For those who believe in God, if you had proof that when you die there is no afterlife and there will only be oblivion,

I could be pretty much counted as a JW extremist as on the internet I don't just wipe the dust off of my feet as Jesus instructed. But still a far cry from others considered to be extremist, yes?

Your the one that brought the false teachings of the Catholic Church into it, you just don't like Muslim reality being brought up as well.
The truth is the truth. You really don't see a difference between biblical Christian teachings of JW's and that of Catholics and Muslims? Do you consider it loving when Sunni kill Sunni or Shiite kill Shiite which you admitted to me that it was all too common? Do you consider what Catholic Hutu's did to almost a million Catholic Tutsis loving? Even Muslims set that one out. A bit more than just stone throwing there, yes? (Pretty sure you knew the verses of first stone are spurious as Muslims still stone people for various reasons, at least women.) Everyone sins including every single JW. If it became known that any JW killed another JW or anyone else in a war or other atrocity, they would be disfellowshipped. That's one of the reasons they have been at least somewhat persecuted in almost every nation if not every nation at one time or another. Catholics and Muslims have a history of persecuting others, sometimes hand in hand with a government. 

 (1 John 3:11, 12) For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; 12 not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother. And for what reason did he slaughter him? Because his own works were wicked, but those of his brother were righteous.

Jesus was raised from the dead according to my gospel or according to the good news I preach as well. You might as well condemn the angel in Acts and Peter as well as they all preach the same thing.
(2 Timothy 2:8) Remember that Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead and was David’s offspring, according to the good news I preach,

I don't understand why you keep harping on Paul when others have said similar things. Sacrificing yourself for your brother that may be foreign to you or other Muslims that either don't believe in or participate in Jihad but it is a fundamental Christian teaching. (Not the part about killing as many perceived enemies though)

(John 10:11) I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his life in behalf of the sheep.
(John 15:12, 13) This is my commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you. 13 No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends.
(1 John 3:16) By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.



You seem appalled at the idea of Christians believing that Jesus died as a ransom sacrifice for us as He said he would do but don't seem overly bothered by Muslims that believe they are supposed to inflict terror on others as reported in the Quran.



Oh and you don't see that you are wrong here?
"2. According to my study of the teachings of Jesus the resurrection of Jesus from the dead did not form part of the mission God sent Jesus on..."
(Matthew 16:21) From that time forward, Jesus began explaining to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and on the third day be raised up.
(Matthew 17:23) and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised up.” And they were very much grieved.
(Luke 9:22) but he said: “The Son of man must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and on the third day be raised up.”
(Matthew 20:28) Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”
(Mark 10:45) For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”

Oh yes, it's not worded EXACTLY as you said.

1. As usual you have posted a lot about issues that are not strictly related to the points I am making. I am just looking to see if there is anything in your post which I can use to make my understanding on the subject closer to that of the teachings of Jesus. I'm pleased to say that there is nothing in your latest post either that requires me to review my understanding.

2. My understanding remains correct that Jesus was a practicing Jew and would not have said that God had sent him to die for the sins of mankind, and indeed there is no verse in your post in which God or Jesus clearly says in ANY unambiguous words that that was the mission of Jesus. No one ever even asked him whether he was the one who had been sent to die for the sins of mankind. Any such statement would require that I review my understanding. There is no instance in which he said to any sinners that in a short while he would be betrayed and condemned to death and then the sins of those persons would be forgiven. On the contrary, Jesus taught people how to pray to God for forgiveness of sins, "[O God] forgive us our trespasses [against you] as we forgive those who trespass against us" When we forgive those who trespass against us we don't ask them to make an impossible sacrifice, so why would God, who is infinitely more magnanimous than us, ask humans to make an impossible sacrifice before forgiving our trespasses against Him? In fact Jesus illustrated the enormous magnanimity of God, and His readiness to forgive, when he related the parable of the prodigal son.

3. So, I acknowledge the beliefs of Christians, and they are entitled to believe that Jesus died for their sins, but for me that belief is far, far removed from what God or Jesus is quoted as saying in the Bible. Despite that, I am still open to anyone who can make a convincing case from the words of God or Jesus that God sent Jesus to die for the sins of mankind.

You want to talk about off point, how about your first response to the answer by my2cents:

• my2cents  Element 99
  
  
  I believe God knows our hearts. And He knows if we had an opportunity to accept Him. 
  Those who are not wicked will have an opportunity in the Millinium to worship the God.
     September 10, 2017 7:49 AM PDT

   
• CLURT  my2cents
   
  I study the Bible but I assume you know it better than I do. You quote 1 Cor 15:12 as saying "it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead" Those are the words of Paul. The Gospels record instances of Jesus speaking to people after his crucifixion. Did Jesus himself say, in any of those appearances, that he "has been raised from the dead"?

God didn't write the Bible. He inspired men to write the Bible. Any words translated correctly in the Bible are from God. 

1. My comment to M2C concerned what she actually posted. I said "You quote 1 Cor 15:12 as saying......." and waited for her response to see if I could benefit from it. Others sometimes see things slightly different to how we see them, so they can help to bring to light what I might keep missing. By adding the knowledge of others to our own we can become wiser.

2. "Any words translated correctly in the Bible are from God." --------- The Bible itself, by using quotation marks around the speech of God, Moses, Jesus and other speakers makes distinctions between the words of those speakers. You can dismiss the Bible's decision to do so if you want. I don't see any reason to do so. In fact I'm glad the Bible makes that distinction. It helps me rank quoted speech correctly. I do not want to end up ranking the words of Luke above those of Peter, nor those of Peter above those of Jesus nor those of Jesus above those of God.

Yup, you are right. I copied the the direct comment above your comment rather than the one you actually responded to. The format temporarily confused me, sorry.

Your response to me on the 1st page still shows you to be a bit of a hypocrite: 
{5. Don't forget that there are, in anyway, big differences between the understanding of different branches of Christianity itself. For example, whereas the JWs believe that Jesus is archangel Michael and God is NOT a trinity, the world's largest church, the Catholics, and the vast majority of Protestants do NOT accept that Jesus is archangel Michael and insist that God IS a trinity. That is despite the fact that all argue their respective cases from the Bible.}

Anyone speaking about Michael, trinity, Catholics and such before you
"As usual you have posted a lot about issues that are not strictly related to the points I am making"

1. I don't think "still shows you to be a bit of a hypocrite" is the right sort of thing to say to someone you're discussing something with.

2. Questioning or making a relevant comment on something posted is fine. My comment which you have just reproduced above was not an attack on or allegation against your beliefs or those of the JWs or Protestants or Catholics, nor was it meant to shift attention from what was under discussion to something else. It was simply made to illustrate the fact that we all have different theologies coming from the same book. The message was - so don't be upset just because I have a very different understanding from the Bible than you or other Christians have. Question me and challenge me about that understanding but don't get upset or worked up about it. Having major differences is not unheard of. That's why i gave the example of those two major differences between the JWs and other Christians.
 

I don't really matter why you brought up something that wasn't STRICTLY related to the what I said. I just think it's a bit hypocritical of you to say what you said to me when you did the same thing you accuse me of:
"As usual you have posted a lot about issues that are not strictly related to the points I am making"

I don't think "As usual you have posted a lot about issues that are not strictly related to the points I am making" is the right sort of thing to say to someone you're discussing something with.


You brought something else in to the conversation that wasn't even remotely touched on prior to you saying it and then call foul when someone expands on your expansion.


-------
EDIT: Correct me if I am wrong, you don't believe that Jesus died and you don't believe Jesus was to be raised up as previous cited verses said, right?

What does this mean?
(Matthew 20:28) Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”

-------

Also, do you believe that the Quran 'consists of the unaltered and direct words of God'?

Quran: The Word of God - WhyIslam

This post was edited by texasescimo at September 29, 2017 6:42 AM MDT

I am not aware of any verse in the Bible in which God declares the mission of Jesus to be to come to earth and die for the sins of mankind. Similarly, I am not aware of any verse in the Bible in which Jesus declares that his mission was to come to earth and die for the sins of mankind. So what then about Matthew 20:28 "Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”? If that works for you that's good for you. It doesn't work for me. You're entitled to now my reasons. They are:

a] purposes of missions are announced at the beginning

b] mission statements are not announced in the third person

c] the verse you quoted is part of the sentence concluding a passage that has nothing to do with Jesus announcing the purpose of his mission. The passage starts at verse 20 with a mother asking Jesus to let her two sons occupy the highest positions in his kingdom, be to his right and left. Jesus uses that opportunity to explain that a true believing leader should not expected to be served by his people but should serve them and be ready to die for them. He says, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” 

d] Jesus does not say to people that he has come to die for the sins of mankind

e] the other teachings of Jesus are not consistent with him having come to die for the sins of mankind

f] no one says to or asks Jesus whether he is the one who has come to die for the sins of mankind

g] in any case, equating "to die for the sins of mankind" with "to give his life as a ransom for many.” has many problems. We have to define who is demanding the ransom, what exactly is the ransom, who is paying it and what is it in exchange for?

Quote: "I am not aware of any verse in the Bible in which God declares the mission of Jesus to be to come to earth and die for the sins of mankind. Similarly, I am not aware of any verse in the Bible in which Jesus declares that his mission was to come to earth and die for the sins of mankind. So what then about Matthew 20:28 "Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”? If that works for you that's good for you. It doesn't work for me...."

So you don't accept the words of Jesus after all and it really has nothing to do with rather or not Jesus said anything. You find other reasons to throw out what Jesus did say because it doesn't fit in to your preconceived ideas. Mt 20:28 wasn't worded the way YOU claim would have had to have been said, it doesn't fit YOUR timeline and because Jesus was not a devoted follower of Muhammad.

The Bible has several prophets saying similar in different words and Jesus and the apostles also said it in different words.
(Mark 10:45) For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”
(Matthew 26:27, 28) And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you, 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.

You really have a way of avoiding things especially when it comes to the Quran. I guess you are not comfortable in assuming a position on rather or not the Quran is from God as with the Bible, only the parts where God is specifically quoted so you count as from God as you don't believe God does things through others or inspires them what to write.


Am I correct in your no response to:
Also, do you believe that the Quran 'consists of the unaltered and direct words of God'?

Quran: The Word of God - WhyIslam

This post was edited by texasescimo at October 2, 2017 10:01 AM MDT

1. My understanding continues to be that there is no overwhelming evidence in quotes attributed to either God or Jesus in the Bible that the mission of Jesus was to come and die for the sins of mankind.

2. Your latest question on this is what then about Mark 10:45 and Matthew 26:27, 28 in both of which it is Jesus himself who is speaking, aren't they insurmountable evidence that God sent Jesus on a mission to die for the sins of mankind?

3. Once again, if those verses works for you that's good for you. They don't work for me for the following reasons:

a] My arguments with regards to Mark 10:45, "For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.” are identical to those which I gave in response to Matthew 20:28, "Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.” Both verses are almost identical and both conclude almost identical passages which have nothing to do with announcing the purpose of the mission of Jesus. Whereas in Matthew the passage begins by saying that "the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him." in Mark "James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” These are claimed to be both eye witness accounts and the word of God.

b] As for Matthew 26:27, 28, "And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you, 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins." they come near the end of Matthew 26:17-30, a passage about the well known last supper event where Jesus announced that he would be betrayed by one of his own disciples. I find it difficult to take these verses as the announcement by Jesus that God had sent him on a mission to die for the sins of mankind. Most of the reasons I listed in my last post apply here as well.

4. The rest of your post raise other issues not directly related to providing evidence that God sent Jesus to die for the sins of mankind.

Even if I were to accept what you say as fact, which I do not, then that only means that these 'ghosts' exist in your imagination, which would appear to be overactive and will stop imagining at the time of your death.

some day you too will experience that which is beyond your pronounced Ego...
till then have a nice life Cedar...

Ditto, you and reality, reality is not as bad as you may think it to be.

Reality is something i fear you have not experienced yet.
For it is beyond your Ego
which you have not seemed to have seen beyond yet.
For in essence Reality is not bad at all, and wherever
you got the idea that I think it is bad
is just more distortion of your mind.
Reality exists when your Ego doesn't exist
if you ever get the chance to check it out
please do so, 
and I won't read or respond any more to your closed mind
and it's negativity, so thanks for your comments.

Dream on.

The reality for many atheists is 'cannot believe' in a supernatural creator. 

How about, "I have absolutely no reason to believe in your particular sky fairy, or any other sky fairy for that matter". Or how about the devout believer who has dismissed all of the thousands of other gods by saying "I don't believe".

There you go. A perfect example of being oblivious to a concept of someone's personal formation of opinion. 
What the hell are you talking about a sky fairy? Keep talking like this, and you'll make me think I,m interacting with a grade school child.
Are you trying to force your sky fairy into my beliefs?

'There you go. A perfect example of being oblivious to a concept of someone's personal formation of opinion.' In my personal opinion I equate a super magical fairy who lives in the sky performing all sorts of tricks as a paid up member of the sky fairy union. No need to insert my sky fairy into your beliefs as you already have your own well and truly dug in.

Keep the faith, brother.

Good comeback.

(I'm)