DS Forums

 
 

Getting to Heaven


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31-12-2016, 21:34
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,694
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
Are you not thinking like a human being also? If not what are you thinking 'like'.?
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 31-12-2016, 21:37
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
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 .
all sorts of stuff was deliberately excluded from the christian bible, that's why there were the 1st and 2nd Nicean councils ........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 21:52
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,694
all sorts of stuff was deliberately excluded from the christian bible, that's why there were the 1st and 2nd Nicean councils ........
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?
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 23:55
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
I'm in no rush to get there, I'd be bored stiff I'd probably get chucked out after a few days anyway
Damn right!

We could do without your sort in Hull!
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-12-2016, 23:58
Fairyprincess0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,696
Damn right!

We could do without your sort in Hull!
We used to have a wall to keep out people like that......
Fairyprincess0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 00:07
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,031
Why shouldn't there be toilets in heaven, for them that want them ?
and who is going to install them ? I suspect there would be do eating or drinking

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.
You know a lot about God
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 02:36
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
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.
Then they may be scholars but they are not Historians. Miracles are not the province of Historians.
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.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 02:39
platelet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,090
all sorts of stuff was deliberately excluded from the christian bible, that's why there were the 1st and 2nd Nicean councils ........
And the secret 3rd one, where they took out all the alien visitations and references to Xenu
platelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 02:56
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
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?
nope. Them that's interested can surely find loadsa links, i'm not that interested in what's in whose bibble .........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 09:54
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,481
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?
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.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 09:57
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,481
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.
Biblical scholars are more concerned with development of ideas through the books, literary styles, how they compare with other contemporary writings etc. They don't have special access to 1st century news broadcasts to check historicity.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:10
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,694
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.
Thanks alan and Happy New Year to you and family.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:15
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,274
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.
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:26
Asmo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,909
The Bible is not only historically accurate according to most scholars
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"
Asmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:36
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,694
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.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:42
MAW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,524
As there's a highway to hell, but only a stairway to heaven, I guess most people will be taking the easy option.
MAW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:50
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
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"
obviously, the gospels were assembled from a verbal set of circulating stories, which were then written down, as it slowly became clear that jesus wouldn't return ''immediately''. The origin of the 3 synoptic gospels being ''source Q'', which is unlikely ever to be discovered, but you never know ...........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 11:55
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
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'' ..........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:00
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Easier to believe in ufos, than in god, is very much our modern world ........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:06
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
As there's a highway to hell, but only a stairway to heaven, I guess most people will be taking the easy option.
in film ''a matter of life and death'' it's an escalator. Possibly symbolising ''salvation'', if u wanna be consistent .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:08
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
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.
Maybe you should read Bart Ehrman, droogie. His stuff is very well documented and he doesn't claim the Bible is historically accurate or anything like that.
bollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:14
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
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 ........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:21
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
There's a wikipedia article ''historical reliability of the gospels'' which does give some solid information .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:31
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
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 ..........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:42
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
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 .........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:47.