Part 2 - The Creator has Invalidated Knowing Earth's Age Through Scientific Enquiry

[ananda]

Just because someone says they're a god doesn't necessarily mean they are.

That would apply to Jesus too, correct?

 

[2tim_215]

Of course, but He is. But you can start with whether or not one claimed it. Christians don't claim it after the fact the way the followers of Buddha did (some of them, not all his followers did) plus there's proof. That claim about Jesus came about while He was alive (which He did not deny) and has continued ever since.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Of course, but He is. But you can start with whether or not one claimed it. Christians don't claim it after the fact the way the followers of Buddha did (some of them, not all his followers did) plus there's proof. That claim about Jesus came about while He was alive (which He did not deny) and has continued ever since.

{Emphasis Added}

Of course they did. The Gospels were written 30 years (at the earliest) after Jesus' death. The claim of divinity is most explicitly in John--most widely considered to have been written, at minimum, 50 years after the death.

Not one of those authors claimed to be the people for whom the books were named. Not one of them was an eye-witness to the events.

So what we have is Christians claiming, after the fact, the divinity of Jesus by putting words they did not hear into his mouth.

 

[ananda]

Of course, but He is. But you can start with whether or not one claimed it. Christians don't claim it after the fact the way the followers of Buddha did (some of them, not all his followers did)

Buddhism's methodology & basis is quite different from mainstream Christianity's.

Christianity: "Jesus is real, and truly God. Therefore the books he inspired are real, and must be believed."
Buddhism: "The Buddhist teachings are enlightened, according with my own understanding of the Laws of Reality. Therefore, the originator - whomever he/she/it was - must be Enlightened (the Buddha)."

plus there's proof. That claim about Jesus came about while He was alive (which He did not deny) and has continued ever since.

Where's the proof?

 

[2tim_215]

{Emphasis Added}

Of course they did. The Gospels were written 30 years (at the earliest) after Jesus' death. The claim of divinity is most explicitly in John--most widely considered to have been written, at minimum, 50 years after the death.

Not one of those authors claimed to be the people for whom the books were named. Not one of them was an eye-witness to the events.

So what we have is Christians claiming, after the fact, the divinity of Jesus by putting words they did not hear into his mouth.

So John was not John? Oh, I see. 30 years is a lot different than 400. And what about Luke? He didn't write Luke? And John wasn't an eyewitness, lol.. You have no one in our entire history who is backed by the eyewitness accounts that Jesus was, not to mention that He fulfilled over 300 Old Testament prophecies which was not humanly possible and could only be accomplished supernaturally. Keep on denying and making stuff up, but you won't be able to change the truth regardless.

 

[2tim_215]

Buddhism's methodology & basis is quite different from mainstream Christianity's.

Christianity: "Jesus is real, and truly God. Therefore the books he inspired are real, and must be believed."
Buddhism: "The Buddhist teachings are enlightened, according with my own understanding of the Laws of Reality. Therefore, the originator - whomever he/she/it was - must be Enlightened (the Buddha)."

Where's the proof?

Who are you quoting there? Not the Bible, that's for sure. Nowhere does it say that you have to believe them, although it says that you should. Big difference. You "don't have to believe anything" and you can believe "whatever you choose to". Doesn't mean it's true or not true.

As for proof there's plenty of it if you really are interested but I doubt you are. As a matter of fact, I've shared a few books on this forum that pretty much does that. You can save yourself the research if you are really interested in the validity of Jesus claims (using normal standards of verification) by reading a few of them.. I read about Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Krishna before coming to a decision. Some of them didn't take me very long until I realized who was the real article, some took a while longer but I can tel.you one thing, I spent a considerable amount of time overall before getting there and it wasn't based on bias.

 

[ananda]

Who are you quoting there? Not the Bible, that's for sure. Nowhere does it say that you have to believe them, although it says that you should. Big difference. You "don't have to believe anything" and you can believe "whatever you choose to". Doesn't mean it's true or not true.

As for proof there's plenty of it if you really are interested but I doubt you are. As a matter of fact, I've shared a few books on this forum that pretty much does that. You can save yourself the research if you are really interested in the validity of Jesus claims (using normal standards of verification) by reading a few of them.. I read about Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Krishna before coming to a decision. Some of them didn't take me very long until I realized who was the real article, some took a while longer but I can tel.you one thing, I spent a considerable amount of time overall before getting there and it wasn't based on bias.

I'm certainly interested in proof for Jesus, but I haven't seen any.

 

[2tim_215]

The real questions Amanda, is do you want to see it and are you even interested and if so, how hard have you looked? Try reading the New Testament (it explains the old) which is likely what you had problems with. The first time I tried to read the Bible (was not even a Christian at the time, I was in "search" mode), I decided to read the Old Testament starting with Genesis and when finished with it in its entirety, I would start on the New Testament and read it in sequence. Needless to say, I didn't get very far before I gave up and would not go back to trying to read it for about another 10-15 years in depth. And when I finally began to understand it, was when I started to study both the Old and the New simultaneously. I actually think that Genesis (the first book I tried to read maybe the most difficult of them all). We see how many threads and pages on creation coming from that one book?

 

[ananda]

The real questions Amanda, is do you want to see it and are you even interested and if so, how hard have you looked? Try reading the New Testament (it explains the old) which is likely what you had problems with. The first time I tried to read the Bible (was not even a Christian at the time, I was in "search" mode), I decided to read the Old Testament starting with Genesis and when finished with it in its entirety, I would start on the New Testament and read it in sequence. Needless to say, I didn't get very far before I gave up and would not go back to trying to read it for about another 10-15 years in depth. And when I finally began to understand it, was when I started to study both the Old and the New simultaneously. I actually think that Genesis (the first book I tried to read maybe the most difficult of them all). We see how many threads and pages on creation coming from that one book?

Unfortunately, a book is not proof ... much like the Harry Potter books do not provide proof for the existence of the child wizard.

 

[Gene2memE]

So John was not John? Oh, I see. 30 years is a lot different than 400. And what about Luke? He didn't write Luke? And John wasn't an eyewitness, lol..

The gospels are anonymous are named according to Church tradition, not authorship. The were written and/or compiled over a period of ~140-180 years, with the earliest probably dating to about 70 to 75 AD.

The most commonly accepted hypothesis is that there were two primary sources for the Synoptic Gospels (the Gospel of Mark and the oral tradition derived Q source) which were then used as the basis for Matthew and Mark. The Gospel of John is distinct from the other gospels, with very little shared content, and is older, typically dated no younger than about 100 AD.

I'm really surprised you don't know this - it was taught to me at secondary school level in a Catholic school.

 

[2tim_215]

Unfortunately, a book is not proof ... much like the Harry Potter books do not provide proof for the existence of the child wizard.

Well, I guess we can throw out all the history books ever written then. The only thing that is apparently valid (to you and perhaps a few others( is your science books. Comparing a book of fiction with one that has an amazing amount of history in it. I guess all the books that talk about ancient civilizations is worthless as well. Have a good night.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, I guess we can throw out all the history books ever written then. The only thing that is apparently valid (to you and perhaps a few others( is your science books. Comparing a book of fiction with one that has an amazing amount of history in it. I guess all the books that talk about ancient civilizations is worthless as well. Have a good night.

You're going to throw out all of the history books because they are not scientific evidence? That seems a trifle rash. Do you think that only scientific knowledge is real knowledge?

 

[ananda]

Well, I guess we can throw out all the history books ever written then. The only thing that is apparently valid (to you and perhaps a few others( is your science books. Comparing a book of fiction with one that has an amazing amount of history in it. I guess all the books that talk about ancient civilizations is worthless as well. Have a good night.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that - though they may be evidence - they are not proof.

 

[2tim_215]

You're going to throw out all of the history books because they are not scientific evidence? That seems a trifle rash. Do you think that only scientific knowledge is real knowledge?

I agree. I just put that in because (for the 2nd time here) the Bible is being compared to a harry Pootter book) in terms of it's validity. Not intended to be misleading but just a little frustration there.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The proof is that we know it is today. If it is today, then it was back then, we just didn't have the knowledge to know it. Instead we (our scientists in particular) were the ones who had the false knowledge that it was impossible. Had then been believing Christians all they had to do was to read the Book of Revelation (and other parts of the Bible) and realize not only possible but that it would eventually come to pass.

100 years ago it was indeed quite impossible, because we hadn't invented the tools to do it. Once we invented the means, the "impossible" became possible.

It was impossible 100 years ago -- truth.
It is possible now -- truth.

Perhaps you're unaware that some truths can change?

They were always possible, man just wasn't able to figure it out or was basing it off false knowledge

False or incomplete? Most men are humble enough to recognize that they are neither omniscient nor infallible, a trait many Christians could do well from emulating, and are well aware that what is impossible today may very well become possible in the future.

Indeed, I could give you a list of literally thousands of human inventions which have made the previously "impossible" possible.

But you don't want to hear about that, do you? You want to use this as an analogy for the existence of miracles... very well.

Whenever the "impossible" happens, well, obviously it's no longer "impossible." Which means either we were wrong about it ever being "impossible," or something changed.

Personally, I don't think miracles as depicted in the Bible are "impossible"; just that they didn't happen. The Bible makes some extraordinary claims, and in the words of Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Having searched, I found no such evidence for the extraordinary, but instead a far greater preponderance of the evidence for the more mundane.

There's been a lot of barbaric humans, some much more so than others.

Very true -- past, present, and future -- some truths might never change.

You sure we did? Developing better and more powerful weapons and better forms of torture? Is that getting "better" to you? Is that "evolving"?

No, it's not "evolving," in the biological sense, but you do have a valid point here. We have developed new and more efficient ways to be barbaric, but at least God's not egging us on to use them anymore.

Then again, God never changes, does He? Perhaps He is egging us on, just as He egged on His followers in the Old Testament, and we've just stopped listening.

 

[xianghua]

This thread will hopefully have posts that stay more on the original thread topic, as listed below:

**********************

The Earth does "look" and does have "scientific evidence" that makes it "appear" that it is billions of years old.

Such "scientific-based evidence" is the Apparent Age produced by the Creator - with foreseen Purpose in doing so.

As one example, how did the God of the Bible Create Eve?

If a Modern Day Earth Scientist was placed before Eve 1 day after her Creation and they asked her how old she was, when the Modern Scientist heard Eve say 24 hours he probably would have called her a liar to her face. And probably would have felt justified in calling her a liar. She would not look 24 hours old - but much older.

Such is the same in what Modern Day Earth Scientists face when investigating and understanding the age of the Earth.

God knew that Modern Day Scientists would stumble if they idolized science as the principle means to know Earth's past.

The Creator - and how He has Created the physical realm with Apparent-Embedded Age (as presented in the Bible) - is not listed in any public classrooms science texts. The Creator knew of this idolizing of science day and age from the beginning of planning and bringing forth this Creation.

Many Modern Scientists by not knowing and realizing the Creator's Ways, Incredible Ability, and Purposes, have errorred in their scientific conclusions. They have stumble by not knowing Him and seeking what His Scriptures say.

The result, Modern Day Scientists have stumbled through their fleshly achievements, deriving reality of the Earth's history without need for God. A god-less foundation they have built and stand on.

However, the God of the Bible still has the upperhand in truth and knowledge that all people of Modern Period need. Without Him, the Bible, and Faith they will stumble.

even if the earth is indeed old it doesnt change the fact that it was designed:

proving evolution as just a "theory"

 

[Speedwell]

I agree. I just put that in because (for the 2nd time here) the Bible is being compared to a harry Pootter book) in terms of it's validity. Not intended to be misleading but just a little frustration there.

Why? The comparison is apt enough from a non-believer's point of view. The fact is, that much of what Christians believe about the Bible is not objectively verifiable.

 

[Ophiolite]

even if the earth is indeed old it doesnt change the fact that it was designed:

"it doesn't change the assertion that it was designed."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course, but He is. But you can start with whether or not one claimed it. Christians don't claim it after the fact the way the followers of Buddha did (some of them, not all his followers did) plus there's proof.

Considering that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death, they kind of did claim it after the fact... and went through great lengths to creatively illustrate it.

That claim about Jesus came about while He was alive (which He did not deny) and has continued ever since.

Nor did he explicitly confirm it -- at least not when anyone loyal to the Romans was within earshot.

Jesus was many things; stupid was never one of them.

 

[Michael]

Buddhism's methodology & basis is quite different from mainstream Christianity's.

Actually that probably depends on how one "practices" their religion. I love and honor Christ, but the Bible is simply a book to me, albeit an important book which contains his enlightened teachings (and a lot of other stuff).