|
||||||||
Getting to Heaven |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#126 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,688
|
Quote:
But you're thinking like a human being: do you honestly think we have the minds of God who created the world (I realise that you don't believe, but let's assume you do)?
As for the question about families, it reminds me a bit of this: "Some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) came to Jesus, and began questioning Him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that IF A MAN’S BROTHER DIES and leaves behind a wife AND LEAVES NO CHILD, HIS BROTHER SHOULD MARRY THE WIFE AND RAISE UP CHILDREN TO HIS BROTHER. “There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. “The second one married her, and died leaving behind no children; and the third likewise; and so all seven left no children. Last of all the woman died also. “In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.” Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. " I think the BIB pretty much covers it Of course, in this hypothetical case, I'd be very reluctant to marry a woman whose husbands died in such quick succession ![]() |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#127 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
Quote:
So the earth was created in 6 days?
The bible sure doesn't talk about the dinosaurs, as it all started with the garden of Eden. I wonder how man evolved from primates fit into all of it, as humans just popped out and were intelligent. In other branches of Christianity, in the beginning there wasn't just Adam and Eve. Adam was made together with Lilith from the same earth, and was the first wife of Adam. However, she would not submit to Adam, and left Eden. Thus Eve was then created, a more submissive wife for Adam. Why's this important? Cause Lilith becomes a demon after leaving Eden, and gave birth to demonic children with Angel Samael, who's children were set lose into the world. But apparently God castrated the Angel in time, to prevent too many demon children filling the world. So are there people descended from Lilith? Sorry the religious fanatical side got the better of me . |
|
|
|
|
|
#128 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,688
|
Quote:
all sorts of stuff was deliberately excluded from the christian bible, that's why there were the 1st and 2nd Nicean councils ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#129 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,165
|
Quote:
I'm in no rush to get there, I'd be bored stiff
I'd probably get chucked out after a few days anyway ![]() We could do without your sort in Hull!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#130 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,696
|
Quote:
Damn right!
We could do without your sort in Hull! ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#131 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,029
|
Quote:
Why shouldn't there be toilets in heaven, for them that want them ?
![]() Quote:
Not possible IF we had been created by a perfect God. He would not know how to make imperfection let alone choose to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#132 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,496
|
Quote:
Perhaps if you got your information from reliable sources rather than Lloyd Webber musicals you would be better informed. The Bible is not only historically accurate according to most scholars, it also answers many of the questions posed in this thread.
Quote:
Then they may be scholars but they are not Historians. Miracles are not the province of Historians.
Personally I am fascinated to a ridiculous extreme by the historicity of Christianity and the Bible .. I mean it's a huge thing for me. So, rather than just reading populist books I started looking at Biblical Scholars. It's really disappointing. These guys should be best placed to comment on historicity ... but, in the main, they do not. The nearest you get is a discussion on which books were written in what order - the rest is all doctrine. So when a 'Biblical Scholar' pronounces the Bible to be historically accurate, it doesn't carry much weight with me. Historicity is not their province. |
|
|
|
|
|
#133 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
|
Quote:
all sorts of stuff was deliberately excluded from the christian bible, that's why there were the 1st and 2nd Nicean councils ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#134 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
Quote:
Are you sure they where concerned with editing the old testament? I thought they where mainly concerned with Christ's Divinity and Icons respectively? I could be wrong. Perhaps you can cite something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#135 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,480
|
Quote:
Are you sure they where concerned with editing the old testament? I thought they where mainly concerned with Christ's Divinity and Icons respectively? I could be wrong. Perhaps you can cite something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#136 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,480
|
Quote:
I'm calling this one out.
Personally I am fascinated to a ridiculous extreme by the historicity of Christianity and the Bible .. I mean it's a huge thing for me. So, rather than just reading populist books I started looking at Biblical Scholars. It's really disappointing. These guys should be best placed to comment on historicity ... but, in the main, they do not. The nearest you get is a discussion on which books were written in what order - the rest is all doctrine. So when a 'Biblical Scholar' pronounces the Bible to be historically accurate, it doesn't carry much weight with me. Historicity is not their province. |
|
|
|
|
|
#137 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,688
|
Quote:
You are correct Richard. They discussed the Trinity and matters of church discipline. The OT was pretty much settled by the time of Jesus. The NT was pretty settled by around 200. Well before Nicaea in 325.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#138 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,266
|
Interestingly the existence of heaven and other planes of existence aren't dependent on Christian beliefs, the 1st and 2nd Nicean councils, or the historicity of the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#139 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,909
|
Quote:
The Bible is not only historically accurate according to most scholars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1FTVyQ7LKQ Ehrman speaks from 38:50. Details numerous contradictions from around 44 mins (and many more later). Around 56 minutes he says much about the gospels alleged authorship. In summations of part 1, Ehrman says at 2:15:35 (2hrs 15mins 35 seconds in) : "no scholar in (North America) says the gospels are historically accurate" |
|
|
|
|
|
#140 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,688
|
As the very existence of the main character in the Gospels is premised on a supernatural event; not to mention him allegedly performing numerous miraculous acts both in life and death; then historical accuracy is not a starter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#141 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,522
|
As there's a highway to hell, but only a stairway to heaven, I guess most people will be taking the easy option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#142 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
Quote:
Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman in debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1FTVyQ7LKQ Ehrman speaks from 38:50. Details numerous contradictions from around 44 mins (and many more later). Around 56 minutes he says much about the gospels alleged authorship. In summations of part 1, Ehrman says at 2:15:35 (2hrs 15mins 35 seconds in) : "no scholar in (North America) says the gospels are historically accurate" |
|
|
|
|
|
#143 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
Let's be realistic. For most of jesus' miracles, even if you'd been in the crowd at the time, you wouldn't have seen much. Think life of brian, opening sermon on the mount scene,etc. On other hand, old testement stuff, eg parting of red sea, that wd be hard to fake. The sort of thing that got von daniken writing ''chariots of the gods'' ..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#144 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
Easier to believe in ufos, than in god, is very much our modern world ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#145 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
Quote:
As there's a highway to hell, but only a stairway to heaven, I guess most people will be taking the easy option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#146 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
I'm calling this one out.
Personally I am fascinated to a ridiculous extreme by the historicity of Christianity and the Bible .. I mean it's a huge thing for me. So, rather than just reading populist books I started looking at Biblical Scholars. It's really disappointing. These guys should be best placed to comment on historicity ... but, in the main, they do not. The nearest you get is a discussion on which books were written in what order - the rest is all doctrine. So when a 'Biblical Scholar' pronounces the Bible to be historically accurate, it doesn't carry much weight with me. Historicity is not their province. |
|
|
|
|
|
#147 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
I think it's generally agreed mark's gospel dates from ad90, so ''source Q'' wd hav been an earlier date. There should be websites with this sort of thing. Unfortunately, many of them will be by loony christian believers and equally loony ''new'' atheists ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#148 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
There's a wikipedia article ''historical reliability of the gospels'' which does give some solid information .......
|
|
|
|
|
|
#149 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
I've just looked at that excellent wiki article. Mark dates from ad70, the other synoptics up to ad100, and john a little later. The same author is reckoned to have written Luke and Acts, though whether the apostle luke is uncertain ..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#150 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
That particular wiki article was no doubt part written by ''believers'', but i think the facts stated are correct ........ there are a huge number of new testament partial fragments, from quite early on .........
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:24.





.
I'd probably get chucked out after a few days anyway 