There are no contemporary sources for Jesus outside of the gospels. How necessary is it for history to be written during their lifetime? If history is written after Jesus' life does that mean we have to reject it as untrustworthy? Was the NT written intentionally to make it appear as though Jesus rose for the dead? Does a person's biography have to be written while they are alive?
Not even in the modern world let alone in the first century. In the first century, just prior or after, most of the major works were not written contemporary of a person. Earliest sources for Alexander were written 350 years after his death. The two best known sources for Alexander (Plutarch and Arian) are +425 to +450. John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman when they are responding to whether we know if Jesus is a historical figure, both of them say Josephus and Tacitus are probably our very best non-Christian sources. Bart Ehrman lists a dozen independent sources for the crucifixion of Jesus. 4 of them are non-New Testament, two of them are historians. Josephus is approximately 60 years after Jesus died. And Tacitus is as much as 80 years after the cross. Two critical sources consider these fine sources. Crossan says these two sources alone would cause me to think Jesus really lived and those holding the Jesus myth are wrong. They don't have an issue with 60 or 80 years after Jesus.
Does it pose a problem if the 4 gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Not in the slightest. Whomever they were written by and the input given to them by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is not important. What is important is they are our earliest sources within a decade after Jesus died on the cross. Historians highly value earliest sources. Even if you place these sources in the second half of the first century, they still make up sources that are closer to their events than for any writings in antiquity, thus, holding to the highest of standards.
Early creedal texts such as in 1 Cor. 15 that take us back to what Christians reported in the early 30s AD makes so much sense compared to what Tacitus may have said.
Tribulation from Feast of Trumpets 2023 to the Last 3 Feasts 2030
This prophecy is based on the need for 2300 days for the Temple to be cleansed (Dan. 8.14). It must be completed by Passover after which there are 2300 days from Passover to Tisha B'Av. It takes at leas 4 years to build. Construction on the 3rd Temple must, therefore, begin by 2020 so it is completed by Passover 2024. There are exactly 2300 days from Passover April 23, 2024 to Aug. 8, 2030 Tisha B'Av. The Jubilee is 2015-16 running from Feast of Trumpets 2015 to Elul 29 2016. 2016-17 is the first year of 7 years of plenty to 2022-23. What follows are 7 years of famine (the Tribulation) from 2023-24 to 2029-30. From Feast of Trumpets Sept. 16, 2023 there are 2,520 days (7 x 360) to Tisha B'Av Aug. 8, 2030. 30 days more to the 1290th day (Dan. 12.11) Jesus judges the nations. To the 1335th day (Dan. 12.12), a few days after Simchat Torah Oct. 20, 2030, He sets up Israel as the center of all nations.
This agrees with the "sign of the Son of Man" (Matt. 24.30) asteroid Apophis April 13, 2029 near the end of the Tribulation. "If therefore thou shalt not watch...thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee" (Rev. 3.3). If we are not watchful we won't know when Jesus returns.
7 Years of Abundance (2015-22) before
7 years of Tribulation Famine (2022-29)
Isaac Newton predicted Jesus would return Sept. 23, 2015 the Day of Atonement. He derived that from Daniel's prophecy in Dan. 9.24-27 which says from the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem there would be seven sets of seven, or 7 x 7 x 360 days (17,640 days), then another 62 sets of 7 after which time the Messiah would be cut off. There is exactly 173,880 days (69 x 7 x 360) from that declaration Neh. 2.1, March 5, 444 BC, to March 28, Monday, 33 AD, Nisan 10, the 1st day of the 4 day inspection of the lamb. The 4 day inspection was March 28, 29, 30, 31. Jesus died on the cross April 1, 33 AD, Passover, Nisan 14 (Gregorian). Satan calls it April fool's day. I guess I am a fool for the Lord.
So Isaac, some say the smartest person who ever lived and who spent more time on prophecy than the cosmos, said there would be a double fulfillment of the 7 sets of 7 to rebuild Jerusalem again before Jesus returns. Each of Daniel's sevens is 2,520 days long (7 x 360). 2,520 is the smallest number divisible by 2 to 10 as a basic prophetic working unit. The reason why this is amazing is because there is literally 17,640 days from June 7, 1967 when Israel took over Jerusalem to the Day of Atonement Sept. 23, 2015. Sept. 28, 2015 is the 4th Red Blood Moon in the Tetrad, the 8th feast Tetrad since Christ. Sept. 13, 2015 is that Elul 29, 2015 in a Shemita year for financial give back as occurred 7 years and 14 years prior amounting to 7% drops in the DJIA. The feast Tetrad won't happen again till 2582/83 and has no unique solar eclipse attached to it like we have the Nov. 3, 2013 H3 Hybrid (4th since Christ) as required in Rev. 6.12 before the Tribulation begins. Haiti 2010 (320,000 died, 2nd worse on record)/Japan 2011 (4th worse, 9.1 Richter, spilling tonnes radiated water into the ocean every day still) is the great earthquake in Rev. 6.12. The Red Blood Moon is also a Super Moon because it is at perigee and viewable from Jerusalem. The solar eclipse in 2015 is also viewable from the north pole which is the first time in 500,000 years.
What did Isaac not figure out? I believe the 3rd Temple must be completed so there are 2300 days for the Temple to be cleansed (Dan. 8.14) from Passover 2022 to Tisha B'Av 2029. Even if construction began now it would not be completed by the necessary Passover 2016 for 2300 days from Passover to Tisha B'Av 2022.
Are Atheists Going to Hell?
The proof for God is very simple and does not need a PhD in quantum physics or MD. God is no respecter of persons. A brilliant scholar or scientist has no advantage over a mongoloid child. Since everyone has access to this proof readily available in their own thoughts and conscience what then is that proof for God? (thus rendering atheism and agnosticism nonsense)
Start from what we know. We know that nature always has a cause and effect. We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't need to know every last thing to know God exists. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt will suffice. Besides if your position is that you need to know all things to know if God exists you are essentially saying you have to be God all-knowing to know if God exists which is absurd since obviously you are not God, and frankly, you're not that bright. You can't even remember fully what happened to you yesterday. And I am sure you sinned multiple times yesterday as well, but God has no sin (unhealthy habits). The audacity and arrogance of some people claim they have no errors or sin in their thoughts and conduct.
The only other option is the universe always existed, but this fails on its head, because if there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects of nature, you would have had, by that definition, an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue for eternity in the past never to reach this point since it goes on forever. That's the nature of the silliness of a past eternity. It is, merely, a man made fantasy, construct and false.
And so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.
Now that you know God exists, find out where He reveals Himself. Just as we are personal and accessible so must God be for He cannot be less than His creation. There are only 3 faiths in the world that are accessible, comprising 90% of all faiths: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. But only one teaches salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. The other two are works based faiths (thus, false). Man's arrogance thinks he can bridge the
Talking Too Much
When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.
Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.
Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger;
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.
Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips!
The words of the wise heard in quiet are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools.
Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few.
For when dreams increase and words grow many, there is vanity; but God is the one you must fear.
Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.
And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell.
In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty.
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good. A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit. A fool despises his father's instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is prudent. ...
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.
If you have been foolish, exalting
1 Tim. 4.10 says "God is the Savior of all men, specially those who believe". Since both Christians and Calvinists agree that this verse does not refer to universalism, can we determine which is the correct gospel of salvation? Of course. That's what the word of God is for to discern the spirits and prove all things.
If as Calvinists believe God is merely only the protector and sustainer on earth though not from Hell in the first half of the sentence then the second half of the sentence makes no sense, because those who believe are a subset who come from all those whom God is the Savior of as indicated by the word "specially". Therefore, "Savior of all men" cannot stop short of God's glory by being merely only a sustainer, but must include salvation from Hell as well if the condition is met by believing.
Therefore, since "God is the Savior of all men" doesn't refer to universalism but does apply to all people, it must pertain to the fact that God provides prevenient grace, that is, sufficient grace to us all to have the free choice. That is the context of the overall passage too.
Praise the Lord!
Therefore, a now ex-Calvinist after 26 years as a Calvinist can be saved. How? By repenting of Calvinism. Instead of pridefully on a pedestal with his idol of Total depravity delusionally declaring like a robot he was irresistibly selected, he came to the cross as a helpless sinner, having received the gift of repentance and faith by searching God out with all his heart and soul, to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior to be regenerated (i.e. born-again, initial salvation, new birth, new creation). If you are to be saved this is how God will receive you. He will not receive you with the hard heart of a Calvinist. No true Calvinist has ever been born-again.
The ORDINARY CONCEPT of the constitution of human beings is dualistic—soul and body. According to this concept soul is the invisible inner spiritual part, while body is the visible outer corporal part. Though there is some truth to this, it is nevertheless inaccurate. Such an opinion comes from fallen man, not from God; apart from God’s revelation, no concept is dependable. That the body is man’s outward sheath is undoubtedly correct, but the Bible never confuses spirit and soul as though they are the same. Not only are they different in terms; their very natures differ from each other. The Word of God does not divide man into the two parts of soul and body. It treats man, rather, as tripartite—spirit, soul and body. 1 Thessalonians 5.23 reads: “May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This verse precisely shows that the whole man is divided into three parts. The Apostle Paul refers here to the complete sanctification of believers, “sanctify you wholly.” According to the Apostle, how is a person wholly sanctified? By his spirit and soul and body being kept. From this we can easily understand that the whole person comprises these three parts. This verse also makes a distinction between spirit and soul; otherwise, Paul would have said simply “your soul.” Since God has distinguished the human spirit from the human soul, we conclude that man is composed of not two, but three, parts: spirit, soul and body.
Is it a matter of any consequence to divide spirit and soul? It is an issue of supreme importance for it affects tremendously the spiritual life of a believer. How can a believer understand spiritual life if he does not know what is the extent of the realm of the spirit? Without such understanding how can he grow spiritually? To fail to distinguish between spirit and soul is fatal to spiritual maturity.
Christians often account what is soulical as spiritual, and thus they remain in a soulish state and seek not what is really spiritual. How can we escape loss if we confuse what God has divided?
Spiritual knowledge is very important to spiritual life. Let us add, however, that it is equally as, if not more, important for a believer to be humble and willing to accept the teaching of the Holy Spirit. If so, the Holy Spirit will grant him the experience of the dividing of spirit and soul, although he may not