How to prove Christianity for those who never heard of it?

[HitchSlap]

Still not answering the question.

Asked & answered.

How are you to learn if, some questions scare you.

I love to learn new things, how about you?

You are someone for whom Christ died.

I don't believe this.

You are my treasure in eternity.

I don't believe this, and creepy.

For we are each other tersure.

Creepy.

(don’t except you to understand this but nevertheless it’s true)

I'm starting to get the impression you don't understand it either.

 

[HitchSlap]

Question;

Does truth exist?

in Christ, Not me

Truth is the degree to which something comports with reality.

 

[Not me]

Asked & answered.


I love to learn new things, how about you?


I don't believe this.


I don't believe this, and creepy.

Creepy.

I'm starting to get the impression you don't understand it either.

Please than show me the answer to the question;

“If your a created being would you want to know your Creator”

I must have missed it, thanks

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[HitchSlap]

He that is without sin, can kill them.

Love in Christ, Not me

This is not stated once in Leviticus.

 

[Not me]

This is not stated once in Leviticus.

Once again you are not understanding the meaning of the scripture “the sum of thy word is truth” Gods word is more than Leviticus.

Still not answering the question.

Much love, Not me

 

[HitchSlap]

Please than show me the answer to the question;

“If your a created being would you want to know your Creator”

I must have missed it, thanks

Much love in Christ, Not me

This is where we seem to be talking past each other. We know how sexual reproduction works, and how humans are "created." My "creation" began with the union of one sperm cell, and one ovum, this is known as a zygote. Before we go any farther, you'll need to demonstrate this simple understanding.

Second, if you wish to use "creator and created" in a hyperbolic way, then you must first define what you mean by them.

 

[HitchSlap]

Once again you are not understanding the meaning of the scripture “the sum of thy word is truth” Gods word is more than Leviticus.

Still not answering the question.

Much love, Not me

Jesus did not come to abolish the law of Moses. So, in context, when should you stone a homosexual to death.

It does seem one of us is afraid of the question here, and it's not me.

 

[Not me]

This is where we seem to be talking past each other. We know how sexual reproduction works, and how humans are "created." My "creation" began with the union of one sperm cell, and one ovum, this is known as a zygote. Before we go any farther, you'll need to demonstrate this simple understanding.

Second, if you wish to use "creator and created" in a hyperbolic way, then you must first define what you mean by them.

Your still not answering the question as it is asked. Let me try again;

Question is; “if” you are a created being, do you want to know your Creator.

There is an “if” there. “if”
your a created being” “If” it is true, do you want to know it.

in Christ, Not me

 

[HitchSlap]

Your still not answering the question as it is asked. Let me try again;

Question is; “if” you are a created being, do you want to know your Creator.

There is an “if” there. “if”
your a created being” “If” it is true, do you want to know it.

in Christ, Not me

I am a created being, and I've met my creators.

 

[Not me]

Jesus did not come to abolish the law of Moses. So, in context, when should you stone a homosexual to death.

It does seem one of us is afraid of the question here, and it's not me.

Once again you are just pulling one scripture out to justify your desires. Still not understanding the scripture “the sum of thy word is truth”

Also ; Still refusing to answer the question. Once again don’t fear asking questions. For every question has an answer. A correct and true answer.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[Not me]

I am a created being, and I've met my creators.

As you wish.

(don’t answer me, but can you be real enough, with yourself, to see you refuse to answer the question? This is the first step torward growth)

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, it is hearsay to me. Hearsay is defined here as "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"

I have no direct knowledge of Paul's (or other apostles) claims (since I wasn't there to witness for myself what he saw/experienced), therefore it is all hearsay to me. Not only that, we must also consider that whatever Paul said or wrote, it has come down to us in various copies by various copiers, translations, etc. - all of which adds to the fact that what we have today in any particular translation is exactly the definition of hearsay.

Translators chose specific readings they agreed with from selected copiers of the ancient manuscripts who read it from other copies of copies who might have copied the original, the original supposedly written by someone named "Paul", etc. This is clearly hearsay for the reader(s) of any particular translation.

You do not yourself need to have direct knowledge of a claim for that claim to not be hearsay. A judge and jury do have direct knowledge of a witness's testimony--if they did, they would themselves be the witnesses! If the witness gains their information from a secondary source instead of it being their direct knowledge, then it is hearsay. Hearsay refers to where someone who is offering a specific piece of information got it from, not whether or not the listener was there as well.

Here's an example: the people down at the local Orthodox church have told me that they had some sort of group vision where the face on one of their icons changed. This is not hearsay to me, because I received this account directly from the people who claimed to have witnessed it. To you, on the other hand, it is indeed hearsay because you're hearing the story from me, someone who was not directly present. But the fact that it is not hearsay to me does not mean that I have to accept it as a bona fide miracle--I don't, but that doesn't mean I didn't hear it directly from the source.

Paul's claims are not hearsay to you. If we had lost all of the Pauline Epistles and all we had were reports from Papias or Clement of Alexandria or whoever else of what they had allegedly said, then you could consider that hearsay. But the fact that the Bible has been recopied in its entirety does not make it hearsay. All of history is not hearsay on account of being the result of the transmition of written records across the centuries. You can question whether it's reliable for other reasons, but "hearsay" is the wrong word for this.

As far as translations go, the fact that something is translated doesn't make it hearsay either. That's an altogether different issue as well, though in this case, less of one than you might think. Paul wrote in Greek and we still have the Greek. If you don't want to read in translation, go learn Koine Greek.

 

[HitchSlap]

As you wish.

(don’t answer me, but can you be real enough, with yourself, to see you refuse to answer the question? This is the first step torward growth)

Much love in Christ, Not me

You really have no idea how to respond when your narrative goes off script, do you?

Take care.

 

[Not me]

You really have no idea how to respond when your narrative goes off script, do you?

Take care.

Or your just hiding.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[HitchSlap]

Once again you are just pulling one scripture out to justify your desires. Still not understanding the scripture “the sum of thy word is truth”

Also ; Still refusing to answer the question. Once again don’t fear asking questions. For every question has an answer. A correct and true answer.

Much love in Christ, Not me

Regardless of what you think my failure in interpreting scripture is, I’m asking YOU when is it ok to stone homosexuals?

I’ll rephrase it for you; is there ever a situation in which a homosexual should be stoned?

 

[ananda]

To you, on the other hand, it is indeed hearsay because you're hearing the story from me, someone who was not directly present. ... All of history is not hearsay on account of being the result of the transmition of written records across the centuries.

You've just contradicted yourself.

I read Paul's story from a translator - someone who was not directly present - which makes it exactly hearsay as you first defined it.

Paul wrote in Greek and we still have the Greek. If you don't want to read in translation, go learn Koine Greek.

What is "the Greek"? To my knowledge, we don't have the "original Greek manuscript penned by Paul himself", if that's what you mean by "the Greek". And, even among the copies, there are minor to major variations among them.

So, even if I read an ancient copy written in Greek, I would still be reading what a copier copied down - someone who was not likely present - which, again, makes it hearsay.

 

[Not me]

Regardless of what you think my failure in interpreting scripture is, I’m asking YOU when is it ok to stone homosexuals?

I’ll rephrase it for you; is there ever a situation in which a homosexual should be stoned?

And I answered you. It is “ok now.”

Except with one caveat

“let him who had no sin be the first to throw a stone at them.”

“For the law came though Moses, grace and truth came through Christ Jesus.”

It is not “I” that refuse to hear.

(curious to see if you’ll take my comment out of context)

in Christ, Not me

 

[HitchSlap]

And I answered you. It is “ok now.”

Except with one caveat

“let him who had no sin be the first to throw a stone at them.”

“For the law came though Moses, grace and truth came through Christ Jesus.”

It is not “I” that refuse to hear.

(curious to see if you’ll take my comment out of context)

in Christ, Not me

Just so we’re clear, stoning homosexuals was ok until Jesus was born?

 

[Not me]

Just so we’re clear, stoning homosexuals was ok until Jesus was born?

Correct, for those that where under the law.

in Christ, Not me.

 

[Silmarien]

You've just contradicted yourself.

I read Paul's story from a translator - someone who was not directly present - which makes it exactly hearsay as you first defined it.

It's not a contradiction. You didn't hear the story from a translator; you read a translation of the story. Setting aside the problems inherent in translation, what you're reading is not someone giving a secondhand account of what Paul said. It's the retransmission of the documented firsthand account.

You're using the term "hearsay" in a context where it doesn't apply.

To my knowledge, we don't have the "original Greek manuscript penned by Paul himself" So, even if I read an ancient copy written in Greek, I would still be reading what a copier copied down - someone who was not likely present - which, again, makes it hearsay.

Again, no it doesn't. Julius Caesar's memoirs are not hearsay simply because the original copies have been lost. This is not how history works. Primary source vs. secondary source.