My Evidence Challenge

[thaumaturgy]

The meaning is not within it's pages

Can I ask if you would have, from first principles and observations of only nature that you would have arrived at the obvious point that:

1. There is a loving God
2. The only way to gain salvation from sins is if you accept his only son, a man who lived in the Middle East over 2000 years ago was also simultaneously all-man and all-God and he was killed and rose from the dead to ascend to heaven
3. Otherwise (according to some people) failing this you will, upon death, wind up in eternal torment for ever in a lake of unquenchable fire

This is all patently obvious without reference to the explicit words in the Bible?

The "ideas" of God's plan for humanity, if they are indeed, fundamental truths, can and would exist outside of the words of the Bible. Ergo if you tell me the meaning is outside of the words then surely I must be able to ascertain these truths through independent means.

, and what you should notice about a fungus is that it is alive.

"Fungible" is a term in reference to items being "interchangable". Nothing to do with "fungus". (However I somewhat misused the term since fungibility is often related to interchangability of equivalent items, when what I really meant was "fluid").

 

[Jazer]

1. There is a loving God

It was a real awakening for me when I learned that God was a loving God. All I knew of authority, the teachers at school and my natural father. I never learned from them the kind of love that God has for us. They seemed to do things for their own convenience as to what makes life more easy for them. Human love is often based on what makes us feel good or gives us pleasure. With God we are the focus of His love and what is best for us. His love is a giving love that will sacrifice itself for the sake of others. I never knew about that kind of love until I became a Christian and I started to read the Bible. When I got married it was because God had put His love in me and I needed someone to love and a way to express Gods love. Yet out in the world you see people who feel unloved as if no one cares about them or for them. All they want is to be loved. It is no wonder that people become Christians. They go to church, become a part of a community and they are loved and accepted. Perhaps not all churchs are that way, but a lot of them are.

2) Yes Jesus is the only way to be saved. There is no other way.
3) I believe everyone gets what is coming to them, what they deserve be it reward or punishment. But I am sure that God is a God of absolute Justice. He would not punish someone more then what they should be punished. In some cases the punishment is built into the fabric of nature. For example drink to much and your body organs may shut down and that could bring you a lot of pain, misery and suffering.

As Christians whatever punishment we receive is here in this life. When we go from here we go onto our reward. Jesus does seem to indicate that there are people who are not saved that go from here to a place of punishment. I would really like to be a universalist. I would like for everyone to be saved. But if you read the Bible I think that the teaching is annihilation or total destruction. The lake of fire is the second death. There does seem to be people who are saved and those who are not saved because they reject God's plan of salvation. Even we are told there are those who call Jesus lord that are not saved. Because they do not follow His teachings and do what He says to do.

 

[razeontherock]

Can I ask if you would have, from first principles and observations of only nature that you would have arrived at the obvious point that:

1. There is a loving God
2. The only way to gain salvation from sins is if you accept his only son, a man who lived in the Middle East over 2000 years ago was also simultaneously all-man and all-God and he was killed and rose from the dead to ascend to heaven
3. Otherwise (according to some people) failing this you will, upon death, wind up in eternal torment for ever in a lake of unquenchable fire

This is all patently obvious without reference to the explicit words in the Bible?

How is any of this related to the discussion before this?

In any event, yes entire groups of people have known the Gospel having no exposure to it from any human source. But if you're suggestion is that all of this is patently obvious, that would mean the Bible is pointless and the Gospel doesn't need to be preached. C'mon mang, you know better.

The "ideas" of God's plan for humanity, if they are indeed, fundamental truths, can and would exist outside of the words of the Bible. Ergo if you tell me the meaning is outside of the words then surely I must be able to ascertain these truths through independent means.

Why? Independence from God is the essence of sin. You're making no sense.

"Fungible" is a term in reference to items being "interchangable". Nothing to do with "fungus".

It's called a play on words. You're missing the fact that the Word of God is alive. Spirit is not confined to letter, nor dusty pages. Yet Jesus' words are Spirit, and they are Life. One can NOT "independently ascertain" that!

 

[thaumaturgy]

How is any of this related to the discussion before this?

You made the claim that the meaning was not in the pages of the Bible.

This is a long-standing question for me: if the BIble is TRUTH of an absolute fundamental nature then can it be deduced using information completely independent from the pages of the Bible as written?


Of course that question is quite inconvenient for some, so I understand if it must be avoided or brushed aside.

You see, things like "gravity" and "chemistry" and "physics" don't rely on someone having written something that we read to know about, they can be observed by multiple independent observers and found to be converge on the same "truths".

In any event, yes entire groups of people have known the Gospel having no exposure to it from any human source.

Please provide evidence for this statement.

I bolded that because I think it is the most important statement I've heard a person of faith make in a long time.

THE most important.

But if you're suggestion is that all of this is patently obvious, that would mean the Bible is pointless and the Gospel doesn't need to be preached. C'mon mang, you know better.

I quite mean that very thing. Yes the Bible is good as a reference, but if the most important truth in the Universe across all time cannot be known in detail without reference to a specific set of books written by humans and further codified by councils as "truth" vs the numerous other books written by humans, then I question the fundamental truth of these claims.

Again, while we rely on scientists to explain things like gravity to us, no one needs to go to a physics book to know what will be the fate of a set of keys held above the ground and let go.

Why? Independence from God is the essence of sin. You're making no sense.

How can this not make sense to you? Honestly.

Do you believe in God? Do you not believe He is the most important truth in the Universe?

Then why do I need someone else's words to know his plan for humanity?

Why can I not look out at the world and, through serious inspection of the reality around me, come up with the concept that:

1. approximate 2000 or so years ago in a land about 7,650 miles away from where I am right now a child was born.

2. That child became a man who was simultaneously wholly the creator of the universe (God) and wholly human

3. That man taught universal truths about the nature of man and God's relationship

4. That child-God-Man decreed that only through him could all people find the way to God

5. That 100%God/100%Man being was destined to die upon a cross and 3 days later rise from the dead and through belief in whom and acceptance whose sacrifice on our behalf can provide us salvation

The most important bits being #5.

SOTERIOLOGY SHOULD BE OBVIOUS FROM MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT MEANS OF INVESTIGATION.

Now, please read my words closely as this is quite important. If meaning and truth lie outside of the pages of the Bible then it is absolutely crucial that these truths be evident by means independent from the BIble.

Once you establish this (with actual evidence) then we can move onto an explanation of:

1. Why there are actually quite different approaches to "soteriology" within the Christian faith itself throughout history

2. Why there are actually quite different approaches to soteriology among different human groups throughout history

Again this is quite important when you yourself have said the meaning is outside of the pages of the Bible, it brings up much more fundamental concepts.

I sincerely hope this doesn't confuse you further. It is quite serious, especially in light of your previous claim about the truth in relation to the "pages of the Bible".

It's called a play on words. You're missing the fact that the Word of God is alive.

In my personal experience with "faith" I would also be glad to make a rather somewhat unflattering "play on words" in regards to "fungus" but I will refrain.

Spirit is not confined to letter, nor dusty pages. Yet Jesus' words are Spirit, and they are Life. One can NOT "independently ascertain" that!

If one cannot independently ascertain the Spirit of God then how does one do it? You have said the truth is not limited to the pages of the Bible now you tell me it cannot be independently ascertained.

Are you saying that it is "made up" within each believers mind? Or do you have standard by which "truth" of this nature can be measured and experienced by all observers independently without reference to the pages of the Bible?

 

[Jazer]

4. That child-God-Man decreed that only through him could all people find the way to God

Only through Jesus can man be saved. The Holy Spirit shows us the way to God. Through one man: Adam, sin came into the world. Through one man: Jesus the Christ, the price is paid for sin. (Romans 5:12-21)

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

15“If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” John 14

 

[Jazer]

You have said the truth is not limited to the pages of the Bible now you tell me it cannot be independently ascertained.

The Bible is the standard. Jesus is the chief cornerstone. No matter how tall you build the building every measurement goes back to the corner stone. That is how you determine plum and level.

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John 21:25

Psalm 118:22-23 The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.

 

[cupid dave]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

There can be a great deal of difference.

Take the Gospel story.

It says that Jesus in 32AD was crucified because he said he was Truth, an ideal, and that Truth is the son-of-God.

Whether Christ actually appeared in 32AD, and regardless of whether the gospel story is true, we can NOT argue the point, that Truth is our savior because men depend upon what they know is true in order to live with Nature and survive.

 

[cupid dave]

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John 21:25

Psalm 118:22-23 The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.

Yes...

He did more than just say, "I am the Truth, the way men need to live their Life"...

He showed the apostles the secrets of the Urim and Thummim and the Jewish mystery called the Kabbalah:


Matthew 13:35
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

The secret was about the way man thinks, in a pattern to the temple of his mind.
This pattern is what can show us the Truth about various matters by ordering the facts and ideas accordingly.

 

[RickG]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

I think we would have to know what specific event you are talking about. If you are speaking of an event that occurred in nature, there is always evidence left behind. That evidence occasionally is from other events which show the "no evidence event' could not have occurred.

 

[razeontherock]

You made the claim that the meaning was not in the pages of the Bible.

This is a long-standing question for me: if the BIble is TRUTH of an absolute fundamental nature then can it be deduced using information completely independent from the pages of the Bible as written?

Well I didn't realize we were discussing something near and dear to your heart, but i guess I should have. From your first post that I read, I detected sincerity. I appreciate that

I see your basic point re-stated, and I think I recognize what it is. Let me address it as I see it:

Truth is knowable, and yes from creation, outside of Scripture. But how can one get past the mere existence of a non-personal Creator, onto anything more specific? This is where I differentiate between religion and Christianity -- religion is man's efforts to reach UP to God and while commendable, is futile. Limiting factor: arms too short. Christianity is God reaching DOWN to man, via the Incarnation. This is far from the first or only instance of God revealing Himself to our species, but certainly the most personal, and the most relevant.

Why (or how) would you expect observations from nature to convey this type of info? Is that reasonable?

Please provide evidence for this statement.

I bolded that because I think it is the most important statement I've heard a person of faith make in a long time.

THE most important.

We have Indians (they use the term NDN) right on CF who descend from such tribes! They have their own sub-forum, (near the very end of the list on the homepage) and i just bet they would love to entertain you starting a thread inquiring about this very thing. Alternatively, i think I remember the names of two that I found to be both very amenable, and well-adjusted to the horrors european "christians" imposed upon their ancestors: AniGequoti and Etsi.

From a small child I held a deep respect for NDN ways and thought, so perhaps it doesn't surprise so much to encounter their own versions of life before europeans.

And I agree with you, that such facts are amazingly relevant, in the whole! There is a similar case of a pygmie who was dying of starvation, along with his whole family. He heard God tell him how to get food, and he fed his whole family who lived. he was impressed to learn of Christ from the nearest missionaries, a "mere" 3 days journey away via machete. When he got there he knew Christ better than they did, and he quickly found himself preaching all over. Before too long he got homesick and disappeared back into the jungle.

No I have no link, I'm not sure there ever has been one, adn even if there it would do nothing more than tell you of the tale like I have. (It might have more details but would it really be any more believable? IOW, if I would lie why wouldn't they?)

Why can I not look out at the world and, through serious inspection of the reality around me, come up with the concept that:

1. approximate 2000 or so years ago in a land about 7,650 miles away from where I am right now a child was born.

2. That child became a man who was simultaneously wholly the creator of the universe (God) and wholly human

3. That man taught universal truths about the nature of man and God's relationship

4. That child-God-Man decreed that only through him could all people find the way to God

5. That 100%God/100%Man being was destined to die upon a cross and 3 days later rise from the dead and through belief in whom and acceptance whose sacrifice on our behalf can provide us salvation

The most important bits being #5.

SOTERIOLOGY SHOULD BE OBVIOUS FROM MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT MEANS OF INVESTIGATION.

Again I ask you, are any of these expectations reasonable? i mean, from both mountain peaks and the mast of a sailboat out at sea, I have observed enough curvature of the earth to know it is not flat. I can be impressed with wonder, ponder great things, and I think commune with the Divine (at some very limited extent) wholly apart from any religious doctrine or Faith, as many people claim to.

Does any of that result in eureka moments resulting in concrete truth? Instead what we see is pieces here and there, some of which stand and most of which are later replaced by something better. What I think is amazing in all of this is that anybody hears from God, EVER.

Now, please read my words closely as this is quite important. If meaning and truth lie outside of the pages of the Bible then it is absolutely crucial that these truths be evident by means independent from the BIble.

I don't think this is difficult. What i said was "the meaning is not contained within it's pages." That does not equate to what you said here, although I do think it is an innocent miscommunication, and I will take responsibility for it. Please do recognize the subject matter is difficult!

Me trying to clarify:

do the pages of the Bible themselves contain the actual message?

Let me draw on an example another poster frequently uses:

does a road map of a city contain the city, or is it the actual city? No, of course not. If it did it would not be useful, yet the map can be quite useful. (I don't like thinking of the Bible as a "map" so please don't read that into what I'm saying)

I don't think the words of the Bible really accurately convey what our Creator is trying to tell us, except in the most limited of ways. Please don't confuse this with ideas like "Christ has only ever been non-physical Spirit or concept," or anything of that ilk. I'm saying His real points are always deeper. For example, we are told Jesus will come again to Judge the living and the dead. Do we really know what that will be like, or can we appreciate the full impact of the statement?

I think we can not. That doesn't mean we should reject what surface level(s) of understanding we can grasp.

Once you establish this (with actual evidence) then we can move onto an explanation of:

1. Why there are actually quite different approaches to "soteriology" within the Christian faith itself throughout history

Well I certainly haven't "established" anything to the degree you have requested, I hope you can see my point that your stance should be moderated. So I will move on and address this:

take it a step further. Different cultures maintain drastically different concepts, and yet I can "fellowship" with many and see the same underlying truths expressed. 2 examples: the religion of my Fathers, Asatru, which is far more readily comprehensible to me than any element of Christianity or Judaism. And Pure Land Buddhism. And very few belief systems are really contrary to C at all, and are mainly limited to cannibals and those who practiced human sacrifice.

2. Why there are actually quite different approaches to soteriology among different human groups throughout history

Ok I jumped the gun and am not at all afraid to address this. We each have a unique angle, and together that should ultimately reflect God Himself. I think it's obvious we're not there yet.

In my personal experience with "faith" I would also be glad to make a rather somewhat unflattering "play on words" in regards to "fungus" but I will refrain.

Agreed and that certainly crossed my mind before I posted I do hope you see my point though, that Truth is not static like words of a book, and yet Life can be conveyed that way. It takes the active operating of the Life-giver, though ...

If one cannot independently ascertain the Spirit of God then how does one do it? You have said the truth is not limited to the pages of the Bible now you tell me it cannot be independently ascertained.

While I think our conversation overall is good, I hold this to be THE MOST IMPORTANT question of yours! Truly we are exploring a paradox, a miracle, and I maintain the greatest miracle of all. If I were to shoehorn this into "christianese," I'm not sure the words would adequately convey the Truth. I do think Scripture would do a better job of it than I would though.

I'll blunder ahead with my own words anyway By "independently ascertain," I mean arrive at our own private interpretation of what Scripture says, and think we have something. Jesus railed against that idea, saying those people "refused to come to Him." Is he contained on the pages of the Bible? Can we ascend into heaven to bring Him down? And yet He graciously has and will condescend to our level, so that we may know Him.

Clearly this involves His intervention, which I think is a pretty good working definition of "miracle."

 

[Tiberius]

I respectfully disagree, this is the crux of your question, not a small aspect.

What event are you comparing the fictional Death Star destroy Alderaan to? Is it an event described in the Bible, if so you need to come out and say which one.

Givn that we are talking about creation, the event in the Bible I am comparing this to is God creating the universe.

There are non-fictional events in the Bible that occurred which are supported by historical, archaelogical and documented evidence.

There are also non-fiction events that are supported by historical, archaeological and documented evidence in Harry Potter.

There can be a great deal of difference.

Take the Gospel story.

It says that Jesus in 32AD was crucified because he said he was Truth, an ideal, and that Truth is the son-of-God.

Whether Christ actually appeared in 32AD, and regardless of whether the gospel story is true, we can NOT argue the point, that Truth is our savior because men depend upon what they know is true in order to live with Nature and survive.

I don't get this. You say that people depend on the truth, but then say that the truth of the Gospels can't be verified? So we shouldn't depend on it?

 

[Jazer]

You say that people depend on the truth, but then say that the truth of the Gospels can't be verified?

There is a lot of truth in the Bible that can be verified. If people would JUST accept what Science can verify is true they would go a long way. Why do you worry about what they can not verify? What is your excuse not to accept what they are able to verify?

 

[Jazer]

It says that Jesus in 32AD was crucified

Right now they believe that Jesus was crucified in 29AD. He was born around 4 BC. That means the birth of the church was 50 days later on the day of Pentecost in the Year 29AD. If the church age is two days or 2000 years, then we have about 18 more years to go.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right now they believe that Jesus was crucified in 29AD. He was born around 4 BC. That means the birth of the church was 50 days later on the day of Pentecost in the Year 29AD. If the church age is two days or 2000 years, then we have about 18 more years to go.

Jesus couldn't have been less than 30 years old at the time of His crucifixion.

His public ministry lasted 3 years, and He started at the age of 30.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well I didn't realize we were discussing something near and dear to your heart

Well, I do make the mistake at times of treating religious matters (matters of faith) somewhat seriously.

Christianity is God reaching DOWN to man, via the Incarnation. This is far from the first or only instance of God revealing Himself to our species, but certainly the most personal, and the most relevant.

And the only way to know of this "event" is via the pages of the Bible. There is no historical account of Jesus that has been found apart from the "synoptic gospels" none of which were written even within a decade of his literal actual existance. Even the Josephus account is thought by many to be a later "forgery" addition.

Why (or how) would you expect observations from nature to convey this type of info? Is that reasonable?

Yes. The most important fact in all of creation should be abundantly and patently obvious to all even without reference to the Bible if I am to believe that the meaning lies outside of the pages of the bible.

We have Indians (they use the term NDN) right on CF who descend from such tribes!

A link would have been nice, or specific information, but since I tend to make my living doing research (often for others) I guess I can do research to support your claim as well.

I guess if it was important enough for you to make it would be important enough to have handy but again, I'm used to doing others work for them when it comes to claims.

And I agree with you, that such facts are amazingly relevant, in the whole! There is a similar case of a pygmie who was dying of starvation, along with his whole family. He heard God tell him how to get food, and he fed his whole family who lived. he was impressed to learn of Christ from the nearest missionaries, a "mere" 3 days journey away via machete.

So ultimately he still had to go back to the "pages of the Bible". Got it.

When he got there he knew Christ better than they did, and he quickly found himself preaching all over. Before too long he got homesick and disappeared back into the jungle.

This is somewhat confusing: he learned of Christ from a missionary but when he got to the Missionary he already knew of Christ?

Again, anecdotal with no supporting evidence. I'd be glad to look that one up for you as well when I have time to support your claims for you.

No I have no link, I'm not sure there ever has been one, adn even if there it would do nothing more than tell you of the tale like I have. (It might have more details but would it really be any more believable? IOW, if I would lie why wouldn't they?)

Again, not my claim, but if it is important to me I guess I I'll have to do your leg work for you. As per usual I'm not beyond that, I've done it for many people who have strong beliefs in something.

I guess if one has "strong enough beliefs" one doesn't actually need to have a firm grasp on any evidence or facts to back them up.

Again I ask you, are any of these expectations reasonable?

Are you telling me there is another way to salvation in the Christian church??????????

Because it seems that knowing this set, especially the latter points, is just about the core of the faith. The most important knowledge that can be known in Christianity.

The only more important point is to know that God exists. But beyond that I can think of nothing more important to know.

Does any of that result in eureka moments resulting in concrete truth? Instead what we see is pieces here and there, some of which stand and most of which are later replaced by something better. What I think is amazing in all of this is that anybody hears from God, EVER.

A God who will (according to some sects of your faith) punish people who fail to adhere to the points of the "soteriological plan" in an eternal lake of fire with pain and anguish beyond comprehension but who rarely speaks to people would indeed not be deserving of the title "all loving" and "merciful".

He would be cruel beyond rational thought. Even as an atheist I do not accept that as a concept of god of any sort!

I don't think this is difficult. What i said was "the meaning is not contained within it's pages." That does not equate to what you said here, although I do think it is an innocent miscommunication, and I will take responsibility for it. Please do recognize the subject matter is difficult!

The BIble is the only source I know of for laying out the soteriological requirements of Christianity. So far you have made vague references to apocryphal tales with no supporting evidence of people who somehow heard about Christ through some miracle.

Sorry, but that doesn't quite cut it. I've "heard" about flying snakes and all manner of miracles. I've even heard about a miracle statue of the Hindu god Ganesh that drinks milk! Selah!

do the pages of the Bible themselves contain the actual message?

Let me draw on an example another poster frequently uses:

does a road map of a city contain the city, or is it the actual city?

No but I can go to the city and see where the roads lead. If I cannot get to the city ahead of time I must rely on the map.

There is a "real world analogue" of the roads in the actual city.

The map is good, the roads are good.

But in terms of Christian Salvation and the rest of the details of the Judeo Christian God they are limited to just the map. I don't even know that the city exists, let alone am able to get to it.

I don't think the words of the Bible really accurately convey what our Creator is trying to tell us, except in the most limited of ways.

I can wholly agree with that. Obviously we differ as to the relative "scale" of human ignorance in this matter.

Well I certainly haven't "established" anything to the degree you have requested, I hope you can see my point that your stance should be moderated. So I will move on and address this:

I must respectfully deny you that request. I need not moderate anything in my request of knowledge of God. If he is indeed the most important concept in the Universe then I am allowed to require the universe from him.

It is up to him to provide me whatever he wishes obviously. But I am allowed to ask whatever I want and it is not unreasonable to demand more than apocryphal tales of pygmies in unnamed jungles without supporting evidence. It is not unreasonable to demand that the "facts" of God and his plan for humanity be as incontrovertible as gravity itself.

I like gravity as an analogy as I said before. We don't fully understand how it really "works" yet, but we know all about what it does to a very, very high degree of detail.

take it a step further. Different cultures maintain drastically different concepts, and yet I can "fellowship" with many and see the same underlying truths expressed.

So how does it work when you fellowship with Muslims who ostensibly worship the exact same supreme being as you do but who have a rather different idea of the "truth" of which of you are going to heaven and which are going to be tormented eternally?

2 examples: the religion of my Fathers, Asatru, which is far more readily comprehensible to me than any element of Christianity or Judaism. And Pure Land Buddhism. And very few belief systems are really contrary to C at all, and are mainly limited to cannibals and those who practiced human sacrifice.

I will wholly agree that most religions that humanity has come up with rely on a "loving creator God". It's the details that usually matter.

BUT in the case of Christianity there are rather more specific requirements. That if failed will result in failure to achieve salvation. Granted the "requirements" in Christianity are insanely simple and really easy, they are rather specific. One must believe that JESUS CHRIST, 100% God and 100% man came to earth and was sacrificed to atone for man's sin and he rose from the dead. The only requirement is that you accept that JESUS CHRIST is your personal lord and savior.

While this is really easy, it is not patently obvious. An "obvious" soteriology is to treat people kindly and do unto others as one would have them do unto you, and do good works. But thousands of people fought bitter wars over the concept of salvation by works and grace etc.

I think if Christian salvation was a simple matter of the (sorry to do this) "Bill and Ted Philosophy" of "Be excellent to each other" it would be patently obvious. However as has been hashed over for centuries within the Christian church this is not necessarily what the word of God says nor how it is currently interpreted these past several hundred years by the faith itself.

 

[cupid dave]

Right now they believe that Jesus was crucified in 29AD. He was born around 4 BC. That means the birth of the church was 50 days later on the day of Pentecost in the Year 29AD. If the church age is two days or 2000 years, then we have about 18 more years to go.

Hmmmmm....

 

[Tiberius]

There is a lot of truth in the Bible that can be verified. If people would JUST accept what Science can verify is true they would go a long way. Why do you worry about what they can not verify? What is your excuse not to accept what they are able to verify?

I can say the same thing about the Harry Potter books. The fact that parts of a story reflect reality does not mean that all of the story reflects reality.

 

[Jazer]

Jesus couldn't have been less than 30 years old at the time of His crucifixion.

His public ministry lasted 3 years, and He started at the age of 30.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

That is why they believe He was born in 4 BC. I go by the NASA date of April 13, 2029 as the 2000 years anniversery of when Jesus was crucified. Then 7 years later. Again in 2036. Because so many people talk about a 7 year tribulation period. Apophis Asteroid

What year do you think that Jesus was born?

 

[Jazer]

I can say the same thing about the Harry Potter books.

Is anyone listening to you say it? You can say a lot of things without putting any effort, time or energy into it. We spend a lifetime to read, research and study this. We build on the work of the people before us that spent their whole lifetime to study and seek the truth.

Who should we listen to, someone that put 40 years of their life into the study of a subject. Or someone that put about 5 min of study into the very same subject.

 

[LOCO]

Givn that we are talking about creation, the event in the Bible I am comparing this to is God creating the universe.

quote]



Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I believe the events described in Genesis are not to be interpreted literally, after all its Jewish authors never interpreted it literally, what is a day to God? Is it the sun rising and setting, is it 1 earth year or 1 billion earth years? Also the Bible is not a scientific textbook.

I believe that God used an evolutionary method to bring about Adam/Eve. On the planets, it is conceivable that he created them via the Big Bang theory or some other scientifically explainable theory. We don't know.

To me it makes reasonable, intellectual and logical sense that God uses Science to explain the world and universes around us.

Science can never explain the 'whys' of our existence though. It can only provide some answers to the 'hows'.

It is not important in the bigger scheme because it is not a salvific issue.