You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
walked away from God
- Thread starter lilMeggies
- Start date
coltsfan715
New member
if you put the words Jesus Chri$t it gets *** out like this .... *****. Jesus by itself and Christ by itself do not get that but the two together do.
Lindsey
Lindsey
blackchameleon
New member
kaitsmom, if u cant lose salvation, why does the bible speak of
names being blotted out of the lambs book of life? cheers BC
names being blotted out of the lambs book of life? cheers BC
blackchameleon
New member
hey mockingbird, do u have any knowledge of who compiled the new
testament and when? i thought there were many many letters and
writtings from jesus supposed walk, why was someone like Thomas the
disciple Jesus chose, writtings omitted? and why is Paul
responsible for a tremendous part of the new testament? i find Paul
is quoted frequently however he was not Jesus. Paul was not even
around when Jesus walked the earth so why is he so dominant in the
new testament? BC ps, i love peoples passion in here!, its good
viewing!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
testament and when? i thought there were many many letters and
writtings from jesus supposed walk, why was someone like Thomas the
disciple Jesus chose, writtings omitted? and why is Paul
responsible for a tremendous part of the new testament? i find Paul
is quoted frequently however he was not Jesus. Paul was not even
around when Jesus walked the earth so why is he so dominant in the
new testament? BC ps, i love peoples passion in here!, its good
viewing!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
sunkistdrinker
New member
i have always wondered why rather than believing in something that is real or genuine, we (including myself sometimes) keep looking until we find what something that "sounds good" or makes us "feel good". Its like "ok, I want to or I would believe in God, but since there is evil, or since this happened to me, or since I didnt get dealt the best hand in life, I think maybe he cant be real or he would allow this to happen or that to happen to me so I will look for something else that makes me feel better or a "nicer" religion. this message is very much directed to myself and to a certain extent it is human nature for us to be this way. does anyone agree
Mockingbird
New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>blackchameleon</b></i>
hey mockingbird, do u have any knowledge of who compiled the new
testament and when? i thought there were many many letters and
writtings from jesus supposed walk, why was someone like Thomas the
disciple Jesus chose, writtings omitted? and why is Paul
responsible for a tremendous part of the new testament? i find Paul
is quoted frequently however he was not Jesus. Paul was not even
around when Jesus walked the earth so why is he so dominant in the
new testament? BC ps, i love peoples passion in here!, its good
viewing!</end quote></div>
The answers to your questions can be found in Glatatians, chapter 1. If that does not help you, then neither can I.
hey mockingbird, do u have any knowledge of who compiled the new
testament and when? i thought there were many many letters and
writtings from jesus supposed walk, why was someone like Thomas the
disciple Jesus chose, writtings omitted? and why is Paul
responsible for a tremendous part of the new testament? i find Paul
is quoted frequently however he was not Jesus. Paul was not even
around when Jesus walked the earth so why is he so dominant in the
new testament? BC ps, i love peoples passion in here!, its good
viewing!</end quote></div>
The answers to your questions can be found in Glatatians, chapter 1. If that does not help you, then neither can I.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>coltsfan715</b></i>
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The term for such books is apocrypha. The reason they are not included in the Bible is because their authenticity is questionable. </end quote></div>
I understand the reasons we are given as to why they are not in the Bible, but my question stands ... Who made the decision or determined that their authenticity was questionable and who decided that the books that were included were authentic?(an answer is not necessary unless you do know how the decision was made and why and who made it otherwise it is just a thought I have wondered) </end quote></div>
I'm reading about this at the moment. Let me summarise what I know about the selection of the canon (the Biblical books) so far...
Out of the books that are in the NT, only a few were ever questioned. Most, including all four gospels and all of Paul's letters, were universally accepted from the earliest days of the church. Remember that at this stage the church was only two or three generations old - tracing the authorship of these books was much easier then than it is now. A few of the books were accepted in some parts of the church but questioned for a while in other parts. Eventually a concensus was reached, not by someone deciding, but by natural acceptance. The canon was in fact never officially closed - no one ever said "Right that's it, these are the only scriptural books".
Those books that were excluded were never universally accepted - a few were accepted by some for a while, and were thought by others to be useful reading, but were too recent to be considered authoritative. Heretical books like the gnostic gospels were never included by any orthodox part of the church. All those that were eventually included were considered to be written in the first hundred years or so after Jesus' death. (Don't quote me on any of these approximations - I can't recall the figures off the top of my head.)
The 'gnostic' gospels of Thomas, Mary and so on, were (if I remember correctly) not mentioned in any of the records we have about the debates over which books should or should not be included. This shows that they were NEVER considered - but more than that, it suggests they didn't even exist at this stage. Even Marcion, whose theology was heretical and supported the same sorts of ideas expressed in these gospels, didn't include them in his version of the canon. The most logical conclusion is that they hadn't been written yet.
This ties in with most scholars' estimates - these 'gospels' are thought to be much much later than the canonical gospels and therefore considered inferior by most serious historians.
There is loads of information on this if you google it - just be careful about the sources. I also recommend a book called 'Reinventing Jesus' which explains all this stuff and much more in far easier language than I just have...
Here's an article adapted from that book which sets it out nicely - <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
">http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
</a>
If you've read the Da Vinci Code by the way, take it all with a very large pinch of salt. It's a great read, but is also appallingly researched and wildly inaccurate.
Hi by the way, I'm Jo. So sorry that my first post here is such an in-depth theological nightmare! Who'd have thought there was a forum for Christians with CF, eh.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The term for such books is apocrypha. The reason they are not included in the Bible is because their authenticity is questionable. </end quote></div>
I understand the reasons we are given as to why they are not in the Bible, but my question stands ... Who made the decision or determined that their authenticity was questionable and who decided that the books that were included were authentic?(an answer is not necessary unless you do know how the decision was made and why and who made it otherwise it is just a thought I have wondered) </end quote></div>
I'm reading about this at the moment. Let me summarise what I know about the selection of the canon (the Biblical books) so far...
Out of the books that are in the NT, only a few were ever questioned. Most, including all four gospels and all of Paul's letters, were universally accepted from the earliest days of the church. Remember that at this stage the church was only two or three generations old - tracing the authorship of these books was much easier then than it is now. A few of the books were accepted in some parts of the church but questioned for a while in other parts. Eventually a concensus was reached, not by someone deciding, but by natural acceptance. The canon was in fact never officially closed - no one ever said "Right that's it, these are the only scriptural books".
Those books that were excluded were never universally accepted - a few were accepted by some for a while, and were thought by others to be useful reading, but were too recent to be considered authoritative. Heretical books like the gnostic gospels were never included by any orthodox part of the church. All those that were eventually included were considered to be written in the first hundred years or so after Jesus' death. (Don't quote me on any of these approximations - I can't recall the figures off the top of my head.)
The 'gnostic' gospels of Thomas, Mary and so on, were (if I remember correctly) not mentioned in any of the records we have about the debates over which books should or should not be included. This shows that they were NEVER considered - but more than that, it suggests they didn't even exist at this stage. Even Marcion, whose theology was heretical and supported the same sorts of ideas expressed in these gospels, didn't include them in his version of the canon. The most logical conclusion is that they hadn't been written yet.
This ties in with most scholars' estimates - these 'gospels' are thought to be much much later than the canonical gospels and therefore considered inferior by most serious historians.
There is loads of information on this if you google it - just be careful about the sources. I also recommend a book called 'Reinventing Jesus' which explains all this stuff and much more in far easier language than I just have...
Here's an article adapted from that book which sets it out nicely - <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
">http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
</a>
If you've read the Da Vinci Code by the way, take it all with a very large pinch of salt. It's a great read, but is also appallingly researched and wildly inaccurate.
Hi by the way, I'm Jo. So sorry that my first post here is such an in-depth theological nightmare! Who'd have thought there was a forum for Christians with CF, eh.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>coltsfan715</b></i>
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The term for such books is apocrypha. The reason they are not included in the Bible is because their authenticity is questionable. </end quote></div>
I understand the reasons we are given as to why they are not in the Bible, but my question stands ... Who made the decision or determined that their authenticity was questionable and who decided that the books that were included were authentic?(an answer is not necessary unless you do know how the decision was made and why and who made it otherwise it is just a thought I have wondered) </end quote></div>
I'm reading about this at the moment. Let me summarise what I know about the selection of the canon (the Biblical books) so far...
Out of the books that are in the NT, only a few were ever questioned. Most, including all four gospels and all of Paul's letters, were universally accepted from the earliest days of the church. Remember that at this stage the church was only two or three generations old - tracing the authorship of these books was much easier then than it is now. A few of the books were accepted in some parts of the church but questioned for a while in other parts. Eventually a concensus was reached, not by someone deciding, but by natural acceptance. The canon was in fact never officially closed - no one ever said "Right that's it, these are the only scriptural books".
Those books that were excluded were never universally accepted - a few were accepted by some for a while, and were thought by others to be useful reading, but were too recent to be considered authoritative. Heretical books like the gnostic gospels were never included by any orthodox part of the church. All those that were eventually included were considered to be written in the first hundred years or so after Jesus' death. (Don't quote me on any of these approximations - I can't recall the figures off the top of my head.)
The 'gnostic' gospels of Thomas, Mary and so on, were (if I remember correctly) not mentioned in any of the records we have about the debates over which books should or should not be included. This shows that they were NEVER considered - but more than that, it suggests they didn't even exist at this stage. Even Marcion, whose theology was heretical and supported the same sorts of ideas expressed in these gospels, didn't include them in his version of the canon. The most logical conclusion is that they hadn't been written yet.
This ties in with most scholars' estimates - these 'gospels' are thought to be much much later than the canonical gospels and therefore considered inferior by most serious historians.
There is loads of information on this if you google it - just be careful about the sources. I also recommend a book called 'Reinventing Jesus' which explains all this stuff and much more in far easier language than I just have...
Here's an article adapted from that book which sets it out nicely - <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
">http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
</a>
If you've read the Da Vinci Code by the way, take it all with a very large pinch of salt. It's a great read, but is also appallingly researched and wildly inaccurate.
Hi by the way, I'm Jo. So sorry that my first post here is such an in-depth theological nightmare! Who'd have thought there was a forum for Christians with CF, eh.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The term for such books is apocrypha. The reason they are not included in the Bible is because their authenticity is questionable. </end quote></div>
I understand the reasons we are given as to why they are not in the Bible, but my question stands ... Who made the decision or determined that their authenticity was questionable and who decided that the books that were included were authentic?(an answer is not necessary unless you do know how the decision was made and why and who made it otherwise it is just a thought I have wondered) </end quote></div>
I'm reading about this at the moment. Let me summarise what I know about the selection of the canon (the Biblical books) so far...
Out of the books that are in the NT, only a few were ever questioned. Most, including all four gospels and all of Paul's letters, were universally accepted from the earliest days of the church. Remember that at this stage the church was only two or three generations old - tracing the authorship of these books was much easier then than it is now. A few of the books were accepted in some parts of the church but questioned for a while in other parts. Eventually a concensus was reached, not by someone deciding, but by natural acceptance. The canon was in fact never officially closed - no one ever said "Right that's it, these are the only scriptural books".
Those books that were excluded were never universally accepted - a few were accepted by some for a while, and were thought by others to be useful reading, but were too recent to be considered authoritative. Heretical books like the gnostic gospels were never included by any orthodox part of the church. All those that were eventually included were considered to be written in the first hundred years or so after Jesus' death. (Don't quote me on any of these approximations - I can't recall the figures off the top of my head.)
The 'gnostic' gospels of Thomas, Mary and so on, were (if I remember correctly) not mentioned in any of the records we have about the debates over which books should or should not be included. This shows that they were NEVER considered - but more than that, it suggests they didn't even exist at this stage. Even Marcion, whose theology was heretical and supported the same sorts of ideas expressed in these gospels, didn't include them in his version of the canon. The most logical conclusion is that they hadn't been written yet.
This ties in with most scholars' estimates - these 'gospels' are thought to be much much later than the canonical gospels and therefore considered inferior by most serious historians.
There is loads of information on this if you google it - just be careful about the sources. I also recommend a book called 'Reinventing Jesus' which explains all this stuff and much more in far easier language than I just have...
Here's an article adapted from that book which sets it out nicely - <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
">http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
</a>
If you've read the Da Vinci Code by the way, take it all with a very large pinch of salt. It's a great read, but is also appallingly researched and wildly inaccurate.
Hi by the way, I'm Jo. So sorry that my first post here is such an in-depth theological nightmare! Who'd have thought there was a forum for Christians with CF, eh.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>coltsfan715</b></i>
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The term for such books is apocrypha. The reason they are not included in the Bible is because their authenticity is questionable. </end quote></div>
I understand the reasons we are given as to why they are not in the Bible, but my question stands ... Who made the decision or determined that their authenticity was questionable and who decided that the books that were included were authentic?(an answer is not necessary unless you do know how the decision was made and why and who made it otherwise it is just a thought I have wondered) </end quote></div>
I'm reading about this at the moment. Let me summarise what I know about the selection of the canon (the Biblical books) so far...
Out of the books that are in the NT, only a few were ever questioned. Most, including all four gospels and all of Paul's letters, were universally accepted from the earliest days of the church. Remember that at this stage the church was only two or three generations old - tracing the authorship of these books was much easier then than it is now. A few of the books were accepted in some parts of the church but questioned for a while in other parts. Eventually a concensus was reached, not by someone deciding, but by natural acceptance. The canon was in fact never officially closed - no one ever said "Right that's it, these are the only scriptural books".
Those books that were excluded were never universally accepted - a few were accepted by some for a while, and were thought by others to be useful reading, but were too recent to be considered authoritative. Heretical books like the gnostic gospels were never included by any orthodox part of the church. All those that were eventually included were considered to be written in the first hundred years or so after Jesus' death. (Don't quote me on any of these approximations - I can't recall the figures off the top of my head.)
The 'gnostic' gospels of Thomas, Mary and so on, were (if I remember correctly) not mentioned in any of the records we have about the debates over which books should or should not be included. This shows that they were NEVER considered - but more than that, it suggests they didn't even exist at this stage. Even Marcion, whose theology was heretical and supported the same sorts of ideas expressed in these gospels, didn't include them in his version of the canon. The most logical conclusion is that they hadn't been written yet.
This ties in with most scholars' estimates - these 'gospels' are thought to be much much later than the canonical gospels and therefore considered inferior by most serious historians.
There is loads of information on this if you google it - just be careful about the sources. I also recommend a book called 'Reinventing Jesus' which explains all this stuff and much more in far easier language than I just have...
Here's an article adapted from that book which sets it out nicely - <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
">http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
</a>
If you've read the Da Vinci Code by the way, take it all with a very large pinch of salt. It's a great read, but is also appallingly researched and wildly inaccurate.
Hi by the way, I'm Jo. So sorry that my first post here is such an in-depth theological nightmare! Who'd have thought there was a forum for Christians with CF, eh.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> The term for such books is apocrypha. The reason they are not included in the Bible is because their authenticity is questionable. </end quote></div>
I understand the reasons we are given as to why they are not in the Bible, but my question stands ... Who made the decision or determined that their authenticity was questionable and who decided that the books that were included were authentic?(an answer is not necessary unless you do know how the decision was made and why and who made it otherwise it is just a thought I have wondered) </end quote></div>
I'm reading about this at the moment. Let me summarise what I know about the selection of the canon (the Biblical books) so far...
Out of the books that are in the NT, only a few were ever questioned. Most, including all four gospels and all of Paul's letters, were universally accepted from the earliest days of the church. Remember that at this stage the church was only two or three generations old - tracing the authorship of these books was much easier then than it is now. A few of the books were accepted in some parts of the church but questioned for a while in other parts. Eventually a concensus was reached, not by someone deciding, but by natural acceptance. The canon was in fact never officially closed - no one ever said "Right that's it, these are the only scriptural books".
Those books that were excluded were never universally accepted - a few were accepted by some for a while, and were thought by others to be useful reading, but were too recent to be considered authoritative. Heretical books like the gnostic gospels were never included by any orthodox part of the church. All those that were eventually included were considered to be written in the first hundred years or so after Jesus' death. (Don't quote me on any of these approximations - I can't recall the figures off the top of my head.)
The 'gnostic' gospels of Thomas, Mary and so on, were (if I remember correctly) not mentioned in any of the records we have about the debates over which books should or should not be included. This shows that they were NEVER considered - but more than that, it suggests they didn't even exist at this stage. Even Marcion, whose theology was heretical and supported the same sorts of ideas expressed in these gospels, didn't include them in his version of the canon. The most logical conclusion is that they hadn't been written yet.
This ties in with most scholars' estimates - these 'gospels' are thought to be much much later than the canonical gospels and therefore considered inferior by most serious historians.
There is loads of information on this if you google it - just be careful about the sources. I also recommend a book called 'Reinventing Jesus' which explains all this stuff and much more in far easier language than I just have...
Here's an article adapted from that book which sets it out nicely - <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
">http://go.family.org/davinci/content/A000000049.cfm
</a>
If you've read the Da Vinci Code by the way, take it all with a very large pinch of salt. It's a great read, but is also appallingly researched and wildly inaccurate.
Hi by the way, I'm Jo. So sorry that my first post here is such an in-depth theological nightmare! Who'd have thought there was a forum for Christians with CF, eh.
RTforJCinAZ
New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Allie</b></i>
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote></div>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote></div>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
RTforJCinAZ
New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Allie</b></i>
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote></div>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote></div>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
RTforJCinAZ
New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Allie</b></i>
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote></div>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote></div>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
RTforJCinAZ
New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Allie</b></i>
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote></div>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote></div>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
RTforJCinAZ
New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Allie</b></i>
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
RTforJCinAZ
New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Allie</b></i>
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
If you contribute to the world and are righteous and good, you will go to heaven. </end quote>
You have been watching too much Oprah. This world view of "everyone good goes to Heaven" is blasphemy. Too many times people bend and twist religions into how they want to live their lives.
I believe in a man named *****, who walked this earth in the humanly form of our Father. It was prophesied for hundreds of years, with many many gospels and writings to confirm this. And the proof of Jesus living is there, but you will always have the naysayers. In the end, its not whether you believed there is a God.... its what you believed of his only son Jesus that will matter.
Now I know some of you will say, "But thats not FAIR! God cant be like that, that would be unfair and unjust!" Praise the Lord life isnt fair. If it was fair we all would go to hell for the sins we have done against others. Because life isnt fair, we can be saved by the blood that ***** shed for us.
On that, I gotta finish my hypertonic! hehe Talk to you all soon.
M
mfajardo8
Guest
Hello i just joined the site and are very much enjoying, I am a christian and I Ibelieve that you dont get too heaven by your works, I believe that if you accept ***** as your savior and acknowledge that he died for your sins you shall be saved. Nobody else went too that cross but Christ he took the sin of the world and shed his blood to give us eternal life.
M
mfajardo8
Guest
Hello i just joined the site and are very much enjoying, I am a christian and I Ibelieve that you dont get too heaven by your works, I believe that if you accept ***** as your savior and acknowledge that he died for your sins you shall be saved. Nobody else went too that cross but Christ he took the sin of the world and shed his blood to give us eternal life.
M
mfajardo8
Guest
Hello i just joined the site and are very much enjoying, I am a christian and I Ibelieve that you dont get too heaven by your works, I believe that if you accept ***** as your savior and acknowledge that he died for your sins you shall be saved. Nobody else went too that cross but Christ he took the sin of the world and shed his blood to give us eternal life.
M
mfajardo8
Guest
Hello i just joined the site and are very much enjoying, I am a christian and I Ibelieve that you dont get too heaven by your works, I believe that if you accept ***** as your savior and acknowledge that he died for your sins you shall be saved. Nobody else went too that cross but Christ he took the sin of the world and shed his blood to give us eternal life.
M
mfajardo8
Guest
Hello i just joined the site and are very much enjoying, I am a christian and I Ibelieve that you dont get too heaven by your works, I believe that if you accept ***** as your savior and acknowledge that he died for your sins you shall be saved. Nobody else went too that cross but Christ he took the sin of the world and shed his blood to give us eternal life.