IF Jesus really walked on the water 2,000 years ago, what would constitute adequate proof for you today, other than the testimony of those who were there and their changed lives?
very very few jews believe jesus was the messiah. the issue of Jesus's role is central to the schism that created christianity in the first place. "jews for jesus" is considered a fringe cult just like the Westboro whackos.
No, Jesus didn't create a "schism". Jesus fulfilled God's plan. The Jews that refuse to believe create the "schism". Once again, Jesus is a Jew, his disciples were Jews, and the first Christians were Jews. Fact.
People change their lives all the time. Jesus is not required. If the Jesus character was still wiggling on the cross, that would be impressive.
You don't have the testimony of those who were there. You have hearsay testimony. And what you have is copies of copies of copies or copies of a Bible. These copies are not all alike. I once heard a sermon claiming 500 people saw Jesus alive after he was crucified. Well one person claiming 500 people saw Jesus is different that 500 people claiming they say Jesus. This example illustrates the nature of Biblical proof. So is your claim of testimony based on the Gospels and if so can you even prove who wrote the Gospels?
Older guns seem to be of better quality, cold hard forged steel that has been milled to perfection with no stamped aluminum or steel parts and no plastics.
The Bible is far more violent, racist, and oppressive than the Koran is. It is also better written than the Koran.
Better written? How? Have you read the actual Koran in Arabic? Because it's not written in English at all.
Actually Jesus was the cause of the schism that led to the establishment of the christian church. The church is founded on the belief that jesus was the mashiach. Most jews didn't buy into that, hence the schism.
For example, listening to your parents and staying away from trouble makers. Learning to forgive. Eat, drink, and be merry. Helping the unfortunate. Things like that or whatever you consider to be a good idea in the Koran, like killing a person's slave if he kills one of yours, having non-muslim friends, cooperating and being nice with everyone, treating thieves with kindness, all people are good. You know, things that make you feel good to be alive and to be living in the 21st Century.
If the Koran is supposed to be such a wonderful thing for mankind why is it restricted to just Arabic when there are not that many Arabs in the world? Do you think that is because they are more gullible than other people who might reject it if it was written in their various languages? The Bible is written in every language, including Arabic.
Well, if that's the way you want to look at it, I guess that's your choice, huh. Kinda like Jesus saying he came to cause division between parents and children, etc. You're either with me or against me type of thing.
I'm still not at all sure what to list as good ideas. The Koran contains so much information of all sorts. But sure much if what you mention is there. Some of the best I personally like are Don't gossip Help others Don't be arrogant Don't despair of the mercy of Allah Everything can be forgiven as long as you live Evil will always meet evil This life is a test Everyone is equal in front of Allah Man is small Be modes No alcohol Good always has a reward Don't know that that has anything to do with living in 21st century.
The bible isn't revelation. The Koran is the word of God - literally. And the Arabic language being one of the riches in the world, if not the richest, it is impossible to translate it correctly. However, your argument is empty as there are translations of the meaning of the Koran. That it isn't called translation as that is not a big deal and if someone wants to make yet a new supreme attempt at translating it in all its perfection into English for instance, they can go for it.
If you write something.... you put your name on it.... We certainly have no such issues with the letters of Paul Also, a simple reading of the gospels shows these are not first person accounts The gospels are filled with stories about WHAT happened None of those stories are told from the perspective of WE did this, or jesus said this to me And, as Tecoyah pointed out.... the gospels were written in GreeK by obviously literate writers Where as jesus disciples were comprised of people from a rural area called the Galilee .... these people were almost certainly not literate nor greek speakers.... and lets acknowledge that the vast majority of people of that era had neither opportunity nor necessity to become literate.... especially people who would support themselves by farming, fishing, carpentry, leather working, or tent making, But that “grainy relationship”. Is not just a problem with the authors of the gospels. There are innumerable issues that come up where we are forced to interpolate what happened and its significance. We can dispute about how much interpolation is required, and the imputed accuracy of that endeavor. But, as those intricacies are discussed.... what become increasingly clear is that the New Testament is composed of second and third hand accounts....written long after the events in question..., and this reality is quite discontinuous from representations of the New Testament being historically reliable first hand accounts written by actual witnesses to the events Certainly there was an early church, and that church was propagated and evangelized by people who have left various remnants of what they believed to be true and what they taught. And, since the church they founded flourished, we find this information to be consequential. And...given that their teachings were the basis of the Christianity which dominated.... it is unsurprising that there is a correlation between these early evangelists teachings and the dogma of the church that emerged and dominated. But, acknowledging that is significantly different than making a clear case that this teaching is what was taught by jesus. I would point out that there were an abundance of early Christian sects. Each with a different take on Christianity. It is likely not coincidence that what survived was the teaching of the church that became established in Rome.... the heart of the most powerful empire in history. The fact that this dogma is what was taught in rome does not necessarily make that teaching as inherently the most accurate.
There were ten Greeks cities in the north called the Decapolis and a lot of angst about "Hellenized Jews".. so somebody must have been speaking Greek. Acts 6:1: “In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.”
12-15% is not inconsequential And that % is certainly an adamant, and vocal minority which insists that their views must be accommodated Further, although young earth views are a minority.... they are simply at the far end of a spectrum, with very many Christians who simply are not at the farthest end of the spectrum. So, for example, there are many Christians who will not go full young earth... but certainly will reject evolution for reasons that are not so dissimilar to young earth theology Fairly easy for you to disassociate yourself from young earthism. But frankly, young earthers make it pretty difficult to simply dismiss them
