Prayer is useless?

[Soggy]

John and Peter never knew him?

Probably not...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter

John could have been written as late as 160 AD.
While Peter may have known him, Peter very likely did not actually write the Epistles attributed to him.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

This is an absolutely incorrect although widely accepted view of Biblical Christianity. God does not hear the flipantly offered "fire insurance" prayer of an unrepentent sinner!

Luke 3:8
Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance,

The evidence of a true conversion is in a changed life. If a person's life doesn't change and the person doesn't begin living for God, there is no salvation.

I believe it was Constantine that tried this. Lived a wicked life, then had himself sprinkled with water on his deathbed thinking he would be forgiven.

imo he is probably in a very unpleasant place right now.

So if he was sincere, he'd be guaranteed an eternity in heaven? What about the wickedness of his life and all of his preceding deeds? What about these thugs who "find God" on death row? Sorry... I don't buy it. "Bring forth fruits worthy of repentence." What does that mean in light of, "All of our righteous works are as filthy rags."?

Also, how many heavens are there?

 

[mrobinson]

Sorry... I don't buy it.

I know watcha mean...

I do have faith, just not the way it's currently taught through the religions... I know not everyone is going to believe in a higher power because I didn't for a long time too. I do think the religions at it's core teach good values so I do respect them. I just see a little more symbology than literal meaning within them.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

The murderer is no more guilty than the person who is angered or hates. The rapist or adulterer is no more guilty than those who lust.

Cool. In that case, I'm going to go out and kill the people who piss me off, and then I'm going to sleep with the neighbor's wife.

Oh, and then I'll be sincerely sorry for it and ask forgiveness.

A serious question, then: Christianity teaches that Jesus is coming back, someday: (and he told the apostles that he would be back before the end of the age. I guess he missed that appointment.) But if Jesus were to return to Earth, which church would he join? Which one would received his mark of approval? Personally, I think he'd be pretty shocked, and even horrified at the religion of Christianity.

Okay: Enough of that... I agree with you, Michelle. It's interesting that the Essenes were to Judaism, what the Sufis are to Islam. They were primarily a gnostic path, rooted in the practice of contemplation and were also gifted in the healing arts.

The "narrow gate," so often spoken of, is that which leads inwardly, IMHO.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Probably not...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter

John could have been written as late as 160 AD.
While Peter may have known him, Peter very likely did not actually write the Epsitles attributed to him.

The case presented in those links reads pretty weak to me. It amounts to "some scholars question the authorship". In fact inn some cases I think they even worded it as "a few scholors" which makes it sound like a minority. ok, I'll bet some do but how many are there who don't and why don't they?

The other night I read through some of the links offered in this thread and then did some searches of my own. For every Biblical discrediting theory or scholar I found others with apposing views who's arguements seem just as convincing and that's just with what I came up with on the internet.

Lacking the original manuscript and an eye witness to it's writting or a notory stamp on it I doubt we'll ever see every "scholar" agree.

It also doesn't surprise me that John didn't take written notes as he was following Jesus or sit down immediately after the crucification and get everything written down and published. I don't think he realized that he was writing the New Testament of the Bible.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Thanks... I almost just snorted milk out my nose.

You are welcome.

I am glad you are amused by my alleged ignorance. We all need a laugh. I find myself chuckling at the inability of non-believers to logically debate the subject. And, as Monty Python's circus stated in one of their skits: there is a difference between an "argument" and contradiction.

In a well ordered universe, complete with astounding complexity, many subjects including Christianity and creationism can be discussed and argued logically. Logic is ordered; complex systems are ordered. It all "just happened" is not logical because it "just happening" is a statistical improbability.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

But if Jesus were to return to Earth, which church would he join? Which one would received his mark of approval? Personally, I think he'd be pretty shocked, and even horrified at the religion of Christianity.

Perhaps you should read the Bible and find out "which church would He join".

 

[Soggy]

I find myself chuckling at the inability of non-believers to logically debate the subject.

...just as many of us find ourselves chuckling at the inability of certain believers to logically debate the subject.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

*rolling my eyes* I've read the Bible backwards and forwards, and was raised in a hellfire and brimstone Baptist church. I've made personal studies of it, and at one point, even thought that God was calling me to the ministry, and began checking out various seminaries. I will reiterate that I think Jesus would be appalled at the modern state of churches that profess to follow His (capitalized JUST for you!) teachings. If the church at Ephesus was accused of having "lost its first love," and was chastized by the Apostle Paul for it, I'd say the state of modern Christianity is in for a MAJOR awakening. (If you believe that Jesus is going to return, that is.)

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Probably not...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter

John could have been written as late as 160 AD.
While Peter may have known him, Peter very likely did not actually write the Epistles attributed to him.

That's fascinating Soggy. The writer claims to be Peter but some scholars question whether or not it was actually Peter. Some say it was 'x' and other scholars say "no, it was Q". Why not simply assume the writer correctly identified himself. Perhaps we should call into question every other book ever written unless we personally witnessed the alleged author actually pen the text? Well that would be absurd; we accept that it was written by the alleged author unless there is a reason we don't want to accept it. Then we search for, or invent, a reason to question its validity.