How To Get To Heaven When You Die (1 Viewer)

[CowboysFromHell]

Sure, all I am saying is that there are texts that make up the Bible that were not the Bible when they were written. They were letters, exhortations, to peers and often the "Chosen" or "Elect." For example, the Epistle of Jude or 1 Peter, among others. Maybe I misinterpreted the prior post, but it sounded to me that the author was saying--well, all book of the Bible need to be tossed out since they are not secular. Guess it also depends how you define secular, but much of those writings were about how to live your life, and how to interact with others, and they also claimed apostleship (or at least the historical existence) of Jesus. If you cannot tell, I think the historical fact that Jesus existed is close to undisputable, but I'm interested to read differing claims.

The research I've been doing and the books I've been reading call this into serious question. Richard Carrier actually calculates the probability that Jesus was a real historical person as anywhere from 0% to 33%, and he believes it's very close to the low end of that range.  That's based on his extensive research of all historical texts, biblical, secular, you name it.  Nothing gets thrown out. Everything is taken into consideration.

 

[pecorino]

The research I've been doing and the books I've been reading call this into serious question. Richard Carrier actually calculates the probability that Jesus was a real historical person as anywhere from 0% to 33%, and he believes it's very close to the low end of that range.  That's based on his extensive research of all historical texts, biblical, secular, you name it.  Nothing gets thrown out. Everything is taken into consideration.

Yes, I saw your prior post with this same claim. Every author and historian is allowed his or her opinion and I'll admit I am not well-versed on the opinions of those folks. So I cannot back up my claim, but I believe Mr Carrier is in the vast minority in his belief. I suspect that the majority of historians (ones who also would do extensive research, leaving nothing out) disagree with his assertion. "Close to undisputable" may have been too strong language from me. If I have time to find some examples, I will provide them. I'm working from memory of pieces I saw on TV so there's a lot of possible fuzziness there. Can you find any other historian who shares Carrier's opinion or is he on an island?

 

[Politician Spock]

Yes, I saw your prior post with this same claim. Every author and historian is allowed his or her opinion and I'll admit I am not well-versed on the opinions of those folks. So I cannot back up my claim, but I believe Mr Carrier is in the vast minority in his belief. I suspect that the majority of historians (ones who also would do extensive research, leaving nothing out) disagree with his assertion. "Close to undisputable" may have been too strong language from me. If I have time to find some examples, I will provide them. I'm working from memory of pieces I saw on TV so there's a lot of possible fuzziness there. Can you find any other historian who shares Carrier's opinion or is he on an island?

http://vridar.org/whos-who-among-mythicists-and-mythicist-agnostics/

 

[pecorino]

http://vridar.org/whos-who-among-mythicists-and-mythicist-agnostics/

Thanks, a lot to look at there. Note that within a couple clicks, I made my way to Richard Carrier's Wikipedia page (not the strongest of sources, but a source nonetheless) which says: "Nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history[7] and most biblical scholars have maintained that a historical Jesus did indeed exist.[8][9]". And the group to which he belongs is described as fringe: "In modern scholarship, the Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory not supported by any tenured specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. The Christ myth theory contradicts the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many mythical or legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the biography of a historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine,[7][8][note 1] was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11]"

 

[Politician Spock]

Thanks, a lot to look at there. Note that within a couple clicks, I made my way to Richard Carrier's Wikipedia page (not the strongest of sources, but a source nonetheless) which says: "Nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history[7] and most biblical scholars have maintained that a historical Jesus did indeed exist.[8][9]". And the group to which he belongs is described as fringe: "In modern scholarship, the Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory not supported by any tenured specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. The Christ myth theory contradicts the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many mythical or legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the biography of a historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine,[7][8][note 1] was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11]"

Yep. I lean more toward Bart Ehrman and James Tabor, who think he was a real person upon whom a ton of embellishment and myths were added as the decades past. In fact, I think there might be at least two real people from which the stories draw from. The christ myth theory is the minority, but Carrier is far from being on an island in that camp. In fact, that camp has significantly grown in the past 5 to 10 years. That's why despite not being convinced of it, I continue to give it my attention instead of just writing them off. They do make some strong arguments, especially Carrier, who I believe about 7 years thought the myth theory was unlikely. By trying to debunk it, he actually became convinced of it.  

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Please note that most "biblical scholars" are Christians, and many of those have signed statements of faith with their employers.  They are biased going in, and could lose their jobs if they paid lip service to such heresy.

Sure, Carrier is an atheist, and has his own bias as well.

I don't think it can be proven either way, but a fair question is what's the evidence for and against?  My reading has led me to realize how shockingly shaky the evidence is for a historical figure.

Fitzgerald's book is a really easy read if you're interested in dipping your toe in.

 

[Politician Spock]

Please note that most "biblical scholars" are Christians, and many of those have signed statements of faith with their employers.  They are biased going in, and could lose their jobs if they paid lip service to such heresy.

Sure, Carrier is an atheist, and has his own bias as well.

I don't think it can be proven either way, but a fair question is what's the evidence for and against?  My reading has led me to realize how shockingly shaky the evidence is for a historical figure.

Fitzgerald's book is a really easy read if you're interested in dipping your toe in.

Also please note that whether or not the majority believes he existed is not by extension a belief that all the biblical stories about him are true. Only christian "biblical scholars" believe the stories to be true. The non-christian biblical scholars are unanimous in their belief that the stories are simply just stories and not historically accurate nor reliable historical evidence. They are no more true than the writings from other religions that the authors borrowed (or stole) them from. Thus the question of whether or not he existed or is a myth is actually superfluous to the bigger question of whether christianity is true. 

 

[Paddington]

NDE Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wivgDck1l88

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG_hEi8E4U8

 

[Paddington]

Evidence For Creationism:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Evidence For Creationism:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Depictions of Saturn, DNA, and the Ark.

Ail in one picture.  

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Evidence For Creationism:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

The center object on the opposite page represents Noah’s Ark. This drawing is based on a detailed and convincing description by a man who claimed to have walked on the Ark twice in the early 1900s. His information has been checked in ways he could never have imagined. Every known detail has supported his story. We must emphasize, however, there is no proof the Ark exists, although there have been many alleged sightings. We must patiently wait for a verifiable discovery of this huge object.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Evidence For Creationism:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

This is not "evidence".  It's the typical approach of "I don't understand science, so I'll throw my hands in the air and say God did it."

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are incredibly complex—so complex that claims they have evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support.a

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye,b the ear, or the brain.c For example, an adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections,d more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.

This article is chock full of examples of being completely ignorant of scientific evidence.  The author just says "it's never been proven" or "no experiments or evidence support (fill in the blank)".  I guess people who are too lazy to fact check these assertions might find the article persuasive, but it's flat out hog wash.  I'll keep reading, but Paddington, will you read an article if I post it?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.

 

[Politician Spock]

my link

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Starting assumptions, as explained above, are always required to explain ancient, unrepeatable events. The hydroplate theory has one major and two minor starting assumptions. All else follows from them and the laws of physics. Proposed explanations for past events always have some initial conditions.  Usually they are not mentioned.

Major Assumption: Subterranean Water.  About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers, 60 miles below the entire earth’s surface. At thousands of locations, the chamber’s sagging ceiling pressed against the chamber’s floor. These solid contacts will be called pillars. The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least 1 mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath that water was earth’s mantle. [See Figure 56.]

Minor Assumption 1: A Global Continent. The earth’s preflood crust encircled the globe. On the crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains, generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high. 

Minor Assumption 2: An Initial Crack. A small initial crack occurred in the earth’s crust. (Several ways this crack could have started will soon be mentioned.) Once a deep crack formed, the high pressures in the chambers would have quickly propagated the crack around the earth.

All 25 major mysteries described earlier, such as major mountain ranges, ice ages, comets, and the Grand Canyon, are consequences of these assumptions. The chain of events that flows naturally from these starting conditions will now be described as an observer might relate those events. The events fall into four phases.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Rupture Phase.  Centuries of tidal pumping (explained on page 123 and pages 604–606) in the subterranean chamber steadily increased its temperature and pressure. The subterranean water soon became supercritical, as explained on pages 123–124. Increasing heat losses in the chamber eventually balanced the constant heat input by tidal pumping, so temperatures (and pressure) no longer increased. The overlying crust was stretched, just as a balloon is stretched by internal pressure.

The rupture began with a deep crack at the earth’s surface. Because stresses in such cracks are concentrated at each end of the crack, both ends grew rapidly—at about 3 miles per second.47 Within seconds, this crack penetrated down to the subterranean chamber and then followed the path of least resistance. The rupture probably completed its path around the earth in about 2 hours.48 Initial stresses were largely relieved when one end of the crack ran into the path left by the other end. In other words, the crack traveled a path that intersected itself at a large angle, forming a “T” on the opposite side of the earth from where the rupture began.

As the crack raced around the earth along a great-circle path, the 60-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth. Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped to nearly atmospheric pressure. This caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 60-mile-deep “slit” that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.

Figure 59: Jetting Fountains. For a global perspective of what this may have looked like, see page 110.

All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path approximates today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge,49 a fountain of water jetted hypersonically into and far above the atmosphere. Some of the water fragmented into an “ocean” of droplets that fell as rain great distances away. This produced torrential rains such as the earth has never experienced—before or after.  

 

[CowboysFromHell]

A series of major events then occurred which produced the Grand Canyon.

a. The flood waters drained off the suddenly thickened and elevated continents, leaving behind postflood lakes in every continental basin.

b. As the newly formed Rocky Mountains settled into the mantle, they hydraulically lifted the Colorado Plateau an average of 6,200 feet. (This will soon be explained.) Carried on top were two large, growing lakes—Grand Lake and Hopi Lake.

c. A few centuries later, Grand Lake breached its southwestern boundary, causing Hopi Lake to also breach. The combined waters of both lakes and the escaping ground water spilled off the western edge of the Colorado Plateau and swept off the soft Mesozoic sediments south and west of the lakes (the Great Denudation), then carved the Grand Canyon in weeks. Therefore, the Colorado River was born—a consequence, not the cause, of the carving of the Grand Canyon.

Can I stop now?  

 

[McGarnicle]

 

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Final note. The flood, and corresponding rupture of water from under the earths crust up into outer space, carried mud and debris that recombined and froze, which is the explanation for where comets and asteroids come from.

:mikedrop:

 

[Politician Spock]

Some of the mental gymnastics of chirstian apologetics are highly entertaining. It's amazing that the human mind can bend those ways. 

 

[Zow]

Final note. The flood, and corresponding rupture of water from under the earths crust up into outer space, carried mud and debris that recombined and froze, which is the explanation for where comets and asteroids come from.

:mikedrop:

And mammoths. Don't forget how those ice-rats got buried. 

 

[McGarnicle]

Any of you churchies care to weigh in on Osteen? Not opening his massive arena in houston to the flood victims, is this a real thing or what  

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Any of you churchies care to weigh in on Osteen? Not opening his massive arena in houston to the flood victims, is this a real thing or what  

I assume he's not interested because the flood victims probably didn't think to grab their wallets on the way out of their flooded homes.

i have no idea if this is true, so I retract my comment if Joel opens his doors.  

 

[Paddington]

This is not "evidence".  It's the typical approach of "I don't understand science, so I'll throw my hands in the air and say God did it."

This article is chock full of examples of being completely ignorant of scientific evidence.  The author just says "it's never been proven" or "no experiments or evidence support (fill in the blank)".  I guess people who are too lazy to fact check these assertions might find the article persuasive, but it's flat out hog wash.  I'll keep reading, but Paddington, will you read an article if I post it?

Creation Science IS Science based on the actual evidence.  They look at the same evidence as evolutionists, they just draw different conclusions based on that same evidence.  I will read an article if it's not extremely long, but you need to cite your examples of what you believe that they have said that is false.  

 

[Paddington]

Can I stop now?  

I agree that the Grand Canyon was probably formed in a few weeks.  There are other examples of large canyons being dug in short periods of time by large amounts of moving water.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Creation Science IS Science based on the actual evidence.  They look at the same evidence as evolutionists, they just draw different conclusions based on that same evidence.  I will read an article if it's not extremely long, but you need to cite your examples of what you believe that they have said that is false.  

I found this article to be pretty informative.  It is long, but you know.  Science is hard.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

In response to your first sentence above, you might want to start with this section:  What counts as scientific evidence

 

[Politician Spock]

Creation Science IS Science based on the actual evidence.  They look at the same evidence as evolutionists, they just draw different conclusions based on that same evidence.  I will read an article if it's not extremely long, but you need to cite your examples of what you believe that they have said that is false.  

That's because they didn't look at what the evidence says. They instead looked for ways the evidence could fit within their belief... which is NOT science. It's apologetics. 

 

[Paddington]

That's because they didn't look at what the evidence says. They instead looked for ways the evidence could fit within their belief... which is NOT science. It's apologetics. 

It's the opposite.  That's what YOU are doing.  I HAVE looked at both sides.  I went to secular schools and universities. 

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Nothing you have adds up Paddington.

And I'm a believer.  You have a belief, you don't have the facts. Evidence is not on the believers side in any way.

 

[Politician Spock]

That's because they didn't look at what the evidence says. They instead looked for ways the evidence could fit within their belief... which is NOT science. It's apologetics. 

It's the opposite.  That's what YOU are doing.  I HAVE looked at both sides.  I went to secular schools and universities. 

Letting the evidence speak for itself is not about sides at all. The evidence simply says what it says... unless you want it to say something else. 

 

[tonydead]

####

 

[Paddington]

DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3mBFsfdYU

 

[AAABatteries]

Any of you churchies care to weigh in on Osteen? Not opening his massive arena in houston to the flood victims, is this a real thing or what  

I didn't read a single thing about this so I don't know the details one way or the other but I did talk to someone who said their church was opening up as a shelter in the Atlanta area.  It was an interesting conversation.  He said it's not as straightforward as you would think - you don't know how long the people will be there, you don't know who they will be sending you (they don't vet the people thoroughly) and typically you don't get supplies so you have to get donations from church members.  You have legal concerns with liability.  Additionally, some of these churches don't have facilities for feeding and letting folks shower. 

Don't get me wrong, it's a really good thing and this guy was all for it but it's not as simple as it may seem from the outside.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3mBFsfdYU

That video fails 2 minutes in when it reveals that its entire argument is based on the Bible. It makes an off the cuff reference to 3 secular sources, but those have all been proven to be bogus.

Did Jesus rise from the dead?

Did Romulus rise from the dead?

I'll give you a hint:  neither even existed in the first place. It's all mythology.

 

[Scoresman]

DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3mBFsfdYU

No

 

[Politician Spock]

That video fails 2 minutes in when it reveals that its entire argument is based on the Bible. It makes an off the cuff reference to 3 secular sources, but those have all been proven to be bogus.

Did Jesus rise from the dead?

Did Romulus rise from the dead?

I'll give you a hint:  neither even existed in the first place. It's all mythology.

Actually, it failed when it said there are facts. 

 

[Politician Spock]

I didn't read a single thing about this so I don't know the details one way or the other but I did talk to someone who said their church was opening up as a shelter in the Atlanta area.  It was an interesting conversation.  He said it's not as straightforward as you would think - you don't know how long the people will be there, you don't know who they will be sending you (they don't vet the people thoroughly) and typically you don't get supplies so you have to get donations from church members.  You have legal concerns with liability.  Additionally, some of these churches don't have facilities for feeding and letting folks shower. 

Don't get me wrong, it's a really good thing and this guy was all for it but it's not as simple as it may seem from the outside.

Government run social safety nets wouldn't have to exist if churches weren't full of excuses.  

 

[Riversco]

I didn't read a single thing about this so I don't know the details one way or the other but I did talk to someone who said their church was opening up as a shelter in the Atlanta area.  It was an interesting conversation.  He said it's not as straightforward as you would think - you don't know how long the people will be there, you don't know who they will be sending you (they don't vet the people thoroughly) and typically you don't get supplies so you have to get donations from church members.  You have legal concerns with liability.  Additionally, some of these churches don't have facilities for feeding and letting folks shower. 

Don't get me wrong, it's a really good thing and this guy was all for it but it's not as simple as it may seem from the outside.

When I go to the bad parts of town, all the gas station restrooms are trashed and covered in graffiti.  The churches in the area have public open restrooms.  The things are spotless with no graffiti or trash at all.  Its interesting to see the fundamental respect and care the poor and needy have for churches.

 

[Paddington]

Bob Dutko Talks About A Sign That He Recieved From God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06CkeRY40AE&rel=false&showinfo=0&start=4&width=640&height=480

 

[Politician Spock]

My statement was that Newton was a Christian.  Please, feel free to post a link to your evidence that he was not.  Try to stay focused this time.

New research on Isaac Newton's views of the christian religion.

 

[Jrodicus]

New research on Isaac Newton's views of the christian religion.

This again?

- The article quasi-clickbait.
     -  No actual citations are provided, but if you buy the book for 22.99...
     -  Most of what is mentioned does not appear to be "new" research (but I could be wrong).
- I'm not going to dig through and find it, and I could be wrong because I've slept a few times since then, but I believe that I already acknowledged that Newton didn't believe in the view of the Trinity as it was defined at the Council of Nicea.  In essence, that's what the article you've provided states - a point I'd already acknowledged.
- I think the bigger point of contention (again, without digging through) was trying to define what being a "christian" actually means.  To say that Newton wasn't a christian would mean that a belief in an unilaterally equal trinity is required to be christian.  If that's your position then so be it, but you're then excluding scores of Jesus' 1st - 3rd century followers as well as number of modern-day protestants.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40488/what-was-isaac-newtons-view-of-the-trinity

 

[Politician Spock]

This again?

- The article quasi-clickbait.
     -  No actual citations are provided, but if you buy the book for 22.99...
     -  Most of what is mentioned does not appear to be "new" research (but I could be wrong).
- I'm not going to dig through and find it, and I could be wrong because I've slept a few times since then, but I believe that I already acknowledged that Newton didn't believe in the view of the Trinity as it was defined at the Council of Nicea.  In essence, that's what the article you've provided states - a point I'd already acknowledged.
- I think the bigger point of contention (again, without digging through) was trying to define what being a "christian" actually means.  To say that Newton wasn't a christian would mean that a belief in an unilaterally equal trinity is required to be christian.  If that's your position then so be it, but you're then excluding scores of Jesus' 1st - 3rd century followers as well as number of modern-day protestants.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40488/what-was-isaac-newtons-view-of-the-trinity

Show me one significant modern day protestant chruch that doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. 

As for the scores of 1st - 3rd century followers of Jesus, I completely agree that many of them did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. The fact that you correctly limit it to the 3rd century and before shows it's been around 17 centuries since people have called a person who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus to be a christian. 

 

[CowboysFromHell]

It certainly did take a long time for the legend as we know it today to fully develop.

 

[Jrodicus]

Show me one significant modern day protestant chruch that doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. 

As for the scores of 1st - 3rd century followers of Jesus, I completely agree that many of them did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. The fact that you correctly limit it to the 3rd century and before shows it's been around 17 centuries since people have called a person who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus to be a christian. 

Replacing "unilaterally equal trinity" with "divinity" is a mistake as they are not synonymous.

 

[Politician Spock]

Replacing "unilaterally equal trinity" with "divinity" is a mistake as they are not synonymous.

You're the one hung up on "trinity". 

Newton did not believe Jesus to be divine. 

 

[Jrodicus]

You're the one hung up on "trinity". 

Newton did not believe Jesus to be divine. 

And you're the one that doesn't understand that Newton rejected the trinity but not Jesus' divinity. 

 

[Politician Spock]

And you're the one that doesn't understand that Newton rejected the trinity but not Jesus' divinity. 

"Newton seems to have been closer to the deists in his conception of God and had no time for the doctrine of the Trinity. The deists did not recognize the divine nature of Christ." - Gieser, Suzanne. The Innermost Kernel: Depth Psychology and Quantum Physics. Wolfgang Pauli's Dialogue with C.G. Jung. Springer. pp. 181–182. ISBN 9783540208563.

 

[Mister CIA]

Abstract Jesus is the name of my Boy George cover band.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

The opposite of love, at least in this context isn't hate but indifference.  

The opposite of love is fear.

 

[Jrodicus]

"Newton seems to have been closer to the deists in his conception of God and had no time for the doctrine of the Trinity. The deists did not recognize the divine nature of Christ." - Gieser, Suzanne. The Innermost Kernel: Depth Psychology and Quantum Physics. Wolfgang Pauli's Dialogue with C.G. Jung. Springer. pp. 181–182. ISBN 9783540208563.

Close to deists than to what? 

In this author's opinion, he's closer to group A than group B (which is unnamed in your quote).  Notice she didn't say he part of group A, just closer to it.  That doesn't mean that any characteristics of group A can be attributed ipso facto to Newton as you appear to suggest.

If I say that you are closer to a billy goat than to an ant, and that goats have horns and pee on their beard, have I really attributed those traits to you?  "Closer" is not a criteria I'd use when trying to apply the transitive property.

Since we're sharing quotes:

“Well before 1675, Newton had become an Arian in the original sense of the term. He recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him.”  Richard Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge,1980), 315.