Do you believe you have a mission in life?
The goal is to a self sustaining farm, manufacture tools for protection and farming and live far away from society. Society tends to believe in crazy ideas which affect everyone such as competition, universal subjectivity, a college education, and police security. These four attributes which involve society making a decision for me lower people’s and my happiness if I do not conform. Children are just clay in the eyes of the government. In public schools, they take your child, shape them to support their beliefs and their state later in life. They teach them to be gangsters, competing with others instead of a mutually beneficial society. The best goal is to separate oneself from society and leave society far behind.
My husband and I raise two wonderful grandchildren.
Mine’s complete, I raised two wonderful, educated young adults.
no there’s no mission just chill
To be a good person, love my family and contribute to American society in a positive manner.
To serve as a warning to others of what not to do.
My mission was always to do my best to take care of my family...they are all safe and sound and on their way...my mission now is to take care of me.
Nobody does. We're all just winging it.
Look how the religious had the highest yes rate, and atheists have the lowest.
No mission. No purpose.
My mother always tells me to smile and put on a happy face. She told me I had a purpose to bring laughter and joy to the world. 🤡
Survive. It’s a miracle to survive another day. Life is hard. We all do the best we can.
I don’t think of it as a "mission", but I'm pretty well sold on the idea of enjoying my time here on Earth while it lasts.
Like, assigned to me by a higher power? No, I believe in free will.
I think my mission should be to allow my mission to come to me, instead of me runnin’ around tryin’ to figure out what’n heck it is I’m supposed to be doing!
To glorify God & share his glory with others.
Now it is to retire before I become physically incapacitated. God willing.
I have chosen a mission.
I do not believe it was predestined.
The question didn’t specify whether you believed the mission was predestined or not. Relax
I was just tossing in my perspective.
I have no expectation that I am here for a greater purchase.
I believe so yes.
That question seems like it would relate to fate. I believe we exist because of chance and then we make our own destiny from there.
Not everyone makes their own destiny: a married couple on their way to their reception, high schoolers coming home from the prom, a Challenger astronaut scarcely getting off the launch pad, the first billionaire winner of the lottery.
In short, fate plays the biggest role in many people’s lives.
P.S. In re receptions and proms the point being fate plays a hand when they don’t get where they’re going.
But those people made the choice of going wherever it was and by chance met with an unfortunate or disastrous circumstance.
Don’t know what it is. But I think everyone does have a mission
Don’t let your mission in life interfere with my mission in life
My purpose in life is to help others. I work for a small pharma. When I hear patients who’ve gotten our treatment I’m the one who gets all teary eyed seeing how we’ve changed their lives. I volunteer a lot and am an advocate re mental health, sexual assault and domestic abuse. And I’m 6 months in to helping one of my cats who has trust issues bc she was traumatized as a kitten. I need to feel like I’m making a difference.
My mission is to keep breathing until I can’t.
That’s my kinda mission. Low expectations
You have many missions along the way, life is more a choose your own fun type of game.
yes. to be happy
Socrates: “Yes, to attain virtue.”
Epicurus: “Yes, to seek pleasure.”
Nietzsche: “Yes, we make our own life mission.”
Stirner: “No, life is a spook.”
💠 Show Of Hands asked:
Do you believe you have a mission in life?
Yes, I believe that ALL Christians have the same mission, given to us by Jesus in Matthew 28:
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
The only question in this is HOW you flesh out Jesus mission for YOU. For some, like my hubby and myself, it’s in a calling from God to full time Christian service as a pastor & pastor’s wife. For others, it might be a call to the mission field. For others, it might be working in a homeless shelter, or volunteering in a clothes closet. For others, it might be teaching Sunday school, or helping build homes for those in need. For others, it might be volunteering in disaster relief, working in a children’s home, volunteering in a crisis pregnancy center, or being a good witness of how a Christian lives on the job.
“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.”
-1 Corinthians 14:34
Make sure you specially don’t spread that message during church
Some feminists charge that Christianity, the Bible and the Church are anti-female and horribly oppressive of women.
If you think that Christianity subjugates women, you must know that this was NOT what Christ intended. Many Christ-followers have fallen far short of the standard Jesus set in showing the worth and dignity of women. If you still believe that, PLEASE read this article. It's a real eye opener about Jesus and Paul and what they thought about women, and how they improved their lives!
If you have questions about particular passages of Scripture, I will be glad to speak to that, but ONLY after you read the article, as I'm pretty sure this author sums it up and will cover your concerns much better than I ever could. Thanks!
Here is that link:
I do not believe that is what Jesus would have intended, nor most modern Christians. However, it is a fact it was written and was chosen to be in the Bible, which is supposed to be influenced by god. If that is the rule of god and you said in your own verse that your mission is to spread and follow the rules, I hope you abide by what you preach
It’s been quite a while since I read that article, but I’m pretty sure that it speaks to that verse, and explains that it’s been taken out of context. For example, there are other places in the Bible where it talks about women praying and prophesying in church. An example is I Corinthians 11:5: “But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head.”
Please read the article before responding.
Then you are saying it contradicts itself? (The Bible)
And here are the notes I've compiled from my Bible:
When Paul writes that women should keep silent in the churches in I Cor. 14:34, we're led to ask why in light of previous statements in this same letter. He had already mentioned that women prayed & prophesied, presumably during worship services. (I Cor. 11:5)
He had also written that the Spirit gave gifts to everyone in the body (12:7-11) & presumably some of the women received some of the speaking gifts. So why would he tell women to keep silent?
Women in the congregation at Corinth probably had few opportunities for formal education and little exposure to large gatherings--except for the wild rites of their former religion.
So when they came into the church, they may have assumed a similar approach to Christian worship, which would've been inappropriate, so Paul told them to pursue a quieter, more orderly form of worship now that they were following the Lord.
In I Tim 2:11-12, Paul offered guidelines to the men & women in the Ephesian church. Ephesus was world-renowned for its magnificent temple of Artemis. Pagan cults flourished there, along with occult practices. In fact, books with magic recipes came to be know as "Ephesian books".
Nevertheless, the Christian church grew rapidly, and some of the new converts brought their old way of life into the church and began teaching other doctrines. When it came to worship, many were used to wild rites and festivals.
I don’t see it in the article btw. Maybe I missed it
Ephesian women were particularly unacquainted with public behavior, having been excluded for the most part from public gatherings, except pagan rituals.
So Paul described the correct way of worship. Men, who were apparently given to anger & doubts, needed to stop wrangling & start praying (I Tim 2:8). Women needed to focus on godliness & good works rather than clothing, jewelry, & hairstyles (2:9-10). And because some were apparently disruptive, they needed to practice restraint (2:11)--not necessarily complete silence, but "quiet" (as the word is translated in 2 Thess. 3:12), since they likely participated in the prayers & other expressive parts of the worship gatherings (compare I Cor. 11:5 & Eph. 5:19).
I can identify with these women--I didn't grow up in church and as a teen started attending church services. I didn't know how to worship. I didn't even know how to read music to sing the hymns that they were singing. I had to learn an entire new language--Christians often call it Christianese or Church Speak because the Bible uses language most people don't use nowadays--words like propitiation, etc. So I had to learn how to worship, also.
As you can see, context is EVERYTHING in the Bible. You have to study it many decades to learn the background of those that these authors were speaking to, in order to be able to understand the true meaning. I'd be glad to help you in any way to learn more about all this!
* description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others
Again, to learn even more about this, please read the article at:
The fact is it says it. Even if it contradicts what he may have otherwise said it is stated clearly that that is the law
It would help if you would do what I asked you to do, and read the article, and stop interrupting me. Please go back to the top and read everything I’ve said, as I think you’ve missed some of the comments I made, as you keep firing back at me.
You’ll see that it’s not a contradiction at all, but people like YOU that don’t know enough about the Bible and take things out of context, that causes misunderstandings like you have.
Go all the way back up and start over.
I still am not seeing it in the article
I have read everything you’ve stated. I agree context is important. I’m saying it shouldn’t have to be important
It DOES include that verse from I Corinthians 11 in the article....that’s where I quoted it from. But I think most of what I wanted you to read I just copied to you, so please go back up to the top of our convo and start over and read all of it.
Context is important in ANY book you read. If you aren’t familiar with a certain part of history, it’s harder for you to understand a book written in that historical period. Context is EVERYTHING.
It doesn’t appear to be about the specific part I quoted tho. I thought that’s what you meant.
Yes it is. But it shouldn’t have to be from a book supposedly influenced/written by god
For example, in this instance, you have to know the historical background of the pagan religions to understand why Paul was talking about being quiet. Quiet is NOT the same as SILENT.
Hubby can tell the kids on his bus to quieten down. That does not mean they have to be silent, just quieter! I often told my children to be respectful and quiet in church. That didn’t mean that they couldn’t ask me to go to the bathroom, or ask for a piece of paper to write notes on. It just meant to be respectful, reverent, and WHISPER the words to me, so as to not interfere in the service. This is the context for quiet here....not ROWDY!
The context of the period of the time of Jesus was many people claiming to be able to heal, and do everything else Jesus did. It’s not unsurprisingly a charlatan got his name spread and it elevated into a religion when there was no way of verifying claims that were spread by word of mouth
God inspired dozens of authors in multiple countries across hundreds of years to write the 66 books of the Bible. You have to spend decades studying it to learn all about it and learn not to take it out of context, but to compare one passage of Scripture with another. It’s not light reading for the casual reader. It’s not meant to be. It’s meant to be STUDIED, and grappled with, and embedded on your heart!
As I’m sure you know, the story of Jesus/god in the judeo Christian parallels from other religions preceded before it
Are you calling Jesus a charlatan? If so, we’ll be ending the convo here, because you apparently don’t want to learn, and I’m not interested in doing anything but teaching you where you’ve misunderstood the Bible.
And just by that last sentence, I can see that you also don’t understand how canon of Scripture came about.
What was your purpose in starting this with me? Was it to denigrate me, instead of to learn something?
Why is it meant to be studied tho? Why would a god want to not make it clear so that you can convince people he is the right god
I’ll wait until you get caught up with all I’ve read before I respond any more.
With all I’ve WRITTEN.
I believe Jesus claimed he performed miracles just like many others of his time. He happened to catch on. That’s just what I think.
Well I know they were written over a period of time and certain books were selected by a committee to be included based on what the popular teachings of the times were
No, you even misunderstand canon, as I said. I could go into detail about that, but you would only denigrate me for that, so what is the use in my doing so, since you’re not interested in learning to begin with? I don’t understand what your purpose was, unless you’re a Christophobe, an anti-Christian bigot. Btw, do YOU have a mission? After all, that’s what this poll was about!
Please enlighten me on how the current canon came about then. I’m all ears
I do believe the internet it not a great medium for this. It is very hard to convey tone and whatnot
I’m only going to go to all that trouble if you’ll stop denigrating my faith and my Savior and if you REALLY want to learn, and not just keep firing back denials.
I agree with your last sentence. That’s why I often use emojis.
Before we go further, can you also concede that you didn’t know about the pagan background of these new Christians, and that quiet doesn’t mean silent? That this was NOT a case of contradiction between two passages (that were written by the same man!) but a lack of knowledge of historical context on your part that caused you to misunderstand it?
First, What exactly do you mean by “new Christians?”
And yes the definitions are different. I think your example illustrated it well.
The people of Corinth that Paul was speaking to. Did you not read what I wrote about their coming out of pagan religions? All the people in the New Testament were NEW Christians. Some had been Jews, others had been pagans. Christianity was a brand new religion, so all those following Christ were new Christians.
Thanks for that, at least! I’m glad that you are able to see that these passages don’t contradict each other and that Paul wasn’t telling women that they had to be silent in the church. I’ve been a Sunday School teacher, Discipleship Training teacher, and VBS teacher of all age groups from nursery, preschool, youth and adults, and have been VBS Director and WMU director for the entire churches that we pastored.
No I did, it was just a matter of misunderstanding. When I think new for an old religion I’m thinking like last hundred years or so
No I still believe you are incorrect and that they are contradictory. However I believe it may be remedied by a lack of knowledge from the translator. Make not mistake I don’t agree
Paul died in the 60’s AD, so his writings WERE within the first 100 years of Jesus.
Why do you think they’re contradictory when you just said that you now understand the context of the words?
Let me reiterate the Greek:
* description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others
Because the word silent is still used nonetheless. I disagree with you saying that it was meant as quiet. Perhaps that is an error from translation but as you said silent is not quiet
Let me ask you this, and if you can answer positive to this question, I will have another analogy I can give you. Have you ever been to church regularly?
We look at the same data but come to different conclusions
~For the first 13 years of my life yes I did
Let me rephrase. Maybe I didn’t make it clear. The ORIGINAL language of the New Testament was GREEK. The GREEK word used here is hesuchia, which means:
* description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others
It did NOT mean silence.
Ok about the first 13 years of your life....while you were in church, did you ever see women that were gossipers, stirring things up in churches? That’s what this passage and the Greek word is referring to, imho. Notice that this quietness means “not meddling in the affairs of others.”
I’ve seen more churches torn up by vicious gossipers and more people hurt by this, and the cause of Christ hurt by this than ANY other issue in churches!
There are other passages in the New Testament that also warn women against idle gossip...and ESPECIALLY widows that don’t have anything to do but sit around gossiping!
1. You can’t know the intent of the person who wrote it. Only they do for sure.
What I am saying to that is the version 99% of English leakers will see it says silence. And the translators who translated it knew way more Greek than you probably know and are better at determining the intent. If you do not know Ancient Greek well yourself the translators version seems to be more realistic.
2/3. Not any more than the men
Also part of 1. It shouldn’t be hard to know the intent. Why would god make the intent hard to know? Why wouldn’t he make it as easy as possible to know so that as many souls could be saved as possible
Argonaut, you may not realize it, but my hubby has 2 degrees in the Bible, and has taken Hebrew and Greek and we have an entire library full of books on the Bible, some of which translate the Hebrew and Greek of every word in the Bible. That’s where I got the info for you about this Greek word. We also have a cumulative 95 years of Bible study, between the two of us! 😂🤣😂
Well then you haven’t been in any of the churches I have, because the vast majority of the time, it’s women that gossip. Men sit around talking about the weather, sports, and the economy! 😂🤣😂
Well then I stand corrected about that one instance. However, other translators appear to have disagreed with you
I think I didn’t see it cuz I was a kid and didn’t partake. You notice things when you are looking out for them. I notice things as an engineer every time I look at various objects you wouldn’t see
However I believe you were go into the context more? Or was that it about when it was written?
17:10- maybe 20:00?
That’s what I was talking about as in Jesus, from my POV, probably was just another charlatan
Many people have disagreed about what the Bible means. And there have been later translations that have been based on findings of earlier manuscripts. And then there are even differences in the ways that certain versions are put together....was it a committee of Bible scholars or one person writing his own summary of what he thinks the Bible means!
That’s the advantage of having an entire room of your house (and overflow bookcases in three other rooms!) of Bible commentaries, concordances, Bible dictionaries, versions of the Bible, books about historical context, books of maps/charts/timelines, etc.
When hubby is studying for a sermon, he will often have 5-10 different commentary sets open across his desk, comparing all the different Biblical scholars of the past, to see what each of them have to say, plus concordances to trace down the original Hebrew or Greek words! Studying the Bible to this extent is NOT for the feint of heart! 😂🤣😂 And each person has to seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance as to what they feel that God is saying to THEM through a certain passage.
That’s one great thing about the Bible. You might study a certain passage this year that speaks a message to you about something you’re going through. You might come back and study that passage in a few years, and it speaks an entirely different message about something else you’re going through at the time!
Although the central message hasn’t changed, your life circumstances have changed, and the Bible, through the Holy Spirit’s guidance ALWAYS speaks to where you’re at, at the time. It’s SO awesome!
I would agree with your comment about engineering.
By that last sentence, did you mean that you wanted to learn more about the history of canonization of the Bible?
And now I see that you’ve added more since I started typing, so that won’t actually be your last sentence! 😂🤣😂
Let me respond to what you’ve said since, before you respond, or it will get too confusing to keep up with!
I watched that section of the video. First of all, you have to remember that Penn and Teller are raging atheists with no background in the Bible. They claim that there were multiple people that claimed to be the Messiah, but could name only one name. I’ve never heard of this so-called Appalonias. So that leads us to question...if there were a LOT of other people CLAIMING to be the Messiah, why was JESUS the ONLY one that historians like Josephus wrote about?
I’ll let you answer all of this before I paste my notes about canonization to you.
One of my points is that why is it like that? Why isn’t it easy for everyone to know the intent right away? Why would god make it such that it’s hard to know the actual intent when this involves literally going to hell or heaven for eternity. Instead of it being easy and clear such that everyone on earth can get it we are where there are hundreds if not thousands of religions concurrently in practice. It could all be cleared up and everyone’s soul could be saved if god had made it such.
So? They only named one is your argument? It’s a show, they weren’t going to name thousands of people. Many people today claim to be the messiah and have followings. Many people did back then. One happened to catch on and his name was Jesus. Did he only write about Jesus, I honestly wouldn’t know? I think a better question is why more people didn’t write about Jesus at the time if he in fact did perform miracles that were somehow more credible than other “messiahs”
That is a mystery. I do know that anytime in the Bible that a lot of people started following God, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, God would give a rule or a hard saying that they had to live by to thin the ranks. I believe that He does this because He only wants those that are TOTALLY committed to Him. He wants us to love Him and turn our lives completely over to Him, because He knows best for us, and will give us our most fulfilled lives if we will do that. He wants us to be totally sold out to Him.
If you think this is unusual, look at the any branch of the military, any company, any volunteer organization. They want the best and the brightest and the most DEDICATED, as well!
Here is a list of biblical figures that were also identified in extra-biblical sources, and this is coming at it from a NON-Christian POV:
As to other writers that wrote about Jesus, besides what you read in that article, I think my notes on canonization will help with that.
Factors in the Formation of the NT Canon:
1) The gradual creation & dissemination of the NT Books. The books were written over a span of approx 50 years (AD 45-95). Before winning universal acceptance, each newly written book had to be circulated, copied, examined, & discussed among the churches. This was not a quick process.
Books that were written relatively late underwent the sort of treatment that is common for newcomers: they were vetted with especially great care before being granted a seat among the old guard.
Also, the Christian faith multiplied rapidly in the early centuries, with new churches cropping up in far-flung regions at a pace that outstripped the dissemination of the Scriptures.
Thus, many early churches had access to only a few NT books. Naturally, when new books came to their attention they were cautious about embracing them as biblical, and they accepted them only after careful consideration and consultation with churches that had been founded by the apostles.
2) Apostolic authority and the NT canon. All the earliest churches were founded by the apostles and their associates as they fanned out from Jerusalem in the years after Jesus’ resurrection. Naturally, the churches depended on these men to teach them about Jesus and the Christian life.
These apostolic churches were among the first to receive the Scriptures as they were written, & so they were in a good position to help guide newer churches into the correct identification of a NT canon.
3) The relative independence of each local church. Apostolic authority was honored by all true churches at the advent of Christianity, & yet each local church was relatively independent from any centralized ecclesiastical authority.
One practical result of this was that no central office pronounced the identities of the NT books or forced their use in worship abroad. Understandably, it took several centuries for churches sprawled all over the map to forge communicative ties and common consensus on the canon.
4) The rise of heresy. When someone came into the churches pushing ideas contrary to what had been received from the apostles, their teachings were recognized as unauthorized innovation. This happened in the 2nd century with the advent of so-called Gnostic Christianity.
The bottom line is that as churches marked the distinction between authorized apostolic writings and the heretical innovations of men, and as Christians all across the Roman Empire endured periodic persecutions that threatened death to anyone harboring Christian Scriptures, the NT began to emerge as a defined and defended body of books.
Second and third century works such as the Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas were never considered for adoption into the NT canon because they were written long after the apostles, and their teachings did not match the OT or apostolic traditions.
Authoritative Witnesses to the Canon in the Early Church
Though it took several centuries for the canon to emerge as a definitive collection of books that were agreed upon by the majority of churches, it is certain that many of the books were widely recognized as Scripture from early on.
For example, in AD 96, Clement of Rome quoted from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and treated it as Scripture. As a member of a church founded by an apostle, Clement probably had access to all or nearly all of the 27 canonical books at this time.
In AD 100 Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John, claimed the Gospel materials were Scripture.
By AD 180, the famed apologist Irenaeus defended Christianity by appealing to the authority of many NT writings. In total, scholars who have examined his surviving works believe he used 22 of our 27 NT books, including all 4 Gospels.
A short time after Irenaeus, an apologist named Tertullian charged Gnostic Christians with misusing “the instrument,” by which he meant the collection of authoritative NT books. That he would refer to the collection of NT books in this way proves that by this time the leading churches had identified a well-defined set of books as canonical. Only James, 2 Peter and 2 & 3 John go unnamed by Tertullian.
A few decades later the church father Origen named all 27 books and noted that six of them (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John & Jude) were disputed by some. These disputed books went on to the be the subject of debate for many centuries more, though their revered position among most churches was never shaken.
It was in the fourth century that the NT canon clearly emerged as a widely accepted set of holy books, and by this time, the disputed books had long-standing acceptance among the churches, proving that they were indeed Scripture BEFORE Augustine and later, in 393 and 397, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage concluded that the NT canon properly includes those 27 books.
So you see, the canonization of Scripture was NOT something that a handful of men did in the 300’s. It was a LONG process of books being GRADUALLY accepted by MANY churches and their members.
Is there a page specifically regarding sources that covered Jesus?
I don’t think the same applies to organizations and this tho. As you say CONTEXT! Not yelling just emphasizing lol.
On one of my engineering teams I am one of the leads for a sub team and yes we want those who are dedicated above the others, however, my organization is not about literally an eternity of pain and suffering vs ecstasy. I think the situations are not comparable
And ty for the background! I like learning new stuff like that
You could have a point about it not applying. I’m just saying that most things that are worth doing are worth doing right! And God has HIGH standards for all of us! It’s all about JUSTICE. He is perfect and can’t allow anything less than perfection into Heaven (through Jesus Christ). To allow those that haven’t completely turned their lives over to Him would be unjust to those that DID turn their lives completely over to Him.
Thanks for the explanation about the allcaps. That’s how I do it, also! 😂🤣😂 You’re welcome! I’m glad to give info for anyone that is willing to learn, and not just being derogatory!
Here is a quote from the article I already gave you, that sums up some of the extra biblical sources, and then I’ve listed several articles that go more into details about other extra-biblical sources:
“By far the most important and most detailed sources for first-century Jewish history are the works of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100 CE). These books mention many of the same prominent political figures as the New Testament books and are crucial for understanding the historical background of the emergence of Christianity.
Josephus also mentions Jesus and the execution of John the Baptist, although he was not a contemporary of either. Apart from Josephus, information about some New Testament figures comes from Roman historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius and from ancient coins and inscriptions.
The central figure of the New Testament is Jesus of Nazareth. Despite ongoing debate concerning the authorship of many of its books, there is a consensus among modern scholars that at least some were written by a contemporary of Jesus, namely the so-called 'undisputed' epistles of Paul.
Some authentic first century and many second century writings exist in which Jesus is mentioned, leading scholars to conclude that the historicity of Jesus is well established by historical documents.”
Here are some lists of Extra-Biblical Sources for the Historical Jesus:
And here is a non-Christian source:
“Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 CE, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20.”
“The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.”
The main problems I have with all of these is 1. No eye witness accounts from historians. 2. Are only written around 100 years after Jesus was born.
If someone was to account for your life 100 years from now how accurate do they think they’d be? And that’s with having social media accounts and whatnot to look at. This was done 2000 years ago. Everything traveled by word of mouth. I see it just as likely abalones name could have been passed around and a religion made around him. We clearly have historical records of him as well as he was referenced by the gentleman from penn and teller bullshit
Yeah but the whole thing is none of us are pure/perfect. We all sin. And if having to worship and believe in a specific person is all you have to do to cleanse that impurity then I’m saying that really ain’t much tbh
I also think turn their lives over is way to subjective. Obviously you and your husband have spend a considerable amount of your time dedicated to god, but there are times you do stuff for yourself/family I’m sure. And what about people who just go to church and whatnot. There isn’t really an outlined line of hey you have given your life to god
Plus society would suck if everyone were to have 😂 no offense. People like me wouldn’t be making new inventions that enrich people’s lives here on earth and hopefully one day beyond
I’m watching Hacksaw Ridge with hubby. Will get back to you later.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you! Actually, you shouldn’t count from the date of Jesus birth, but the date of his ministry and death, so those historians wrote of him within 60 years of that, not 100!
And things at that time were NOT only by word of mouth. We have manuscripts from the writings of the gospels, from the time of Jesus’ ministry, in the 30’s!
Do you realize that we have 4x the copies of the Greek New Testament than we do The Iliad? Do you doubt The Iliad? We only have 5 copies of ANYTHING by Aristotle. We have 5,843 Greek New Testament manuscripts. Nothing else in history even comes close!
Here is a video of Lee Strobel, who was a journalist and atheist, who set out to prove the historical account of Jesus was a hoax and proved himself wrong:
When I say “turn your life over to God,” what that means is to do a 180 in your life and start following the guidelines in the Bible, instead of only doing what YOU want to do. That can be fleshed out in many different ways, as I wrote when I started this now excruciatingly long thread! 😂🤣😂
According to Jesus’ own words, all you have to do is admit that you’re a sinner, believe that Jesus died on the cross to save you from those sins, and rose from the dead to give you eternal life, repent of those sins and confess with your mouth that you believe this, and the Holy Spirit comes to indwell your heart and guide you in His ways. It’s then up to you to continue to GROW as a Christian, by studying His word, praying, and ministering to others.
And as I stated at the beginning of all this, you don’t have to be doing ministry full time. I believe that God calls some Christians to be teachers, nurses, doctors, even politicians! Each Christian has to find THEIR calling as to their vocation, and then live out their faith WITHIN that calling, on the job, and in their volunteer work.
I don’t find the New Testament a credible source to be frank. If they were written by his followers that isn’t an unbiased source. Unless I am mistaken and they weren’t. Plus a lot of them weren’t written during his lifetime I thought? And I thought that would make it 67 years? Not 60
I’m sure you would dismiss any potential writings of abolnes followers because they would be a biased source. Seems rather short sided to say those aren’t valid but Jesus’s were cuz he’s Jesus. If there isn’t unbiased sources corroborating the claims that are from first hand witnesses then i don’t see any reason to trust it
Also the question about 100 years is now 67 😂. How well do you think they’d do?
No, you quoted 93 AD. Jesus was said to be about 33 when he died, so that would be a 60 year difference.
Did you watch the Lee Strobel video? He goes into more details.
From one of the articles I sent you:
“Perhaps the earliest non-Biblical account of Jesus comes from the 1st century historian Josephus Flavius. The Gospel of John, our latest Gospel coming in at +- 60 years after Jesus death (30 AD) comes very close to Flavius’ account.”
Okay, how do you think people 60 years after you death would be able to describe details of your life if they had no social media, photos, etc to go off of?
I was hoping he would list his sources but he doesn’t
Also would you dismiss another accounts of miracles from the other “messiah” that were by his followers?
From another article I sent you:
“Let’s begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.” Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus’ rather enigmatic statement that Christ’s death briefly checked “a most mischievous superstition,” which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome?
One historian suggests that Tacitus is here “bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.” While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?
You didn’t answer my questions
Yes, those quotes were to back up what I said before....and even an UNSYMPATHETIC author who wrote about Christ admitted that he did live and that the things written in the New Testament books were real.
You have to understand that back then, word of mouth was MUCH better than it is now. Heck, I can see a difference in people’s lack of memory skills now, just compared to when I was a kid....the more we depend on electronics the less we remember what we’ve read in textbooks. And I’m sure that as people started to depend on books in the past, their memory skills went down. Why? Because before that time, in the Old Testament times, the only way to pass down a story was word of mouth. There were people in the tribes that were tasked just for this.
We’ve also read stories about Native Americans that did the same thing....the person that was in charge of the stories rehearsed them and told them over and over to remember them well.
Then, when the written word came along, scribes were VERY meticulous about getting it right. Here is an article about that:
Here is another article that might shed some light on this, as well:
You were hoping that who would list whose sources? The sources were historians of the day.
The disciples of Jesus also performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know who this other person is that you’re mentioning. I can tell you one thing. ONLY Jesus’ message has stood the test of time. Judaism and Christianity are the oldest religions, and any time that someone tries to wipe them out, they only grow stronger. I believe that’s because God blesses them and protects them.
Did you ever watch the Lee Strobel video? He’s not the only atheist that set out to prove Jesus a hoax that found in the end that He was not, after traveling to many countries and speaking to many scholars both sympathetic and non-sympathetic to Jesus, looking at the original documents, etc.
Sir William Ramsay, an archaeologist who was NOT a Christian, went to a school that taught that the Bible was wrong, and even set out to prove the Bible wrong, but instead proved it correct. Here is the Wiki article on him:
And here are the most important quotes to back up what I’m saying, from that article. You can read the full article to see his credentials, which are many!
“Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.
Although Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of the historical accuracy of the New Testament.
William Ramsay was known for his careful attention to New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics.
The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written.
He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor.
After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study … showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85).
On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...'
When Ramsay turned his attention to Paul's letters, most of which the critics dismissed as forgeries, he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters that claimed to have been written by Paul were authentic.
I did answer your questions. Go back and read again. It would be a lot harder now than it would have back then, because of how human brains, attention spans and memory have changed since then. I explained all this. We’re being dumbed down every day, compared to our ancestors!
And you still haven’t answered my questions about the video.
That isn’t really an answer to the question. That’s stating an opinion that I quite frankly disagree with. It’s an awful boomer thing to say 😂 tbh. How do you think they’d do? And would you dismiss other “messiahs” followers writings?
I’ll answer when you address the question head on and I’m out of lab
I don’t believe it IS opinion. I’ve read a lot about the difference in memory capacity, in ancient times as compared to now. Native Americans were still practicing this when America was being settled.
There are some REMOTE tribes that STILL practice it because they have no written language to this day.
There would be one person per tribe that was in charge of passing down the history of their people. They would sit around a fire and listen to stories of their people night after night.
This is how the Old Testament came to be. In fact, Scripture says that parents were to teach this to their children, day in and day out, as they went about their daily lives, constantly rehearsing what God had passed down to the Israelites.
I believe that we’re not actually evolving, but DEVOLVING. Here is an article that backs that up:
However, there is a HUGE difference in the histories of THOSE people and the history of the Jews and Christians as written in the Bible. That difference is that God was writing through the authors of the Bible. Check out this article, which explains this, including the differences in how word was passed down orally and what we read in the Bible:
So to answer your question, unless GOD was involved in the writing of my life story, after the fact, it wouldn’t be accurate. However, archaeological discoveries back up the stories of the Bible, where the Bible states thousands of SPECIFIC cities, kings, and kingdoms, and we’ve found those to be real.
I’ve already given you an article (a WIKI article, so non-Christian) that tells about just ONE of those archaeologists that has proven himself wrong on this issue when he set out to disprove the Bible.
I think it would do you good to read that, and watch Lee Strobel’s video. You can also read his book or watch the movie about Lee Strobel’s life. Both of them are entitled, “The Case for Christ.”
You still haven’t answered my questions
Yes, I did, in the last set of comments.
Would you or would you not immediately dismiss the claims of any writings of another “messiahs” writings? I don’t see an answer to that.
They could just as easily claim they were influenced by god.
Abolone has followers just like Jesus, claimed to perform similar miracles, and we appear to have had records that he existed and claimed to perform these miracles just like Jesus. I’m sure hos followers would just as likely claim their works were influenced by god. Yet you seem to immediately discredit them
And do you have any quantitative data to support your claim about attention spans? You claim over time we have less but I could easily claim the opposite. Unless you have data to back up something it really is just opinion.
Whenever I learn a new word I feel like I’m hearing/seeing it everywhere afterwards. That’s not because there is a sudden rise in people using that word, I’m just more susceptible to notice it
If you’re talking about the person that Penn and Teller mentioned, it sounded like to me they were talking about someone named Appollonia, not Abolone. Do you have links to prove about this person?
Shorter attention spans. In the past, we knew that tv shows would lower attention spans. Now, it’s digital media, that’s made it worse than tv ever did:
I may have gotten the name wrong. But nonetheless I am more talking about hypothetical. Cuz I very much doubt Jesus is the only case of the circumstances I laid out. Haven’t read the links will rn
There’s also a link to an opinion article in that article that it’s not because we have shorter attention spans, it’s just there’s more alternatives so why would they
Sossianus Hierocles argued in the 3rd century that the doctrines and the life of Apollonius were more valuable than those of Jesus', a viewpoint reportedly held by both Voltaire and Charles Blount during the Age of Enlightenment. In his 1909 book The Christ, John Remsburg postulated that the religion of Apollonius disappeared because the proper conditions for its development did not exist. Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam thrived however, because the existing conditions were favorable.
Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman relates that in the introduction to his textbook on the New Testament, he describes an important figure from the first century without first revealing he is writing about the stories attached to Apollonius of Tyana:
Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed his mother the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life he roused opposition,
...and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment, but unlike Jesus was not crucified, as he vanished from the courtroom and reappeared in another place days later where he was seen by his followers, and convinced them that he was not really dead, but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.
I’m gonna have to table the convo until later, as I’ll be spending several hours with hubby. Will read all that and get back to you later. I hope this will give you time to watch the Lee Strobel video. It’s not very long.
From the first quote continued
Similarly, Robert M. Price in his 2011 The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems, notes that the ancients often compared Jesus with Apollonius and that they both fit the mythic hero archetype. G. K. Chesterton (the writer and Christian apologist), however, noted that the unique trial, suffering and death of Christ stand in stark opposition to the stories about Apollonius which he felt were very likely spurious. While Jesus' encounter with the provincial Roman authorities in Judea ended fatally, Apollonius was said to have survived unscathed a face-to-face confrontation with Domitian, one of the most harsh of Roman Emperors; therefore, the myth of Apollonius lacked the element of martyrdom, central to that of Jesus.
I believe I already saw it. He didn’t list his sources from what I recall
And have fun!
Use the God-given gifts I have and use them for good in everything I do.
Resist the leftists.
Do I believe I have one? Yes. Do I have any idea what that might be? No.
I never had a Mission in life, just happy to survive and be a good citizen.
You mean beyond posting on SoH? No