You should and must believe in Jesus and become a Christian because if you don't , Jesus will torture you in a place of immense pain and suffering for ever and ever and ever and ever.

BUT HE LOVES YOU !!!





#ChristianJokers



( Quote rephrased from original made by George Carlin )

XxSabrinaxX:

Most who reply aren't going to have their minds changed, obviously. I personally, am not here to change anyone's mind at least and you don't need to have an education to talk about something that's interesting.

That's true, but I don't want to make an argument when I'm ignorant of the subject. So far, I've been looking at pagan roots (El-Shaddai in the Bible) and slavery. But New Testament is kind of... murky waters, to me lol.

BluntBoy:


Christianity is a scam.

However, there is God with whom I share a very personal relationship. And our Lord Jesus Christ is Lord. I have seen Him, I have experienced Him. As a matter of fact, my Lord experiences Himself through me.

Oh, I love my Savior, Jesus the Christ.

Do you want to see my Lord? I can show Him to you.

You have seen JESUS ?? What a Liar !!!

NnennaG6:


No they don’t

There are contradictions. There is no need for you to deny that there are contradictions. However, being a writer myself, I can make a case for the contradictions. But the fact remains that there are contradictions in the gospels.

It would be an argument ad populum if I were trying to argue that Christianity is true because a lot of people believe so, but I’m obviously not arguing that because that would be silly and logically fallacious. I’m using the fact that so many people believed it despite violent hostility to lend credence to the notion that the gospels were reliable and accurate in that time. I don’t mean to say that it’s true because people believed, but rather that we would expect people to believe in such a hostile environment only if they could be reasonably certain that it’s true. But this fact only bolsters the case and is actually unnecessary as evidence for Christianity.

You are using evidences of religious fanaticism to lay credence to the notion that the gospels were reliable and accurate? Can we also lay credence to the notion that Islam is also right simply because many Muslims, including Mohammed, endured persecution?

NnennaG6:

Because it’s true.

So u were a Christian after all and in the thread u created u were trying to be diplomatic and u refused to answer the last question I asked

There are no deists in foxholes

Sorry if u are a deist,I mean no harm but 99% of these pple parading themselves as deists are actually christians,insecure christians

Besides Nnenna,in ur own words u said God's features can not include "omnibenovolence" and "love",that seems a bit contrary to the way Yahweh is described,the bible even says that God is love!
What sayeth thou ?

frosbel2:


You have seen JESUS ?? What a Liar !!!

Frosbel, I know you are one of the antichrists that have been unleashed on the body of Christ as prophesied in the Bible. I am not surprised that you mock my experiences with my Lord and Savior. Not even your father, the Devil, can shake my faith in my Lord.

frosbel2:
You should and must believe in Jesus and become a Christian because if you don't , Jesus will torture you in a place of immense pain and suffering for ever and ever and ever and ever.

BUT HE LOVES YOU !!!





#ChristianJokers



( Quote rephrased from original made by George Carlin )

Christ did not threaten nonbelievers with eternal torture. The idea of an eternal torture came from a misinterpretation of the passages on hell.

BluntBoy:


Christ did not threaten nonbelievers with eternal torture. The idea of an eternal torture came from a misinterpretation of the passages on hell.

What do u have to say abt that passage of the bible were Jesus sent his disciples out and told them to shake off the sand from there feet from any town or household that refuses them,saying it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for such city ?

What of when Jesus said if ur hand causes u to sin u should cut it off,better to enter heaven with one hand than to enter hell were the fire never quenches ?

Hermes019:

What do u have to say abt that passage of the bible were Jesus sent his disciples out and told them to shake off the sand from there feet from any town or household that refuses them,saying it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for such city ?

What of when Jesus said if ur hand causes u to sin u should cut it off,better to enter heaven with one hand than to enter hell were the fire never quenches ?

fire never quenches is not the same as eternal torture in the physical sense.

The whole idea of eternal torture is metaphorical for the pains of being alienated from the love of God (our Father).

Imagine a little child being separated from the love and affection of his parents. That is the torture that nonbelievers would face forever and ever. The believers would have eternal life while the nonbelievers would have eternal death (the Second Death).

It doesn't mean that the people thrown into it would remain eternally burning. They would die a second time and remain dead forever. The consequences of this death is that they would miss out on Paradise and on the wonderful love of our Father in heaven.

And according to Pastor BluntBoy all Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and most of Christianity EXCEPT YOUR OWN SECT will be sentenced to a second death , right ? That's ABOUT 95% of humanity not to talk of MOST of humanity who died without ever knowing about Jesus.


This is you own interpretation of your scripture, alas most Jesus followers on this forum will call you a heretic and many ANTICHRISTS like me who do not buy this nonsense will call you a LUNATIC.

There's a beginning and an end to everything; an old and new. Ecclesiastes 3:1-2 The Bible illustrates this clearly.

term Christianity is a word that denotes the religion of Christians (those who purportedly follow Christ Jesus teaching)

The word of God is not a worldly religion. Jesus clearly forbade religious rites that lay too much burden/false laws on man Mathew 23:25

True Christianity:

Preaches existence of one God; Jehovah

A system of kingdoms and rulership spearheaded by Christ Jesus

Contains historical facts, events and locations that are verifiable. Why is there much reference to Israel nowadays?

Love for God and your neighbors James 1:27, Mathew 22:37, Ecclesiastes 12:13

Shows there are no more need for ritual cleansing, blood sacrifices, washing ceremonies, praying laws, mantra chants and all those heavy burdens. All you need is converse with God through prayer and accept Jesus Christ sacrifice by pleading his blood

Shows the Word of God has power, not to talk of the name of God– Jehovah– or Jesus Christ. Why do you think people call it in times of difficulties; because the name saves although many abuse that right (of which punishment awaits). Try going to a pagan worship centre e.g close to a shrine or a place where there are many heathens; plead the blood of Christ Jesus to cleanse you, start calling on Jehovah's/Jesus's name or singing/playing Christian songs quietly. watch the reaction. if you're in a hidden part of the shrine, someone will search you out and ask you to leave because of the fire of torment on the sinful soul.

Has faced many persecutions. Will Hilter and the Roman generals seek to destroy the Jews and the Bible for no reason at all? Of course, not. The worldly don't want truth to surface.

Like I wrote earlier, God isn't overdemanding of us, humans. All we have is His. He only needs your devotion, love, worship and for you to spread his goodness to others. He can still do without humans; word of God says He's able to raise stones to worship him but he chose not to. He has innumerable angels praising him every second for eternity. Praising God is more for your own good not His.

preaches that man is above all beings on earth and shouldn't lower himself or act like or inferior to these beings; animals, plants, microorganisms, satan and demons. Genesis 1:28

shows the revelations in the Bible; both of Jesus Christ, John, Isaiah, Paul, Jeremiah, Daniel and many others have been and are being fulfilled in our days. Note that only the wise or those who accept wisdom can understand these events because they're not written in plain terms. Read my thread; Careful What you Eat.
From the desecration of Jehovah's earthly temple in Jerusalem, manifestation of false prophets/Antichrist, Endtime beasts, barcodes and 666, to satanic religious worship and national chaos. All these have come to pass; worldly musicians sing of it, politicians talk of it, clerics preach about it. Can they all be lying?

You don't need to argue the Bible because nobody can fully understand the things of God Almighty, Bible proves itself.

Doesn't need to prove God. God is too sacred for mere mortals to demand his presence; if He comes He can blaze the entire world with His supremacy. Can you even demand to see a mere Buhari if you're not high-ranking to start with? No, you only get to see his officials of the lowest cadre or his posters/comments on twitter. You can see God through his creation, that's if you're not spiritually blind. Nevertheless, God is humble and can commune with man at the right time; if you need to see him face to face, wait for it and be ready for that encounter. Exodus 20:19

Speaks of Salvation. Looking at the world today, you'll understand that things aren't right. Man needs to be found and saved. Why do political office expirants always promise a better condition each time; because it doesn't exist yet. Only Jesus Christ can give that.

Talks about prelife, life and afterlife. The 3components of man; spirit , soul and body and how to keep them sane and whole.

Shows you the way to true happiness, peace and joy. John 14:6

Those other religions you listed denies existence of a one true God and His son, or has too many 'gods' and rituals/religious burdens that are too heavy to bear, acknowledge the worship of beings inferior to man, reverence of ghosts, the occult and the dead amongst other things.

True Christianity is all about having Love (God in you Mathew 22:37), showing and giving love (living right , and helping others do so). It's that simple.

Note: to secure your soul in eternal life you must do ALL three, not 1 or 2.

1. Love God and all His (Jesus Christ, holy spirit, man)
2. Show Love or righteous living
3. Give Love or preach/help others

MhizAngel99:
Above all no man is perfect, we all are working towards perfection in Christ Jesus.

MhizAngel99:
Why not Islam? Hinduism? Why shouldn't I be a Mormon? Or a Buddhist? Or a Judaist? What convincing evidence is there for Christianity that overwhelms every other religion out there? This is a genuine question. Why should I believe in Christianity?

NnennaG6:

Because it’s true.

Nnenna, permission to step in for TheArranger?

frosbel2:
And according to Pastor BluntBoy all Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and most of Christianity EXCEPT YOUR OWN SECT will be sentenced to a second death , right ? That's ABOUT 95% of humanity not to talk of MOST of humanity who died without ever knowing about Jesus.


This is you own interpretation of your scripture, alas most Jesus followers on this forum will call you a heretic and many ANTICHRISTS like me who do not buy this nonsense will call you a LUNATIC.

It wouldn't shock me if fellow believers see me as a heretic. Evidently, the Pharisees saw Jesus as a heretic. Their views did nothing to diminish His status as the Son of God.

It wouldn't shock me either if others see me as a lunatic. I am sure my Lord was called worse names than lunatic.

But the truth remains that there is no other eternal punishment except the alienation of man from God through the Eternal Death.

BluntBoy:


It wouldn't shock me if fellow believers see me as a heretic. Evidently, the Pharisees saw Jesus as a heretic. Their views did nothing to diminish His status as the Son of God.

It wouldn't shock me either if others see me as a lunatic. I am sure my Lord was called worse things than lunatic.

But the truth remains that there is eternal punishment other than the alienation of man from God through the Eternal Death.

But only about 5% of humanity will be saved right ??

LordOfNaira:

You are using evidences of religious fanaticism to lay credence to the notion that the gospels were reliable and accurate? Can we also lay credence to the notion that Islam is also right simply because many Muslims, including Mohammed, endured persecution?

One reason I think Islam remains a prominent religion is due to the fact that it's a sister religion to Christianity and both stem from Judaism. All three religions still acknowledge the Abrahamic God so there's elements of truth in all.

Hermes019:

Besides Nnenna,in ur own words u said God's features can not include "omnibenovolence" and "love",that seems a bit contrary to the way Yahweh is described,the bible even says that God is love!
What sayeth thou ?

I never dismissed Omnibenevolence and Love as not being qualities of God. I simply stated that these attributes require an object or a comparison and do not preclude the creation of the universe.

XxSabrinaxX:

Nnenna, permission to step in for TheArranger?

Sure. No problem

fire never quenches is not the same as eternal torture in the physical sense.

It is true that the fire would burn forever, but that is not to say the people in it would be in physical pains or torture forever.

The whole idea of eternal torture is metaphorical for the pains of being alienated from the love of God (our Father).

back it up with the bible

Imagine a little child being separated from the love and affection of his parents. That is the torture that nonbelievers would face forever and ever.

but earlier u said that the eternal torture doctrine is wrong

The believers would have eternal life while the nonbelievers would have eternal death (the Second Death).

Yes, they would be cast into a lake of fire just as the Indians burn their corpses. However, unlike any earthly fire, the fire of hell is eternal. But it doesn't mean that the people thrown into it would remain eternally burning. They would die a second time and remain dead forever. The consequences of this death is that they would miss out on Paradise and on the wonderful love of our Father in heaven.

what is ur concept of eternal death ?, back it up with the bible

frosbel2:


But only about 5% of humanity will be saved right ??

God is merciful. Perhaps, He would save all, perhaps not. I am just a man like you. I don't know the number of those who would be saved.

But according to the Bible, there is only one way, one door and that is Jesus Christ. It is only through Him, that you can have eternal life.

NnennaG6:

Sure. No problem

Nice. Give me some few minutes

Hermes019:

back it up with the bible

but earlier u said that the eternal torture doctrine is wrong


what is ur concept of eternal death ?, back it up with the bible

Eternal torture in hell is totally wrong. The idea that man would be burning forever while feeling pains from the fire is totally wrong. Eternal torture is metaphorical for the alienation of man from God.

I beg you to provide Bible verses concerning hell so that I can clear the misunderstandings right here.

As for eternal death, after dying in the eternal flames of hell, the nonbeliever ceases to exist. Death is his punishment while life is the reward of the believer.

NnennaG6:

I find it to be a great answer, but I could have easily done the same, if I wanted to put in the time to do so. The Easter challenge does not demand that someone put together an exhaustive narrative, it only asks that they be coherently harmonized with some degree of educated guesses. This article clearly and successfully completes the Easter challenge

It does demand not leaving out any details, as well as that plausible explanations can be made, but like TheArranger, I too don't find this author's one on ink to be terribly convincing. The author also explicitly says that the different reactions from the women are likely due to variations with oral tradition, which is the exact issue being pointed out.

NnennaG6:

They are corroborating first century narratives of Jesus’s life. They are written as contemporary accounts and we have manuscript copies from the first century. By definition, they’re contemporary.

No, by definition they're not. They weren't written during Jesus's time, but after, just as Josephus was not a contemporary of Herod.

NnennaG6:

Multiple contemporary accounts are good enough for me, and any historian.

I've pointed out the problem with this statement already if you go back to my first mention of you in this thread. We want your source. It's the Bible in question, and we already know that the authors likely weren't eyewitnesses and that two Gospels took bits from Mark.

NnennaG6:

Christ had many followers, such that he was met with great excitement upon entering Jerusalem for the sabbath, and so much that the Jews sought to kill him. His followers were Christians.

Having followers ≠ Christian and people, even ones of the same religion, wanting to kill him ≠ Christian. He was a Galilean Jew.

NnennaG6:

Islam grew by conquest, Christianity grew in spite of conquest. That’s the point. Any religion can grow, but no religions grow based on an historical claim which it’s followers adhere to in spite of persecution, except Christianity.

Hinduism and Buddhism spread by communication and trade, so not by conquest. And Christianity's popularity took off with Constantine, continued with colonization. A lot of its popularity is due to those actions right there, or it wouldn't be as popular.

NnennaG6:

But it bears repeating, Islam grew by conquest. Christianity grew because people were willing to die in defense of the claim that Christ actually resurrected from the dead.

Martyrs aren't specifically Christian either, and Christianity absolutely grew by colonization... which... well, it wasn't pleasant.

BluntBoy:


Eternal torture in hell is totally wrong. The idea that man would be burning forever while feeling pains from the fire is totally wrong. Eternal torture is metaphorical for the alienation of man from God.

I beg you to provide Bible verses concerning hell so that I can clear the misunderstandings right here.

As for eternal death, after dying in the eternal flames of hell, the nonbeliever ceases to exist. Death is his punishment while life is the reward of the believer.

Alright,I don't believe in any of them anyways,I just think its interesting that christians have different understanding of the same bible

XxSabrinaxX:

but like TheArranger, I too don't find this author's one on ink to be terribly convincing.

Why not, aside from you atheists' desire to reject it? I think it’s a great explanation and one that is highly likely.

XxSabrinaxX:

The author also explicitly says that the different reactions from the women are likely due to variations with oral tradition, which is the exact issue being pointed out.

Regardless of your opinion here, this is actually quite trivial. There is no reason to think a contradiction exists where one account speaks of two angels and another account speaks of one. Neither account states that the number of angels given was the complete number of angels. Any reasonable explanation could be given per the requirements of the Easter challenge. Whether you find it convincing is irrelevant since it harmonizes the accounts with a reasonable guess.

XxSabrinaxX:

No, by definition they're not. They weren't written during Jesus's time, but after, just as Josephus was not a contemporary of Herod.

They were written in the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and those who knew Christ. They had access to contemporary information. So by definition they are contemporary accounts.

XxSabrinaxX:
It's the Bible in question,

No it’s not. It’s the claims regarding Christ’s life, death and resurrection. The gospels and the New Testament are my sources. I think it’s reasonable to suggest that it’s likely that two gospel writers were eyewitnesses and the other two were close friends of eyewitnesses as well. This isn’t certain but I am convinced that the gospels were written by the men to whom they’re traditionally attributed.

XxSabrinaxX:

Having followers ≠ Christian and people, even ones of the same religion, wanting to kill him ≠ Christian. He was a Galilean Jew.

Christians are followers of Christ. He had many followers when he lived, and many more after he died. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

XxSabrinaxX:

Hinduism and Buddhism spread by communication and trade, so not by conquest.

But they weren’t subject to persecution, especially in the first decades and centuries of their existence, like Christianity was. Both properties are important as having one or the other is unremarkable.

XxSabrinaxX:

Martyrs aren't specifically Christian either, and Christianity absolutely grew by colonization... which... well, it wasn't pleasant.

But it did not grow by colonization in its early years, a time period that I’m pointing out is important to the veracity of the claims of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection.

TheArranger:

That's true, but I don't want to make an argument when I'm ignorant of the subject. So far, I've been looking at pagan roots (El-Shaddai in the Bible) and slavery. But New Testament is kind of... murky waters, to me lol.

I find honesty like this refreshing. But, here is a piece of advice along the same lines:

If you want to confound a point of view, research it thoroughly from within.

I advise you to do that with the Bible. I am a Christian. I have never been an atheist. But I have never had a problem debating atheism because I have always studied both points of view. It is only over the past eighteen months or so that I focused exclusively on the Bible with no concern at all for atheism which is why I almost never attack atheism anymore even in counter-attacks. I prefer defense because I have no doubt that atheism is false and will always fail face-to-face with the Bible. Atheists do not know the Bible as a general rule. They come with straw men that are easy to expose for anyone who has studied the Bible. They also insist on popular ideas about what is wrong with the Bible which they themselves never actually studied. These are easy things to beat.

The problem here is that if an atheist actually honestly studies the Bible, they will reject atheism. So, the attraction is always to so-called objective study that really is second-hand reports and opinions of what the Bible says.

Honest study does not mean that you have to accept the position you are studying. It means instead that you should make the assumption that it is true and then see whether it is consistent with itself and with the world around us independent of other opinions.

That is my attitude to atheism and any other position I debate. I also studied them from that standpoint. That is how I can produce counters to them that are both original to me and authentic as well. I don't know every single position out there or every single argument. But I do know what internal and external consistency means. It does take some training to understand them and use them. So, I applaud your preference to avoid hobbyism and be an honest scholar. But I would add that you should form your own opinions through direct contact.

XxSabrinaxX:

But as a christian, isn't it an obligation to win souls for Christ?

No it is not. We are called to proclaim the Gospel wherever it may be received but we are not responsible to win anything. If people believe, we go on to teach them the whole Truth of the Bible. If they don't, we move on.

Ihedinobi3:

No it is not. We are called to proclaim the Gospel wherever it may be received but we are not responsible to win anything. If people believe, we go on to teach them the whole Truth of the Bible. If they don't, we move on.

So you don't mind if she ends up in hell?

solite3:
then you don't know what freedom is.

What is freedom?

solite3:

that is because you have rejected reality but it would be done on you someday.

Reality is a virgin in Israel gave birth to a man who died for me. Lol. What a weird reality for you.

NnennaG6:

Why not, aside from you atheists' desire to reject it? I think it’s a great explanation and one that is highly likely.

I already said why, just above.

NnennaG6:

Regardless of your opinion here, this is actually quite trivial. There is no reason to think a contradiction exists where one account speaks of two angels and another account speaks of one. Neither account states that the number of angels given was the complete number of angels. Any reasonable explanation could be given per the requirements of the Easter challenge. Whether you find it convincing is irrelevant since it harmonizes the accounts with a reasonable guess.

Then they are incredibly misleading documents, and it's shocking that they'd use the ink to write "young man" rather than "two angels".

NnennaG6:

They were written in the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and those who knew Christ. They had access to contemporary information. So by definition they are contemporary accounts.

John is pushing that boundary easily, and no, the authors still were not contemporaries. We can't even show if they spoke to anyone who was around when Jesus was.

NnennaG6:

No it’s not. It’s the claims regarding Christ’s life, death and resurrection. The gospels and the New Testament are my sources. I think it’s reasonable to suggest that it’s likely that two gospel writers were eyewitnesses and the other two were close friends of eyewitnesses as well. This isn’t certain but I am convinced that the gospels were written by the men to whom they’re traditionally attributed.

I don't have a problem with a popular rabbi getting killed for his teachings, but the miracles are shaky. And I don't think it's reasonable at all, considering that there is no evidence for what you're saying. If there is, show me. Because everything I've seen says otherwise.

NnennaG6:

Christians are followers of Christ. He had many followers when he lived, and many more after he died. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

I'm saying Christianity as a movement comes after Jesus, by the historical view of what Christianity is.

NnennaG6:

But they weren’t subject to persecution, especially in the first decades and centuries of their existence, like Christianity was. Both properties are important as having one or the other is unremarkable.

Buddhists absolutely were. Hindus got it later.

NnennaG6:

But it did not grow by colonization in its early years, a time period that I’m pointing out is important to the veracity of the claims of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection.

It became a state religion in 150s ish, which, regardless of reason, isn't too special in terms of how long it takes for a religion to gain a foothold. It came at a time where the power of Greek and therefore Roman gods were fading, so of course it had appeal. But by Constantine's time, yeah, absolutely it grew due to authority, as it did in Armenia before.

Edit: by the way, I have no desire to reject Christianity or any other religion. I just struggle finding real convincing reasons to believe.

XxSabrinaxX:

So you don't mind if she ends up in hell?

If I didn't would I have answered her thread much less explained the Gospel to her?

Again, it is the individual who must decide that they believe that there is something for them to be saved from and that they want to be saved from it and that they are satisfied with what the Gospel offers for their salvation. And we are responsible to God to respect that.

If it were possible, I personally would choose salvation for everyone. But I can't. And many times when Christians fail to respect other people's right to choose to hear the Gospel or to make their own choice about it, they only cause more damage.

So, it is far better to limit ourselves to sharing the Gospel with those who are willing to hear it and letting each one make their decision just like the Bible teaches us.

XxSabrinaxX:

I already said why, just above.

You merely said you don’t find it convincing. I want to know why.

XxSabrinaxX:

Then they are incredibly misleading documents, and it's shocking that they'd use the ink to write "young man" rather than "two angels".

I don’t see how. As the writer pointed out in that link, it was common to refer to angels as a young man and there is no contradiction in the amount of angels. I think you’re grasping at straws.

XxSabrinaxX:

John is pushing that boundary easily, and no, the authors still were not contemporaries. We can't even show if they spoke to anyone who was around when Jesus was.

Yet we know that they were contemporary. If you don’t like the term “contemporary,” you’re wrong, but I’ll gladly substitute it for a description instead. The gospels were written in the first century, during the lifetimes of those who are referenced in the gospels, and those who knew Christ. That’s what is important.

XxSabrinaxX:

I don't have a problem with a popular rabbi getting killed for his teachings, but the miracles are shaky. And I don't think it's reasonable at all, considering that there is no evidence for what you're saying. If there is, show me. Because everything I've seen says otherwise.

What kind of evidence would you require for historical claims, aside from the historical evidence we’ve already discussed?

XxSabrinaxX:

I'm saying Christianity as a movement comes after Jesus, by the historical view of what Christianity is.

And I’m saying that Christ already had many followers by the time of his death, and many orders of magnitude more followers in the decades after his death.

XxSabrinaxX:

Buddhists absolutely were. Hindus got it later.

Buddhists absolutely weren’t, not until long after Buddha supposedly lived. Neither Buddhism nor Hinduism are remotely analogous.

XxSabrinaxX:

It became a state religion in 150s ish, which, regardless of reason, isn't too special in terms of how long it takes for a religion to gain a foothold.

The earliest I’m aware of is 201 AD, long after all contemporaries had died. It is remarkable because Christians were violently persecuted for most of Christianity’s existence until then.

XxSabrinaxX:

But by Constantine's time, yeah, absolutely it grew due to authority, as it did in Armenia before.

This is false. It grew, especially in the Roman Empire, DESPITE authority, which actively sought to suppress and annihilate Christianity.

XxSabrinaxX:

Edit: by the way, I have no desire to reject Christianity or any other religion. I just struggle finding real convincing reasons to believe.

Then I sincerely hope you hang around here for answers to your questions and find what you’re looking for, here or elsewhere.

MODIFIED
Nnenna,few questions

U claim that the Gospels don't contradict each other,pls answer the following

1) who is Jesus paternal grandfather
2) what was the last word Jesus said on the cross
3)Jesus had an encounter with a certain woman who had a sick child and likened her to a dog,pls were was the woman from, was she Greek(syrophoenician by birth) or a Canaanite

More would come after u answer those

Ihedinobi3:

No it is not. We are called to proclaim the Gospel wherever it may be received but we are not responsible to win anything. If people believe, we go on to teach them the whole Truth of the Bible. If they don't, we move on.

Keep your deluded gospel to yourself, 'once insiders' like my HUMBLE self can see NO METHOD in the MADNESS of Christianity.

There is no such thing as THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE - too many contradictions

MOVE on with your eternal torment, sadistic, cruel, unholy and hypocritical man made cult. Begone Ihedinobi3 -

Let all this sink in and thanks for the insults in advance....

Gospel of LOVE which translates thus ;
- Love me or burn forever
- Forsake your parents and children for me
- Fake and false prophecies
- Claims erroneous exclusivity to God
- Give me all your money and I will bless you --- NOT !!!
- Live like a miserable person on earth and I will give you heaven when you die ( yeah right )