Is the Christian God's love unconditional?

[Woolmark]

Ok, some questions which have been playing on my mind, I am genuinely interested.

Surely his love is on the condition that you are a) a Christian and b) follow his rules?

Also, if God loves everyone as much as he does, why can't he save everyone by simply appearing to them? If I could save my children by doing this then I would in an instant, rather than turning up at the end and destroying the ones who weren't Christian.

Jacob is the father of Joseph....according to Matthew.

Luke says it's Heli.

Giggle

So there was a time before God made the world then? He was hanging out, being "cool"?

Heli is Joseph's father in law

Wow.

You don't need to explain. You'll say they meant Mary.

Whatever they meant, didn't mean - Joseph didn't have two fathers. One of the gospel writers made a mistake.

A mistake. See that. A mistake...in the word of God.

I should ask you the same thing about your evidence. I am not going to argue with you. I will chat with you though.

Josephus and Pliny wrote about Jesus. Also in the Babylonian Talmund "Yesus (spelling?) the Nazarene was hung on the eve of passover".

There are letters sent between Roman officials regarding what to do about the 'Christian' problem. Just do a wikipedia search on the New Testament for stuff about it.

Here we go, Sunshine

If love is giving the 'best of you away' then they were just giving the best of themselves away all the time. All the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, creativity, anything good. Between them, giving it away to each other all the time. Sounds quite good to me!

I have read the whole bible. And I have to say - despite it being authored by over 40 different people over a time span of about six thousand years. Plus being an array of different literature - poetry, history, prophecy, historical account etc. The unity in it is more incredible than any possible contradiction. And that it is a story of one where we were created to be interdependent on one another and made for a relationship with our maker.

sunshine401, do you mean you believe in the literal truth of the bible? If so you believe the world was made between six or seven thousand years ago yes? If so that can be shown to be completely wrong.

In any case open the first page and read in Genesis that God created the Sun and the Moon and put the stars in the sky to light the heavens. He did that on the fourth day, but created light on the first day - oops.

Also the guy who wrote that didn't know that the nearest star was 4.5 light years away so that the light of even that one wouldn't be lighting up anything for 4.5 years and much longer for the others.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth

You can't blame the guy who wrote that. They do look like they are just pinned to the ceiling. He also thought that the moon was a source of light and apparently didn't know that our Sun is a star.

That's just the first page. Don't get me started on who Adam's children married or how much water you'd need to flood the whole earth or how many species you could fit in an ark built to biblical specifications.

Most Christians these days have abandoned the bible because they know it can't be defended and just treat it as poetry.

They did not make a mistake at all. Luke was researching the life of Jesus so would of looked through family records, in those days the women were put under their fathers protection until married. On paper it looks like the women do not exist and you have to look under their husbands/fathers. So to find Mary you would have to look under Joseph's name hence Joseph appears to have to two fathers heli is the father of Mary so Luke presents the heritage of Jesus through his mother Mary.

What "evidence"? I've presented none

Pliny didn't write about Jesus, he mentioned Christians. Very, very briefly.

That, in fact, is the letter sent between Roman Officials. Pliny was writing to Trajan.

The Talmud was written centuries after Jesus supposedly lived & it's highly debatable that it references Jesus at all.

The Josephus passage - if genuine, almost certainly not - was very brief and written by a man who wasn't alive at the same time Jesus would have been.

What is your definition of "historical evidence"?

I don't need to Google anything. I rather think you do, though.

the bible has no mistakes although people can misread. It takes a lot to read and understand the bible but with a true heart and prayer it is more than possible to understand every word.

Oh and you do all know that the bible would be a lot bigger if it was all there. I forget how many gospels there were, but they got together and narrowed it down to four which were fairly close to agreeing with each other. As Hettie said there are mistakes there too.

Try reading the various versions of what happened when they found the tomb empty.

OK - Sunshine, I'll accept that if you can show me the passage where Luke says, "Ooops, this is what I meant". Chapter & verse and I'll look it up right now.

Because, actually, both Matthew & Luke claim to be presenting Joseph's genealogies & they don't match, do they?

That's called a mistake.

It was not a mistake at all that is how it was researched back then. He did not make a mistake. So why would it correct itself as there is nothing to correct

Where did Mary & Joseph go after Jesus was born (either in a manger or a house, depending on whether you believe Matthew or Luke)?

Was it to Egypt? (Matthew)
Was it home to Nazareth? (Luke)

Who did the angel tell that the Jesus was coming?

Joseph? (Matthew)
Mary? (Luke)

Sunshine Do you really want to do this? Honestly. I am not lying - there are thousands of such mistakes, we could do this all night.

Whatever else the Bible is, it is not inerrant. They teach this in theology courses! Your vicar would have learnt this at university/seminary. Ask him/her.

They are not mistakes. Just different terms of language and misreading.

I'm doing it off the top of my head. So my church history is not at the forefront of my mind. I don't have to defend anything.

Hettie Petal, why is this something you are interested in? Genuine question.

'historical evidence' - The British Museum had a brilliant exhibition a few years ago which had tons of stuff in it . There is a book that you can still get. That is some that is external to the bible its self.

I'm doing it off the top of my head. So my church history is not at the forefront of my mind. I don't have to defend anything

Sorry. But if you're going to converse with me & make statements purporting to be factual, then I will ask you to defend yourself. As you would with me.

There actually isn't any reliable evidence that Jesus existed. There are a few vague references in the next century that show us that Christians existed, which we already knew (from Paul). But there are even more references from the same era, in the same kind of literature, telling us that *Mithrans did too. Does that prove that Mithras was real?

Hettie Petal, why is this something you are interested in? 'Cos I'm interested in interesting things.

*Is it Mithrans? Mithranians? Not sure.

I can reply to all your points there but it would take forever and you would just give more to answer. I believe the bible is the word of god it has no mistakes and it is one of the ways I stay close to god on earth.

Tons of historical evidence for Jesus?

Was it an art installation? "Come and see the evidence for Jesus"........ and you walk into a big, white empty room!

Actually that's a genius idea. I could make a killing. Back - you in?

I am interested in interesting things too. But its reached 12.04am and so I have to go now. Good night.

Good night. And you Sunshine.

I belive what I belive. I do not need man to explain things to me because man could never explain the wonders of god.
Who do I put my trust in man or god? God every time.