Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is very little evidence to back up the idea that God sends a missionary to anyone who would be responsive, and plenty to back up the idea that he doesn't. Or, at the very least, not now.
Quote:
The only issue is this. No matter what culture you have been brought up in, no matter how geographically isolated you may be from the rest of the world, God has made Himself known though His creation. That knowledge is only a general knowledge that a supreme being does exist. If when a person, again regardless of culture or geography, reaches a level of mental development that he can conceive of the concept of a supreme being, God will get the Gospel to that person, so that a decision concerning Christ can be made.
So no one born before Christ would accept Christ? So if Christ was born in 100 BC, he wouldn't have one follower? I find it hard to believe. Socrates, for one, was in many ways a pre-Christian martyr , and Plato is widely considered to be a pre-Christian philosopher. You would certainly expect some of these guys to accept Christ.
Quote:
God knew in eternity past who would believe in Christ for salvation upon Gospel hearing, and in His divine decree He determined to get the Gospel to those people. That determination works itself out in the workings of history, so that missionary activity is sent into areas where there is positive volition at the point of God consciousness.
Samurai, a warrior caste in medieval Japan existed since at least 1160's. They had strict, advanced code of honor, very similar to medieval knights. Definitely not rebellious or without determination. There just aren't people who 'loved darkness more than light'. However, missionaries only begun to arrive in about 1500's. Where have they been?
I could be listing examples till dawn, Mike555, but what's the point?
Although many people in the West 'reject' Christ, percentage of Christians in the West is much bigger than in any other place. So yeah, the accident of birth does play a humongous part. You could make up any theology you wish and they all work great on paper. Communism worked marvelous on paper, too. However, I for one am more interested how well the idea works in reality.
I do not like the brand of Christianity that casually dismisses most of the people who have ever lived to an eternal hell.I feel it is an insult to God.In addition,I do not believe in creationism,nor the idea that the earth does not rotate and the universe revolves around a stationary earth.So I do get into arguments with conservative Christians based on these differences.I have never,at least to my remembrance,been in an argument with a Christian who doesn't argue for a 6000 or so year old earth or for ET.
The Bible is clear about the price of sin and unbelief, so I don't see how God would be insulted if someone quotes those parts of the Bible.
Well now, that comes down to a question of perspective, doesn't it? For example, I'm Jewish. From my standpoint, I don't see a single passage anywhere in the Bible that might brand me as a sinner for 'unbelief.' As a matter of fact, I'm not a nonbeliever at all. Do I follow the precepts of Christianity? Most certainly not. I also don't condescend towards people whose belief systems might be different from my own.
So perhaps you should be accurate and rephrase that comment. According to the Bible you use and believe in, etc.
There is no contradiction, and you can check and cross check one verse against other verses to make sure it is in harmony with the rest of the Bible.
So, how did Judas die, then?
Quote:
Matthew 27:4-6 4 "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
Acts 1:18-19 18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
There are several contradictions here:
- in Matthew priests buy a field. In Acts Judas does
- in Matthew Judas throws money in a temple. In Acts he keeps it
- in Matthew Judas seems remorseful over betraying Jesus. In Acts he doesn't
- in Matthew Judas hangs himself (suicide). In Acts his body bursts open (act of God)
- In Matthew field is called Blood Field because it was bought with money Judas got for betraying Jesus. In Acts it is called so because Judas' body burst open there
Bible isn't perfect. Many Christians can deal with Bible being imperfect. I don't see why you can't
There are several contradictions here:
- in Matthew priests buy a fields. In Acts Judas does
- in Matthew Judas throws money in a temple. In Acts he keeps it
- in Matthew Judas seems remorseful over betraying Jesus. In Acts he doesn't
- in Matthew Judas hangs himself (suicide). In Acts his body bursts open (act of God)
- In Matthew field is called Blood Field because it was bought with money Judas got for betraying Jesus. In Acts it is called so because Judas' body burst open there
Bible isn't perfect. Many Christians can deal with Bible being imperfect. I don't see why you can't
Not to mention the most glaring one of all,that being the different genealogies of Jesus.And there are others.Paul flat out says in one letter that what he writes is NOT inspired.
As for the verse,believe what you will.Universalism was believed by many in the early church before the Latins won the day,partially through the political pressure of the Roman emperor,who knew a great tool for controlling the masses when he saw one.
OK, well that doesn't really change the meaning of the verse one way or the other. The verse is a declaration of His title as the Saviour, and it does not claim that Chist will automatically save everyone.
Well now, that comes down to a question of perspective, doesn't it? For example, I'm Jewish. From my standpoint, I don't see a single passage anywhere in the Bible that might brand me as a sinner for 'unbelief.' As a matter of fact, I'm not a nonbeliever at all.
It is a personal choise, Jew or gentile.
there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
OK, well that doesn't really change the meaning of the verse one way or the other. The verse is a declaration of His title as the Saviour, and it does not claim that Chist will automatically save everyone.
We believe differently.I believe God is capable of saving all mankind.I believe God wants to save all mankind.I believe God set in action a plan to save all mankind.I believe God unconditionally loves all mankind.I believe God will save all mankind.
There are several contradictions here:
- in Matthew priests buy a field. In Acts Judas does
- in Matthew Judas throws money in a temple. In Acts he keeps it
- in Matthew Judas seems remorseful over betraying Jesus. In Acts he doesn't
- in Matthew Judas hangs himself (suicide). In Acts his body bursts open (act of God)
- In Matthew field is called Blood Field because it was bought with money Judas got for betraying Jesus. In Acts it is called so because Judas' body burst open there
Bible isn't perfect. Many Christians can deal with Bible being imperfect. I don't see why you can't
The priests used Judas' money to purchase the potters field which is where Judas hung himself.
"So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners"
So, it was purchased with his money, so there is no contradiction.
The bursting of his body was not due to act of God, but due to a fall. He hung himself, and in time as his body bloated and decomposed, it fell down and it caused his bloated body to burst open.
You can bicker over some detail which you think is a contradiction with some other detail which can be explained, while I was talking about contradiction in the VERY CORE MESSAGE of the Bible: the requirement of faith for salvation, which is repeated some 200 times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
