Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
More than anything else, I suppose, my continued clarity, sanity, and reasoning ability since Christ. I couple this with the fact that certainly millions, if not billions of persons over history have experienced the same thing, if perhaps in different ways and at different times in their lives.How do you know that "made himself known to me" was not a delusion on your part? Please note, I am not claiming that you are deluded, but how would you know if you were?
If that's what you mean by "kingdom of god," then he clearly failed.
Is he working towards it or has he accomplished it? Make up your mind.I didn't say the kingdom of God is fully realized on earth yet. If that were the case, there'd be no evil on earth. I said God is working towards that final goal.
I don't doubt your sincerity, or the sincerity of any believer when they say that they have had a religious experience that, in their mind, is interpreted as a glimpsing of certain divine truths. Such experiences are not uncommon, as you pointed out. What interests me (and most other skeptics of religion) is whether the supposed divine wisdom gleaned from such experiences is indeed wisdom and whether it genuinely originated from something divine.Faith, as far as I understand it, is not by any means a 'path of knowledge'. Rather it is a state of being which opens a person to the presence of the Holy Spirit, who inspires one to be more receptive to the both the written and living word of God. Faith, for me, came DURING my search for the right path of knowledge. Oversimplification: At some point during my search, Jesus Christ made himself known to me, (He stands at the door and knocks), and I became willing to let Him in. Now, when I DO study the written word, by the grace of God, I study it in the light of Christ. So for me, all things point to Jesus. Either from the past in anticipation of Him, or from the present and future as fulfillment. Then, my Christilogical experience of the written word, combined with a sacramental life (which effects my character and action by sacramental grace), combines to form my overall faith life which informs all I say, do, and think about. So, how can I invoke anything but faith in Jesus Christ to vanquish doubt, when it is precisely this knowledge and way of life that DOES vanquish doubt for me. I am being honest about my experience, however that may come off in conversation or debate, it is genuine, even if not useful for the other person.
Maybe "proof" wasn't the right word there, but I'd say that it signals his own view of the matter. To have stayed on could suggest that something he intended to do had not been accomplished yet.Leaving was proof that he accomplished his mission?
He said "toward." Don't be working so hard to find fault that you misrepresent what has been told to you.If that's what you mean by "kingdom of god," then he clearly failed.
I don't really have a view to push or promote here, since it seems to me to all depend on one's view of Christ's mission and how it is to be accomplished. I'm only experimenting with ideas here... More interesting, to me anyway, is how a Biblical literalist would interpret Christ's "ascension into heaven" in a post-Copernican world. But that's for another thread.Maybe "proof" wasn't the right word there, but I'd say that it signals his own view of the matter. To have stayed on could suggest that something he intended to do had not been accomplished yet.
I'm sorry, but I misread. There was no intent to misrepresent.He said "toward." Don't be working so hard to find fault that you misrepresent what has been told to you.
I don't really have a view to push or promote here, since it seems to me to all depend on one's view of Christ's mission and how it is to be accomplished. I'm only experimenting with ideas here... More interesting, to me anyway, is how a Biblical literalist would interpret Christ's "ascension into heaven" in a post-Copernican world. But that's for another thread.
Acts 1:9, read literally, says pretty much exactly that. But as I said, for another thread.Few Christians think that he literally rose into the sky until he was seated on a cloud, etc. And the actual wording of the passage in Scripture doesn't say anything like that.
You can't be serious. All that that verse says is that a cloud obscured their view of him. It says nothing about heaven at all.Acts 1:9, read literally, says pretty much exactly that. But as I said, for another thread.
Well, you are right that it does not say "seated on a cloud"....Few Christians think that he literally rose into the sky until he was seated on a cloud, etc. And the actual wording of the passage in Scripture doesn't say anything like that.
Is he working towards it or has he accomplished it? Make up your mind.
He was "taken up" and a "cloud received him." Acts 1:11 clarifies where he went.You can't be serious. All that that verse says is that a cloud obscured their view of him. It says nothing about heaven at all.
He was "taken up" and a "cloud received him." Acts 1:11 clarifies where he went.
A literal reading of the verse tells us that Jesus was "taken up," "received by a cloud," and disappeared. We later learn that this in the manner in which he travelled to heaven - upward, into the sky. This has been the premise of countless artistic depictions of the event, such as this one:Really? To me it says nothing about the nature of heaven and yet you were trying to bring home the idea that a "literal" reading of this verse would tell us that Jesus was propelled through the air to a heaven that can be located and described like we'd locate and describe France.
A literal reading of the verse tells us that Jesus was "taken up," "received by a cloud," and disappeared.
Faith isn’t about proving something right or wrong. I believe it’s right for me. And I can share my beliefs, but if you disbelieve, it doesn’t make you right and me wrong. It doesn’t make me right and you wrong. We just have different beliefs. I believe that if more people came to God, they’d live happier lives, but again, this is my belief. You can’t prove what I believe to be untrue, anymore that I can prove to you that it is true.I'm somewhat confused by what you're trying to say. Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether it is true ("neither is right or wrong"), so long as it makes you happy?
His mission was accomplished. What's more, I suppose it could also be argued that the Ascension was further proof, after the Resurrection itself, that he'd accomplished it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?