~Lady~:


It tells me that these people didn't think the way we do because they didn't live in our time. And that in order for us to understand what they wrote, we have to understand how they thought. Instead of thinking how we do today, think how they did then. You will then understand what their message is.

I believe Noah's story took place, I just understand how it is he thought. I don't think he knew that the earth wasn't flat and that there were other people who lived in other places in the world. I think he thought that the world was what he could see. So the world he knew is not the world we know, so don't use the world we know as a standard to the world he knew.
It might say world, but you have to understand what world meant to him.

The Bible should be read as it was written and not as if it was written today.

lady lady lady

this your argument is soooooooo weak, 
your have just torn the veracity of your bible to shreds

IDINRETE:


lady lady lady

this your argument is soooooooo weak,
your have just torn the veracity of your bible to shreds

My thoughts exactly.

Higher criticism lady, its the method that was used to determine when the books were written, its an approximation  and I have said it times without number nobody knew who the authors were, mark was in fact a roman, there is a thread somewhere running on that issue.

Oga Chris, I don't know where you get your information from but the authors are well known and the time they were written are well known. I know it suits you to buy into whatever you researched on the web, but rest assured these records have been there for 2000 years.

Um hello what does mark being a roman have to do with anything, how does it prove your point? Have you forgotten that there were converts to christianity and that the Romans were there. Paul was a citizen of Rome too.

My dear, I thought the bible was the inspired word of God oh

It is.

But if you are saying these men wrote things just as they saw the world then I will agree with you, if we know that Noah's flood did not happen the way it did then why would we believe the creation story?

Maybe you don't know what the word Inspire means, I will ask you to ponder on what it means to say someone is inspired. I never said that Noah's flood didn't happen or that it is not to be believed. I have only stated that in order to understand it, you have to think like Noah thought. Same thing with the creation story. We know it happened, I am a woman you're a man case closed  . The way it is conveyed is through the eyes of he who is writing or telling the story. Like I stated before, we cannot think in the future, we can only think in today. When our descendants read our writings they will have to understand how we think before they can understand the message.

All these things were fabricated from imagination there certainly was no inspiration and if there was God does suck about the knowledge of the earth he created in 7 days.

You must really think that inspire means to put words in ones mouth or mind verbatum. So once again I will ask you what it means to inspire or to say someone is inspired

this your argument is soooooooo weak, 
your have just torn the veracity of your bible to shreds

So are you trying to say that they thought like we did? Are you trying to say that their thought processes was as advanced as ours? Please show me how.
Did they know that the earth was round? Did they know that continents existed? Please tell me did they?

Madam lady, you are making me do hard work oh , because its you sha I dug up the info free of charge
The Canonical Gospels
Most likely for no other reason than to round out the beasts of the apocalypse, John was chosen to be one of the four Gospels. For the sake of cohesive inerrancy, it would have been more beneficial in its absence. Although the author doesn't venture too far on a tangent from the life of Jesus depicted in the other canon Gospels, there are some distinguished omissions in this account. The most notable absences are the exorcism of devils, the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, the transfiguration, the virgin birth from Mary, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' proclamations of his return, and every last one of the parables. Scholars agree that the original Gospel of John started at 1:19 and ended at 20:31. Furthermore, they've determined that the remainder of the book seems heavily edited and reworked.
For these reasons, John fails to be an unquestionably reliable and synoptic source of divine inspiration for the story of Jesus.
Scholars unanimously agree that Mark is the most primitive of the four canon Gospels. Its details are relatively less developed, consequently making this biography of Jesus very brief. Interestingly, Jesus' primary biographer was obviously a distant Roman who never knew him. In fact, the original version of Mark doesn't even contain Jesus' appearance following his crucifixion (16:9-19)! This concession is made in the NIV but left out of the KJV. Even though the author was from Rome, he provided enough minor details to have a fair understanding of his subject. Why, then, would he leave out the indispensable element of the world's most important story unless he lived during a period without a resurrection rumor?
Since about 80% of the verses in Mark appear verbatim in Matthew,we can seemingly tell that the author of Matthew used Mark as a template when writing his own account. However, he alters many of Mark's details and adds several stories presumably unknown to its author. The Gospel of Matthew most certainly had a Jewish writer since he strives to correct many of the mistakes arising from Mark's ignorance of local knowledge. Since we have no clear evidence that the author of Matthew was one of Jesus' disciples, we can't rule out the likely possibility of its author simply plagiarizing the Mark account in order to make it more acceptable to residents of the Middle East. It's far too coincidental for the writings to match so well in some passages and contradict in others for there not to have been some minor transcribing taking place. Thus, we'll analyze the contrasting details of the two accounts in order to exemplify the unreliability of the latest God-inspired product.
Mark (1:2) makes an incorrect reference to Hebrew scripture by quoting Malachi 3:1 as being the work of Isaiah. The KJV does not contain this error, although biblical translations concerned more with honesty and accuracy than advancing inerrancy leave the misattribution in the text. Needless to say, the more knowledgeable Matthew author doesn't repeat Mark's mistake. Mark also claims that only God can forgive the sin of another (2:7), but that's a direct contrast to actual Jewish beliefs, which hold that other men can forgive sins as well. Again, Matthew drops this statement from the record (9:3). Mark mentions the region of Gadarenes being near a large body of water, but it's about thirty miles from even a sizable lake (5:1). The Matthew author, realizing that Mark knows next to nothing about local geography, changes Gadarenes to Gergesenes, which is only a few miles from a lake (8:28).
Mark mentions multiple "rulers of the synagogue" even though almost all synagogues only had a single leader (5:22). The Matthew author corrected this phrase so that the reader could ambiguously interpret it as having only one ruler (9:18). Mark records Jesus ridiculing the ancient food laws set by God and Moses (7:18-19), but the author of Matthew, being a Jew, no doubt considered this to be sacrilegious and dropped the passage from his account (15:18-20). Mark also has Jesus misquoting one of the commandments as refraining from defrauding others (10:19). Meanwhile, Matthew strictly adheres to the exact commandments of Moses by omitting this curious deception rule but including the "love one another'' summary commandment (19:18-19). The author of Mark strangely refers to David as "our father" (11:10). This is something no Jew would ever do because all Jews weren't descendents of David.
Seeing as how Abraham and Jacob would be the only individuals referred to in this manner, the desire for accuracy forces the Matthew author to correct another one of Mark's blunders (21:9).
Mark also gets the traditional date for killing the Passover incorrect (14:12), but the Matthew author settles the mistake by omitting the phrase from his own work (26:17). The very next verse in Mark has Jesus ordering two of his disciples to locate a man bearing a pitcher of water (14:13). In Jewish culture, carrying pitchers of water was the work of a woman. Naturally, Matthew must drop this phrase as well (26:18). On the night of the crucifixion, Mark says that it's the time before the Sabbath (15:42). Being a Roman, the author was obviously unaware that the Jewish day begins with the evening. Thus, the evening following the crucifixion wasn't the night before the Sabbath; it was the start of it. Matthew must yet again omit one of Mark's divinely inspired statements in the transcription (27:57).
Unaware that the Sabbath had already arrived, Mark's account has Joseph of Arimathaea buying linen to wrap around Jesus' body (15:46). Because it was a sin to make purchases on the Sabbath, Matthew must consequentially drop that detail as well (27:59). Finally, Mark mentions "the fourth watch of the night" (6:48). The Jews actually divided the night into only three watches, while the Romans made the division into fourths.
The author of Matthew makes a few additional minor corrections from Mark's account, but I trust that you get the point I'm attempting to convey. However uncomfortable it may feel, the divinely inspired author of the earliest Jesus biography, who seemingly invented details out of thin air, knew very little about what he was writing.
The Gospel of Luke begins with a surmised admission that the author didn't personally experience any of the details contained within his account because he alleges the presence of eyewitnesses but fails to notify himself as one.
Like Mark's Gospel, Luke was probably narrated by an individual residing far from Jerusalem because he commits several translational errors when converting Old Testament Hebrew scripture into Greek. Additionally, in a manner similar to the way in which Mark was penned, Luke's author goes into extensive detail on his explanations of local phenomena but not those pertaining to Rome. Following the lead of Matthew's author, Luke's consistent duplication of Mark's verses seemingly indicates that he also relied heavily on that text when making his report. However, researchers soon discovered that they could not find 230 verses common to Matthew and Luke in the more ancient Mark.
I have cut this thing short here because I don tire oh! But I trust you have the idea I am trying to convey, still waiting for achan's story.

Madam lady, you are making me do hard work oh , because its you sha I dug up the info free of charge
The Canonical Gospels
Most likely for no other reason than to round out the beasts of the apocalypse, John was chosen to be one of the four Gospels. For the sake of cohesive inerrancy, it would have been more beneficial in its absence. Although the author doesn't venture too far on a tangent from the life of Jesus depicted in the other canon Gospels, there are some distinguished omissions in this account. The most notable absences are the exorcism of devils, the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, the transfiguration, the virgin birth from Mary, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' proclamations of his return, and every last one of the parables. Scholars agree that the original Gospel of John started at 1:19 and ended at 20:31. Furthermore, they've determined that the remainder of the book seems heavily edited and reworked.
For these reasons, John fails to be an unquestionably reliable and synoptic source of divine inspiration for the story of Jesus.
Scholars unanimously agree that Mark is the most primitive of the four canon Gospels. Its details are relatively less developed, consequently making this biography of Jesus very brief. Interestingly, Jesus' primary biographer was obviously a distant Roman who never knew him. In fact, the original version of Mark doesn't even contain Jesus' appearance following his crucifixion (16:9-19)! This concession is made in the NIV but left out of the KJV. Even though the author was from Rome, he provided enough minor details to have a fair understanding of his subject. Why, then, would he leave out the indispensable element of the world's most important story unless he lived during a period without a resurrection rumor?
Since about 80% of the verses in Mark appear verbatim in Matthew,we can seemingly tell that the author of Matthew used Mark as a template when writing his own account. However, he alters many of Mark's details and adds several stories presumably unknown to its author. The Gospel of Matthew most certainly had a Jewish writer since he strives to correct many of the mistakes arising from Mark's ignorance of local knowledge. Since we have no clear evidence that the author of Matthew was one of Jesus' disciples, we can't rule out the likely possibility of its author simply plagiarizing the Mark account in order to make it more acceptable to residents of the Middle East. It's far too coincidental for the writings to match so well in some passages and contradict in others for there not to have been some minor transcribing taking place. Thus, we'll analyze the contrasting details of the two accounts in order to exemplify the unreliability of the latest God-inspired product.
Mark (1:2) makes an incorrect reference to Hebrew scripture by quoting Malachi 3:1 as being the work of Isaiah. The KJV does not contain this error, although biblical translations concerned more with honesty and accuracy than advancing inerrancy leave the misattribution in the text. Needless to say, the more knowledgeable Matthew author doesn't repeat Mark's mistake. Mark also claims that only God can forgive the sin of another (2:7), but that's a direct contrast to actual Jewish beliefs, which hold that other men can forgive sins as well. Again, Matthew drops this statement from the record (9:3). Mark mentions the region of Gadarenes being near a large body of water, but it's about thirty miles from even a sizable lake (5:1). The Matthew author, realizing that Mark knows next to nothing about local geography, changes Gadarenes to Gergesenes, which is only a few miles from a lake (8:28).
Mark mentions multiple "rulers of the synagogue" even though almost all synagogues only had a single leader (5:22). The Matthew author corrected this phrase so that the reader could ambiguously interpret it as having only one ruler (9:18). Mark records Jesus ridiculing the ancient food laws set by God and Moses (7:18-19), but the author of Matthew, being a Jew, no doubt considered this to be sacrilegious and dropped the passage from his account (15:18-20). Mark also has Jesus misquoting one of the commandments as refraining from defrauding others (10:19). Meanwhile, Matthew strictly adheres to the exact commandments of Moses by omitting this curious deception rule but including the "love one another'' summary commandment (19:18-19). The author of Mark strangely refers to David as "our father" (11:10). This is something no Jew would ever do because all Jews weren't descendents of David.
Seeing as how Abraham and Jacob would be the only individuals referred to in this manner, the desire for accuracy forces the Matthew author to correct another one of Mark's blunders (21:9).
Mark also gets the traditional date for killing the Passover incorrect (14:12), but the Matthew author settles the mistake by omitting the phrase from his own work (26:17). The very next verse in Mark has Jesus ordering two of his disciples to locate a man bearing a pitcher of water (14:13). In Jewish culture, carrying pitchers of water was the work of a woman. Naturally, Matthew must drop this phrase as well (26:18). On the night of the crucifixion, Mark says that it's the time before the Sabbath (15:42). Being a Roman, the author was obviously unaware that the Jewish day begins with the evening. Thus, the evening following the crucifixion wasn't the night before the Sabbath; it was the start of it. Matthew must yet again omit one of Mark's divinely inspired statements in the transcription (27:57).
Unaware that the Sabbath had already arrived, Mark's account has Joseph of Arimathaea buying linen to wrap around Jesus' body (15:46). Because it was a sin to make purchases on the Sabbath, Matthew must consequentially drop that detail as well (27:59). Finally, Mark mentions "the fourth watch of the night" (6:48). The Jews actually divided the night into only three watches, while the Romans made the division into fourths.
The author of Matthew makes a few additional minor corrections from Mark's account, but I trust that you get the point I'm attempting to convey. However uncomfortable it may feel, the divinely inspired author of the earliest Jesus biography, who seemingly invented details out of thin air, knew very little about what he was writing.
The Gospel of Luke begins with a surmised admission that the author didn't personally experience any of the details contained within his account because he alleges the presence of eyewitnesses but fails to notify himself as one.
Like Mark's Gospel, Luke was probably narrated by an individual residing far from Jerusalem because he commits several translational errors when converting Old Testament Hebrew scripture into Greek. Additionally, in a manner similar to the way in which Mark was penned, Luke's author goes into extensive detail on his explanations of local phenomena but not those pertaining to Rome. Following the lead of Matthew's author, Luke's consistent duplication of Mark's verses seemingly indicates that he also relied heavily on that text when making his report. However, researchers soon discovered that they could not find 230 verses common to Matthew and Luke in the more ancient Mark.
I have cut this thing short here because I don tire oh! But I trust you have the idea I am trying to convey, still waiting for achan's story.

Chrisbenogor:

Madam lady, you are making me do hard work oh , because its you sha I dug up the info free of charge
The Canonical Gospels
Most likely for no other reason than to round out the beasts of the apocalypse, John was chosen to be one of the four Gospels. For the sake of cohesive inerrancy, it would have been more beneficial in its absence. Although the author doesn't venture too far on a tangent from the life of Jesus depicted in the other canon Gospels, there are some distinguished omissions in this account. The most notable absences are the exorcism of devils, the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, the transfiguration, the virgin birth from Mary, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' proclamations of his return, and every last one of the parables. Scholars agree that the original Gospel of John started at 1:19 and ended at 20:31. Furthermore, they've determined that the remainder of the book seems heavily edited and reworked.
For these reasons, John fails to be an unquestionably reliable and synoptic source of divine inspiration for the story of Jesus.
Scholars unanimously agree that Mark is the most primitive of the four canon Gospels. Its details are relatively less developed, consequently making this biography of Jesus very brief. Interestingly, Jesus' primary biographer was obviously a distant Roman who never knew him. In fact, the original version of Mark doesn't even contain Jesus' appearance following his crucifixion (16:9-19)! This concession is made in the NIV but left out of the KJV. Even though the author was from Rome, he provided enough minor details to have a fair understanding of his subject. Why, then, would he leave out the indispensable element of the world's most important story unless he lived during a period without a resurrection rumor?
Since about 80% of the verses in Mark appear verbatim in Matthew,we can seemingly tell that the author of Matthew used Mark as a template when writing his own account. However, he alters many of Mark's details and adds several stories presumably unknown to its author. The Gospel of Matthew most certainly had a Jewish writer since he strives to correct many of the mistakes arising from Mark's ignorance of local knowledge. Since we have no clear evidence that the author of Matthew was one of Jesus' disciples, we can't rule out the likely possibility of its author simply plagiarizing the Mark account in order to make it more acceptable to residents of the Middle East. It's far too coincidental for the writings to match so well in some passages and contradict in others for there not to have been some minor transcribing taking place. Thus, we'll analyze the contrasting details of the two accounts in order to exemplify the unreliability of the latest God-inspired product.
Mark (1:2) makes an incorrect reference to Hebrew scripture by quoting Malachi 3:1 as being the work of Isaiah. The KJV does not contain this error, although biblical translations concerned more with honesty and accuracy than advancing inerrancy leave the misattribution in the text. Needless to say, the more knowledgeable Matthew author doesn't repeat Mark's mistake. Mark also claims that only God can forgive the sin of another (2:7), but that's a direct contrast to actual Jewish beliefs, which hold that other men can forgive sins as well. Again, Matthew drops this statement from the record (9:3). Mark mentions the region of Gadarenes being near a large body of water, but it's about thirty miles from even a sizable lake (5:1). The Matthew author, realizing that Mark knows next to nothing about local geography, changes Gadarenes to Gergesenes, which is only a few miles from a lake (8:28).
Mark mentions multiple "rulers of the synagogue" even though almost all synagogues only had a single leader (5:22). The Matthew author corrected this phrase so that the reader could ambiguously interpret it as having only one ruler (9:18). Mark records Jesus ridiculing the ancient food laws set by God and Moses (7:18-19), but the author of Matthew, being a Jew, no doubt considered this to be sacrilegious and dropped the passage from his account (15:18-20). Mark also has Jesus misquoting one of the commandments as refraining from defrauding others (10:19). Meanwhile, Matthew strictly adheres to the exact commandments of Moses by omitting this curious deception rule but including the "love one another'' summary commandment (19:18-19). The author of Mark strangely refers to David as "our father" (11:10). This is something no Jew would ever do because all Jews weren't descendents of David.
Seeing as how Abraham and Jacob would be the only individuals referred to in this manner, the desire for accuracy forces the Matthew author to correct another one of Mark's blunders (21:9).
Mark also gets the traditional date for killing the Passover incorrect (14:12), but the Matthew author settles the mistake by omitting the phrase from his own work (26:17). The very next verse in Mark has Jesus ordering two of his disciples to locate a man bearing a pitcher of water (14:13). In Jewish culture, carrying pitchers of water was the work of a woman. Naturally, Matthew must drop this phrase as well (26:18). On the night of the crucifixion, Mark says that it's the time before the Sabbath (15:42). Being a Roman, the author was obviously unaware that the Jewish day begins with the evening. Thus, the evening following the crucifixion wasn't the night before the Sabbath; it was the start of it. Matthew must yet again omit one of Mark's divinely inspired statements in the transcription (27:57).
Unaware that the Sabbath had already arrived, Mark's account has Joseph of Arimathaea buying linen to wrap around Jesus' body (15:46). Because it was a sin to make purchases on the Sabbath, Matthew must consequentially drop that detail as well (27:59). Finally, Mark mentions "the fourth watch of the night" (6:48). The Jews actually divided the night into only three watches, while the Romans made the division into fourths.
The author of Matthew makes a few additional minor corrections from Mark's account, but I trust that you get the point I'm attempting to convey. However uncomfortable it may feel, the divinely inspired author of the earliest Jesus biography, who seemingly invented details out of thin air, knew very little about what he was writing.
The Gospel of Luke begins with a surmised admission that the author didn't personally experience any of the details contained within his account because he alleges the presence of eyewitnesses but fails to notify himself as one.
Like Mark's Gospel, Luke was probably narrated by an individual residing far from Jerusalem because he commits several translational errors when converting Old Testament Hebrew scripture into Greek. Additionally, in a manner similar to the way in which Mark was penned, Luke's author goes into extensive detail on his explanations of local phenomena but not those pertaining to Rome. Following the lead of Matthew's author, Luke's consistent duplication of Mark's verses seemingly indicates that he also relied heavily on that text when making his report. However, researchers soon discovered that they could not find 230 verses common to Matthew and Luke in the more ancient Mark.
I have cut this thing short here because I don tire oh! But I trust you have the idea I am trying to convey, still waiting for achan's story.

Very very interesting. Let me go and look it up in the bible.

@LADY,
c'mon lady if they noah was inspired by "god the creator" thenhe should have known the earth isn't flat. Just another fairytale.

Christians lie because their religion was founded on lies.

Look at the word Be[b]lie[/b]ve or be[b]lie[/b]f can you see the word lie in the middle.

So image a christian talking to his/ her God saying I be-lie-ve this and that.

In the middle of the word be[b]lie[/b]ve is the word lie and this is what they use to talk to their God.

Kuns:

Christians lie because their religion was founded on lies.

Look at the word Be[b]lie[/b]ve or be[b]lie[/b]f can you see the word lie in the middle.

So image a christian talking to his/ her God saying I be-lie-ve this and that.

In the middle of the word be[b]lie[/b]ve is the word lie and this is what they use to talk to their God.

May the Good Lord open your eyes of understanding so that you may see His glory and know the hope/reason of your existence.

Hebrews 8:1-13(KJV)
(1) Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
(2) A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
(3) For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
(4) For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
(5) Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
(6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


God does not operate on the old covenant with his people anymore;he operates on the new covenant.

ttalks:

Hebrews 8:1-13(KJV)
(1) Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
(2) A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
(3) For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
(4) For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
(5) Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
(6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


God does not operate on the old covenant with his people anymore;he operates on the new covenant.

Stop posting about a covenant that your nationality, race or ethnicity is not part of. If you open your eyes and see the covenant was made btw the Jews and the God they created.

bindex:

Stop posting about a covenant that your nationality, race or ethnicity is not part of. If you open your eyes and see the covenant was made between the Jews and the God they created.

Ephesians 2:8-22
(8  For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God
(9)  and not the result of works, lest anyone boast.
(10)  For we are his masterpiece, created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared long ago to be our way of life.
(11)  So then, remember that at one time you were gentiles by birth and were called "the uncircumcision" by what is called "the circumcision" made in the flesh by hands.
(12)  At that time you were without Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise. You had no hope and were in the world without God.
(13)  But now, in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
(14)  For it is he who is our peace. In his flesh he made both groups one by tearing down the wall of hostility that divided them.
(15)  He rendered the law inoperative, along with its commandments and regulations, so that he might create in himself one new humanity from the two, thus making peace,
(16)  and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, on which he killed the hostility.
(17)  He came and proclaimed peace for you who were far away and for you who were near.
(18)  For through him, both of us have access to the Father in one Spirit.
(19)  That is why you are no longer strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God's household,
(20)  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.
(21)  In him the whole building is joined together and rises into a holy sanctuary in the Lord.
(22)  You, too, are being built in him along with the others into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

@ Chris

lol, u know to the untrained eye or those who don't know anything about the synoptic gospel, this would seem interesting, unfortunately you are dealing with someone who's studied the synoptic gospels in class at the university also not just from the church. please cite your sources, thanks. I am not even sure where to begin to dissect this, but will do my best.

Most likely for no other reason than to round out the beasts of the apocalypse, John was chosen to be one of the four Gospels. For the sake of cohesive inerrancy, it would have been more beneficial in its absence. Although the author doesn't venture too far on a tangent from the life of Jesus depicted in the other canon Gospels, there are some distinguished omissions in this account. The most notable absences are the exorcism of devils, the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, the transfiguration, the virgin birth from Mary, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' proclamations of his return, and every last one of the parables. Scholars agree that the original Gospel of John started at 1:19 and ended at 20:31. Furthermore, they've determined that the remainder of the book seems heavily edited and reworked.
For these reasons, John fails to be an unquestionably reliable and synoptic source of divine inspiration for the story of Jesus.

John is the most detailed of all the synoptic gospels and was also the last to be written, he assumes that the readers are already familiar with the synoptic gospels, hence the omission of some of those stated above. You stated once before that none of the authors identified themselves, however John clearly does so and he does this at the end. One can only put things together to see so. At the foot of the cross Jesus entrusts his mother to the care of his most beloved disciple, we know definitely that the disciple who kept Mary was John, and then John tells us at the end of his gospel that it is this beloved disciple that has written down the gospel. So we know definitely that it is John who wrote the gospel. He identifies himself.

John lived in Ephesus until the year 100 AD and at the request of the elders he wrote the Gospel.

Scholars unanimously agree that Mark is the most primitive of the four canon Gospels. Its details are relatively less developed, consequently making this biography of Jesus very brief. Interestingly, Jesus' primary biographer was obviously a distant Roman who never knew him. In fact, the original version of Mark doesn't even contain Jesus' appearance following his crucifixion (16:9-19)! This concession is made in the NIV but left out of the KJV. Even though the author was from Rome, he provided enough minor details to have a fair understanding of his subject. Why, then, would he leave out the indispensable element of the world's most important story unless he lived during a period without a resurrection rumor?

First of all tells these people to get their sources from the actual Bible not those revised and redone by Protestants. If they want the Bible as it was compiled it is in the Vatican, they can translate it, infact they can pick up the Douay Rheims it is translated straight from the vulgate, as is.

Mark was writing to a community of gentile converts to Christianity, hence it was written in greek. He was requested by the Romans to set down the teachings of St. Peter. This is confirmed by the position which St. Peter has in this Gospel. In this way this gospel is a record of the life of Jesus as seen through the eyes of the Prince of the Apostles (St. Peter).
Mark's purpose is to show to the Romans that Jesus is the saviour, and that He is divine. To this he attends more to the miracles of our Lord than to his sermons, giving only a few of the parables at length. All I can do is laugh at the last sentence of this, so are they implying that Mark was written a lot later after the death of Jesus, if that is the case then the claim that Matthew and Luke used Mark is not true, since it would then place the composition of Matthew and Luke after the composition of Mark and it would be much later, but because we know historically that Matthew was written before the destruction of the temple of the jews and that his gospel attribute to the fact that Matthew did write his gospel, then this claim of theirs holds no water. Be careful where you get your information from Chris, make sure things add up. Another thing that debunks that claim is the gospel according to John, we know definitely (the church keeps records you know) that John died in 100 AD and that his gospel assumes that those reading it would have already read the synoptic gospels then Mark was written before his death.
Also we do know the person of Mark and the time he lived. Mark was sometimes called John Mark whose mother's name was Mary you can find this in the Acts of the Apostles which was written in 63 AD, he is also mentioned in 2 Timothy by St. Paul. He was associated with St. Paul and St. Barnabas (Mark's cousin) on their missionary Journey through the Island of Cyprus. He founded the Church in Alexandria during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, this certainly tells us that Mark's gospel was written before the destruction of the jewish temple.
It is highly, higly unlikely that any of the gospels were written some 80 years after the death and resurrection of Christ, and that it was written by those who were not associated with Christ or eyewitnesses to him.

Since about 80% of the verses in Mark appear verbatim in Matthew,we can seemingly tell that the author of Matthew used Mark as a template when writing his own account. However, he alters many of Mark's details and adds several stories presumably unknown to its author. The Gospel of Matthew most certainly had a Jewish writer since he strives to correct many of the mistakes arising from Mark's ignorance of local knowledge. Since we have no clear evidence that the author of Matthew was one of Jesus' disciples, we can't rule out the likely possibility of its author simply plagiarizing the Mark account in order to make it more acceptable to residents of the Middle East. It's far too coincidental for the writings to match so well in some passages and contradict in others for there not to have been some minor transcribing taking place. Thus, we'll analyze the contrasting details of the two accounts in order to exemplify the unreliability of the latest God-inspired product.
Mark (1:2) makes an incorrect reference to Hebrew scripture by quoting Malachi 3:1 as being the work of Isaiah

Second, whomever wrote this already has it in mind to discredit Christ, and so is more than willing to add in false things.
While Matthew used Mark he expanded on his gospel and included things that were known to him. Matthews gospel deals with his community. This has been the constant tradition of the church and is confirmed by the Gospel itself. His gospel was written to fill a sorely felt want for his fellow countrymen, both believers and unbelievers. For the former it served as a token of his regard and as an encouragement in the trial to come, especially the danger of falling back to Judaism; for the latter it was designed to convice them that the messiah has come in the person of Jesus. This gospel was composed in Matthew's native tongue of aramaic. This gospel was most likely composed between the time of his departure from Palestine and the council of jerusalem between 42AD and 50AD, however it is possible that it was composed later, but certainly before the destruction of the Jewish temples as in the gospel the temple is depicted as still existing, which debunks your claim that the gospels were written some 80 years after the death of Christ so it couldn't have been written by the apostles.

Also it stated that Mark was ignorant of the hebrew scripture that in Mark 1:2 he attributes a saying in Malachi to Isaiah when in fact that particular verse is found in Isaiah 40:3 "3 The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the wilderness the paths of our God." Tell these people to get their facts straight. Mark didn't get it wrong.
Like I said be careful where you get your information from, people who are desperate to promote their views tend to become blind to the truth and this is the perfect example.

Mark also claims that only God can forgive the sin of another (2:7), but that's a direct contrast to actual Jewish beliefs, which hold that other men can forgive sins as well. Again, Matthew drops this statement from the record (9:3). Mark mentions the region of Gadarenes being near a large body of water, but it's about thirty miles from even a sizable lake (5:1). The Matthew author, realizing that Mark knows next to nothing about local geography, changes Gadarenes to Gergesenes, which is only a few miles from a lake (8:28).

There is no error in Mark pertaining to this, it is the writer that has falsely interpreted the message. It is still the belief of the Catholic church that men were given the power to forgive sins.

Mark mentions the region of Gadarenes being near a large body of water, but it's about thirty miles from even a sizable lake (5:1). The Matthew author, realizing that Mark knows next to nothing about local geography, changes Gadarenes to Gergesenes, which is only a few miles from a lake (8:28)

Ok tell this person to get his facts straight. Here is what Mark and Matthew hold about this event.

Mark 5:1 "1 And they came over the strait of the sea into the country of the Gerasens"
Matthew 8:28 "And when he was come on the other side of the water, into the country of the Gerasens"

So you see they speak of the same place.

Mark mentions multiple "rulers of the synagogue" even though almost all synagogues only had a single leader (5:22). The Matthew author corrected this phrase so that the reader could ambiguously interpret it as having only one ruler (9:18).

They do no such thing. Both speak of one ruler coming up to Jesus

Mark 5:22 " And there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue named Jairus: and seeing him, falleth down at his feet"

Matthew 9:18 "And he was speaking these things unto them, behold a certain ruler came up, and adored him, saying: Lord, my daughter is even now dead; but come, lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live"
Matthew doesn't state whether it is a ruler of a synagogue, your writer is making assumptions.

You know what I am going to stop here, as the above is enough evidence for you to know that this person doesn't know what he's talking about and I'm getting pissed off that you didn't even check to make sure that this source is credible. It only goes back to my point that you will only believe and visit sites that feed and justify you and what you want.

with the story of achan it didn't say that his family was stoned to death, it said that he was stoned to death. it seems his family was banned and removed from the people.

It tells me that these people didn't think the way we do because they didn't live in our time. And that in order for us to understand what they wrote, we have to understand how they thought. Instead of thinking how we do today, think how they did then. You will then understand what their message is.

I believe Noah's story took place, I just understand how it is he thought. I don't think he knew that the earth wasn't flat and that there were other people who lived in other places in the world. I think he thought that the world was what he could see. So the world he knew is not the world we know, so don't use the world we know as a standard to the world he knew.
It might say world, but you have to understand what world meant to him.

The Bible should be read as it was written and not as if it was written today.

This is a tacit admission that the Bible cannot in fact be the undiluted word of God. If all Biblical stories were written based on the knowledge of the writer - mostly ancient uneducated nomads - one can only begin to imagine the amount of error and wrong perception that must exist in the Bible.

Lady can you back up your claim please.

@Adam Brody/OP:

Interesting argument. Are you trying to decipher the logic behind why God kills in the Old Testament and hence, He is a mass murderer, as you state? Please don't fight the logic. If there is a Supreme, Intelligent Being like God out there Who can create multiple galaxies, and design the intricate details of a human anatomy so that everything connects in perfect unity (and I would say for the record that this God exists), then how do you even attempt to fathom the reason/logic on why He would allow killings/order killings, when He is clearly so much more superior in intellect than you or I?

As a matter of fact, you should be ecstatic that He is not into the business of instant judgment as He used to be before Jesus came. I doubt that you would be left standing at the moment.

Oh, by the way, I forgot to add:

Adam Brody and Co., I am not quite sure where you heard that God does not condone killing. He does, if one deserves it. And there is another mass killing coming. A killing that is of an eternal-damnation variety. Yeah, I know, I know, you don't believe it, and frankly, I don't care.

It's called Judgement Day.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Omonla:

I am not quite sure where you heard that God does not condone killing. He does, if one deserves it. And there is another mass killing coming. A killing that is of an eternal-damnation variety. Yeah, I know, I know, you don't believe it, and frankly, I don't care.

It's called Judgement Day.

I look forward to seeing you there.

A mass extermination that'll make Adolf Hitler look like an amateur, eh? Well, your God and the Angels will have a ball, eh? And could we suppose there wouldn't be any Christians pleading with God for those humans experiencing constant torture? Uh; humans aren't what they used to be. When the Hebrew God decided that the Israelites had to die, shortly after their rescue from Egypt, there was a man who pleaded and reasoned with God about it, and God, being reasonable, saw reason.

It'll be just like the Hutus and Tutsis, or the usual killings in the North, when people turn on their neighbours; yet, in those dark times, you find some neighbours who would protect others at great personal risk. Wouldn't it be something to know that some of your neighbours and friends would be continuously tortured, wailing and crying and in pain, stuff that'll make Abu Ghraib look like a dress rehearsal, yet, some members of the human race would be having fun on the other side?

It's just a thought. I wonder how many serve such a God.
.

Nimshi:

A mass extermination that'll make Adolf Hitler look like an amateur, eh? Well, your God and the Angels will have a ball, eh? And could we suppose there wouldn't be any Christians pleading with God for those humans experiencing constant torture? Uh; humans aren't what they used to be. When the Hebrew God decided that the Israelites had to die, shortly after their rescue from Egypt, there was a man who pleaded and reasoned with God about it, and God, being reasonable, saw reason.

It'll be just like the Hutus and Tutsis, or the usual killings in the North, when people turn on their neighbours; yet, in those dark times, you find some neighbours who would protect others at great personal risk. Wouldn't it be something to know that some of your neighbours and friends would be continuously tortured, wailing and crying and in pain, stuff that'll make Abu Ghraib look like a dress rehearsal, yet, some members of the human race would be having fun on the other side?

It's just a thought. I wonder how many serve such a God.
.

Oh believe me, the mass extermination that is coming will make Hitler look like a saint.

Why would anyone believe in such a God? Because it is not His choice that anyone should be 'offed' like that. The people getting exterminated are the ones who chose to be exterminated in said manner. This Judgement means that every person who shunned the chance to check out what God is truly about now, is choosing to spend eternity without Him. If not eternity with God, your other option is eternity with satan. This is worse than what Hitler could have done to you. But why blame God for the pain of spending eternity with satan in 'extermination'? People who poke fun at Him now are expressly choosing, of their own free will, to be judged in that way - To be separated from Him for ever. Exterminated.

It is written: Do not fear him who can kill the body; but rather, fear Him Who can condemn both soul and body to Hell.

So don't fear Hitler. He was a mere man.

I conclude that you shouldn't argue the extermination. Afterall, you would prefer not to be around Jesus, no? Then I would surmise that it is fair to be separated from Him, and be exterminated into satan's domain forever.

So God is wicked, you are saying. Why would anyone serve Him?
I would ask you this: Why would anyone not serve Him when they know He loves them enough to the point of allowing them to choose for themselves whether they want to be 'exterminated' or not?

Let every man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. You have made your choice. I have made mine. We will all live, and die, with our choices.

@omonla
The way you think is a major problem for the world. Lets examine what you have said so far.
First of all you say your God is omniscient, which means that he is all knowing, he know when someone should be killed right?
If he is really all knowing then why do you think you really have a choice as to whether you will be exterminated with the rest of us that are doing good works but belief religion is bull shit. As it stands God already knew what you were going to post what you just did, you really had no choice but to do what God knows you will do, your free will is an illusion, God probably already knows that one day you will see reason not to believe and that you will be condemned with the rest of us. From what you said you have no choice.
Is the fools paradise you live in becoming clearer?

@omonla
The way you think is a major problem for the world. Lets examine what you have said so far.
First of all you say your God is omniscient, which means that he is all knowing, he know when someone should be killed right?
If he is really all knowing then why do you think you really have a choice as to whether you will be exterminated with the rest of us that are doing good works but belief religion is bull shit. As it stands God already knew what you were going to post what you just did, you really had no choice but to do what God knows you will do, your free will is an illusion, God probably already knows that one day you will see reason not to believe and that you will be condemned with the rest of us. From what you said you have no choice.
Is the fools paradise you live in becoming clearer?

Chrisbenogor:

@omonla
The way you think is a major problem for the world. Lets examine what you have said so far.
First of all you say your God is omniscient, which means that he is all knowing, he know when someone should be killed right?
If he is really all knowing then why do you think you really have a choice as to whether you will be exterminated with the rest of us that are doing good works but belief religion is bull shit. As it stands God already knew what you were going to post what you just did, you really had no choice but to do what God knows you will do, your free will is an illusion, God probably already knows that one day you will see reason not to believe and that you will be condemned with the rest of us. From what you said you have no choice.
Is the fools paradise you live in becoming clearer?

"Condemned with the rest of us"

Dude, those are strong words to say about yourself. But by your own admission, you believe that you are condemned. Lets run with this for a sec:
I will set the record straight by clarifying that I don't believe in religion. I believe in relationship with Jesus. Big difference. Religion is what you, and many others, have been arguing on this board. Has anyone stopped to think that if God created us in His own image, then He speaks, and loves, and relates, just like we do with fellow humans? Therefore, it is not about arguing whether Jesus is the 'right' religion or not. The question should be about the relationship, and why I would want to know God, not wrap Him around some religion.
Just a side note about your reference to religion above.

Next, you indicate I am in a fool's paradise. You say that I may see reason not to believe in God anymore, and become 'condemned with the rest of us'. Lets set the record straight on this as well.
It is written: "For God did not send His Son to condemn the world. But that the world, through Him, might be saved."

Note that the above says that God sent His Son for the WORLD. Not just Omonla. I am not the only one that God prepared salvation for. As a result, there must be some point where I would have had to make a choice on whether I want this Jesus.

I made a choice, THEN, I became one of those folks that God, like you said, already knew before time, would become saved. In that respect, you are right. He KNEW already, before I even made the choice, that I would pick Jesus. But did I know? Nope. And do YOU know what your destiny will be? Nah. Your argument is that there is no freedom of choice if God already knew. That argument does not fly. He knew before I decided, but He didn't force me to decide, did He?

See, I did have a choice. I chose not to be condemned. He knew that I would choose it. But He did not force the proverbial horse to drink the water, did He?

My choice.

@omonla
You still don't get it, you have the illusion that you could have chosen otherwise but that is only a mirage, you were never going to choose differently.
Do you know what it means to be all knowing? I guess not, but the characteristics of God don't match, they are contradictory.
If God is all seeing (omniscient), all powerful (omnipotent) and all good (omnibenevolent), then: first of all Free will cannot exist because omniscience implies predestination, if God knows you have no choice. Secondly, evil in the world would be impossible because an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God by definition would not allow such a thing.

Is God willing to stop evil but not able, then he is not all powerful.
Is God able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not all loving.
Is God both able and willing to stop evil in the world, why does evil still abound in the world?
Is God neither willing nor able to stop evil, THEN WHY CALL HIM GOD?

Let me make this clearer.
genuine omniscience is not in any way compatible with free will- either ours or the alleged god's. To start with our free will, it has been observed many times that if a god knows the future with infallible certainty, then what this god knows will necessarily happen - there is no possibility for anything else to occur. We are, then, incapable of altering the future.
If God knows Yar aduar will be Nigeria's president after obj there is nothing anyone could have done about it. Free will is just an illusion.

Chrisbenogor:

@omonla
You still don't get it, you have the illusion that you could have chosen otherwise but that is only a mirage, you were never going to choose differently.
Do you know what it means to be all knowing? I guess not, but the characteristics of God don't match, they are contradictory. 
If God is all seeing (omniscient), all powerful (omnipotent) and all good (omnibenevolent), then: first of all Free will cannot exist because omniscience implies predestination, if God knows you have no choice. Secondly, evil in the world would be impossible because an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God by definition would not allow such a thing.

Is God willing to stop evil but not able, then he is not all powerful.
Is God able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not all loving.
Is God both able and willing to stop evil in the world, why does evil still abound in the world?
Is God neither willing nor able to stop evil, THEN WHY CALL HIM GOD?

Hi Chrisbenogor:

Actually, I understood what you were saying from your previous post. What you are driving at is that I am either destined for salvation or I am not, and I do not have a choice in the matter because God is omnipotent and omniscient. By being so powerful, we are all essentially His puppets.

No.

I guess we will have to go into the story of the struggle between good and evil. God is indeed omniscient and omnipotent. Then, there is satan. The enemy of God. The one whose pride relegated him from a Heavenly kingdom, to eternal damnation.
It is written, "For when this Priest (Jesus) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down on the right hand of God. Since that time, He awaits for His enemies to be made His footstool."
It is also written, "We wrestle not against flesh and blood. But against principalities, powers, spiritual wickedness in high places."

God is all powerful. All knowing. But, the present world is currently satan's domain. And God waits. That is why babies can starve in Africa, or nations can rise against each other with nuclear weapons and blow each other up. The evil stems from the enemy of God that is struggling to gather up as much souls as he can take with him to the 'extermination' that I spoke of in my earlier posts. You may call this an illusion, as you have called other things I mentioned above. But God waits. Those snippets of mercy that we see from time to time when a plane doesn't crash-land, or some other disaster is averted - That would be God's grace that is still being revealed, even though satan is being permitted to wreck havoc on human's lives and circumstances at the moment. I have seen posts of how evil God must be, to allow such. Well, He's waiting.

If God is all powerful, all knowing, why would He permit the evil? As it is written, just like Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple in Eden and God did not, in His 'Supreme Tyranny' stop them, which would have been your argument, He is permitting evil now because the situation is but for a short while. His enemies will be His footstool, for it is written. 

So, contrary to your post, I would declare that He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

And then there is satan. The reason for the dichotomy that you have mentioned above.

Need to log off now.

Hello omonla,
For the sake of clarity lets define both terms.
Omnipotence, sometimes known as being all-powerful, refers to God's ability to do absolutely anything God wants. This characteristic is usually treated as implied from God's characteristic as absolute creator. If God is capable of creating all of existence (whether ex nihilo or ex deo), it is felt that it would be nonsensical to then assert that there are things beyond God's abilities. Any being capable of creating existence itself must therefore be capable of anything at all - right?
Omniscience, also sometimes known as being all-knowing, refers to God's ability to know absolutely everything. This characteristic is usually treated as a consequence of one of two ways in which God exists: either because God exists outside of time, or because God exists as part of time.
Lets agree on this so we both know we are saying the same thing.

Chrisbenogor:

Hello omonla,
For the sake of clarity lets define both terms.
Omnipotence, sometimes known as being all-powerful, refers to God's ability to do absolutely anything God wants. This characteristic is usually treated as implied from God's characteristic as absolute creator. If God is capable of creating all of existence (whether ex nihilo or ex deo), it is felt that it would be nonsensical to then assert that there are things beyond God's abilities. Any being capable of creating existence itself must therefore be capable of anything at all - right?
Omniscience, also sometimes known as being all-knowing, refers to God's ability to know absolutely everything. This characteristic is usually treated as a consequence of one of two ways in which God exists: either because God exists outside of time, or because God exists as part of time.
Lets agree on this so we both know we are saying the same thing.

I agree with the definitions, as mentioned previously. Omnipotence is an all powerful God. Omniscience is an all knowing God. Your earlier point was that if God was all these, why doesn't He stop evil?
My question would be: Since God is all powerful and all knowing, He would be in a better position to determine whether stepping in and obstructing one evil or the other would be a good idea in the eternal picture.
Since I do not have the wisdom of an Intelligent Being like God, I would not go there, with regards to why He would permit satan's evil in a sinful world. Thank God we still experience mercy, or it would be absolute chaos. Perhaps because certain humans that occupy said world prefer satan's ways to God's ways and, as it is written, the Lord "gave up such people to vile affections and degrading passions"?

You state that free will is an illusion. In other words, if one is predestined to be saved by Jesus, then those who mock God were already predestined to be condemned (your words). I will reiterate with a more simplistic model: Does your mind argue with you sometimes on whether you should have toast for breakfast, or cereal instead? Do you have a choice in the matter? Do you think God predestined you to have the cereal because you decided to have the cereal? Do you think I could decide to go to school and become an engineer, or drop out and become a drug junkie? Was I predestined to be a junkie, or did my own foolishness lead me astray? Will I blame God for my "predestined junkiness"?
Will I blame Him for "condemning me via predestination" to decide that He does not exist? And since God alone knows what I was predestined for, will I sit back and decide that because He knows, and I want to ignore Him, therefore, my predestination must be that I will be forever damned? This is your logic.

God knows whether you would have chosen to be a junkie or an engineer. But you completely miss the point when you argue that He gave no freewill to make that decision. He did. He knew the outcome. You didn't. You had the ability to decide the outcome. Acknowledge or shun God. You chose. He knows what your choice will be. But you will never know what He knows, hence the whole point behind using your free will to decide, and arriving at the outcome that He already knows from the beginning of time, will occur, but which He did not force on you. He knows of the day when a person will decide to accept Jesus or become an atheist. He saw it coming. But He did not push. You think He will use His all powerful, omnipotent ability to make a person believe in Him? Not going to happen. It is unfortunate for those who are sitting around and waiting for the big sign. Or using the big excuse of predestination.

Like I stated in an earlier post above, I don't care whether atheists/agnostics on this thread/board/planet choose to acknowledge God.

I do not 'convert' people. Not my problem. I am responsible for my own salvation and nobody else's. A person either acknowledges Jesus, or shuns Him.

That is all. Getting off here.

@omonla
Freewill and omniscience are contradictory.
If I already know before hand what you will do, your other choices are really only an illusion your mind tricks you that you are fighting a battle but in reality you are not, in the end you must choose it because I already know.
If you took a clue from the definitions I gave you might have sat down to ponder what you said again.
If God knows what I will do by 5 pm I really have no choice but to do that which will happen by 5 pm I cannot change my mind at 4 30, to the ordinary eye it might look like I have choices but I dont, what happened by 5 in Gods eye must happen.
So its either God is omniscient or we have free will it cannot be both.
A perfect Omnimax being cannot exist all its properties are too contradictory, can God know how to sit? Can God know how to swim? These are characteristics of humans and not spirits as you have alleged God to be.
In summary if this being has these properties, God does not exist.

Chrisbenogor:
@omonla
Freewill and omniscience are contradictory.
If I already know before hand what you will do, your other choices are really only an illusion your mind tricks you that you are fighting a battle but in reality you are not, in the end you must choose it because I already know.
If you took a clue from the definitions I gave you might have sat down to ponder what you said again.
If God knows what I will do by 5 pm I really have no choice but to do that which will happen by 5 pm I cannot change my mind at 4 30, to the ordinary eye it might look like I have choices but I don't, what happened by 5 in Gods eye must happen.
So its either God is omniscient or  we have free will it cannot be both.

The illogic of an oaf.

God knows what you will do by 5pm not because what you will do by 5pm is necessarily predetermined but that God knows what you will choose to do by 5pm. Free will is the freedom to choose from a range of alternative paths available to a person, omniscience includes knowing what path will be chosen.

The said choices are just an illusion, for instance I am sure God knows you cannot reply this post without coming across like the silly brat you always come across as.
You think you have the choice of being civil but you really don't. Its all ready predestined that you will try to reply like a wise ass, you just have an illusion that you could be civil.
Look who's even talking about logic.
*sighs loudly*

The said choices are just an illusion, for instance I am sure God knows you cannot reply this post without coming across like the silly brat you always come across as.
You think you have the choice of being civil but you really don't. Its all ready predestined that you will try to reply like a wise ass, you just have an illusion that you could be civil.
Look who's even talking about logic.
*sighs loudly*