Next?

It's no mystery that I started, and named Debunking Atheists, after countless blogs constantly deleting my comments, blocking me. Some even Christian  "friends " from other countries.

That initial frustrations is what sent my mind to war, to start the blog.

I guess a decade is plenty of time to witness a miracle. I've had conversations with him, I believe. Good times. Next?

http://reasonsforjesus.com/debunking-christianity-writer-becomes-christian-evidence/

Edit: Wait,  did he say because of evidence? Sigh,  will it ever end? Here:

tinyurl.com/Manintellect

Still seeking to decrease while Christ increases, (John 3:30; 1 Cor. 2:2). Here to receive reward for His suffering.

Joyful, healthy family, and humbled is how I'm leaving 2016, I cannot have asked for anything greater. Thanks for the conversations everyone! I hope they helped you as much as they've helped me. Blessings.

Truth About Christianity

"So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." ~James 1:19-20

Arbitrary Atheists

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Are Atheists Arbitrary in their Reasoning?

How to...The Bible Explained In 11 Minutes

Does a British[?] accent make a better narrator then an New Zealand one? Time will tell. I do love the delivery because its explained well. Please watch.


bit.ly/savedin11

One Solitary Life

He was born in an obscure village
The child of a peasant woman
He grew up in another obscure village 

Where He worked in a carpenter shop
Until He was thirty

He never wrote a book
He never held an office
He never went to college
He never visited a big city
He never traveled more than two hundred miles
From the place where he was born
He did none of the things
Usually associated with greatness
He had no credentials but Himself

He was only thirty three

His friends ran away
One of them denied Him
He was turned over to His enemies
And went through the mockery of a trial
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves
While dying, His executioners gambled for His clothing
The only property He had on earth

When He was dead
He was laid in a borrowed grave
Through the pity of a friend

[Twenty] centuries have come and gone
And today [He] is the central figure of the human race
And the leader of mankind's progress
All the armies that have ever marched
All the navies that have ever sailed
All the parliaments that have ever sat
All the kings that ever reigned put together
Have not affected the life of mankind on earth
As powerfully as that...

One 

Solitary 

Life

original ~Dr James Allan © 1926.

Man Up!

I keep thinking about the last post and the devastating story of evil. What makes a man want to be so evil? Why would a man harm others with purpose and malice that is unwarranted? Then just last night I read, to no coincidence, something from Bahnsen that brought things back to this same point I was contemplating.

First, in the last post I quoted Patty who said "Also, if more people truly knew and believed in Christ and lived for him, think of how much less evil would be in the world."

She has a great point with that. If men feared God more there would be a lot less evil. Period. I don't mean those that pose as Christians either. Yes, we all know evil exists, but that is only because of weak cowardice people out there that want to honor evil instead of God. It started with Adam. If he only kept the promises he made with God, we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Justification of Sanctification

Recently I was in a debate with two professing Christians who feels that any sinning is evidence of not being a Christian at all. They read Romans 6 but use a taxi-cab fallacy, and depart when they reach their destination. But they ignore Romans 7:13-25 and we sin because we are in the flesh.

I found it to be a difficult conversation because we have spoken of false converts in the past. I certainly don't feel that just because you sin that you are not saved. So I guess this post is to clarify things.

Maybe some of these Atheists felt the burden to be perfect and ran away discouraged. Christians aren't perfect, just perfected. Not better, just better off. 

Morality keeps you from jail, blood of Jesus Christ keeps you from Hell.

There is a distinguishing difference between,

Justification which is an instantaneous declaration from God of our legal standing before God that was entirely God's work that is fully accomplished now through Jesus Christ. (Romans 3:24,26-28, Romans 8:11, Philippians 3:9, 1 Corinthians 6:11.) KJV, of course.

and,

Sanctification which is more of a internal condition that is a process through life where man cooperates with God that is yet to be fully accomplished.

It is a process by which God patiently, lovingly, and sovereignty convicts us of our sins, that we might turn from them, and be used of God.

Dr. Jerry F. Smith said: "If we were sinless, we wouldn't be taught of sanctification in God's Word (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4; John 17:17; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Romans 6:12; 1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:2).

From these verses, we can see that God knows we will sin. And has given us His Word to sanctify us. Sanctification is a process: As the believer walks in the Word of God and repents and confesses his sins, he will become a more and more sanctified vessel unto honor. However, we will never reach sinless perfection (experimentally) until heaven, though we are seen through the blood of Christ by God as perfect in Him (positionally) - 2 Cor 5:21, et.al. God knows that we will sin, which is why He gave us the Words found in First John (above)"

Slick said "The more sanctified we are, the more we care for others, the more we sacrifice for others, the more humble we are in our hearts, the more at peace we are with our lives, and the more we are like Christ in our character."

Claiming immediate Sanctification, without Justification, is an awful thought. That would devastate all of us since none of us would know if we are indeed saved until we die sinless. We are saved through Christ and strive to become perfect in Christ. Its not a light switch. Free choices are not eliminated in Justification.

Because of the work of Christ, and our connection to Him by faith, we have the right standing before God, and are declared blameless in God's sight. This is great comfort to the believer, because it means we will not have to face the wrath of God on the day of judgment. We are secure in Christ, and safe in Him.

Albertus Pieters in his book, Divine Lord and Savior, tells of a believer who was not well-educated, but who had a deep assurance of his salvation. Everyone called him, “Old Pete.” One day, while talking with Dr. Pieters, he said, “If God should take me to the very mouth of Hell, and say to me, 'In you go, Pete; here’s where you belong,' I would say to Him, 'That’s true, Lord, I do belong there. But if you make me go to Hell, Your dear Son, Jesus Christ, must go with me! He and I are now one, and we cannot be separated anymore.'"

Amen!

(click for clearer picture)

UPDATE: If the "body of Christ" is already sinless through the Holy Spirit then there is NO NEED FOR CHRIST, but only the Holy Spirit. Get it? We are JUSTIFIED in Christ. He PAID the price for our sinning, in full.

The professing Christians (two of them) have since blocked all communication as to not allow the truth to be heard and in my opinion they are no different then Michael Moore and his manipulation of truth, and facts, to make his viewpoint be heard. Shame on you both for running from the truth. They attempt to cause stumbling blocks for believers in their teachings and for that they should be ashamed. (1 Corinthians 8:13, 1 Peter 2:8, Romans 14, 1 Timothy 4:12, Romans 14:12, 1 Corinthians 8:9)


bit.ly/JustandSanct

Got Evidence?

What proof and evidence can you provide that shows atheism is accurate and correct?

Before someone comes at it with the approach of "It is simply the lack of a belief in the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural."

Remember what Pvblivs said:

Only when they are trying to transform it dishonestly into a catch-all category. Any definition that tries to portray infants, who cannot possibly make a decision on the matter, as atheists is dishonest. In all fairness, anyone trying to portray infants as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu is equally dishonest. An atheist is someone who believes there are no gods.

Atheists will still slip up and say, for example that their belief could be wrong. And seriously, what would be your response if Christians started redefining "Christian" to mean "someone who lacks a belief that the Bible is fiction"?

Atheist--1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny god, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god"

Atheism--1587, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god".

Also there is no such thing as neutrality to a worldview. You have picked a side.

A youtuber said "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Buddhism and Jediism fall under the atheist category."

Clash Of The Theories?

I found something to be fascinating, and the evidence is worth consideration.

An author named Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. over at SolvingLight.com has a compelling theory as to the Greek mythology and the possible meanings behind the story.

At the moment, I am reading his book called Sowing Atheism (PDF Available) and so far he certainly makes a convincing case which is obvious to everyone that does not adhere to the religious dogma of an Atheist.

From Sowing Atheism:

Science is the systematic, unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos, the formulation of the truths found thereby into general laws, and their application for humanitarian, political, and economic purposes. (emphasis added)

He continued with what we here at DA chant often:

The “unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos” is, in effect, the search for truth. Our attitude towards science should ever be one of inquiry. A scientist’s task is to ascertain what a thing does mean. He or she must not presume to dictate what it must mean. Such a predisposition demonstrates bias. A scientific teaching must rest on positive, unquestioned statement of fact, not on gratuitous assumptions or specious arguments.

Sound familiar?

I liked how PapaG pointed out the description of science, by quoting another Johnson:

“... the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

and not,

“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”


There is one point that I need to make though. He distinguishes a term called evo-atheist (evolutionist-atheist), and references to them at times in the book, but to me that is a mere redundancy.

Atheists, naturalists, defend it to the death, no matter what the evidence shows. (With small exceptions) Maybe that is what Johnson means with the term. Although, I have often met critics of evolution that are not necessarily Christian. David Berlinski, and others here, comes to mind for that category. Minor point though.

Is it Greek Mythology and/or Greek Legend?

Are the characters in “Greek mythology,” actually the same historical figures that are described in the Torah?

As Johnson's book Noah in Ancient Greek Art points out:

Artists often depicted Nereus, the "Wet One," on vases with the bottom half of a fish and/or holding a fish, signifying that this fish-man had brought humanity through the raging waters of the Flood. Is this Nereus actually Noah as Johnson provides the case for? If it is, it opens up a great deal of understanding of the past.

Johnson's blog allows us to peek into his book and discusses more about his thesis's interesting claims.

I have yet to read his book "The Parthenon Code: Mankind's History in Marble", but if his claims about Greek mythology are anything like his claims about atheism, then he is indeed on to something. I encourage everyone to, at the very least, consider his thesis in reflection, and pick up a copy of his book, and stay tuned to a post about his book(s).

bit.ly/Greekmyth

No Evidence?

The empirical, falsifiable, evidence for a supernatural event that I was thinking about is...

The Shroud of Turin.

Science has yet to falsify its genuineness which is indeed falsifiable. They are baffled as to how the image got there, the negative image at that. Paint or ink has been ruled out.

So there you have it, empirical evidence that shows a supernatural event that baffles science. The Shroud of Turin.

BTW, did you see the face of Jesus?

If you haven't, watch it on the History Channel Sunday, Jul 18, 4/3c to see the science behind the shroud, especially the scanner part where to verify the image authenticity he takes a regular desktop scanner and scans the Bust to reproduce the exact image on the shroud thus testing, replicating, and verifying his findings.

Now before the claim of the shroud being "proven" fake:

The Shroud is the real deal.

Something was discovered, and the original scientists agree with, that the shroud was actually repaired and dyed at one point.

This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings.

From another study it says:

Rogers discovered evidence of nearly invisible mending: dyestuff and spliced thread. Just to be sure, he sent samples to John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory. Working independently and using different methods, Brown agreed with Rogers. He wrote: This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.

The findings were verified and replicated that the original had been altered. The new finding are irrefutable but unfortunately they did not get the "press coverage" the original, though flawed, findings got.

The recanting of the claim the shroud was a fake is much like a retraction in a news paper that is buried deep in the unpopular section with a " we made a mistake" that gets lost and unread.

The Shroud of Turin is the real deal. Science has shows that evidence.

So, no more claim by Atheists that there is no evidence of supernatural events, please.

UPDATE: In reflection and after reading something written from AIG:

Like the Rich Man (Luke 16:31), we have God's Word. Anyone not prepared to believe God's Word won't be persuaded even if a dead person came to warn them.

Matthew 28 explains that the chief priests had money given to the soldiers so they would report the body of Jesus was stolen instead. Jesus had obviously risen from the dead, and they refused to believe!

Noah's Ark was a sign to the pre-flood world that God judges sin and that in His grace He provides a way to escape from judgment. All through scripture, God gave the Israelites sign after sign and they rejected His Word.

So no matter what evidence appears it will be rejected by the Atheists, just like the many people did throughout the Bible. God save them all.

Bit.ly/ShroudDA

Why Believe Jesus?

James Morey asked many questions in a previous conversation. They are all important questions, if someone is honestly seeking answers. We have seen in the past that many are not seeking answers, but seek an argument. There is a difference. While we all love to banter here I thought it would be fitting to answer these questions as a post.

First, James here is a kind man. He questions the morality of hell and Christianity. I believe at one time he claimed "I'm effectively a Buddhist/Taoist."

I am sure its safe to say that his driving force is compassion, moderation, and humility towards others. Unlike Atheists, Buddhists may have some assemblance of moral accountability. To who is another subject to discuss.

Dan,

So you would say, rather that without God there is no basis for morality, without God there would be no morality, period. So all secular or differently religious ethical systems that lead to goodness are ultimately God's doing.

...and is it fair to say that you believe it is simply impossible to be good without God, regardless of whether or not a person believes in the existence of a god?

Would it follow that the ultimate human good, in your mind, is acceptance of Jesus as god/savior, as that is what, all else excepted, "saves" you? You've written that religions that focus on works are "false," and that grace is the sole reason for salvation.

So it ultimately comes down to whether or not a person believes in Jesus as savior or not, other goodness (Godliness, to you) excepted.

...if I understand you correctly. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is you believe so I don't ask questions of you that aren't germane to your beliefs.

Morey,

Yes, I am claiming that without God there is no good. Now, does it matter if you believe it or not? Not at all. Gravity still exists even if I don't believe in it. So, even if you have a professing atheist, they will still have morality because we have consciences that was given to us by God. Your religion may call it alaya-vijnana although I don't fully understand the term.

>>So it ultimately comes down to whether or not a person believes in Jesus as savior or not, other goodness (Godliness, to you) excepted.

Not at all!! I believed in Jesus for years as a false convert. (James 2:19) The difference is what God says that He will do to save us. Like a gift given to us we have to open it to receive it. First, we must first repent (turn away) from sinning, simply as an understanding how wretched and broken and corrupt that we really are compared to a perfect and loving God. Second, we have to trust Jesus that He did do what He did in sacrifice to save us and trust Him with our lives and our Salvation. If you do that, at that moment and for eternity, you are saved by Christ and you will spend eternity in Heaven. Fight it, deny it, and reject it then there is no other avenue but Hell.

>> I'm avoiding it because theism makes close to zero sense to me and because theistic religions in general strike me as profoundly unfair should they happen to be true.

Ray says that its a legal transaction. You have violated the law (God's Law) and Jesus has paid your fine in full.

Its not just a belief, its an understanding of ourselves and a release of ourselves to Him. Because we are separate from God in sin.

Someone else over at "To The Ends" put it nicely this way "This way back to God is not just a legal transaction, but results in an inner spiritual awakening described as a "new birth" or being "born from above" (John 3:3). This is a personal, spiritual transformation in which inner emptiness and death is replaced by new life, and "all things have become new" (2 Cor. 5:17) The key to accepting this new life is accepting Jesus himself, accepting his resurrection and his claims to be God, and then submitting yourself to his absolute authority as God over your life."

You cannot reason out of Christianity if Jesus Christ is Lord of your reasoning.

On Religions

Moshe over at carm.org said to me in the past, "That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation...

A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.

...We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to Gtod thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by [Jesus Christ]. The false religions make themselves clean."

In reference to Hell

>>because you clearly believe that this (Hell) is all not only fair, but just and merciful. Or unfair, but not to us. We're the recipients of your God's unfairness to himself...which I'm trying to make sense of.

Yes its fair. Is it fair to punish the violator of a law? Should the punishment fit the crime? If you see in the newspaper a man getting a small $20.00 fine for an infraction you would assume that the infraction was petty or small. When you find out the fine was for raping and murdering 10 woman in cold blood you would be outraged, as we all would be.

So what is the punishment for one little lie? Hell.

Why is that? Sin is always directly against God. GotQuestions.org puts it this way, "God is an eternal and infinite Being (Psalm 90:2). As a result, all sin requires an eternal punishment. God’s holy, perfect, and infinite character has been offended by our sin. Although to our finite minds our sin is limited in time, to God—who is outside of time—the sin He hates goes on and on. Our sin is eternally before Him and must be eternally punished in order to satisfy His holy justice."

I believe a sinner, without being forgiven of sins, cannot be in the presence of God because he/she would burst into flames (Genesis 32:30). God is perfect so we must be perfect to be in His presence. Without the mediator we would perish (1 Timothy 2:5). Look what happened to Saul (now Paul) he was blinded by God's holy presence of light.

The rich man is a good example of someone that understands the gravity of sinning against God and going to Hell. God loves us (John 3:16) and wants us to be saved from Hell (2 Peter 3:9).



bit.ly/whyJesus

Whining About Wine

I was in a conversation, or battle, with this professing Christan named Wilson over at Triablogue and I thought it would be a good post because of the subject and points that was made about alcohol. This guy that I was talking to is not the point here, even though his ego needed a check, the point was what was said about the consumption of Alcohol.

My points were these:

Is getting drunk a sin? Yes! (1 Corinthians 6:10)

Keep in mind that the blood of Christ is "new wine."

Because of all the parasites in the water back then it was safer to squeeze grapes for drinks but that is called 'new wine' and do you know what new wine is? Grape juice.

Jesus turned water into grape juice. Remember the verses about putting new wine into old skins...(Luke 5:33-39)

Personally, I try to do all things that glorify God and I cannot see drinking hard liquor as glorifying God.

Is tobacco a sin? Probably, if you put it before your kids health, it may be. If you place it before your own health, and lose a leg like my Father In-Law, it may be. Is hoarding, if it causes your kids to be unhealthy or unsafe? Sure. Not being considerate of others can be evil. If you will not give it up for anything or anyone, that you covet it more then God Himself, then sure, it is a sin.

When the Lord spoke about it as favorable in Isaiah 65:8 "Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all." (my emphasis)

Also, a wine press does not create wine, AT ALL!!! A wine press (referenced throughout the Bible) makes grape juice.

Fermenting grapes makes the wine and is called many things because of it. Other terms fermented wine is referenced in the Bible as: Wine, Strong drink, Vinegar of wine, Vinegar of strong drink, Liquor of grapes, Dried grapes, The kernels, The husk.

This was not a conversation about Kashrut but look what it says in Numbers 6:3-5 "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. "

To avoid Fermented grapes "until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy,"

To be Holy is to separate yourself from fermented grapes!!

To be a drunkard is a sin and you are anything but a Christian if you are one. (1 Corinthians 6:10)

Does that mean that whoever drinks a glass of wine is going to hell? Of course not, but if you are an alcoholic and you are tempting yourself with wine that leads to other things then you may be sinning.

Look at Hosea 9:2 and Proverbs 3:10 Do you see that the Bible makes a distinction between wine and new wine to let us know the difference between fermented wine and grape juice? Jesus taught that new wine was not put into old bottles because they couldn’t expand with the pressure. (Matthew 9:17) Right?

Because the fermentation process, yeast acts on the sugar in the grapes to produce alcohol and carbon dioxide which builds pressure. According to the Bible, new wine is, therefore, not fermented. Also, the Lord's Supper was grape juice, evidenced because when Jesus spoke of the "fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29) He was speaking of new wine. He didn't even use the term wine, but fruit.

Logic also says that the fermentation of wine is the result of adding yeast, a leavening agent, to the grape juice to make alcohol. Correct?

At the supper of unleavened bread, do you think the Lord would offer a drink made with yeast?

There is no way He would logically do that. Grape Juice is new wine.

bit.ly/Whinewine

Why Are We Even Here?

Wem quoted Strombringer's profile:"I define manhood simply: men should be tough, fair, and courageous, never petty, never looking for a fight, but never backing down from one, either." — John Wayne

I love that quote! You get, at the very least, 10 points for that one.

Like a good snowball fight, flinging poo can be entertaining, but it distracts from the issue we are discussing. In an academic debate, no one can do it better then Aykroyd and Curtin, they are extremely entertaining so don't even try to top them.



Ask yourself if the points made were valid and strong arguments. Do we even care what the points were after that hysterical banter?

Why are we here? I am here to Debunk Atheists, but I also believe we are here for something else. Do you know what that is? Do you know why we are here?

The Bible, Bunch of Fairy Tales

Oh, how many time have I heard from Atheists that the Bible is just a bunch of Fairy Tales...

“Have you ever heard of anyone in history being imprisoned or executed for distributing copies of Grimm’s fairy tales? What would you say if you’d heard that copies of The Iliad and The Odyssey had been banned in Saudi Arabia and North Korea? Imagine people trying to smuggle copies of Hans Christian Andersen’s works into China? Such ideas are comical, but the Bible, which has been called a mere collection of myths and fairy tales, has suffered all of these fates. Throughout history and even today, copies of the Bible are banned and burned, and those possessing it are persecuted and imprisoned. There’s something about this ancient book that threatens and frightens those in power, especially those who use power to oppress people weaker than themselves. And they have every reason to be frightened.”

Eric Metaxas, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about God (Colorado Springs, 2005), page 155.

bit.ly/Biblefairytales

What Is One Little Lie?

God's Commandments are being violated if you lie.

By lying you violate the 5th, (by dishonoring your parents by lying) the 9th, the 2nd (created a god to suite yourself), and the 1st Commandment. (Didn't put God first)

When you steal you violate the 5th, the 8th, the 2nd, and the 1st Commandments.

By breaking a Commandment it actually is blasphemous to God. We are made in his image after all, so God sins? There goes the 3rd also.

If we really think about it, we are even violating the 4th since Jesus is now our Sabbath Rest. (Matthew 11:28-30, Hebrews 4:9-10) We are not "keeping it Holy" (Exodus 20:8) so there it goes. When you sin you are breaking, which ever sin PLUS, the first 5 Commandments.

You are breaking a great deal of Commandments with one simple lie.

Let's compound that. Let's just say, you break God's Laws (Lie, steal, lust, or covet) 5 times a day. You lied once, lusted once, stole something, etc. In one year, that would be 1,825 sins. If you live to 85 and started sinning at, lets just say age 15, @ 70 years of sinning you would have broken God Laws 127,750 times.

Compounded again, if you sinned one time, and thus breaking 5 other Commandments each time totaling 6 sins, and did that 5 times a day that would be 766,500 sins in a lifetime!!!

Now take that times just 6 billion people and that is some 4.6 quadrillion sins for the planet on an average.

Now, lets multiply that by many generations throughout history...

Dude, that is a lot of sins!!!

You're made in God's image. When you lie, you're calling God a liar.

Now can you see that sinning is not just a little thing? Its a big, big deal!!



bit.ly/onelittlelie

I Saw Jesus!

Well His 3D image anyway. I don't know who caught this, but I found the whole show on Youtube. It probably won't be there for long but I did find it interesting. If it disappears just go to Youtube, or Google, and search for "real face of Jesus Ray Downing" to find something on it.

Is that Him? I will look for Him in the future to see if it was.

UPDATE:

Zilch commented: >> That's already been determined to be of medieval provenance. Very interesting to be sure, and very clever, but a fake.

You are only giving half the story. Now, I will give you the benefit of doubt to the facts that you may not have heard, but the Shroud is the real deal.

What you claim was the headlines all over the world but something was discovered and the original scientists agree with the finding that the shroud was actually repaired and dyed at one point

This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings.

From another study it says:

Rogers discovered evidence of nearly invisible mending: dyestuff and spliced thread. Just to be sure, he sent samples to John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory. Working independently and using different methods, Brown agreed with Rogers. He wrote: This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.

The findings were verified and replicated that the original had been altered. The new finding are irrefutable but unfortunately they did not get the "press coverage" the original, though flawed, findings got.

So please tell the whole story and do not propagate a story half told. This stands as another reason not to trust the science publishing of men. When found to be incorrect, the damage has already been done. The recanting is much like a retraction in a news paper that is buried deep in the unpopular section with a " we made a mistake" that gets lost and unread.

The Shroud of Turin is the real deal.

The Joke is on the Government!

Apparently today the "fools" are the Government.



Thanks infowars.com

The court ruling here says it all. "Because the Million Dollar Bill does not pose any resonable risk of fraud, nor does it pose a risk of facilitating would-be counterfeiters it does NOT violate 18 USC 474 or 475."

The Judge adds "Secret Service Agents violated the fourth Amendment by seizing the Million Dollar Bills from GNN's Office without a Warrant or Valid Consent"

Ray said "This week a Judge ruled in favor of GNN and ordered the return of the 8,300 Gospel tracts!

We thank God that the Judge also ruled that our tracts are NOT violations of the counterfeiting law (the basis for the illegal search and seizure). Additionally, Judge Solis stated that two of the Secret Service agents "conspired together" to cover up their actions, including lying on the stand."

So our Government will possibly have to pay for this Ministry's legal fees and GNN has the right to sue for damages that extend into the millions. (get it?)

So this Government will, by proxy, fund the ministry of Christianity! Bwahahahahahah

God, you crack me up. Thanks for the smiles.

What is Truth?

When Evidence Confirms The Bible

A while ago Science admitted that an Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah but as we know The Bible already told us about it and said it was God Himself that destroyed the wicked cites. It also made me think that scientists and researchers are searching for God, secretly, while we are not looking. These days many are explaining that the "evidence" that corresponds to the Bible is merely circumstantial evidence or coincidental.

Interesting though, you can send a man to prison on circumstantial evidence but it may be not enough to convince people about God. I understand that evidence is not faith, and we shouldn't look to science to find God. We need to, as instructed to us by God Himself, trust based on the current evidence. I can wonder though.

What will atheists do when science does find undeniable evidence that agrees with the Bibles claims? Will they believe in that "smoking gun" that the Bible is actually a historical narrative to be understood plainly? Will nonbelievers believe that God exists and created the Universe, as the Bible says, or would they still hold on and 'believe' in Neo-Darwinian evolution or metaphysical naturalism? I guess I am just wondering what would it take, if anything? I suppose even if Neo-Darwinian evolution completely falls apart as a theory, Atheists would still claim that God of the Bible, though historically accurate, may not be the God that Created the Universe. Right?

What if Dani'El is right? Would that convince anyone to repent and trust God? Would you just consider him just another crazy Christan that just happen to predict something, somehow?

ICR said: "We are warned that friendship with the worldly lifestyle and that which espouses the "things" of the world, makes us an "enemy of God" (James 4:4). That is because such people embrace the "spirit of the world" and not "the spirit which is of God" (1 Corinthians 2:12). Those people speak about the things of the world, and the world listens to them (1 John 4:5).


God's people may be "base" and "weak"--even "foolish" in the eyes of the world (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). Since the great Creator God has chosen us out of the world (John 15:19), it should not surprise us that the world "hates" those who belong to the Lord Jesus (John 17:14). Hence, the ungodly passions that drive the ungodly behavior of the world, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John 2:16).

Those passions and the people who embrace them will "pass away." (Sodom and Gomorrah) But "he that doeth the will of God abideth forever" (1 John 2:17)."

What if Dani'El is right? Would that change the hearts of any? What if the Prophecies of the Bible started to happen? Would that even be enough evidence to convince a hardened Atheist that the end may be near? Dani'El admits that he is not predicting or prophesying the end of the world, but the destruction of a wicked city like Sodom and Gomorrah, as God has done so many times in the past. For Dani'El's sake I hope he is right as he continues his walk with God, and for all of our sake here in California I hope Dani'El is wrong. Either way, God will be glorified.

I wonder what would it take to change such strong presuppositions that there is no God? Would even impending doom suffice? I would venture to guess, probably not.

Billy Ray Fail!

It is final, we are not allowing anything Miley Cyrus in our house.

We suspected her worldly ways with her revealing and tasteless pictures that she took, then the poor decision to allow those Vanity Fair pictures go to print, now to the recent Pole Dance routine, she is out.

It is perfectly understandable. If you allow such worldly things into your home, and even encouraged, these results are to be expected.

I guess Billy Ray is forgetting that very wise advice that Chris Rock gave.

"My only job in life is to keep her off the pole."


(strong language alert)

We all know that nothing good comes from that Pole.

"Christians should not be a thermometers that merely record and reflect the temperature of popular opinion.

Christians should be like thermostats, responsible for transforming and setting the temperature or standards of society" ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

Update on theory confirmed 

What I can read, from one article, she was never spanked but just grounded. Our prayers go out to the false convert called Miley, and hope she understands Christianity...someday soon.

Thank God, Free at last!

Update: My theory held true, not a Christian yet. Some false converts cover well, this one didn't. She's now leaving America to go be British? Yikes, bad decisions galore. You failed her Billy Ray. She's still an Antichrist.

Bit.ly/BillyRayFail