Heaven, Hell, and the multiverse
-
I'm not a religous person, but there is one question that surfaces in my mind on this stuff. If God is omnipotent and ominscent (all powerful and all knowing) and created everything then: 1. God created the devil, and 2. God knows the consequences of all his/her/its actions and the universe is there deterministic and free will does not exist. The alternative is that God is not omnipotent and ominscent. One other thing - when people talk about the bible what do they mean ? Unlike the Quran, there is no original bible, instead many documents written at different times in a number of languages, particularly aramaic and greek. The tigress is here :-D
I actually was wondering this myself yesterday. One thought could be that God created Satan so we would have to prove our worth. He gave us the free will to chose our own paths, good or evil. Without creating Satan, people would have to decide between Heaven and well something else that just wasn't really too bad. ;) He can't just let everyone into Heaven, because there's limited seating. That's not His fault because there was Heaven before God. Oh, no wait.. :confused: more questions.... Trollslayer wrote: when people talk about the bible what do they mean ? Regarding the Bible, I see your point too. I've had conversations with devout Christians who tried to explain it. The story I got was basically this, the Bible is a collection of sixty-something books, written by different people at different times. However, the stories all match-up. The fact that they were collected and match-up so well, is proof that the work was inspired by God. Also, it says so right in the Book, that it is the word of God. My thought was that it sounds all very cyclical. The Bible is the word of God, because it says its the Word right in the Bible. And that is indisputable because after all it is the Word of God....... There is definitely a point where a person has to take a leap of faith that what seems like it might fit, actually does. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book Club -
Paul Riley wrote: Try to get hold of some of Arthur C Clarke's short stories A Dictionary of Angels: Including the Fallen Angels[^] is the Will do. Thanks. I've been reading some Neil Gaimen, Clive Barker, and rereading LOTR. Gaimen's Neverwhere actually inspired me to start trying again. Its funny how differently you read when you're looking to write. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book Clubbrianwelsch wrote: Neverwhere actually inspired me to start trying again. You should be careful talking to me about Neil Gaiman. The guy rocks, I rave about him at any opportunity. In fact, believe it or not, it was him who recommended Dictionary of Angels to me :-D. You may or may not know that my old sig ("if you need me, me and Neil'll be hangin' out with the dream king") was Tori Amos singing about Neil Gaiman and his Sandman comics. (available as ten graphic novels, starting with Preludes and Nocturnes[^]) Beware though: This series was solely responsible for turning me to comics, a habit that costs me around £80 a month now :-O Neverwhere was superb, in book and TV form (although the TV series was fairly low budget and The Beast was awful). And I nearly mentioned American Gods as a recommended read in my last message. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
brianwelsch wrote: Neverwhere actually inspired me to start trying again. You should be careful talking to me about Neil Gaiman. The guy rocks, I rave about him at any opportunity. In fact, believe it or not, it was him who recommended Dictionary of Angels to me :-D. You may or may not know that my old sig ("if you need me, me and Neil'll be hangin' out with the dream king") was Tori Amos singing about Neil Gaiman and his Sandman comics. (available as ten graphic novels, starting with Preludes and Nocturnes[^]) Beware though: This series was solely responsible for turning me to comics, a habit that costs me around £80 a month now :-O Neverwhere was superb, in book and TV form (although the TV series was fairly low budget and The Beast was awful). And I nearly mentioned American Gods as a recommended read in my last message. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
I started off reading a few Sandman GNs. Definitely awesome. He's got an amazing imagination and talent for storytelling. I have Smoke&Mirrors, and American Gods as well.. I'd like to read Good Omens sometime too. I don't remember your sig..Which song is that from? I went to see Tori a few months ago. Great (as usual)! I do remember hearing she and Neil were friends. Collecting, comics, eh..... perhaps I can tempt you with a few... Muhahahahaha. :) BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book Club -
I started off reading a few Sandman GNs. Definitely awesome. He's got an amazing imagination and talent for storytelling. I have Smoke&Mirrors, and American Gods as well.. I'd like to read Good Omens sometime too. I don't remember your sig..Which song is that from? I went to see Tori a few months ago. Great (as usual)! I do remember hearing she and Neil were friends. Collecting, comics, eh..... perhaps I can tempt you with a few... Muhahahahaha. :) BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book Clubbrianwelsch wrote: I have Smoke&Mirrors, and American Gods as well.. I'd like to read Good Omens sometime too. Good Omens was the first thing I read by Gaiman, some years before Neverwhere and Sandman. Very strange, very funny. Not surprising really, being a Gaiman story rewritten by Pratchett (aparently Pratchett found it in a draw at Gaiman's house and asked him if he could use it). Gaiman is the imagination master but sometimes his writing style slips, Pratchett is one of the funniest writers out there but kind of falls over when it comes to new ideas. brianwelsch wrote: Collecting, comics, eh..... perhaps I can tempt you with a few... Muhahahahaha. Not really a collector, although I do have boxes full of the damn things. I'm addicted to stories, I don't care what format they come in, so I buy them to read rather than to keep. I don't buy expensive backissues or anything like that. Collectors are one of the key things that's destroyed the comic industry as a medium. Because of collectors, it has become necessary to use quality paper and computer graphic art and the price has rapidly gone up from a kid-friendly 25c per issue to a heavy $2-3. People buy comics for their long-term value nowadays (which ironicly will not be much because collectors will already own them all), not for the story inside. Very sad. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
brianwelsch wrote: I have Smoke&Mirrors, and American Gods as well.. I'd like to read Good Omens sometime too. Good Omens was the first thing I read by Gaiman, some years before Neverwhere and Sandman. Very strange, very funny. Not surprising really, being a Gaiman story rewritten by Pratchett (aparently Pratchett found it in a draw at Gaiman's house and asked him if he could use it). Gaiman is the imagination master but sometimes his writing style slips, Pratchett is one of the funniest writers out there but kind of falls over when it comes to new ideas. brianwelsch wrote: Collecting, comics, eh..... perhaps I can tempt you with a few... Muhahahahaha. Not really a collector, although I do have boxes full of the damn things. I'm addicted to stories, I don't care what format they come in, so I buy them to read rather than to keep. I don't buy expensive backissues or anything like that. Collectors are one of the key things that's destroyed the comic industry as a medium. Because of collectors, it has become necessary to use quality paper and computer graphic art and the price has rapidly gone up from a kid-friendly 25c per issue to a heavy $2-3. People buy comics for their long-term value nowadays (which ironicly will not be much because collectors will already own them all), not for the story inside. Very sad. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Back in the 80's mainly I bought them for the read as well. I kept them in the best condition I could with bags and boards, but it was for the fun of reading mainly. Now I have cabinet full of them, and ocassionally I look up some that I have to see what people by them for. One day I'll run into someone who wants to buy the whole bunch, and I'll go buy a nice new living room suite, or Roland keyboard or something... About, Gaiman... you're right with his style.. sometimes he not on. Its just that his story is damn cool, you forgive quickly enough. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book Club -
brianwelsch wrote: Any chance this is the real story? Well it's certainly as believable as the rest...
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
David Wulff wrote: Well it's certainly as believable as the rest... I find it hard to believe you replied with that. It shows a real lack of sensitivity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
David Wulff wrote: Well it's certainly as believable as the rest... I find it hard to believe you replied with that. It shows a real lack of sensitivity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
You mean he was actually attempting to be serious? If so I am truely sorry, it certainly didn't strike me as that or I would have simply ignored it. :-O
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: I am not familiar with Professor X There is a comic book called the X-Men from Marvel Comics. Its a group of mutant super heroes, and their leader is Professor X. There's a movie called 'X-Men', which actually has a sequel coming out 'X2'. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
brianwelsch wrote: X-Men from Marvel Comics Ah, the Marvel comics, a good souvenir from my youth :) Spiderman, Daredevil, the X-Men were my contemporary heroic-fantasy heroes, the Ivanhoes of the XXth century :rolleyes:
I don't feel it anymore I don't see, anymore I don't hear, anymore I don't speak anymore, I don't feel
-
I actually was wondering this myself yesterday. One thought could be that God created Satan so we would have to prove our worth. He gave us the free will to chose our own paths, good or evil. Without creating Satan, people would have to decide between Heaven and well something else that just wasn't really too bad. ;) He can't just let everyone into Heaven, because there's limited seating. That's not His fault because there was Heaven before God. Oh, no wait.. :confused: more questions.... Trollslayer wrote: when people talk about the bible what do they mean ? Regarding the Bible, I see your point too. I've had conversations with devout Christians who tried to explain it. The story I got was basically this, the Bible is a collection of sixty-something books, written by different people at different times. However, the stories all match-up. The fact that they were collected and match-up so well, is proof that the work was inspired by God. Also, it says so right in the Book, that it is the word of God. My thought was that it sounds all very cyclical. The Bible is the word of God, because it says its the Word right in the Bible. And that is indisputable because after all it is the Word of God....... There is definitely a point where a person has to take a leap of faith that what seems like it might fit, actually does. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book Clubbrianwelsch wrote: There is definitely a point where a person has to take a leap of faith that what seems like it might fit, actually does. Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. Richard Dawkins in The "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests"[^]
-
You mean he was actually attempting to be serious? If so I am truely sorry, it certainly didn't strike me as that or I would have simply ignored it. :-O
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Fear not, young David. I'm trying to get feedback on story idea.:) BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book Club -
David Wulff wrote: Well it's certainly as believable as the rest... I find it hard to believe you replied with that. It shows a real lack of sensitivity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Thanks for the backup, but its really a storyline not my views on theology.:) BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book Club -
Thanks for the backup, but its really a storyline not my views on theology.:) BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book ClubDon't ruin a good thing. Your story line sounded good and had an appropriate climax. You will need to work on the finer points though for the masses. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Don't ruin a good thing. Your story line sounded good and had an appropriate climax. You will need to work on the finer points though for the masses. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
I've got a long way to go.... This is the first time I'm actually trying to work out the story/characters/plot twists before diving in and writing chapter 1. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
-
For whatever reason I was thinking about the universe and God. I was thinking that there are multiple universes. The one we live in, Heaven, Hell, and several others. Heaven is the original universe, and quite a nice place at that. God rules over it, and the other universes, with the one exeption being Hell. Each of the universes has a sort of Gateway back to Heaven, but not to the other universes. One nice day, when God was creating Hell, and deciding who should rule over it, Lucifer, a mere cherubum, got this notion that he should be the overlord. However, he was not high-ranking enough to warrant the position. So he revolted, and took it over anyway, much to God's dismay. There was a bit of a war over this, and in the end God decided to close the Gateway to Hell, so that the Devil could no longer come back. The problem with this was that Gateways could not be undone, but they could be "rerouted". So Our Universe was created, as a buffer between Heaven and Hell. Angels were sent here as well, to guard the Gateway between Heaven and Earth and the Gateway between Hell and Earth. So the Devil continuously tries to take over our universe so that he might eventually get back to Heaven, and rule the whole shebang. Any chance this is the real story? :~ BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
Well, this may be part of the philosophy that lead Christians to burn witches at the stake. In medieval times, it was generally assumed that witches had contact with the devil and wielded power against good Christians with their pact. Further, it was thought that disease was caused by vapors and demons. That's not to say that the theory you bring up is wrong - just that there's a great deal of evil to be caused by assuming we have a role to protect heaven by fighting the "devil" in this world. Unfortunately, God was very uncommunicative when it came to telling Christians the truth of the matter. Communication could've spared a great deal of crime against innocents and could've helped cure disease. (Why didn't God just tell mankind to - for example - kill the rats which were causing the Black Plague. Surely, God must've known. There are plenty of examples throughout history where people could've avoided horrible mass death if only God had warned them.) So, the question is: why is God so tight-lipped over things that He knows? Additionally, if we could assume that God is more powerful than his creation (the devil), so the Devil really has no chance to get back to Heaven anyway. The devil can only wield the power that God allows him to have. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
I actually was wondering this myself yesterday. One thought could be that God created Satan so we would have to prove our worth. He gave us the free will to chose our own paths, good or evil. Without creating Satan, people would have to decide between Heaven and well something else that just wasn't really too bad. ;) He can't just let everyone into Heaven, because there's limited seating. That's not His fault because there was Heaven before God. Oh, no wait.. :confused: more questions.... Trollslayer wrote: when people talk about the bible what do they mean ? Regarding the Bible, I see your point too. I've had conversations with devout Christians who tried to explain it. The story I got was basically this, the Bible is a collection of sixty-something books, written by different people at different times. However, the stories all match-up. The fact that they were collected and match-up so well, is proof that the work was inspired by God. Also, it says so right in the Book, that it is the word of God. My thought was that it sounds all very cyclical. The Bible is the word of God, because it says its the Word right in the Bible. And that is indisputable because after all it is the Word of God....... There is definitely a point where a person has to take a leap of faith that what seems like it might fit, actually does. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
CP Book ClubIt's a shame that churches on the whole shrink away from such questions. Questions are good. The world should have thinking Christians, not dumb Christians. Now, the first question deals with man's free will versus God's sovereignty. Free will declares that man makes his own independent decisions. God's sovereignty declares that God is in control of everything. That seems to be a contradiction. How can God be in total control, yet man exercise his own independent free will? The question has been floating around for a few centuries, but has yet to see a satisfactory answer. What we do know is that these two contradictory ideas seem to coexist in some manner or another. The closest human example I could find is described in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a semi-historical Chinese novel. Zhuge Liang was described as a man who could predict the actions of his opponent's actions. Because of his foreknowledge, he could devise plans that controlled the battlefield and manipulated allies. Total control and free will in coexistence. Okay, so why did God create Satan and his gang knowing the results would be bad. The Bible doesn't give an answer, but here's my theory. Free will can be used for good or used for evil. Some guys used free will for good, and they're the angels. Some guys used free will for evil, and they're the demons. Creating anything with free will entails a certain amount of risk. I guess it's something similar to raising children. You still want children even though you know they can bring grief and trouble. Our next question deals with the authenticity of the Bible. For all books of antiquity, religous or not, you get a feeling for authenticity by the age and number of copies. Caesar's Gallic Wars has 8 or 9 copies written 1000 years after Caesar's death. I don't hear many people complain about the authenticity of Gallic Wars. Now we come to the New Testament, a grand champion best seller from antiquity. The NT has thousands of copies with ranges of age similar or better than Caesar's Gallic Wars. I think it's a reasonable conclusion that the Bible is in good shape. Okay, so we know that the Bible is pretty much the same thing the 1st century church was reading. How do we know that it is these 66 books that are the inspired Word of God? Actually, that's not a very relevant question. Of all the Christian sects, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, I have yet to hear of one sect which currently contests the selection of the 66 books in the Bible. The disputes are so underwhelming, no one ev
-
For whatever reason I was thinking about the universe and God. I was thinking that there are multiple universes. The one we live in, Heaven, Hell, and several others. Heaven is the original universe, and quite a nice place at that. God rules over it, and the other universes, with the one exeption being Hell. Each of the universes has a sort of Gateway back to Heaven, but not to the other universes. One nice day, when God was creating Hell, and deciding who should rule over it, Lucifer, a mere cherubum, got this notion that he should be the overlord. However, he was not high-ranking enough to warrant the position. So he revolted, and took it over anyway, much to God's dismay. There was a bit of a war over this, and in the end God decided to close the Gateway to Hell, so that the Devil could no longer come back. The problem with this was that Gateways could not be undone, but they could be "rerouted". So Our Universe was created, as a buffer between Heaven and Hell. Angels were sent here as well, to guard the Gateway between Heaven and Earth and the Gateway between Hell and Earth. So the Devil continuously tries to take over our universe so that he might eventually get back to Heaven, and rule the whole shebang. Any chance this is the real story? :~ BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
-
It's a shame that churches on the whole shrink away from such questions. Questions are good. The world should have thinking Christians, not dumb Christians. Now, the first question deals with man's free will versus God's sovereignty. Free will declares that man makes his own independent decisions. God's sovereignty declares that God is in control of everything. That seems to be a contradiction. How can God be in total control, yet man exercise his own independent free will? The question has been floating around for a few centuries, but has yet to see a satisfactory answer. What we do know is that these two contradictory ideas seem to coexist in some manner or another. The closest human example I could find is described in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a semi-historical Chinese novel. Zhuge Liang was described as a man who could predict the actions of his opponent's actions. Because of his foreknowledge, he could devise plans that controlled the battlefield and manipulated allies. Total control and free will in coexistence. Okay, so why did God create Satan and his gang knowing the results would be bad. The Bible doesn't give an answer, but here's my theory. Free will can be used for good or used for evil. Some guys used free will for good, and they're the angels. Some guys used free will for evil, and they're the demons. Creating anything with free will entails a certain amount of risk. I guess it's something similar to raising children. You still want children even though you know they can bring grief and trouble. Our next question deals with the authenticity of the Bible. For all books of antiquity, religous or not, you get a feeling for authenticity by the age and number of copies. Caesar's Gallic Wars has 8 or 9 copies written 1000 years after Caesar's death. I don't hear many people complain about the authenticity of Gallic Wars. Now we come to the New Testament, a grand champion best seller from antiquity. The NT has thousands of copies with ranges of age similar or better than Caesar's Gallic Wars. I think it's a reasonable conclusion that the Bible is in good shape. Okay, so we know that the Bible is pretty much the same thing the 1st century church was reading. How do we know that it is these 66 books that are the inspired Word of God? Actually, that's not a very relevant question. Of all the Christian sects, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, I have yet to hear of one sect which currently contests the selection of the 66 books in the Bible. The disputes are so underwhelming, no one ev
Emcee Lam wrote: For all books of antiquity, religous or not, you get a feeling for authenticity by the age and number of copies. There is authenticity of bible as in "is it really a book written a long time ago?". Yes it is. There is authenticity of the message that bible communicates, for example "where there really miracles, God, Jesus Christ and so on?". I am sorry, but this is the first time I hear that the number of copies and age of a book is an evidence of anything other than popularity of the book. It says absolutely nothing about authenticity of the message of the book. Emcee Lam wrote: Caesar's Gallic Wars has 8 or 9 copies written 1000 years after Caesar's death. I don't hear many people complain about the authenticity of Gallic Wars. There are plenty of myth and stories that are describing events that happened way before alleged Christ existence. Do we consider them all to be true? No. We only consider the events that have substantial evidence to support them to be historically true: archeological findings, cross-reference with multiple independent sources and so on. My guess (I am not a historian) is that there are plenty of evidence supporting the story that Gallic Wars really happen. My understanding (again I am not a historian) is that this is no the case with the story that bible conveys.
-
Emcee Lam wrote: For all books of antiquity, religous or not, you get a feeling for authenticity by the age and number of copies. There is authenticity of bible as in "is it really a book written a long time ago?". Yes it is. There is authenticity of the message that bible communicates, for example "where there really miracles, God, Jesus Christ and so on?". I am sorry, but this is the first time I hear that the number of copies and age of a book is an evidence of anything other than popularity of the book. It says absolutely nothing about authenticity of the message of the book. Emcee Lam wrote: Caesar's Gallic Wars has 8 or 9 copies written 1000 years after Caesar's death. I don't hear many people complain about the authenticity of Gallic Wars. There are plenty of myth and stories that are describing events that happened way before alleged Christ existence. Do we consider them all to be true? No. We only consider the events that have substantial evidence to support them to be historically true: archeological findings, cross-reference with multiple independent sources and so on. My guess (I am not a historian) is that there are plenty of evidence supporting the story that Gallic Wars really happen. My understanding (again I am not a historian) is that this is no the case with the story that bible conveys.
I probably didn't do a good job of explaining this. Please, let me try again. I was describing the approach used to determine if a historical document of today is the same as the original document written by the author from antiquity. By the aforementioned measure, we believe that the history of Thucydides, history of Herodotus, and Aristotle's poetics are substantially the same document written by the original author. Since the New Testament has vastly greater copies and even better dating, it's probably safe to conclude the NT is also substantially unchanged. Now as for the message within the Bible. Can we count that as reliable? Did Jesus really perform these miracles? Was Jesus miraculously resurrected? Is Jesus really God? Treating all questions would take too much time. Let's just examine one of the questions, Jesus resurrection. Christianity is founded on Jesus resurrection. Resurrection establishes the Godhood of Jesus. It also establishes Christian salvation and thus Christian theology. Without resurrection, there would be no Christianity. If one wants to challenge Christianity, this would be the right place. So what happened through the ages? What has been the results of challenging the resurrection of Christ. Results have been underwhelming. From the 1st century Jewish pharisees to our current century scholars, the results of challenges have been underwhelming. I have yet to see anything shake the foundations of Christianity. There were plenty of opportunities in the 1st century, and nothing happened. There are plenty of opportunities in our current century, and not even a stir. This is such a non issue, that I have yet to hear of a Christian who has lost sleep over this question. The lack of a proper counter to claims of Jesus resurrection is not really proof. I was attempting an abbreviated explanation as time does not permit me to write much. Also published books do a much more comprehensive analysis. I would recommend books by Josh McDowell, an anti-Christian turned Christian.
-
I probably didn't do a good job of explaining this. Please, let me try again. I was describing the approach used to determine if a historical document of today is the same as the original document written by the author from antiquity. By the aforementioned measure, we believe that the history of Thucydides, history of Herodotus, and Aristotle's poetics are substantially the same document written by the original author. Since the New Testament has vastly greater copies and even better dating, it's probably safe to conclude the NT is also substantially unchanged. Now as for the message within the Bible. Can we count that as reliable? Did Jesus really perform these miracles? Was Jesus miraculously resurrected? Is Jesus really God? Treating all questions would take too much time. Let's just examine one of the questions, Jesus resurrection. Christianity is founded on Jesus resurrection. Resurrection establishes the Godhood of Jesus. It also establishes Christian salvation and thus Christian theology. Without resurrection, there would be no Christianity. If one wants to challenge Christianity, this would be the right place. So what happened through the ages? What has been the results of challenging the resurrection of Christ. Results have been underwhelming. From the 1st century Jewish pharisees to our current century scholars, the results of challenges have been underwhelming. I have yet to see anything shake the foundations of Christianity. There were plenty of opportunities in the 1st century, and nothing happened. There are plenty of opportunities in our current century, and not even a stir. This is such a non issue, that I have yet to hear of a Christian who has lost sleep over this question. The lack of a proper counter to claims of Jesus resurrection is not really proof. I was attempting an abbreviated explanation as time does not permit me to write much. Also published books do a much more comprehensive analysis. I would recommend books by Josh McDowell, an anti-Christian turned Christian.
Emcee, I was not trying to start a debate on validity of Christian believes. I don't think that either one of us can present any substantial (at least in the eyes of the other) evidence for validity or not validity of any of the key events described in the bible. Thank you for book recommendation. Peace. Kostya.
-
I probably didn't do a good job of explaining this. Please, let me try again. I was describing the approach used to determine if a historical document of today is the same as the original document written by the author from antiquity. By the aforementioned measure, we believe that the history of Thucydides, history of Herodotus, and Aristotle's poetics are substantially the same document written by the original author. Since the New Testament has vastly greater copies and even better dating, it's probably safe to conclude the NT is also substantially unchanged. Now as for the message within the Bible. Can we count that as reliable? Did Jesus really perform these miracles? Was Jesus miraculously resurrected? Is Jesus really God? Treating all questions would take too much time. Let's just examine one of the questions, Jesus resurrection. Christianity is founded on Jesus resurrection. Resurrection establishes the Godhood of Jesus. It also establishes Christian salvation and thus Christian theology. Without resurrection, there would be no Christianity. If one wants to challenge Christianity, this would be the right place. So what happened through the ages? What has been the results of challenging the resurrection of Christ. Results have been underwhelming. From the 1st century Jewish pharisees to our current century scholars, the results of challenges have been underwhelming. I have yet to see anything shake the foundations of Christianity. There were plenty of opportunities in the 1st century, and nothing happened. There are plenty of opportunities in our current century, and not even a stir. This is such a non issue, that I have yet to hear of a Christian who has lost sleep over this question. The lack of a proper counter to claims of Jesus resurrection is not really proof. I was attempting an abbreviated explanation as time does not permit me to write much. Also published books do a much more comprehensive analysis. I would recommend books by Josh McDowell, an anti-Christian turned Christian.
Emcee Lam wrote: I would recommend books by Josh McDowell I read More Than a Carpenter. Very interesting. The question of Lord, Liar, or Lunatic, seems to cover it. He has some compelling ideas, which apparently worked to convert himself. I believe his initial intent (on different book i believe) was to actually disprove Christian beliefs, right? Not very successful at that, though. :-D Are into apologetics at all, Emcee? BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White