And while that may be true - he knew, going into it, that it would end.
And anything you may think “of the extent of it” - is what you imagine it to be - since there is simply no evidence, or anything beyond supposition, to suggest it wasn’t just a 3 day nap.
Which exactly of my points do you think might be true because there is no evidence either way? We have tons of evidence the flood never happened. People have been all over the Sinai and have never seen evidence of the immense encampment there. Your assertion that the Bible is always right doesn’t quite cut it. The Bible doesn’t do nearly so well with the part of the archeological community that doesn’t know the answer in advance.
Sure - members of the church set up by Peter had nothing to do with Jesus. The reasons they did it were very Biblical. If not being baptized means you are in for an eternity of torment, any small amount of torture to force Christianity on someone is worth it. Right?
As for God doing the interpreting, how do you know what God thinks? Saying Jesus is God because Jesus interpreted the prophecies a certain way, and this must be correct because he is God is a bit circular, right?
My real last name qualifies me to be the Messiah. I wasn’t born in Bethlehem but I’ve been to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, close enough. That makes me God, and if you don’t like my interpretation, who are you to argue with God?
Not that I’m going to take the job. Who wants to be King of Israel until they get some oil, and I heard it doesn’t pay enough.
There isn’t a lot of evidence that it was any nap. Except a permanent one. And he’s late in returning, though I guess the traffic on I-666 is really hellish.
If mans end is to just glorify God then that God would be an egotist, If God is All knowing and ahead of time and what would happen then God would be responsible for man’s weakness . He also should have known that Satan and some angels would rebel. I am just a weak human who knows very little but I would not bring a child into the world if I knew that child would be evil and harm my other children, I would not have them. God should be kinder and more loving than me!
Well, the biblical account has him waking up after three days - so, if we take that at face value - all we know is that - to my recollection - he doesn’t recount his time “on the other side” and any reports of it would be supposition.
His second, second return (he came, he went, he came back, he left again) is what we’re still waiting for.
Two days, actually. I know he reserved for 3, but I suppose they have early checkout. But, like I said, not a lot of evidence he returned the first time. And by not a lot I mean none.
We now know that the early followers of Jesus. were very divided about Jesus. So much was written after the fact that the truth was somehow not reported. Until Constantine called the bishops of the Orthudox church and the Roman church formed and agreement what a Christian was to do , be united on what was inspired and what was not.
Using it as a political movement.
I do, however, on the basis of my own reason and judgment of the evidence, think that the Gospels are more likely to be history than fiction, and therefore that the interpretation of the prophecies that coheres with the events of the Gospels is more likely
I also (and again, this is a judgment call) think that the idea that, for example, the Suffering Servant chapters of Isaiah are self-evidently talking about a person (to wit, Jesus Christ), makes much more sense than the idea that they are talking about the personified nation of Israel. Again, I can’t prove that to you, and am not going to try, though I suspect that most neutral observers looking at the passage would naturally agree with me, rather than with you. (I’ve tried this experiment with a few secular/atheist folks I know, with little previous knowledge of the Bible, and they’re usually baffled to realize when the passage was written).
Lest this get people accusing me of believeing that Abraham was historical: I don’t. I think the story of Abraham is a myth (in the strict sense of the word). Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t, I have no clue either way. But it serves the important purpose (for Christians) of foreshadowing Jesus Christ. The story about the Syrophoenician woman conveys the same message, but I take it (unlike Abraham) as historical.
I’m trying to figure out how to say this. The idea of a God who, having come to a world full of unbearable suffering that He himself created, offers salvation but then lies to people who want it, telling them that they’re not welcome, as a way of testing their faith–I do not find that idea reconcilable with the idea of a loving God. It sounds less Christ-y, more Loki. Even taking the story as true, I’d draw very different conclusions about the nature of God from it.