Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: All God's Creatures?
Source:
Chick Publications
URL Source: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1099/1099_01.asp
Published: Feb 26, 2018
Author: Jack Chick
Post Date: 2018-02-26 14:53:20 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Bible Study Ping* Subscribe to *Bible Study Ping*
Keywords: None
Views: 5614
Comments: 79
Poster Comment: The latest from Chick publications. 
Subscribe to *Bible Study Ping*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: redleghunter (#0)
I liked the cat chasing the mutt. : )
And pawing at the festering boot cast.
MORAL: Preach to inanimate objects and crotchety old men will convert. Gonna have to try that around here...
Moving away from the adorable cat who stole the whole show, I thought this Chick tract was a little heavier on scripture quotes than most. Our intrepid young preacher obviously had a good memory for bible quotes.
He was only affectionately using it as a scratching post. I feel obliged to defend the playfulness of the endearing star of this tract. I haven't seen any articles about the Chick shop in some years. I know reading about their circulation and sales was interesting in where and what numbers went around the world. Chick's reach is somewhat longer than most people know.
Once again bro you unveil my strategy. :)
That Sunday school teacher must be something else! :) Romans Road all the way!
Back when I was studying for the ministry I use to go to the park in Portland at lunch time and preach to the pigeons, squirrels and ducks. I had many a luncher listen, but never one complain.
I thought the same when I first looked at those consecutive Romans quotes he started with but I think the full Romans Road is considered to have other passages, all exclusively from Romans. The verses from other books are no doubt classic and very familiar for Chick's tracts or lots of sermons but this was not a pure Romans Road example even if the tract started with Romans. OTOH, it's not like Chick's target audience is Bible literate. He's fishing for real converts.
I liked the part where Chick went to confession. You might be overreading that "confess". I didn't see any panels here with a priest.
Not even of the "Order of Melchizedek"? : )
Melchizedek is a little obscure to get mentioned in a Chick tract.
He didn't need to confess converting to Catholic since it's not a sin. He’s talking to dolls. IDOLATRY!
Perhaps, but hey, aren't all Christians supposed to be "priests by the order of Melchizedek" through Christ, or something?
Mr.Chick can stick his kindergartin cartoons up his ass. I went to Sunday school briefly in my youth. It was the most repulsive and morbid system of guilt inducing mmythological propganda imaginable. I was beat over the head constantly how Jesus died for my sins and that I should feel guilty about it. I wouldn't even be born yet for close to 2,000 thousand years. Yet I was somehow guilty and owed him rependence for the rest of me life or would go to hell according to the crap I was being fed. According to my smiling indoctrinators, there was no escape for me. About three doses of that, and I was through with it. It was an attempt to cripple me and leave me beating myself senseless with a neurotic whip. I got the hell out.
I am truly sorry you had a cultic religious upbringing.
Hebrews 7 New King James Version (NKJV) 7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. 11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies: “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” 18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The Lord has sworn And will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’”), 22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. 23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.
Why does anyone think this sort of thing is beneficial to Christianity? Christ did not send us to thrust a pamplet into someone's hand. We are called by our example to demonstrate the love of God
Why can't we do both?
You're getting at what I was getting at. As long as the boy is ministering the word of Jesus, is he not a priest through Jesus' priesthood? How could Jack Chick possibly disagree with me (until he found out I was a Catholic anyway)?
The boy in the pamplet is a fictional character, that is what I was getting at, you are confused if you think a fictional character can be a priest
Sourpuss.
I like the bird on the bench's reaction to the kid's practice-preaching (which mirrors gramps.)
I thought the moral was, ""practice-makes-perfect." The kid seemed to be rehearsing a sermon. Those "creatures" were his "audience."
Would they ever return for your following sermons? Or did you bribe your audience with bread scraps ;-)
"Melchizedek." WHO?? :-)
Now I'm laughing...
He'll have to do it in Heaven now. Mr. Chick has gone to his Eternal Home. I went to Sunday school briefly in my youth. It was the most repulsive and morbid system of guilt inducing mmythological propganda imaginable. I was beat over the head constantly how Jesus died for my sins and that I should feel guilty about it. I wouldn't even be born yet for close to 2,000 thousand years. Yet I was somehow guilty... Interesting perspective. I felt pretty much the same way; I wondered why *I* was being indicted for a "sin" *I* hadn't committed... ....Until something clicked, the light-bulb went off, and I fully understood the context. I believe I was about age 21. As to "mythical," the word is defined either as: 1) "Allegorical" The Bible has been proven to cite actual and factual historical people, places, events, AND date accurately -- WITH corroborative evidence and eyewitnesses. IF one dismisses the Bible as a source of "history," you may as well dismiss most or ALL sources of "history" for the last 2000 or more years. Oddly, one could make the case that there is MORE corroborative, true Biblical evidence of events presented and preserved...than by our contemporary Media (which indeed report lies and "myth.")
That's a doll. All of those dolls look psychotic. Or maybe the artist wasn't good at drawing toys. What boy (or girl) would have toys like that? Well, unless their parents hated them.
Vic is just trying to lure us in.
OR, "stuffed animal." (Are dolls or stuffed animals considered "toys"?) All of those dolls look psychotic. Or maybe the artist wasn't good at drawing toys. Heh -- true. I guess they represent "Gramps"and those hostile to The Word.
Hilarious...
Why can't we do both? Amen. I would submit that ANY way The Word of God and Gospel message can somehow find its way to someone is a beneficial thing. After all, wouldn't you try and save someone who is not aware that they are about to walk off the edge of a cliff?
SATANIC ones! (Cue the Church Lady.)
"Come into my parlor," said the spider to the fly...
Gesundheit!
Interesting perspective. I felt pretty much the same way; I wondered why *I* was being indicted for a "sin" *I* hadn't committed... ....Until something clicked, the light-bulb went off, and I fully understood the context. I believe I was about age 21.
SATANIC ones! (Cue the Church Lady.) Uh-oh. Vic's on a roll! Touche!
"Melchizedek!!" series of sneezes x3... (Can you do it aloud?)
How can one be "worn down" by The Truth? You know Robert -- it's often taken many a Believer several years to sort through obstructions, barriers, half-truths, and propaganda to finally reveal The Truth. Our biggest obstruction to truths are often our own obstinate ego. It's similar to a young person sorting out whether it's the Dems or Republicans who actually represent freedom, America's best interests, or the US Constitution. Many people have discovered late in life that they'd been deceived by the Democrat Party and Leftist Media -- especially in recent years. Back to our discussion -- it's been the Deniers and Detractors of historically proven corroborated scriptural facts and testimony who have been "worn down"...by a steady torrent of lies and ignorance; The victims, their faith and logic held captive and removed via "Stockholm Syndrome" re-programming. This technique of gaslighting Bible truths, of actual history and of people with un-developed faith is very similar to that used by Democrats/Marxists on HS or college-age kids. The Leftist Media brainwashes them or the uninitiated in much the same manner. We both know those agenda-driven institutions frame, manipulate, and falsify the data in order to take full advantage of their prey -- a Captive Audience. Many never recover. Many of the weak-minded and indifferent to the truth are never able to shake their indoctrination, whether political or in the realm of faith. Only the strong, the informed, or those committed to The Truth break free. Better late than never.
Really? So explain how Jesus was born. Hint: according to Christian doctrine, he was not born of the flesh like all others. While you are at it ... he died in the flesh, crucified on a cross. Explain why God required this unnatural occurrence to convince you to abandon reason of and about the world around yourself.
Hint: according to Christian doctrine, he was not born of the flesh like all others. While you are at it ... he died in the flesh, crucified on a cross. Uh, yes, Jesus WAS born "of the flesh." He was a Man. God in the flesh. And THAT is exactly what the Bible teaches. Yeah, kinda like a Chick cartoon. Or, like some poster opinions at LF.
It was and remains a SUPER "natural" occurrence. Just like Our Creator. And the miracle of our very existence since Genesis 1:1. Do you not actually know exactly why God-in-the Flesh was required to come?
Since my body and mind are tied to "only to this Physical World" I must say, "YES." But where is there any supportive objective evidence of the questions I placed in my earlier post? It is all dogma, superstition, gossip and hearsay.
I'm pretty sure that I do. The reason was, that the early Christians borrowed from Greek and Roman mythology: the idea of SUPER_HEROES in the flesh. It was the same ol' story line, meeting a different culture; that is all.
So...you only believe only in the "reality" of something your physical senses can see, touch, hear, etc? NOTHING beyond? Wouldn't that necessarily discount the existence of God or a Creator? If there exists just a single instance of supernatural event, a miracle, or metaphysical entities (Ghosts, Demons, ESP, Divining, etc), it blows up the entire "Physical Realm Only" theory. Where is there any supportive objective evidence of the questions I placed in my earlier post? It is all dogma, superstition, gossip and hearsay. Specifically???
It was the same ol' story line, meeting a different culture; that is all. NOT remotely the same story-line as Greek/Roman myth/legend (although down that rabbit hole is far more to see.) Conspicuously you are also discounting the eyewitness historical and factual accounts of the Apostles.
Multiple witnesses; Far more than of most "history." NONE of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John...OR Paul has ever been proven to be untrue or historically un-factual. How do you explain this??
Where is the objective evidence of and about those actual physical events other than gossip, hearsay and innuendo?
"For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." 2 Peter 1:16
Does your current position remain? That 6 eyewitnesses to the Divinity of Jesus Christ is "gossip, hearsay and innuendo"??
Well, where are the witnesses in Jewish, Syrian, Roman or Egyptian literature even in a footnote?
There are no witnesses that Darwin's Atheist ape was any smarter than Ronnie's Christian one. 23 frames in the tract and packed with enough detail to make people finish it. :-)
As long as the boy is ministering the word of Jesus, is he not a priest through Jesus' priesthood? How could Jack Chick possibly disagree with me (until he found out I was a Catholic anyway)? Peter said we are all part of a royal priesthood: 1 Peter 2 New King James Version (NKJV) 2 Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, 2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” 7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” 8 and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. 9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
Sure he was. His birth account is in two Gospels. Luke and Matthew. How Jesus was conceived can be found in Luke chapter 1. It's true Jesus had no human father. That is why He is truly God and truly man.
Jesus came to die… #10) To destroy hostility between races The suspicion, prejudice, and demeaning attitudes between Jews and non-Jews in Bible times were as serious as the racial, ethnic, and national hostilities today. Jesus died to create a whole new way for races to be reconciled: he “has broken down…the dividing wall of hostility…making peace… through the cross” (Ephesians 2:14-16). It is impossible to build lasting unity among races by saying that all religions can come together as equally valid. God sent his Son into the world as the only means of saving sinners and reconciling races. Only as the races find this reconciliation will they love and enjoy each other. #9) To give marriage its deepest meaning God’s design was never for marriages to be miserable, yet many are. That’s what sin does…it makes us treat each other badly. Jesus died to change that. He knew that his suffering would make the deepest meaning of marriage plain. That’s why the Bible says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25). God’s design for marriage is for a husband to love his wife the way Christ loves his people, and for the wife to respond the way Christ’s people should. This kind of love is possible because Christ died for both husband and wife. #8) To absorb the wrath of God God’s law demanded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). But we have all loved other things more. This is what sin is—dishonoring God by preferring other things over him, and acting on those preferences. The seriousness of an insult rises with the dignity of the one insulted. Since our sin is against the Ruler of the Universe, “the wages of [our] sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Not to punish it would be unjust. So God sent his own Son, Jesus, to divert sin’s punishment from us to himself. God “loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation”—the wrath-absorbing substitute—“for our sins” (1 John 4:10). Then God publicly endorsed Christ’s accomplishment by raising him from the dead, proving the success of his suffering and death. #7) So that we would escape the curse of the law There was no escape from the curse of God’s law. It was just; we were guilty. There was only one way to be free: someone must pay the penalty. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). The law’s demands have been fulfilled by Christ’s perfect law-keeping, its penalty fully paid by his death. This is why the Bible teaches that getting right with God is not based on law-keeping: “A person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2:16). Our only hope is having the blood and righteousness of Christ credited to our account. #6) To reconcile us to God The reconciliation that needs to happen between man and God goes both ways. God’s first act in reconciling us to himself was to remove the obstacle that separated him from us—the guilt of our sin. He took the steps we could not take to remove his own judgment by sending Jesus to suffer in our place: “While we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Romans 5:10). Reconciliation from our side is simply to receive what God has already done, the way we receive an infinitely valuable gift. #5) To show God’s love for sinners The measure of God’s love is shown by the degree of his sacrifice in saving us from the penalty of our sins: “he gave his only Son” (John 3:16). When we add the horrific crucifixion that Christ endured, it becomes clear that the sacrifice the Father and the Son made to save us was indescribably great! The measure of his love increases still more when we consider the degree of our unworthiness. “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Our debt is so great, only a divine sacrifice could pay it. #4) To show Jesus’ own love for us The death of Christ is also the supreme expression that he “loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). It is my sin that cuts me off from God. All I can do is plead for mercy. I see Christ suffering and dying “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). And I ask, am I among the “many”? And I hear the answer, “Whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Jesus paid the highest price possible to give me—personally—the greatest gift possible. #3) To take away our condemnation The great conclusion to the suffering and death of Christ is this: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). To be “in Christ” means to be in relationship to him by faith. Christ becomes our punishment (which we don’t have to bear) and our worth before God (which we cannot earn). The death of Christ secures freedom from condemnation for those who believe that Christ has served their death sentence. It is as sure that they cannot be condemned as it is sure that Christ died! #2) To bring us to God “Gospel” means “good news,” and it all ends in one thing: God himself. The gospel is the good news that at the cost of his Son’s life, God has done everything necessary to captivate us with what will make us eternally and ever-increasingly happy—namely, himself. “Christ…suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). #1) To give eternal life to all who believe on Him Jesus made it plain that rejecting the eternal life he offered would result in the misery of eternity in hell: “Whoever does not believe is condemned already....the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:18, 36). But for those who trust Christ, the best is yet to come. “No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9). We will see the all-satisfying glory of God. “This is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). For all these reasons and more, Christ suffered and died. Why would you not embrace him as your Savior from sin and judgment, and live with God eternally? If you are moved to embrace God’s Son in this way, tell God in words like these: Dear God, I’m convinced that Jesus suffered and died for my sins. I gratefully trust in him now as my Lord and my precious Treasure and the only way I’ll ever receive your forgiveness and your promise of eternal life. Amen.
But where is there any supportive objective evidence of the questions I placed in my earlier post? It is all dogma, superstition, gossip and hearsay. Can you scientifically explain consciousness and reason? It would be great if you could because scientists can't. There are correlations between brain activity but as such no one can explain via materialism how we think, our mind, and how we have consciousness.
It was the same ol' story line, meeting a different culture; that is all. Don't remember many Roman and Greek superheroes enduring poverty, cruel deaths, being fed to wild animals and getting their heads chopped of and crucified. Not very happy endings.
Again you nuke all history from antiquity with that line of inquiry. I've walked through the archeology confirming the written word along with the manuscript evidence quite often with you and others (Vic has too) previously. So pick a historical source other than the Bible and I will use your standard against it and we shall see how it holds. I dare you to try.
The Jews admitted Jesus existed. In their Talmud they call Him a sorcerer and false prophet. If you are itching at Jesus never existed, then you are in tinfoil hat territory. There's only one NT scholar who claims Jesus never existed. And he was roundly refuted by agnostic NT scholar Bart Ehrman.
Hallmarks of a fatherless household.
Well, the father of the household did appear in the final cartoon panel, even though he is never named. He was the son-in-law since the wife was calling Mean Grampa "Daddy". We never did find out how Mean Grampa hurt his foot and ended up in a cast.
He wasn't required to do anything.
Probably from kicking Catholics, but Chick's alter-ego kid got him to repent and go to confession. You must have missed a couple of panels. : )
IF man was ever going to be permitted to enter the Holy Presence of the Almighty and His Eternal Kingdom, He was required to do so by the only means possible. It should be noted that The Almighty's intention was prophesied far before Jesus Christ, God-in-the-Flesh, was born and died on the cross, a sinless man. Briefly, Man = Sinner. Allowing a soul with just ONE sin to enter The Almighty's presence would still be allowing Sin to enter His Kingdom. Since Sin is a Spiritual Infection, an un-sterile Spiritual Pathogen, it is VERBOTEN. (No man/women has ever lived sinlessly of their own volition. EVER. Yes, Adam and Eve set that representative standard.) SOLUTION: A Sinless proxy had to be sacrificed and die as a sacrificial lamb, payment/ransom for ALL MENS' Sin. It could only be God-in-the-Flesh. Jesus Christ. He was born to die in place of us. FOR ALL OF US. THIS act of love is the Gift-of-Gifts. And called, "The Grace of God." It results in SALVATION of one's sinful nature, the FULL AND TOTAL cleansing of one's spiritual soul. This Gift is given freely. Almighty God can then and ONLY then accept Man's soul to enter His presence and Kingdom. But with ONE MAJOR STIPULATION: The Sinner MUST accept The Gift of Salvation. BY NAME. IN HIS NAME: "Jesus Christ." The request must be made with sincerity in one's heart. (God will know.) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. ~ John 14:6
Thanks, Brutha. That's very helpful.
Well, with these toons, we never know whether the antagonist heads "North or South." Grumpy-Gramps seemed to be 50-50 ;-)
Are multiple ethnic "witnesses" required in our ancient "history" books in order to validate their testimony? You asked for corroboration and testimony, I gave it to you.
There are correlations between brain activity but as such no one can explain via materialism how we think, our mind, and how we have consciousness. Alleged "brainiac" Atheists like Dawkins and the smug/dopey Neil de Grasse are are at a loss on this count. Bad enough they are 100% unable to explain how some random inanimate force or power accidentally and randomly created animated living things; Even LESS so are these geniuses able to explain just how the human consciousness or even conscience operate -- as both exist externally of the material realm. Correct -- "The Brain" is NOT one and the same with "The Mind" or Human Spirit. If they and "Science" can't touch it, "it doesn't exist." Well, they can't "touch love" or "reason" either, but they are as "real" as the physical -- maybe more. One CAN "sense" or feel love, hate, joy, sorrow, etc. DO Dawkins or de Grasse deny these tangible human attributes?
That's a good idea otherwise the idea of some small cliche of friends describing events or writing their memories is not considered objective. That's why within Christian dogma the evidence is only found by revelation; it is not substantiated by objective affirmation.
Really? How and where did you find that factoid?
If you forgot to add the < /sacasm> add it and I will respond, otherwise, go find the answer yourself, it will be found in the both the Old and New Testaments to any that search.
No sarcasm, just levity.
Really? How and where did you find that factoid? The "Brains" of your computer is what? The "Processor" or "Hard Drive"? OR, the guy tapping the keys? Our "Brain" is just the mechanical component the Mind uses. The Mind controls Decisions. Emotions. Thoughts. But here's more food for thought; If someone is in a coma, how is the brain still controlling breathing, cell reproduction, and other automated processes?
That's a good idea otherwise the idea of some small cliche of friends describing events or writing their memories is not considered objective. So you're saying that a bunch of people who hear the SAME words and see the SAME event and person should be dismissed as a matter of prejudicial bias and presumably, fudged testimony? Sure. That may be the case in some counts of course. It depends on the motive. The quality of witness. Inconsistencies in corroboration. Quality and reputation of the witness. But given the quality, consistency, and corroboration of eyewitnesses, doesn't your cynicism fly in the face of the quality of people they were there? NONE of the places, people, events, or dates has ever been found to have been untrue. What OTHER historical source of any person or place or event has THIS much corroboration?? That'd be the greatest parlor trick in history! Did you realize that all the Apostles didn't see and hear exactly the same things and events? But they did all corroborate the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Matthew, Mark and Luke happen to take the more common view of things -- with slight variations, as if say you, I, and Red hung out constantly for a few years. That's normal, wouldn't you say? The Gospel of John is a bit different than the others. He's the Apostle who really stresses the reason that Jesus Christ came in the first place (Ex: 3:16). John is also the Apostle who let's us know that Thomas doubted Jesus' return and Resurrection (See? Even though one of these Apostles witnessed just about ALL these miracles, ONE still couldn't believe Jesus could/would return.) So from the Gospel, we know they also testified about what others said or did. There is one common thread from ALL FOUR Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- each gives detailed testimony to Jesus Christ's death, burial, and Resurrection. AS WELL as testifying to miracles. In short, all were witness to and testified to supernatural events. That's why within Christian dogma the evidence is only found by revelation; it is not substantiated by objective affirmation. You've swerved off the tangent. The "evidence" and confirmation of actual events, real history, and actual conversations is substantiated to the nines. By multiple corroborating personal testimony. Common sense: IF any Apostles were lying about any of their testimony, wouldn't the Powers-That-Be at the time -- the Jewish Pharisees and Romans -- have easily exposed it and pronounced their findings loudly and widely? Think about it. There were just way too many witnesses. Both during Jesus' life and during His Resurrection. Q: WHY would the the Apostles -- including Paul -- memorize and go through the extreme trouble of having their experiences with Jesus Christ written down for the ages? "Follow the money"?? (OH WAIT -- They were POOR.) Personal glory? (OH WAIT -- they were persecuted and hounded by both the Romans and agents of the Jewish Pharisees. All suffered horrible deaths.) Did you know according to Mark's testimony, members of Jesus own family thought he was crazy? They even gave us that kind of info. Did you know the Apostle Paul didn't "hang out" with Jesus? Or with Matthew and others? No, the Apostles and bunch of disciples and countless others were witness to and happened to document the most important event in human history. Some accounts are more or less the same; others singular or different. Again, normal stuff, again, even if you Red and I had hung out together for a few years. If the Apostles were ever collectively called into court to give testimony, nothing would have changed. Why should it be expected to deny or discount this degree of detailed corroboration from 2000 years ago? The truth is the truth.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)
I liked the cat chasing the mutt. : )
#3. To: redleghunter (#0)
#4. To: redleghunter (#2)
#5. To: redleghunter (#2)
(Edited)
And pawing at the festering boot cast.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
MORAL: Preach to inanimate objects and crotchety old men will convert. Gonna have to try that around here...
#7. To: Tooconservative (#4)
Moving away from the adorable cat who stole the whole show, I thought this Chick tract was a little heavier on scripture quotes than most. Our intrepid young preacher obviously had a good memory for bible quotes.
#8. To: redleghunter (#0)
#9. To: redleghunter (#7)
Romans Road all the way!
#10. To: Tooconservative (#1)
(Edited)
I liked the cat chasing the mutt. : )
#11. To: hondo68 (#10)
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)
I didn't see any panels here with a priest.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
#14. To: Tooconservative (#11)
I didn't see any panels here with a priest.
#15. To: Tooconservative (#13)
#16. To: Tooconservative (#13)
Melchizedek is a little obscure to get mentioned in a Chick tract.
#17. To: redleghunter (#0)
#18. To: rlk (#17)
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
#20. To: redleghunter (#0)
#21. To: paraclete (#20)
Why does anyone think this sort of thing is beneficial to Christianity? Christ did not send us to thrust a pamplet into someone's hand. We are called by our example to demonstrate the love of God
#22. To: redleghunter (#19)
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
As long as the boy is ministering the word of Jesus,
#24. To: paraclete (#23)
The boy in the pamplet is a fictional character, that is what I was getting at, you are confused if you think a fictional character can be a priest
#25. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter (#1)
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
MORAL: Preach to inanimate objects and crotchety old men will convert.
#27. To: BobCeleste (#8)
Back when I was studying for the ministry I use to go to the park in Portland at lunch time and preach to the pigeons, squirrels and ducks.
#28. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13 (#13)
Melchizedek is a little obscure to get mentioned in a Chick tract.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
He’s talking to dolls. IDOLATRY!
#30. To: rlk, redleghunter (#17)
Mr.Chick can stick his kindergartin cartoons up his ass.
2) "False or fictitious" an "over-exaggeration"
3) "Traditional historical story which explaining a natural or social phenomenon."
#31. To: Liberator (#25)
I like the bird on the bench's reaction to the kid's practice-preaching (which mirrors gramps.)
#32. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#28)
"Melchizedek."
#33. To: Tooconservative (#31)
That's a doll.
#34. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13 (#32)
#35. To: redleghunter'paraclete (#21)
(Edited)
Why does anyone think this sort of thing is beneficial to Christianity? Christ did not send us to thrust a pamplet into someone's hand. We are called by our example to demonstrate the love of God
#36. To: Tooconservative (#31)
What boy (or girl) would have toys like that?
#37. To: Tooconservative (#32)
Vic is just trying to lure us in.
#38. To: Liberator (#28)
"Melchizedek."
#39. To: Liberator (#30)
(Edited)
I was beat over the head constantly how Jesus died for my sins and that I should feel guilty about it. I wouldn't even be born yet for close to 2,000 thousand years. Yet I was somehow guilty...
You should have stayed with it instead of letting the superstition obsessed bastards wear you down.
#40. To: Vicomte13, Tooconservative (#36)
What boy (or girl) would have toys like that?
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
"Melchizedek." (Gesundheit!)
#42. To: rlk (#39)
(Edited)
You should have stayed with it instead of letting the superstition obsessed bastards wear you down.
#43. To: Liberator (#42)
Many of the weak-minded and indifferent to the truth are never able to shake their indoctrination, whether political or in the realm of faith.
Only the strong, the informed, or those committed to The Truth break free. Better late than never.
Yeah, kinda like a Chick cartoon.
#44. To: buckeroo (#43)
(Edited)
So explain how Jesus was born.
Only the strong, the informed, or those committed to The Truth break free. Better late than never.
#45. To: buckeroo (#43)
(Edited)
Explain why God required this unnatural occurrence...
#46. To: Liberator (#45)
OR...do you believe only in this Physical World?
#47. To: Liberator (#45)
Do you not actually know exactly why God-in-the Flesh was required to come?
#48. To: buckeroo (#46)
#49. To: buckeroo (#47)
The reason was, that the early Christians borrowed from Greek and Roman mythology: the idea of SUPER_HEROES in the flesh.
#50. To: buckeroo (#46)
It is all dogma, superstition, gossip and hearsay.
#51. To: Liberator (#49)
Conspicuously you are also discounting the eyewitness historical and factual accounts of the Apostles.
#52. To: buckeroo (#47)
#53. To: buckeroo (#51)
#54. To: Liberator (#50)
Multiple witnesses; Far more than of most "history."
#55. To: buckeroo (#54)
Well, where are the witnesses in Jewish, Syrian, Roman or Egyptian literature even in a footnote?
#56. To: Liberator (#25)
I like the bird on the bench's reaction to the kid's practice-preaching (which mirrors gramps.)
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
You're getting at what I was getting at.
#58. To: buckeroo (#43)
Hint: according to Christian doctrine, he was not born of the flesh like all others.
#59. To: buckeroo, Liberator (#43)
While you are at it ... he died in the flesh, crucified on a cross. Explain why God required this unnatural occurrence to convince you to abandon reason of and about the world around yourself.
#60. To: buckeroo, Liberator (#46)
Since my body and mind are tied to "only to this Physical World" I must say, "YES."
#61. To: buckeroo, Liberator (#47)
'm pretty sure that I do. The reason was, that the early Christians borrowed from Greek and Roman mythology: the idea of SUPER_HEROES in the flesh.
#62. To: buckeroo (#51)
Where is the objective evidence of and about those actual physical events other than gossip, hearsay and innuendo?
#63. To: buckeroo (#54)
Well, where are the witnesses in Jewish, Syrian, Roman or Egyptian literature even in a footnote?
#64. To: Tooconservative (#31)
That's a doll. All of those dolls look psychotic. Or maybe the artist wasn't good at drawing toys. What boy (or girl) would have toys like that? Well, unless their parents hated them.
#65. To: redleghunter (#64)
#66. To: Liberator (#45)
Do you not actually know exactly why God-in-the Flesh was required to come?
#67. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13, redleghunter (#65)
We never did find out how Mean Grampa hurt his foot and ended up in a cast.
#68. To: hondo68 (#67)
#69. To: rlk (#66)
He wasn't required to do anything.
#70. To: redleghunter (#59)
#71. To: redleghunter (#56)
23 frames in the tract and packed with enough detail to make people finish it. :-)
#72. To: buckeroo (#54)
Well, where are the witnesses in Jewish, Syrian, Roman or Egyptian literature even in a footnote?
#73. To: redleghunter, buckeroo, rlk (#60)
(Edited)
Can you scientifically explain consciousness and reason? It would be great if you could because scientists can't.
#74. To: Liberator (#72)
Are multiple ethnic "witnesses" required in our ancient "history" books in order to validate their testimony?
#75. To: Liberator (#73)
"The Brain" is NOT one and the same with "The Mind" or Human Spirit.
#76. To: Liberator (#27)
Would they ever return for your following sermons? Or did you bribe your audience with bread scraps ;-)
#77. To: BobCeleste (#76)
If you forgot to add the < /sacasm> add it and I will respond, otherwise, go find the answer yourself, it will be found in the both the Old and New Testaments to any that search.
#78. To: buckeroo (#75)
"The Brain" is NOT one and the same with "The Mind" or Human Spirit.
#79. To: buckeroo (#74)
Are multiple ethnic "witnesses" required in our ancient "history" books in order to validate their testimony?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]