If truth is absoluute then why are therre so many different religions?

[smaneck]

I realize that- that's why I said 'I know but'. But they didn't invent, create or make up the etched images from over a thousand years ago. My point was there are real footprints of both Dinos and man together and a clearly etched Stegosaurus- with skin and hard body parts (scales/bony structures) protruding from head to tail- that could not have been known IF Dinos had really died out 75,800,000 years before man came upon earth. How would one describe to a perfect 'T' what they had never seen or heard about?

Except they aren't really human footprints.

 

[Rocmonkey]

I believe I can disprove it. But I don't expect Christians to agree with me. We're left at interpretation of things which people disagree on.

Take for example the entire structure of the new covenant Christians claim. Where is that from?

Jeremiah 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.

Ok, so that's where the concept comes from. But what comes after?

33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Well, that makes it seem like any concept of the Jewish people not following HaShem is foreign to the text. We will have the Torah written on our hearts and we will be His people. What next?

34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Now I look at that and go "Oh, well that clearly hasn't happened, so there can't be this new covenant yet." Christians will either tell me that it is happening slowly over time or tell me that it will happen.

Here we are at interpretation. Who's correct? Who has the absolute truth? In my opinion, this right here disproves that a new covenant exists at this time. To a Christian, the New Testament (which means new covenant) states that it exists so it does.

Speaking off the cuff here and admitting that I am no scholar or theologian (I haven't even read the passage in context) I would wonder if that means (33) each person would have their own copy of the law (as in their own Bible or the Jewish equivalent) and/or speaking of the time of the Jesus and Apostles teachings/preaching that all would hear and know the law/Good News (Is. 50:4 is one possible explanation).
The (34) remember their sin no more 'could' be a reference to the Passover Lamb, Jesus.

All who put their trust in Him are forgiven and do not need to make any sacrifices for their forgiveness. I have noticed that when God speaks in the Bible that it doesn't always turn out the way we think it will- the way it sounds or looks. The Bible (OT & NT) sometimes jumps from one subject matter to another without reason or explanation- Is. 50:4-6 is one that caught my eye)

It seems odd to me that, and for the first and only time known in world history, men died for a lie IF Jesus wasn't who He said He was and didn't do what He said He did. It is known that men have died for what they 'thought' was the truth but no one has ever died for a known lie- something they absolutely knew wasn't true. Yet, this is exactly what most of Jesus' Apostles and many followers did. They obviously saw, heard and experienced the things they say Jesus said and did. Why else would they die for Him/them if it wasn't true? That would be insane, to my way of thinking at least.

 

[smaneck]

Yes but, all of us, I'm sure, have seen the blatant lies told by evolutionists over the decades. Once creationists started fact-checking they were found. I know you have seen them if you've studied the issue at all. Yes, there are/have been some over zealous creationists. But most creationists expose the frauds. We (Christians, creationists) stand on truth.

My observation is quite the opposite. Science is self-correcting, creationism is not. Science looks at the data and formulates its hypotheses to match the known data. Then, only after that hypotheses matches testing and all attempts to falsify it does it become a theory. Yet even as a theory it remains potentially falsifiable. Creationism operates just the opposite. It starts with a preconceived conclusion and then only looks for the data which matches it, ignoring and dismissing whatever does not. That is why creationism can never be a science. It rejects the scientific method from the very start.

 

[Rocmonkey]

I believe I can disprove it. But I don't expect Christians to agree with me. We're left at interpretation of things which people disagree on.

Take for example the entire structure of the new covenant Christians claim. Where is that from?

Jeremiah 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.

Ok, so that's where the concept comes from. But what comes after?

33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Well, that makes it seem like any concept of the Jewish people not following HaShem is foreign to the text. We will have the Torah written on our hearts and we will be His people. What next?

34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Now I look at that and go "Oh, well that clearly hasn't happened, so there can't be this new covenant yet." Christians will either tell me that it is happening slowly over time or tell me that it will happen.

Here we are at interpretation. Who's correct? Who has the absolute truth? In my opinion, this right here disproves that a new covenant exists at this time. To a Christian, the New Testament (which means new covenant) states that it exists so it does.

Speaking off the cuff here and admitting that I am no scholar or theologian (I haven't even read the passage in context) I would wonder if that means (33) each person would have their own copy of the law (as in their own Bible or the Jewish equivalent) and/or speaking of the time of the Jesus and Apostles teachings/preaching that all would hear and know the law/Good News (Is. 50:4 is one possible explanation).
The (34) remember their sin no more 'could' be a reference to the Passover Lamb, Jesus.

All who put their trust in Him are forgiven and do not need to make any sacrifices for their forgiveness. I have noticed that when God speaks in the Bible that it doesn't always turn out the way we think it will- the way it sounds or looks. The Bible (OT & NT) sometimes jumps from one subject matter to another without reason or explanation- Is. 50:4-6 is one that caught my eye)

It seems odd to me that, and for the first and only time known in world history, men died for a lie IF Jesus wasn't who He said He was and didn't do what He said He did. It is known that men have died for what they 'thought' was the truth but no one has ever died for a known lie- something they absolutely knew wasn't true. Yet, this is exactly what most of Jesus' Apostles and many followers did. They obviously saw, heard and experienced the things they say Jesus said and did. Why else would they die for Him/them if it wasn't true? That would be insane, to my way of thinking at least.

 

[smaneck]

Yes but, all of us, I'm sure, have seen the blatant lies told by evolutionists over the decades. Once creationists started fact-checking they were found. I know you have seen them if you've studied the issue at all. Yes, there are/have been some over zealous creationists. But most creationists expose the frauds. We (Christians, creationists) stand on truth.

My observation is quite the opposite. Science is self-correcting, creationism is not. Science looks at the data and formulates its hypotheses to match the known data. Then, only after that hypotheses matches testing and all attempts to falsify it does it become a theory. Yet even as a theory it remains potentially falsifiable. Creationism operates just the opposite. It starts with a preconceived conclusion and then only looks for the data which matches it, ignoring and dismissing whatever does not. That is why creationism can never be a science. It rejects the scientific method from the very start.

 

[smaneck]

Yes but, all of us, I'm sure, have seen the blatant lies told by evolutionists over the decades. Once creationists started fact-checking they were found. I know you have seen them if you've studied the issue at all. Yes, there are/have been some over zealous creationists. But most creationists expose the frauds. We (Christians, creationists) stand on truth.

My observation is quite the opposite. Science is self-correcting, creationism is not. Science looks at the data and formulates its hypotheses to match the known data. Then, only after that hypotheses matches testing and all attempts to falsify it does it become a theory. Yet even as a theory it remains potentially falsifiable. Creationism operates just the opposite. It starts with a preconceived conclusion and then only looks for the data which matches it, ignoring and dismissing whatever does not. That is why creationism can never be a science. It rejects the scientific method from the very start.

 

[Rocmonkey]

I believe I can disprove it. But I don't expect Christians to agree with me. We're left at interpretation of things which people disagree on.

Take for example the entire structure of the new covenant Christians claim. Where is that from?

Jeremiah 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.

Ok, so that's where the concept comes from. But what comes after?

33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Well, that makes it seem like any concept of the Jewish people not following HaShem is foreign to the text. We will have the Torah written on our hearts and we will be His people. What next?

34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Now I look at that and go "Oh, well that clearly hasn't happened, so there can't be this new covenant yet." Christians will either tell me that it is happening slowly over time or tell me that it will happen.

Here we are at interpretation. Who's correct? Who has the absolute truth? In my opinion, this right here disproves that a new covenant exists at this time. To a Christian, the New Testament (which means new covenant) states that it exists so it does.

Speaking off the cuff here and admitting that I am no scholar or theologian (I haven't even read the passage in context) I would wonder if that means (33) each person would have their own copy of the law (as in their own Bible or the Jewish equivalent) and/or speaking of the time of the Jesus and Apostles teachings/preaching that all would hear and know the law/Good News (Is. 50:4 is one possible explanation).
The (34) remember their sin no more 'could' be a reference to the Passover Lamb, Jesus.

All who put their trust in Him are forgiven and do not need to make any sacrifices for their forgiveness. I have noticed that when God speaks in the Bible that it doesn't always turn out the way we think it will- the way it sounds or looks. The Bible (OT & NT) sometimes jumps from one subject matter to another without reason or explanation- Is. 50:4-6 is one that caught my eye)

It seems odd to me that, and for the first and only time known in world history, men died for a lie IF Jesus wasn't who He said He was and didn't do what He said He did. It is known that men have died for what they 'thought' was the truth but no one has ever died for a known lie- something they absolutely knew wasn't true. Yet, this is exactly what most of Jesus' Apostles and many followers did. They obviously saw, heard and experienced the things they say Jesus said and did. Why else would they die for Him/them if it wasn't true? That would be insane, to my way of thinking at least.

 

[Rocmonkey]

Deleted- double post

 

[Rocmonkey]

Deleted

 

[Rocmonkey]

Deleted

 

[Rocmonkey]

Deleted

 

[LoAmmi]

It seems odd to me that, and for the first and only time in known and recorded world history, men died for what they absolutely, positively knew was a lie- IF Jesus wasn't who He said He was and didn't do what He said He did. It is known that men have died for what they 'thought' was the truth but no one has ever died for a known lie- something they absolutely knew wasn't true. Yet, this is exactly what most of Jesus' Apostles and many followers did. They obviously saw, heard and experienced the things they say Jesus said and did. Why else would they die for Him/them if it wasn't true? That would be insane, to my way of thinking at least.

Did they? You only have one death of a direct follower of Jesus killed in the New Testament and a bunch of traditions out there. How do I know that it was only a few of them that carried it on? How do I know they died for a lie because that would mean they had an opportunity to recant and refused. Maybe they tried to convince the wrong person, such as a powerful person's wife, and the guy had them killed without any possibility of being released.

 

[LoAmmi]

Speaking off the cuff here and admitting that I am no scholar or theologian (I haven't even read the passage in context) I would wonder if that means (33) each person would have their own copy of the law (as in their own Bible or the Jewish equivalent) and/or speaking of the time of the Jesus and Apostles teachings/preaching that all would hear and know the law/Good News (Is. 50:4 is one possible explanation).
The (34) remember their sin no more 'could' be a reference to the Passover Lamb, Jesus.

All who put their trust in Him are forgiven and do not need to make any sacrifices for their forgiveness. I have noticed that when God speaks in the Bible that it doesn't always turn out the way we think it will- the way it sounds or looks. The Bible (OT & NT) sometimes jumps from one subject matter to another without reason or explanation- Is. 50

David didn't need to make a sacrifice to be forgiven. The sacrifices of the Lord are a contrite heart, right? It says, though, that nobody shall have to say know the Lord, so the Great Commission itself is verification that the new testament wasn't in place. Why would they have to go out and convert anybody if, as the text say, all would know from the least to the greatest? It doesn't line up.

 

[Rocmonkey]

Did they? You only have one death of a direct follower of Jesus killed in the New Testament and a bunch of traditions out there. How do I know that it was only a few of them that carried it on? How do I know they died for a lie because that would mean they had an opportunity to recant and refused. Maybe they tried to convince the wrong person, such as a powerful person's wife, and the guy had them killed without any possibility of being released.

While that is true (no one knows for sure), the one who died said he saw Jesus standing at the Father's (God's) right hand. Did he contradict everything he believed in the last seconds of his life to tell a lie? That seems odd, if not insane, since he was preaching that lying was wrong. But more importantly than that are the prophecies that have come true that are in the NT. Deut. 18:20-22 is clear that
1. If a prophet is not from God then he will not know, not be able to accurately predict, the future.
So many so-called prophets (frauds) have come since Jesus' day yet some or all of their prophecies failed (none have come true in the precise way they gave them). We know they aren't from God or else the Bible/OT is wrong and God is a liar. It's either one or the other- and I don't believe God ever lies or changes. [This is also another way we can know which religion is true and which ones aren't (fulfilled prophecies).]
And,
2. He should be killed for lying.
But there are prophecies in the NT that have come true so the NT must be 'from God'. How else can we explain such accuracy in those NT prophecies? And since they have come true why would anyone/group not accept it as what Christians say it is the Word of God? I do realize there are some prophecies in the NT that haven't come true yet. But the Bible (OT & NT) rarely gives a 'when'- a specific time except to say 'in the last/latter days'. It simply, like the OT, gives us a 'that'- that it will happen.

Also, we get some of our info from a Jewish Josephus-while he may not have been the best source (based on some of what I've read) to trust there are others whose word we trust and they attest to what happened, to whom and how.

 

[LoAmmi]

While that is true (no one knows for sure), the one who died said he saw Jesus standing at the Father's (God's) right hand. Did he contradict everything he believed in the last seconds of his life to tell a lie? That seems odd, if not insane, since he was preaching that lying was wrong.

But in a very biased text. The New Testament wouldn't have recorded something where he started screaming for mercy and that he didn't mean it, even if that had happened. I would have to trust that it was reported accurately.

Also, what if the original belief was that Jesus resurrected spiritually and not physically and that morphed over time? Then he could say he saw Jesus standing there because he would still 100% believe it, just not in a physical resurrection. There's a line in Paul's works that allude to a spiritual resurrection instead of physical and in one of the Gospels Jesus cannot be touched because he hasn't ascended, which is weird.

But more importantly than that are the prophecies that have come true that are in the NT. Deut. 18:20-22 is clear that
1. If a prophet is not from God then he will not know, not be able to accurately predict, the future.
So many so-called prophets (frauds) have come since Jesus' day yet some or all of their prophecies failed (none have come true in the precise way they gave them). We know they aren't from God or else the Bible/OT is wrong and God is a liar. It's either one or the other- and I don't believe God ever lies or changes. [This is also another way we can know which religion is true and which ones aren't (fulfilled prophecies).]
And,
2. He should be killed for lying.
But there are prophecies in the NT that have come true so the NT must be 'from God'. How else can we explain such accuracy in those NT prophecies? And since they have come true why would anyone/group not accept it as what Christians say it is the Word of God? I do realize there are some prophecies in the NT that haven't come true yet. But the Bible (OT & NT) rarely gives a 'when'- a specific time except to say 'in the last/latter days'. It simply, like the OT, gives us a 'that'- that it will happen.

Which NT prophecies have come true?

Also, we get some of our info from a Jewish Josephus-while he may not have been the best source (based on some of what I've read) to trust there are others whose word we trust and they attest to what happened, to whom and how.

Josephus was born after Jesus's death. Anything he reports is simply what he was told by Christians. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Jesus and reports nothing.

 

[willubraptured2]

My observation is quite the opposite. Science is self-correcting, creationism is not. Science looks at the data and formulates its hypotheses to match the known data. Then, only after that hypotheses matches testing and all attempts to falsify it does it become a theory. Yet even as a theory it remains potentially falsifiable. Creationism operates just the opposite. It starts with a preconceived conclusion and then only looks for the data which matches it, ignoring and dismissing whatever does not. That is why creationism can never be a science. It rejects the scientific method from the very start.

It seems to me that science also starts with a preconceived conclusion that "there is no God". Also, if the scientific evidence seems to point in the direction of creation and the supernatural, then it ignores it as unprovable.

 

[willubraptured2]

My observation is quite the opposite. Science is self-correcting, creationism is not. Science looks at the data and formulates its hypotheses to match the known data. Then, only after that hypotheses matches testing and all attempts to falsify it does it become a theory. Yet even as a theory it remains potentially falsifiable. Creationism operates just the opposite. It starts with a preconceived conclusion and then only looks for the data which matches it, ignoring and dismissing whatever does not. That is why creationism can never be a science. It rejects the scientific method from the very start.

It seems to me that science also starts with a preconceived concl that "there is no God". Also, if the scientific evidence seems to point in the direction of creation and the supernatural, then it ignores it as unprovable.

 

[LoAmmi]

It seems to me that science also starts with a preconceived concl that "there is no God". Also, if the scientific evidence seems to point in the direction of creation and the supernatural, then it ignores it as unprovable.

No...

It's just that science cannot start with a premise that isn't observable. Substitute "there is no G-d" with "there are no fairies" and you see why science cannot start with the preconceived notion that they do exist. I am not trying to equate the divine to fairies, but the fact is that we cannot simply declare something exists that we cannot see or detect in some way and use it as a premise.

If you'd like to give one of these examples that point to the supernatural that is ignored as unprovable, I'd be glad to read about it.

 

[Cearbhall]

I realize that- that's why I said 'I know but'. But they didn't invent, create or make up the etched images from over a thousand years ago. My point was there are real footprints of both Dinos and man together and a clearly etched Stegosaurus- with skin and hard body parts (scales/bony structures) protruding from head to tail- that could not have been known IF Dinos had really died out 75,800,000 years before man came upon earth.

I already gave you links that show that the footprints were disproven decades ago. Please don't get the impression that a lingering conspiracy theory you found on the Internet is news to people who study this, or that they believe what they do only because they haven't heard about these footprints.

 

[willubraptured2]

No...

It's just that science cannot start with a premise that isn't observable. Substitute "there is no G-d" with "there are no fairies" and you see why science cannot start with the preconceived notion that they do exist. I am not trying to equate the divine to fairies, but the fact is that we cannot simply declare something exists that we cannot see or detect in some way and use it as a premise.

If you'd like to give one of these examples that point to the supernatural that is ignored as unprovable, I'd be glad to read about it.

The resurrection of Christ is one supernatural issue that is ignored by science. Life after death can not be proved by science methodologies and therefore is considered false. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[LoAmmi]

The resurrection of Christ is one supernatural issue that is ignored by science. Life after death can not be proved by science methodologies and therefore is considered false. Wouldn't you agree?

There is no evidence for science to test for the resurrection of Jesus. There is no evidence for science to test for life after death. It isn't ignored; it's not relevant to the field of study.

But for you to say it's considered false is wrong. Science makes no statements one way or the other about Jesus's resurrection or life after death with the possible exception to say that we have no evidence to support either.

 

[willubraptured2]

There is no evidence for science to test for the resurrection of Jesus. There is no evidence for science to test for life after death. It isn't ignored; it's not relevant to the field of study.

But for you to say it's considered false is wrong. Science makes no statements one way or the other about Jesus's resurrection or life after death with the possible exception to say that we have no evidence to support either.

Your response seems to be more an argument for the shortcomings of science in that it doesn't allow for anything that can't be proven to MAN's satisfaction. Where is the allowance for humility that perhaps not everything can fit neatly into the box of science. As to God being irrelevant, it would seem to me that nothing is more relevant to the field of science. In my opinion much of what science can't "prove" is demonstrated by the existence of God and His word.

 

[LoAmmi]

You are basically complaining there aren't enough touchdowns in baseball or that your hammer doesn't cut grass well enough. Science is a specific set of tools that seek to understand the processes of the natural world.

 

[gord44]

In my opinion much of what science can't "prove" is demonstrated by the existence of God and His word.

Example? I am not huge into science but I also don't see the point of shoving everything science and observation can't figure out with certainty into the 'God did it!' file.

 

[LoAmmi]

Example? I am not huge into science but I also don't see the point of shoving everything science and observation can't figure out with certainty into the 'God did it!' file.

The other problem also being that the gaps get smaller and smaller.

 

[bhsmte]

Your response seems to be more an argument for the shortcomings of science in that it doesn't allow for anything that can't be proven to MAN's satisfaction. Where is the allowance for humility that perhaps not everything can fit neatly into the box of science. As to God being irrelevant, it would seem to me that nothing is more relevant to the field of science. In my opinion much of what science can't "prove" is demonstrated by the existence of God and His word.

This is where you need have faith and why it is called faith.

Just because science can not detect miracles that a religion claims, doesn't mean you can't believe in them. It appears though, you are taken aback, because science doesn't somehow acknowledge the same.

 

[Rocmonkey]

I already gave you links that show that the footprints were disproven decades ago. Please don't get the impression that a lingering conspiracy theory you found on the Internet is news to people who study this, or that they believe what they do only because they haven't heard about these footprints.

Cearbhall, I didn't see that on the links you offered. Maybe you could check yours again and tell me where it was. Thanks.

 

[willubraptured2]

This is where you need have faith and why it is called faith.

Just because science can not detect miracles that a religion claims, doesn't mean you can't believe in them. It appears though, you are taken aback, because science doesn't somehow acknowledge the same.

Not at all, I don't believe that science and a belief in God are mutually exclusive, in fact I believe they are complimentary. I do have a problem with an ideology that excludes the God of the Bible just because He doesn't neatly fit in the "box"

 

[Rocmonkey]

David didn't need to make a sacrifice to be forgiven. The sacrifices of the Lord are a contrite heart, right?

Also, did you try to slip one passed us with that comment? While true, God did give the Israelites commandments to sacrifice animals for sins- and other events. In the NT Jesus is both the fulfillment of the law and prophets and He was the ultimate sacrifice for all sin. There is now no need to offer burnt offerings or sacrifices bcuz what God desires most from us is a broken spirit and a contrite heart. (Ps. 51:17, Is. 66:2). But without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (in Both Ot & NT).
Also, check out Lev. 6:24- the 'sin' offering/sacrifice. There must be one bcus God commanded it. How, then, do the Jewish people today get forgiveness for their sins now that there is no modern-day shedding of blood and no temple to perform any sacrifices?