation, wouldn’t people have to be able to connect somehow, other than Grandma said, to carry it on as true?

But more than just pass it on, actually live the story.
If you researched your own religions history you would not have to continually ask me and then dismiss what I say.

By your standards what about ALL the people of many different cultures religions, social status, education, and profession who lived among and saw the supposed miracles, return from being dead and ascending into the sky and told no one, didnt write a thing down or even stop to acknowledge ANY of it?
It isn't what is written 30,40,50 60 years later.
It is all about the silence as it supposedly happened.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
If you researched your own religions history you would not have to continually ask me and then dismiss what I say.

By your standards what about ALL the people of many different cultures religions, social status, education, and profession who lived among and saw the supposed miracles, return from being dead and ascending into the sky and told no one, didnt write a thing down or even stop to acknowledge ANY of it?
It isn't what is written 30,40,50 60 years later.
It is all about the silence as it supposedly happened.
Yea but there’s a disconnect in certain denominations trying to explain to another denomination what their religious history is. That’ll always be an issue with no resolve. My church theological historians and yours don’t agree.

I’m just curious that regardless of what history is, what makes Jesus more popular than the others.
 
Yea but there’s a disconnect in certain denominations trying to explain to another denomination what their religious history is. That’ll always be an issue with no resolve. My church theological historians and yours don’t agree.

I’m just curious that regardless of what history is, what makes Jesus more popular than the others.
He is not more popular than others.

It took 300-400 years for Christianity to be deemed the official religion of the most powerful ruling nation at the time. The history of how that came about isn't disputed by any theological historians. Throughout history many gods were worshipped longer and if you go by percentage of people available, Jesus isnt necessarily worshipped by more.

If you will notice, there has not been a single god throughout mankind that has made itself known to all of mankind. It is ALWAYS revealed to a small "special" group of "favorites" with specific rules and those rules and people change as the religion grows. Which, just so happens to coincide with influence of whoever seems to be in military power at the time.

If you are talking about Church theological historians who continue to ignore new evidence in favor of continuing to go with say, The Writings of Josephus, as some sort of proof despite those being disproven as vague later additions by YOUR Church leaders...then yes I can see why there is a difference.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
He is not more popular than others.

It took 300-400 years for Christianity to be deemed the official religion of the most powerful ruling nation at the time. The history of how that came about isn't disputed by any theological historians. Throughout history many gods were worshipped longer and if you go by percentage of people available, Jesus isnt necessarily worshipped by more.

If you will notice, there has not been a single god throughout mankind that has made itself known to all of mankind. It is ALWAYS revealed to a small "special" group of "favorites" with specific rules and those rules and people change as the religion grows. Which, just so happens to coincide with influence of whoever seems to be in military power at the time.

If you are talking about Church theological historians who continue to ignore new evidence in favor of continuing to go with say, The Writings of Josephus, as some sort of proof despite those being disproven as vague later additions by YOUR Church leaders...then yes I can see why there is a difference.
I guess that’s one way to consider it. May have taken a few hundred years to gain ground, but seems to attract the majority.

That was my main point - without something there more than a story of Jesus, you’d think it would be the opposite and really be a small group of people.

Even with “ignoring” and “additions” - seems like it would take more than that for long term retention.
 
Last edited:
I guess that’s one way to consider it. May have taken a few hundred years to gain ground, but seems to attract the majority.

That was my main point - without something there more than a story of Jesus, you’d think it would be the opposite and really be a small group of people.

Even with “ignoring” and “additions” - seems like it would take more than that for long term retention.
What would have happened to Christianity had Constantine decided to go with something else?
More likely than not. It dies off.
One day All of Rome was worshipping one way, and something completely different the next. No god decided that.
Many religions have had thousands of years runs. Many constantly evolving during that time, many branching off into other things that are sort of like the original but they took the parts they liked, adopted a few others and left the parts they didn't like.
Your denomination is a branch, an offshoot and different from the original too.
Divide up 40,000 and counting denominations and is it truly a majority??
 
Last edited:
I guess that’s one way to consider it. May have taken a few hundred years to gain ground, but seems to attract the majority.

That was my main point - without something there more than a story of Jesus, you’d think it would be the opposite and really be a small group of people.

Even with “ignoring” and “additions” - seems like it would take more than that for long term retention.
Believe or die is not exactly an attraction.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
What would have happened to Christianity had Constantine decided to go with something else?
More likely than not. It dies off.
One day All of Rome was worshipping one way, and something completely different the next. No god decided that.
Many religions have had thousands of years runs. Many constantly evolving during that time, many branching off into other things that are sort of like the original but they took the parts they liked, adopted a few others and left the parts they didn't like.
Your denomination is a branch, an offshoot and different from the original too.
Divide up 40,000 and counting denominations and is it truly a majority??
One day All of Rome was worshipping one way, and something completely different the next. No god decided that.
That's a very important point.
What happens when the dominant culture is no longer dominant?
The gods they worship, for the most part go with them.
Pagan gods, Roman gods, Native American gods...……..
Today, right now, at this very minute, why are people freaking out over Muslim influence in society, government etc?
Because it is and will change our culture over time? And with it will go the dominance of Christianity and its god...….
History. It repeats itself.
 
Top