@Mitwah posted:Jesus spent his adolescent years in India where he studied under under various Monks or Priests. When he told that fella he would have to be born again he was speaking of reincarnation. Jesus did not say you must be born again in the spirit.
To be born again is another chance for your Aatma to merge with the Paramatma.
The book of John is full of lies.
Please provide your facts, so we can have a meaningful discussion.
@Mitwah posted:Jesus spent his adolescent years in India where he studied under under various Monks or Priests. When he told that fella he would have to be born again he was speaking of reincarnation. Jesus did not say you must be born again in the spirit.
To be born again is another chance for your Aatma to merge with the Paramatma.
The book of John is full of lies.
The thing to keep in mind is despite the claims of a few conspiracy theorists, the four Gospels still provide the most accurate and compelling account of the life of Jesus in print. If Jesus went to India prior to His three-year ministry, then one would expect there to be a distinct Indian flavor to His teaching. However, how does one explain Jesus’ vast knowledge of the Torah? Jesus quotes the Hebrew Scriptures all throughout His earthly ministry to the point of correcting even the learned scholars of His day. Not only that, but His teaching style was consistent with the Jewish itinerant teachers of His day. Scholars would study most of their lives to have the encyclopedic knowledge of Hebrew law and customs that Jesus had. Are we to believe that Jesus took the Old Testament with Him to India and studied the Scriptures between lessons on transcendental meditation?
I am awaiting your facts.
Jesus did not die on the cross. He died of old age in Kashmir.
By Garrett Best
If you’ve ever read the first three Gospels in the New Testament, you don’t have to be a scholar to notice that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar to one another. In fact, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar that they have been called the “Synoptic” Gospels which comes from a Greek word meaning “seen together”. Mark has a total of 661 verses and about 90% have some parallel in Matthew and about 65% of Mark’s verses are paralleled in Luke. In addition, there are about 230 verses that Luke and Matthew have in common that don’t appear in Mark.
Most scholars are convinced that the best explanation for these parallels is a literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The most likely scenario to explain the similarities between these three Gospels is that the writers used one another’s work in order to write their own. Someone copied someone.
There are four main reasons scholars believe that there is a literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I will introduce them briefly.
@Mitwah posted:
The idea that Jesus traveled to India during his lifetime is not supported by historical evidence or the accounts found in the canonical Gospels of the Bible. The New Testament does not mention Jesus visiting India or any other distant region outside of his ministry in the areas of Judea, Galilee, and surrounding regions in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The belief that Jesus traveled to India or other parts of Asia is primarily based on various theories and legends that emerged many years after Jesus' death. One popular theory suggests that Jesus may have traveled to India during the "lost years" of his life, which are not extensively documented in the Gospels. However, these theories lack solid historical evidence and are considered speculative by most biblical scholars.
The primary sources of information about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ are the canonical Gospels, which include the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These texts provide an account of Jesus' birth, teachings, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection as witnessed by his disciples and early followers. According to these accounts, Jesus' ministry was centered in the region of Palestine (modern-day Israel and the surrounding areas) rather than India.
@Mitwah posted:Jesus did not die on the cross. He died of old age in Kashmir.
Where are your facts? Is it the video above? 
@Mitwah posted:DID MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE COPY EACH OTHER?
By Garrett Best
If you’ve ever read the first three Gospels in the New Testament, you don’t have to be a scholar to notice that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar to one another. In fact, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar that they have been called the “Synoptic” Gospels which comes from a Greek word meaning “seen together”. Mark has a total of 661 verses and about 90% have some parallel in Matthew and about 65% of Mark’s verses are paralleled in Luke. In addition, there are about 230 verses that Luke and Matthew have in common that don’t appear in Mark.
Most scholars are convinced that the best explanation for these parallels is a literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The most likely scenario to explain the similarities between these three Gospels is that the writers used one another’s work in order to write their own. Someone copied someone.
There are four main reasons scholars believe that there is a literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I will introduce them briefly.
Source Link
When the first three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—are compared, it is unmistakable that the accounts are very similar to one another in content and expression. As a result, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the “Synoptic Gospels.” The word synoptic basically means “to see together with a common view.” The similarities among the Synoptic Gospels have led some to wonder if the Gospel authors had a common source, another written account of Christ’s birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection from which they obtained the material for their Gospels. The question of how to explain the similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels is called the Synoptic Problem.
Some argue that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar that they must have used each other’s Gospels or another common source. This supposed “source” has been given the title “Q” from the German word quelle, which means “source.” Is there any evidence for a “Q” document? No, there is not. No portion or fragment of a “Q” document has ever been discovered. None of the early church fathers ever mentioned a Gospel “source” in their writings. “Q” is the invention of liberal “scholars” who deny the inspiration of the Bible. They believe the Bible to be nothing more than a work of literature, subject to the same criticism given to other works of literature. Again, there is no evidence whatsoever for a “Q” document—biblically, theologically, or historically.
If Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not use a “Q” document, why are their Gospels so similar? There are several possible explanations. It is possible that, whichever Gospel was written first (possibly Mark, although the church fathers reported that Matthew was written first), the other Gospel writers had access to it. There is absolutely no problem with the idea that Matthew and/or Luke copied some text from Mark’s Gospel and used it in their Gospels. Perhaps Luke had access to Mark and Matthew and used texts from both of them in his own Gospel. Luke 1:1–4 tells us, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
Ultimately, the Synoptic “Problem” is not as big a problem as some try to make it out to be. The explanation as to why the Synoptic Gospels are so similar is that they are all inspired by the same Holy Spirit and are all written by people who witnessed or were told about the same events. The Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the apostle, one of the twelve who followed Jesus and were commissioned by Him. The Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, a close associate of the apostle Peter, another one of the twelve. The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, a close associate of the apostle Paul. Why would we not expect their accounts to be very similar to one another? Each of the Gospels is ultimately inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21). Therefore, we should expect coherence and unity.
Here is a bit more clarity for you my friend. Make sure you read the article in its entirety otherwise, you will miss your nugget 
An ancient piece of text is reviving an equally ancient debate: Was Jesus Christ married?
Of course, most Christians believe that he wasn't. But today, Harvard Professor of Divinity Karen King presented a scrap of papyrus that dates back to the fourth century. She told a gathering of scholars in Rome that written in Coptic was this surprising sentence: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...' "
@Mitwah posted:An ancient piece of text is reviving an equally ancient debate: Was Jesus Christ married?
Of course, most Christians believe that he wasn't. But today, Harvard Professor of Divinity Karen King presented a scrap of papyrus that dates back to the fourth century. She told a gathering of scholars in Rome that written in Coptic was this surprising sentence: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...' "
So Mrs. King believes Jesus was married. What do you think? Where is your facts?
The difficulties of this life are opportunities to walk closely with our Savior and know Him better.
Jesus invites all burdened individuals to come to Him for rest, yet so often we misunderstand what He is asking of us. We can’t just dump our problems on the Lord and walk away unchanged. Using an agricultural image, He asks us to join Him in the “yoke” so we can walk and work together. In other words, He doesn’t want just our burdens; He wants us!
The yoke of Christ is a symbol of discipleship, characterized by submission and obedience to Him. God’s goal isn’t simply to remove a weighty trial or affliction; He longs to draw us to Himself in a close and trusting relationship. Remember, the “yoke is comfortable” and the “burden is light” when our Savior is helping us bear it (v. 30). That’s why those who take Him up on His offer will experience an amazing transformation.
The process of sharing the load begins with learning to know and understand the Lord. The burden is not necessarily removed, but the weight of the affliction shifts from our shoulders to His. Life’s pressures may not lessen, but if we are intimately linked with Jesus, our soul will be free from anxiety, and His peace will rule in our heart.
@Mitwah posted:According to the Gospel of Philip, Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. He kissed her in the mouth. Did they really have 2 daughters?
Where are your facts? Provided your facts from any religious books such as Quran, Tora, etc.
@Keith posted:The Beauty of the Yoke
The difficulties of this life are opportunities to walk closely with our Savior and know Him better.
Jesus invites all burdened individuals to come to Him for rest, yet so often we misunderstand what He is asking of us. We can’t just dump our problems on the Lord and walk away unchanged. Using an agricultural image, He asks us to join Him in the “yoke” so we can walk and work together. In other words, He doesn’t want just our burdens; He wants us!
The yoke of Christ is a symbol of discipleship, characterized by submission and obedience to Him. God’s goal isn’t simply to remove a weighty trial or affliction; He longs to draw us to Himself in a close and trusting relationship. Remember, the “yoke is comfortable” and the “burden is light” when our Savior is helping us bear it (v. 30). That’s why those who take Him up on His offer will experience an amazing transformation.
The process of sharing the load begins with learning to know and understand the Lord. The burden is not necessarily removed, but the weight of the affliction shifts from our shoulders to His. Life’s pressures may not lessen, but if we are intimately linked with Jesus, our soul will be free from anxiety, and His peace will rule in our heart.
The above fits the definitions of a cult; a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
No one can die for you. You are solely responsible for the liberation or salvation of your soul from saṃsaara, the cycle of birth and death.
@Mitwah posted:'Lost Gospel' claims Jesus had a wife and children
“Gathering dust in the British Library is a document that takes us into the missing years of Jesus' life,” the book states.
The question of whether Jesus had a wife is a topic of much debate and speculation among scholars and theologians. The New Testament, which is the primary source of information about Jesus' life and teachings, does not mention any wife or romantic relationship for him
The idea that Jesus had a wife gained some attention in recent times due to the discovery of an ancient text called the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" in 2012. This papyrus fragment contained the pphraseas you pointed out in an earlir post, "Jesus said to them, my wife...," which sparked discussions about the possibility of Jesus being married. However, the authenticity of this fragment has been questioned, and many scholars consider it to be a modern forgery or a later addition.
Historically, there is no credible evidence to suggest that Jesus had a wife. In the context of first-century Jewish culture, it was customary for men of that time to marry, and yet there are no references to Jesus having a spouse in any historical documents, including the Bible or other early Christian texts.
The concept of Jesus being unmarried has been an essential aspect of Christian tradition for centuries, particularly in mainstream Christianity. However, some alternative and non-canonical texts and historical theories suggest otherwise. Still, they are not widely accepted by mainstream scholars due to their lack of historical support and contradictions with the existing accounts of Jesus' life.
In summary, while the question of Jesus' marital status remains a topic of interest and speculation, the majority of historical evidence and religious tradition point to the belief that Jesus was unmarried.
@Mitwah posted:No one can die for you. You are solely responsible for the liberation or salvation of your soul from saṃsaara, the cycle of birth and death.
In Sanaatan Dharam, there are four main paths by which a follower can reach moksha, or liberation of the soul, salvation. These paths are bhakti, the path of devotion; gnana, the path of knowledge; karma, the path of selfless service; and raja, the royal path of meditation.Jai Shri Krishna.
Whatever float your boat...🤣
@Mitwah posted:No one can die for you. You are solely responsible for the liberation or salvation of your soul from saṃsaara, the cycle of birth and death.
In Sanaatan Dharam, there are four main paths by which a follower can reach moksha, or liberation of the soul, salvation. These paths are bhakti, the path of devotion; gnana, the path of knowledge; karma, the path of selfless service; and raja, the royal path of meditation.Jai Shri Krishna.
You tell that to the men and women in uniform.
The phrase "Christ died for us" has significant theological, it refers to the central belief that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, willingly sacrificed his life by being crucified on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity. This concept is often referred to as the "atonement" or "redemption."
Are you still sacrificing animals to your 5000 gods?
@Keith posted:You tell that to the men and women in uniform.
The phrase "Christ died for us" has significant theological, it refers to the central belief that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, willingly sacrificed his life by being crucified on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity. This concept is often referred to as the "atonement" or "redemption."
Are you still sacrificing animals to your 5000 gods?
You are brainwashed. Christ did not die on the cross. He was rescued when he was comatose. If he was dead, the soldiers would have broken his legs.
No one can atone for anyone else's sins. You reap what you sow.
Some evidences of animal sacrifices in the bible.
There is no animal sacrifice in Sanatan Dharam. Jai Shri Krishna.
Do you struggle to understand why God allows pain and suffering?
When we encounter difficulties, we might wonder why God allows those painful situations. How do we reconcile our suffering with His love for us and His power to prevent or stop it? In order to understand what’s going on, we need to consider the possible sources of adversity.
A Fallen World: When sin entered the world, suffering came with it. So we might wonder why God didn’t simply make us like puppets that were unable to choose sin. But if we lacked free will, we’d be unable to choose to love Him. And love, by its very nature, must be voluntary.
Our Own Doing: Sometimes we face consequences from our own foolish or sinful choices.
Satanic Attack: Satan’s goal is to destroy believers’ lives and testimonies, thereby making us weak and useless for God’s purposes.
For us to accept that God allows adversity, we must first see it from His perspective. Is your focus on the pain of your experience or on the Lord and His faithfulness? As Christians, we’re assured that no adversity comes our way unless He can use it to achieve His good purposes.
@Mitwah posted:You are brainwashed. Christ did not die on the cross. He was rescued when he was comatose. If he was dead, the soldiers would have broken his legs.
No one can atone for anyone else's sins. You reap what you sow.
Some evidences of animal sacrifices in the bible.
Isaiah 1:11 NIV
“The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.Leviticus 12:6 NIV
“‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.There is no animal sacrifice in Sanatan Dharam. Jai Shri Krishna.
Don't post things that you have no understanding of what it means, especially if you going to pull scriptures from the Bible but let me enlighten you on what you have quoted.
First, to understand Isaiah 1:10-11 the verses, let's look at its context and the surrounding verses:
Isaiah 1:10-11 (New International Version) says:
"10 Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah! 11 'The multitude of your sacrifices, what are they to me?' says the Lord. 'I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.'"
In this passage, the prophet Isaiah is delivering a message from God to the people of Judah, and he addresses them as the rulers of Sodom and the people of Gomorrah. This reference to Sodom and Gomorrah is symbolic and meant to emphasize the sinful and corrupt state of the people of Judah at that time.
The main message of verse 11 is that God is displeased with the multitude of sacrifices that the people are offering to Him. The Israelites were commanded to offer sacrifices as a way to worship and seek forgiveness from God for their sins. However, their religious practices had become empty rituals, lacking true repentance and obedience to God's laws.
God, through Isaiah, emphasizes that He has no pleasure in the abundance of burnt offerings and animal sacrifices they bring. Instead, He desires genuine repentance, obedience, and righteousness from His people. The sacrifices themselves were not inherently bad; they were part of the Law given to Israel. However, when they were performed without true devotion and righteousness, they held no value in God's eyes.
The message of Isaiah 1:11 remains relevant today, reminding people that outward religious acts alone are not enough to please God. He desires sincerity of heart, genuine repentance, and a commitment to living in obedience to His will. It calls for a deeper relationship with God and an authentic display of faith rather than just going through the motions of religious rituals.
Now let's examine Leviticus 12:6 in its context to better understand the meaning.
Leviticus 12:6 (New International Version):
"When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering."
In this chapter, Leviticus 12, God provides instructions for a woman who has given birth. After childbirth, the mother was considered ceremonially unclean and required a period of purification. For a son, this period was seven days, and for a daughter, it was fourteen days (Leviticus 12:2-5).
Verse 6 outlines the ritual offerings the woman was to present to the priest after her purification period had ended. The offerings consisted of the following:
A year-old lamb for a burnt offering: The burnt offering was a significant sacrifice in which the entire animal was consumed by fire on the altar. It symbolized complete surrender to God and dedication to Him.
A young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering: The sin offering was meant to atone for the woman's sins and express her desire for forgiveness. The choice of either a pigeon or a dove made this offering accessible to those who might not afford a lamb.
By offering these sacrifices, the woman was completing her purification process and acknowledging her need for God's forgiveness and restoration. It's essential to recognize that these regulations were part of the Mosaic Law given specifically to the Israelites during their time in the wilderness. They served as a way to demonstrate obedience to God and to maintain ritual purity within the community.
Here is your nugget, don't miss it. Today, Christians do not observe these specific purification rituals as they were part of the Old Covenant, and Jesus Christ's sacrifice is considered the ultimate atonement for sin in the New Testament. Christians believe that through faith in Jesus, they are forgiven and made clean, and the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament are no longer binding.
@Mitwah posted:You are brainwashed. Christ did not die on the cross. He was rescued when he was comatose. If he was dead, the soldiers would have broken his legs.
No one can atone for anyone else's sins. You reap what you sow.
Where is your evidence of this? Where in your Hindu or the Tora or Quran stated this? Find it for me. While you are it. Could you find the tomb of Jesus and let me know what you find in there? I don't want any while accusations that Jesus was cremated or His body was stolen and moved to some other places etc. Provide your evidence.
We were all here before. How many times? No one knows. We are all here for Moksha. What you sow, so shall you reap.
Christ died in Kashmir not on the cross.
@Mitwah posted:We were all here before. How many times? No one knows. We are all here for Moksha. What you sow, so shall you reap.
Christ died in Kashmir not on the cross.
Again, if you going to make such assumptions WHER IS YOUR FACTS? Where is the evidence that he died in Kashmir? Were the Romans in Kashmir? How many Jews you spoke to agree with your statement? Don't look foolish do your research before posting wild conspiracy theories and no facts to back up your claims. Why are you embracing Trumpism?😁
Located in downtown Srinagar, the tomb received never-like-before attention in the year 1899, when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement claimed that this tomb belongs to Jesus Christ, about which he wrote extensively in his book, Masih Hindustan-mein (Jesus in India). The treatise was published in Urdu in 1908 and was translated into English in 1944. According to him, Jesus survived the crucifixion, travelled to Indian subcontinent where he lived until his death at the age of 120 and was buried in the beautiful valley of Kashmir. As opposed to the mentions in, the Holy Bible that Jesus was crucified on a hill of Golgotha (meaning ‘place of the skull’ in Aramaic) at the age of 33 and was buried in a new sepulchre (tomb) in a garden outside of Jerusalem and as Quran too mentions, on the third day, he ascended to heaven). One of the many reasons, these claims originated because of the presence of a rock carving in the shrine, most probably of Yuz Asaf, which shows the feet with wounds from crucifixion or some similar injuries. He identifies Yuza Asaf as Jesus and it means ‘son of Joseph’. The Bible and Quran mentions Joseph and Mary as the father of Jesus and were born Jews. In Kashmiri language, Yuz Asaf means the healer or the shepherd.
@Mitwah posted:
Located in downtown Srinagar, the tomb received never-like-before attention in the year 1899, when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement claimed that this tomb belongs to Jesus Christ, about which he wrote extensively in his book, Masih Hindustan-mein (Jesus in India). The treatise was published in Urdu in 1908 and was translated into English in 1944. According to him, Jesus survived the crucifixion, travelled to Indian subcontinent where he lived until his death at the age of 120 and was buried in the beautiful valley of Kashmir. As opposed to the mentions in, the Holy Bible that Jesus was crucified on a hill of Golgotha (meaning ‘place of the skull’ in Aramaic) at the age of 33 and was buried in a new sepulchre (tomb) in a garden outside of Jerusalem and as Quran too mentions, on the third day, he ascended to heaven). One of the many reasons, these claims originated because of the presence of a rock carving in the shrine, most probably of Yuz Asaf, which shows the feet with wounds from crucifixion or some similar injuries. He identifies Yuza Asaf as Jesus and it means ‘son of Joseph’. The Bible and Quran mentions Joseph and Mary as the father of Jesus and were born Jews. In Kashmiri language, Yuz Asaf means the healer or the shepherd.
Are there any bones or is the tomb empty?
@Mitwah posted:
Located in downtown Srinagar, the tomb received never-like-before attention in the year 1899, when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement claimed that this tomb belongs to Jesus Christ, about which he wrote extensively in his book, Masih Hindustan-mein (Jesus in India). The treatise was published in Urdu in 1908 and was translated into English in 1944. According to him, Jesus survived the crucifixion, travelled to Indian subcontinent where he lived until his death at the age of 120 and was buried in the beautiful valley of Kashmir. As opposed to the mentions in, the Holy Bible that Jesus was crucified on a hill of Golgotha (meaning ‘place of the skull’ in Aramaic) at the age of 33 and was buried in a new sepulchre (tomb) in a garden outside of Jerusalem and as Quran too mentions, on the third day, he ascended to heaven). One of the many reasons, these claims originated because of the presence of a rock carving in the shrine, most probably of Yuz Asaf, which shows the feet with wounds from crucifixion or some similar injuries. He identifies Yuza Asaf as Jesus and it means ‘son of Joseph’. The Bible and Quran mentions Joseph and Mary as the father of Jesus and were born Jews. In Kashmiri language, Yuz Asaf means the healer or the shepherd.
The idea that Jesus was buried in India is a minority theory and not supported by historical or archaeological evidence. The belief in Jesus' burial in India is based on some alternative interpretations of religious texts and legends, simular to what you post above but these claims are not widely accepted by scholars or historians. Here are some of the arguments put forth by proponents of the Jesus-in-India theory:
The Roza Bal Tomb: One of the main pieces of evidence cited by proponents of the Jesus-in-India theory is the Roza Bal tomb in Srinagar, Kashmir. Some believe that this tomb contains the remains of Jesus, as well as those of other significant figures like Mary (Mother of Jesus) and Yus Asaf (a name sometimes associated with Jesus). However, the historical authenticity of this tomb and its contents is highly disputed and lacks credible evidence.
Ancient Texts and Legends: Some proponents claim that ancient texts, such as the "Kashmiri" versions of the Bible and other apocryphal writings, contain references or hints suggesting Jesus' presence in India after the crucifixion. However, these texts are not considered authentic or reliable sources of historical information.
Buddhist and Hindu Connections: The Jesus-in-India theory suggests that Jesus traveled to India to learn from Buddhist and Hindu sages and later returned to the region after surviving the crucifixion. Advocates argue that certain similarities between Christian teachings and Eastern philosophies support this idea. However, such parallels can often be attributed to shared themes in religious and philosophical traditions.
Absence of Historical Evidence: Despite the claims made by some proponents of the Jesus-in-India theory, there is a notable absence of credible historical evidence to substantiate these ideas. There are no reliable historical records or primary sources from the time of Jesus that indicate his travels to India or his burial there.
It's important to note that mainstream historical and biblical scholarship does not support the idea that Jesus was buried in India. The vast majority of historians and scholars agree that Jesus' life, death, and burial were in the region of the Holy Land (modern-day Israel and Palestine) based on the accounts found in the New Testament, as well as other historical sources from the period. The Jesus-in-India theory remains a minority view, and its claims lack the necessary evidence to be considered historically valid.
@Mitwah posted:You are brainwashed. Christ did not die on the cross. He was rescued when he was comatose. If he was dead, the soldiers would have broken his leg
There are references to Jesus' crucifixion from several historical sources outside of the Bible. While these sources do not provide the same level of detailed information as the New Testament, they do corroborate the basic historical FACT of Jesus' crucifixion. Some of these non-biblical sources include, Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD): A Jewish historian who mentioned Jesus in his work "Jewish Antiquities" (written around 93-94 AD). The most well-known reference is the Testimonium Flavianum, a passage that refers to Jesus and includes details about his crucifixion and the movement that followed him, which is still debatable even today.
Tacitus (56-120 AD): A Roman historian who mentioned Jesus and the early Christians in his work "Annals" (written around 116 AD). He referred to Christus (likely referring to Jesus), who was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.
Pliny the Younger (61-113 AD): A Roman governor who mentioned early Christians and their practices in his letters to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD. He referred to the followers of Christ, their worship practices, and their refusal to worship Roman deities.
Lucian of Samosata (c. 125-180 AD): A satirist and writer who made a passing reference to Jesus and the Christians in his work "The Passing of Peregrinus."
Mara bar Serapion (late 1st to early 2nd century AD): A Syrian philosopher who wrote a letter to his son in which he referred to the Jews' mistreatment of their "wise king."
While these non-biblical sources do not provide an exhaustive account of Jesus' crucifixion or its details, they do offer independent corroboration of the historical figure of Jesus and his crucifixion under Roman authority. Additionally, these references are important because they come from various cultural and religious backgrounds, adding weight to the fact that Jesus was a figure known beyond Christian circles in the ancient world.
When you ask a Christian why Jesus died on the cross, they will almost automatically all answer “to pay for our sins.” This has become a deep rooted Christian belief that is widely taught in churches across the world. It has been accepted by many as Christian doctrine and been passed down from generation to generation. It’s a statement that has been accepted as fact, and one that is the foundation for many Christians.
Therefore it may come as a surprise then to say that the Bible doesn’t actually say this.
No matter how hard you search, you will not find a single passage in the entire Bible that says anything about Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. That’s because this is a “Christian belief” that the Bible doesn’t teach. Rather it was a theology created by humans.
The technical, theological name for this belief is “penal substitutionary atonement.” This theology was not part of Christian doctrine for the first 1,600 years after Jesus was crucified. The ideas was originated and developed by human beings who were having trouble understanding what the Bible teaches about how Jesus Christ saved humanity. They worked with what they could to better understand Jesus’ teachings, but missed the mark. This lead to a creation of a belief that wasn’t really based on the Bible.
There are some limited verses that speak about Jesus’ death in relation to our sins, but they only point to Jesus' death somehow being related to our sins, but not that His death was a substitute or penalty because of our sins. His death did not scrub us clean of the sins we would commit in the future, or give us a “free for all” pass to do whatever we wanted. His death is not an excuse for our sins, which the “penal substitutionary atonement” alludes to.
This might seem like a nitpicky point, but the distinction that Jesus did not “pay” for our sins is vital in understanding salvation from the Christian perspective. There is a huge difference between the two ideas and it can dictate how Christians run their lives. In 1 Corinthians 15:3 the Bible reads: “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Dying for our sins is not the same thing as dying to pay the penalty for our sins. If an innocent person dies because of another person’s wrongdoing, the person who did wrong is still guilty. Whenever the Bible talks about penalties, it always attaches them to the one who committed the offense. We are still held responsible for the sins we commit. At the end, each of us will have to pay for our deeds and there is no way around that. We are responsible for the totality of our actions.
When we look at the world now, we can tell that it has yet to be saved. There is still so much evil and hurt in this world and it’s easy to see simply by watching the news. Dying on the cross did not save us from the darkness of today’s society, and those who choose not to believe in Jesus and commit sins freely will answer for their actions. Jesus didn’t take the sins on Himself to set each of us free. It was only to open a pathway for us to forgive for them.
You may now be asking yourself, why then did Jesus die on the cross? This is an incredibly valid question to ask for many Christians. There are many political reasons as to why He died on the cross. Jesus died because he had offended those in power, challenged the status quo and refused to step aside. Jesus knew what He was doing, and that His actions would ultimately cause His death. He knew He was being viewed as a threat from the government at the time and predicted how His crucifixion would take place. As John 15:13 states, however, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
Jesus died on the cross to show us what love truly looks like in action.
God is love, and the most important lesson that Jesus teaches us is that when we act in unloving ways, we distance ourselves from God. When asking yourself if something you do would be considered a sin, you should ask yourself if the action comes from a place of love. If it doesn’t, then it’s pulling you further away from living like Jesus.
Sin is what takes us further away from God, and those actions are void of love. The way Jesus led His life here one earth, He was able to show great examples of what love looks like. From feeding those who were hungry to befriending those who were cast out by society, Jesus went above and beyond to help those that needed it the most. He offered them love and hope when no one else would. His life was a perfect example of what love in action can do for others.
Jesus dying on the cross was a sacrifice He made for us. Him doing so gave us the opportunity to ask forgiveness for our sins, and enter into heaven once we had passed. We only have a pathway to heaven because of the loving sacrifice that Jesus made for the world. We are still responsible for what sins we commit, but by turning to Jesus we now have a way to take that weight off of our shoulders.
Jesus did die to save us from our sins, but it wasn't a moment that wiped us clean from all responsibility. Instead, the Bible says that Jesus came to take away our sins (John 1:29), so that we would no longer be sinners. Jesus' death showed us just how amazing God's love is for us. He gave us an opportunity to escape the evils of the world and be reunited with our Father in heaven. Jesus’ death paved that avenue for us.
We could never do enough to earn the grace our Savior freely gives.
Three of the four gospels contain an account of the wealthy ruler who asked Jesus a very important question: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18).
The man considered himself a moral person because he had kept God’s commandments; however, he was operating under the false assumption that good works bring salvation. He seemed to be asking Jesus what else he had to do to secure his place in heaven—besides all the good things he’d already accomplished.
This is what some people refer to as the “great deception”—the false belief that eternal life can be earned. If we give credence to this lie, then we don’t understand the problem of our sin and how it separates us from God. Scripture says we have inherited a sinful nature from the first man (Romans 5:12). There is nothing we can do to pay for our sin.
If this were the end of the story, we would be a people without hope for today or the future. But the good news is that our heavenly Father mercifully provided the way to heaven (John 14:6). There’s nothing we can do to earn or deserve His grace; we simply must ask.
@Mitwah posted:Jesus Did Not Die on the Cross For Our Sins
The idea Jesus “paid the price” isn’t found in the Bible.
By Megan BaileyWhen you ask a Christian why Jesus died on the cross, they will almost automatically all answer “to pay for our sins.” This has become a deep rooted Christian belief that is widely taught in churches across the world. It has been accepted by many as Christian doctrine and been passed down from generation to generation. It’s a statement that has been accepted as fact, and one that is the foundation for many Christians.
Therefore it may come as a surprise then to say that the Bible doesn’t actually say this.
No matter how hard you search, you will not find a single passage in the entire Bible that says anything about Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. That’s because this is a “Christian belief” that the Bible doesn’t teach. Rather it was a theology created by humans.
The technical, theological name for this belief is “penal substitutionary atonement.” This theology was not part of Christian doctrine for the first 1,600 years after Jesus was crucified. The ideas was originated and developed by human beings who were having trouble understanding what the Bible teaches about how Jesus Christ saved humanity. They worked with what they could to better understand Jesus’ teachings, but missed the mark. This lead to a creation of a belief that wasn’t really based on the Bible.
There are some limited verses that speak about Jesus’ death in relation to our sins, but they only point to Jesus' death somehow being related to our sins, but not that His death was a substitute or penalty because of our sins. His death did not scrub us clean of the sins we would commit in the future, or give us a “free for all” pass to do whatever we wanted. His death is not an excuse for our sins, which the “penal substitutionary atonement” alludes to.
This might seem like a nitpicky point, but the distinction that Jesus did not “pay” for our sins is vital in understanding salvation from the Christian perspective. There is a huge difference between the two ideas and it can dictate how Christians run their lives. In 1 Corinthians 15:3 the Bible reads: “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Dying for our sins is not the same thing as dying to pay the penalty for our sins. If an innocent person dies because of another person’s wrongdoing, the person who did wrong is still guilty. Whenever the Bible talks about penalties, it always attaches them to the one who committed the offense. We are still held responsible for the sins we commit. At the end, each of us will have to pay for our deeds and there is no way around that. We are responsible for the totality of our actions.
When we look at the world now, we can tell that it has yet to be saved. There is still so much evil and hurt in this world and it’s easy to see simply by watching the news. Dying on the cross did not save us from the darkness of today’s society, and those who choose not to believe in Jesus and commit sins freely will answer for their actions. Jesus didn’t take the sins on Himself to set each of us free. It was only to open a pathway for us to forgive for them.
You may now be asking yourself, why then did Jesus die on the cross? This is an incredibly valid question to ask for many Christians. There are many political reasons as to why He died on the cross. Jesus died because he had offended those in power, challenged the status quo and refused to step aside. Jesus knew what He was doing, and that His actions would ultimately cause His death. He knew He was being viewed as a threat from the government at the time and predicted how His crucifixion would take place. As John 15:13 states, however, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
Jesus died on the cross to show us what love truly looks like in action.
God is love, and the most important lesson that Jesus teaches us is that when we act in unloving ways, we distance ourselves from God. When asking yourself if something you do would be considered a sin, you should ask yourself if the action comes from a place of love. If it doesn’t, then it’s pulling you further away from living like Jesus.
Sin is what takes us further away from God, and those actions are void of love. The way Jesus led His life here one earth, He was able to show great examples of what love looks like. From feeding those who were hungry to befriending those who were cast out by society, Jesus went above and beyond to help those that needed it the most. He offered them love and hope when no one else would. His life was a perfect example of what love in action can do for others.
Jesus dying on the cross was a sacrifice He made for us. Him doing so gave us the opportunity to ask forgiveness for our sins, and enter into heaven once we had passed. We only have a pathway to heaven because of the loving sacrifice that Jesus made for the world. We are still responsible for what sins we commit, but by turning to Jesus we now have a way to take that weight off of our shoulders.
Jesus did die to save us from our sins, but it wasn't a moment that wiped us clean from all responsibility. Instead, the Bible says that Jesus came to take away our sins (John 1:29), so that we would no longer be sinners. Jesus' death showed us just how amazing God's love is for us. He gave us an opportunity to escape the evils of the world and be reunited with our Father in heaven. Jesus’ death paved that avenue for us.
Yes, according to the Bible, it is widely understood that Jesus died for the sins of humanity. This concept is central to Christian theology and is often referred to as the doctrine of "atonement" or "redemption."
The New Testament, particularly in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, recounts the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to these accounts, Jesus, who is believed to be the Son of God and the Savior, willingly sacrificed himself on the cross to pay the price for humanity's sins. This sacrificial death is seen as an act of divine love and mercy, providing a way for people to be reconciled with God and attain forgiveness and salvation.
One of the most famous verses that express this belief is found in the Gospel of John, chapter 3, verse 16 (John 3:16): "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Throughout the New Testament, there are many references (FACTS) to Jesus' death as a means of atonement, such as:
Romans 5:8: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
1 Peter 3:18: "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God."
1 John 2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
The apostle Paul, in his letters, also emphasizes the significance of Jesus' death for our sins. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul writes, "For our sake, he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him, we might become the righteousness of God."
There is historical evidence supporting the crucifixion of Jesus. While the crucifixion of Jesus is a central belief in Christian theology, it is also an event that is historically documented beyond religious texts. Here are some of the key sources of evidence for Jesus' crucifixion:
FACT #1: New Testament Accounts: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament provide detailed narratives of Jesus' crucifixion. These accounts are considered the primary sources of information about the event from a religious perspective. Although they contain theological elements, they also contain historical information about the crucifixion.
FACT #2: Non-Christian Historical Accounts: Several non-Christian historical sources from the first century and early second century also make references to Jesus and his crucifixion. These sources include the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. While they may not provide extensive details, they do mention Jesus' crucifixion and its association with Pontius Pilate.
FACT #3: Early Christian Writings: Apart from the New Testament, early Christian writings and letters from the first and second centuries, such as the letters of Paul and other early Church Fathers, also refer to Jesus' crucifixion as a historical event.
FACT #4: Archaeological Evidence: While direct archaeological evidence specifically confirming the crucifixion of Jesus is not available, archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem and the surrounding regions have provided context and support for the historical accuracy of events mentioned in the Gospels.
FACT #5: Roman Crucifixion Practices: Historical knowledge about Roman crucifixion practices and their use as a method of execution during the time of Jesus supports the plausibility of Jesus' crucifixion.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John copied one another's word to make it look authentic.
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16
Aisi Karni, jaisi Bharni. What you sow so shall you reap.
@Mitwah posted:Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John copied one another's word to make it look authentic.
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16
Aisi Karni, jaisi Bharni. What you sow so shall you reap.
We covered that already anything new? I got a few questions for you.
1: which of your 5000 gods is boss over all?
2: What is the nature of your god(s)? I understand Hinduism is a diverse and multifaceted religion with various concepts of the divine, including monotheistic, polytheistic, and pantheistic perspectives. So could you enlighten me on the true nature of your god(s) and how these different aspects fit together.
3: What about reconciling karma and suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong, the concept of karma, the law of cause and effect, is fundamental in your religion. Why is suffering and inequality in the world, given the idea that one's actions in past lives determine their current circumstances?
@Keith posted:We covered that already anything new? I got a few questions for you.
1: which of your 5000 gods is boss over all?
2: What is the nature of your god(s)? I understand Hinduism is a diverse and multifaceted religion with various concepts of the divine, including monotheistic, polytheistic, and pantheistic perspectives. So could you enlighten me on the true nature of your god(s) and how these different aspects fit together.
3: What about reconciling karma and suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong, the concept of karma, the law of cause and effect, is fundamental in your religion. Why is suffering and inequality in the world, given the idea that one's actions in past lives determine their current circumstances?
A Hindu does not believe in your God who is one of the 5000 and who is only capable of having one son.
Para Brahman or Param Brahman (Sanskrit: परब्रह्म, romanized: parabrahma) in Hindu philosophy is the "Supreme Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described as the formless (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond.[1]
Para Brahman is conceptualised in diverse ways. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, the Para Brahman is a synonym of nirguna brahman, i.e., the attribute-less Absolute. Conversely, in Dvaita Vedanta and Vishistadvaita Vedanta traditions, the Para Brahman is defined as saguna brahman, i.e., the Absolute with attributes. In Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism, Vishnu, Shiva, and Adi Shakti respectively are Para Brahman.[2] Mahaganapati is considered as Para Brahman by the Ganapatya sect. Kartikeya is considered as Para Brahman by the Kaumaram sect. (Para Brahman - Wikipedia)
Para is a Sanskrit word that means "higher" in some contexts, and "highest or supreme" in others.
You may Google the answer to your question 3.
@Mitwah posted:A Hindu does not believe in your God who is one of the 5000 and who is only capable of having one son.
Para Brahman or Param Brahman (Sanskrit: परब्रह्म, romanized: parabrahma) in Hindu philosophy is the "Supreme Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described as the formless (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond.[1]
Para Brahman is conceptualised in diverse ways. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, the Para Brahman is a synonym of nirguna brahman, i.e., the attribute-less Absolute. Conversely, in Dvaita Vedanta and Vishistadvaita Vedanta traditions, the Para Brahman is defined as saguna brahman, i.e., the Absolute with attributes. In Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism, Vishnu, Shiva, and Adi Shakti respectively are Para Brahman.[2] Mahaganapati is considered as Para Brahman by the Ganapatya sect. Kartikeya is considered as Para Brahman by the Kaumaram sect. (Para Brahman - Wikipedia)
Para is a Sanskrit word that means "higher" in some contexts, and "highest or supreme" in others.
You may Google the answer to your question 3.
If didn't made it clear the first time let me say it again. My God, the ONE true God, the I AM, is not part of your 5000 gods. You should know this, just go through the list of your gods name.
All I asking is in your polytheistic religion which is the boss man? Does any of your gods get jealous because you're given one more attention than the other? So many to go around you probably cannot please all of them. 🤔
As for the other questions I am asking you, I want to hear straight from the horses mouth.
Tell me this, what is the caste system origin, its ethical implications, and its relevance in the modern world.
Don't forget I am still awaiting answers to my previous questions?
Whether we are on the mountaintop or in the valley, God's love is the same.
We’ve often heard people say, “God is good!” when all is going well, but what about when life doesn’t look like what we expect? The Lord expresses kindness in more ways than wealth, health, and relationships. Some of His gifts are experiences we would never choose, but God knows we need them in order to grow in faith, obedience, and perseverance. Consider the following expressions of God’s goodness toward us:
• Loving discipline. In His perfect, unfailing love, God corrects us when we refuse to follow Him. The process is painful but results in “the peaceful fruit of righteousness” (Hebrews 12:11).
• Wise Limitations. There are opportunities and possessions that seem to promise happiness but ultimately draw us away from God. With great wisdom, the Lord lovingly withholds those things that would prove detrimental to our spiritual life.
• Useful suffering. God knows which refining experiences we need in order to become fruitful in His Kingdom. What appears to us as a valley of weeping is God’s valley of preparation for godliness and service.
It can be tempting to interpret God’s character on the basis of our circumstances. If evidence compels us to doubt His goodness, we must remember that while His gifts come in a variety of wrappings, they are always beneficial. As Psalm 34:8 says, “O taste and see that the Lord is good.”
Why your God, 1 of the 5000 punish his son for everyone else's sins; even for those who are not even born yet? Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Al Capone, Jim Jones et al are all saved. ROTFLMYAO.
Access to this requires a premium membership.