At first blush this doesn’t seem like an ‘Organized Religion’
thing. The reason I include it here is that many large religious
organizations do teach it today.
Let me ask you something: Don’t you think it’s a lot easier for a
leader to sneak in his own agenda when there’s no outside authority to
compare it to?
Mortimer Adler, one of the greatest literary scholars,
spent decades researching a book called ‘The Great Ideas.’ He
read every single major piece of literature in Western history,
and his book explores the 102 most influential ideas that have
defined Western culture.
In the first chapter, he talks about ‘The Twentieth Century
Delusion.’ What’s that? It’s the fact modern people *think* that
we are more enlightened about all subjects than people were 1000
years ago.
Are we more enlightened about science and technology?
Yes.
Are we more enlightened about morality, philosophy and politics?
Hardly.
In college I took a class called ‘English Authors Before 1800.’
I was amazed at how sharp those writers were. Once you get past
the ‘old English’ language, you discover that Shakespeare’s
characters are just like the people you talk to every day.
The book of Proverbs in the Bible was written 3000 years ago,
but its advice has saved my butt many, many times.
‘A soft answer defuses anger, but harsh words stir up evil.’
‘A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.’
‘The fool hates to be corrected by his father, but a wise son
listens to advice.’
Are we really wiser in the 21st century than people were
thousands of years ago?
Solomon, the author of Proverbs, said ‘There is nothing new
under the sun.’ Many people have laughed at that statement. But
he wasn’t talking about technology. He was talking about the
issues of the human heart. Malcolm Muggeridge said, ‘News is old
things happening to new people.’
So is the Bible a translation of a translation of a translation?
Could it be reliable? Is it worth taking seriously?
For centuries, the oldest existing copies of the Old Testament
were from 1100 AD. Because so many prophesies in the O.T. had
come true, many scholars declared that it was written after the
fact.
For example, Isaiah described the crucifixion of Jesus with
remarkable precision, 700 years before it happened. Daniel
predicted the rise and fall of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and
Roman empires, in sequence, including remarkable details – in
550 BC.
Astonishing stuff.
The skeptics had the upper hand in this debate until a boy
threw rocks into a cave in the Qumran valley in 1947 and discovered
what are now known as the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls.’
Not only did these scrolls date back to 200BC, proving that these
astonishing predictions were written BEFORE the events took place,
but the text was virtually identical to the later versions.
Similarly, we have 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the New
Testament, some of them dating back to ~60 A.D. The text is
unquestionably solid.
There are plenty of people who say that the Bible is flaky
and full of holes, but honestly, the facts simply don’t support
that conclusion.
Take the ‘Gospels’ — same-generation accounts of Jesus’ life
in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There are *no* other events
in ancient history that are documented as well as Jesus’ life.
If we can’t believe those history books, how can we believe
any other ones?
Of course the only reason anybody doubts this stuff is that it
talks about miracles. Jesus feeds 5000 people with five loaves of
bread and two fishes. He heals the blind and the lame. He himself
rises from the dead.
Can this be believed? Or was it just a big conspiracy?
Well, that is THE question.
Right?
Chuck Colson, a former US Government official who went to jail
for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, tells this story:
“Watergate was a conspiracy to cover up, perpetuated by
the closest aides to the President of the United States.
But one of them, John Dean, testified against Nixon, to save his
own skin – only two weeks after informing the president about what
was really going on. Two weeks!
The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two
weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save
themselves. What’s more, nobody’s life was at stake.’
Why do I bring this up? Because conspiracies planned by
big groups of people always fall apart. Somebody always narks.
Well in the case of Jesus, eleven disciples were crucified,
tortured, stoned to death and burned to the stake because they
stuck to their story.
They were all ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that Jesus rose from the dead.
The historical narrative reports that the first witnesses to the
resurrection were women. Given the legal standing of women at
that time, nobody would have written the story that way had it
been made up.
What do you think?
Well, you really can’t make an informed decision until you read
the story.
Fortunately there are four versions of that story — Matthew’s,
Mark’s, Luke’s and John’s. Read one or all and decide for yourself.
If you don’t read the story, you’re not in any kind of position
to decide. Examine the evidence so you can make an educated decision.
Tomorrow, in the last installment, I’m going to take on #7:
‘If God was really good and powerful, he wouldn’t allow so much
evil and suffering to go on.’
This is a tough question indeed. Pat answers and platitudes just
won’t do. I promise to handle this one with kid gloves.
Respectfully Submitted,
Perry Marshall
www.CoffeehouseTheology.com
Hi Perry,
Could you refer me to some books or journal articles that discuss apparent paradoxes inherent in agnosticism or atheism?
Agnosticism: Claims that it’s impossible to know, yet claims that it *knows* that it’s impossible to know. Makes a truth claim that there is no knowable truth. I see a paradox there.
Atheism: Many more problems than agnosticism. As I see it the problems fall into two categories:
1) The denial of a Prime Mover, God or First Cause: It claims to know that there is no God but can offer no positive proof of such a claim. It can criticize other belief systems but has no proof or defense of its own. Atheists usually claim to base their views on science and scientific objectivity, but when push comes to shove, science inevitably points to a cause outside its purvue. Let me give you a very specific example:
As a specialist in digital communication, storage and transmission – (I’m the author of the “Industrial ethernet pocket guide” book which you can look up on Amazon) — naturalistic science, which asserts that all of this life, order, universe, DNA etc. came from empty chaos — There is NO scientific experiment or precedent in which *information* (as defined by informatics theory) has EVER originated from a purely material, stochastic process. Neither biological, nor linguistic, nor computational.
Information is mathematically at a “right angle” to matter and energy themselves and cannot arise from purely material interactions. Information is communicated and stored via matter and energy, but it is not contained in matter OR energy by themselves. So just as you cannot travel north or south on a road that only runs from east to west, you cannot produce information from matter or energy alone. It has NEVER been shown to happen.
I make this statement using a rigorous defintion of information, not a casual one. (Fractals and chaos and snowflakes and hurricanes are not ‘information’ the same way language or DNA are.) More information on this at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
I’m not an astro-physicist or biologist but I have looked into these matters quite a bit. I think that modern information and communication theory demonstrates quite persuasively that the first biological organisms could not have possibly originated by chance. Actually the mathematician Fred Hoyle did an extensive statistical analysis and arrived at the same conclustion. So from that perspective the burden of proof is on the atheists and naturalists.
Excellent book that discusses this development in great detail: “In the beginning was Information” by Werner Gitt. In this book the author invites skeptics to refute his theorems but to my knowledge no one has come forward – and I have searched very hard for a response to this.
2) The Moral Argument: One Atheist privately admitted to me that the Moral Argument is probably the most formidable case against Atheism — in other words, the universal human acknowledgement that there is such a thing as objective right and wrong.
Where does that come from? Whenever humans have a moral disagreement (”you took my chair”; “you cut in line”; “you promised, but you broke your promise” we implicitly refer to a higher moral law that the other person lives under. Rarely is that moral law objected to; if they argue, it’s always about a circumstance or some other excuse. Atheism really offers no objective morality, and really, the Darwinistic viewpoint that is almost always associated with this inherently implies that Might is Right. This is no small problem for Atheists.
When I have conversations w/ Atheists about these things, usually they retreat to some kind of “Hey, Atheism is just non-belief, we’re not trying to assert anything” or “But wait, most Atheists are very moral people” as a way to avoid getting painted into a corner, but Atheism DOES assert that the world and the universe and life sprang spontaneously out of nothingness. This is something for which they can produce no evidence of any kind. Nor can Atheism lay claim to any higher authority to tell you and I what is right or wrong.
CS Lewis talks about these problems in two of his books “Surprised by Joy” and “Mere Christianity” which are both excellent. He was an Atheist who became a Christian when he was a professor at Oxford.
The most common argument that most Atheists make *against* God is that the world is too insanely screwed up and dysfunctional for a rational God to have created it. But… this is a moral argument, and as soon as the Atheist brings this up, he’s back to problem #2 — and the question becomes “OK Mr. Atheist, where do you get the objective moral standard by which you judge the alleged God as being irrational?” The Atheist complains that the line is ‘crooked’ but he must have gotten his sense of a ’straight line’ from somewhere. Thus Atheism has no scientific proof for its alleged scientific assertions, and its moral judgments are internally contradictory.
One last thought — I hear this all the time — “Christianity / religion / etc has been the source of a gazillion wars and killings etc etc.” Well I certainly acknowledge that many have been killed in the name of god. But in the case of Christianity – where the most important commandments are “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and Love Your neighbor as yourself” — hey, if someone’s killing in the name of Jesus, they’re just lying about the Jesus part. Jesus never endorsed anything like that, ever. It’s an illogical outworking of what they *say* they believe, when we all know it’s really about money or sex or power or all three, and the twisted religion is just a rationalization.
However… when Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or any of the Atheist regimes kill people, these actions *are* logically consistent with a darwinistic, secular worldview – that the fittest will survive by whatever means possible. And Atheism certainly has had much blood on its hands in the 20th century. Ravi Zacharias talks about this in his book “A Shattered Visage.” “The Black Book of Communism” documents the genocide of 160 million people in the 20th century alone, mostly by atheist regimes. Atheism has more blood on its hands than any other worldview.
Thanks – and take care,
Perry
What about the scientologists ? are they like the atheists ?
You say Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot of the Atheist regimes kill people. The truth is, they are believers of Communism, a type of ideology spread by Karl Marx. The reason why they killed them were not because they thought the fittest would survive; it’s because they believed who ever opposed Communism, or did not quite follow the proper criteria (e.g. rich peasants) were evil enemies.
It was not atheism, but Communism that resulted in millions of deaths. They may have been Atheist, but they were deluded by an impossible vision proposed by Communism.
Joe,
No doubt you are to some degree right – Marx’s ideology was at the core. However I think the real question is – how and why did these men believe that they were justified in killing all their enemies?
If only one of these countries was atheistic, I could accept the idea that atheism was merely incidental in the bloodiness of these regimes. However the fact that the two bloodiest regimes in world history were both emphatically atheistic is, in my opinion, too large to overlook. These two regimes killed 2X more people than all religious wars in the entire history of the world combined.
I submit to you that communism cannot take root, much less survive, in a deeply religious culture. The circumstances of history seem to support that. In all regimes where atheism took root, the dominant religion was in a weak, sickly, disorganized state to begin with.
Nearly every religion teaches that a force much larger than yourself will judge you if you unjustly kill. Even the most ardent religious extremist knows that if his judgments about his enemies happen to be incorrect, he will have the judgment of God to reckon with. Even Buddhism, which doesn’t really believe in “God” as such, teaches Karma and reincarnation. In all religions, actions have consequences beyond the grave.
Only atheism allows people to think they can kill millions of people and never be judged for their actions. Only atheism allows man to believe that he is, by default, god.
“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.“ -Vladimir Lenin. Why did Lenin say this? One wonders.
That isn’t true. I’m an atheist and the thought of even slapping someone sickens me. On the few occasions I’ve hit someone out of pure anger (we’ve all done it.) I felt sick to the stomach seconds after the blow landed. Atheists do have morals–they just admit that morals vary from person to person, and that people can’t be blamed for differing opinions. I have morals, and I’m sure most atheists have morals. The few atheists without morals are the ones who screw up the world.
Atheism may allow evil, but most atheists themselves don’t. Think about it: is the Bible more representative of Christianity or are the Christians themselves the representatives?
Krishna,
There is no such thing as an atheist. The mere fact that you said you felt sick after being violent against another human being signals that you were and are cogniscant that you were created by a Divine, loving and moral being. Where do you think those ‘morals’ you talk of came from? “For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So that men are without excuse for not knowing God.” Rom. 1:20-32; Rom. 2:1-5. Krishna, why would you “exchange the truth of God for a lie” and risk it all?
“For God is not willing that any should perish but ..desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth”. 2 Pet.3-9; 1Tim 2:4. That truth will set you free and answer many of life’s questions.
If atheism allows evil, why do you apply this monniker to yourself? The Word of God says “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” Matt 7:12; “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” Luke 6:31; “Love your neighbour as yourself” Gal 5:14. Does this sound like a recipe for disaster?
The Bible is the manual for life. It is life sized and can handle all of life’s problems and questions. It is the blue print of how each person must, should live,i.e. in love. True, many who call themselves Christians have missed the mark. They impose their own interpretations of the scripture and so mess things up. Many have misrepresented Christ and His message. This and anything or action contrary to the Word of God is not to be encouraged or followed, it will only lead to much pain, heartache, disappointment, disillusionment and destruction as we see within our homes, families, schools, governments and the wider world today.
The Word says, not everyone who says “Lord Lord” will enter the Kingdom of God.
I pray that you will find the truth of the Word for yourself and take you eyes of ‘man’ for a while and set it on God, who is for you, your biggest fan. He sent His only son as an example of how we should live. i.e. in love. His son is the express representation of God Himself. He sent His son to die in our place and take the punishment for all our wrongdoing instead of allowing us to perish from it as we deserved. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” John 15:13. “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his Master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from My Father I have made known to you” John 15:15
Test Him in this Krishna as see if He is not faithful to respond. Be blessed Krishna, may the Spirit of the Lord, The Spirit of Truth, reveal His truth to your heart so you may live in love, an holy and abundant life.
With the Love of Christ Krishna, God Bless you richly.
You wrote: “but Atheism DOES assert that the world and the universe and life sprang spontaneously out of nothingness. This is something for which they can produce no evidence of any kind”. Can the belivers offer any more proof than a document articulated by nomadic goat herders in the Bronze age? There’s much more ‘proof’ of the Earth being a whole lot more than 6,000 years old as stated by the old testament. Some creationists claim that fossils and the like were placed by god as a test. Poor attempt at an excuse. Really….
Rob -
The kind of argument articulated, namely, “nomadic goat herders in the Bronze age” is what is known as ad hominem, i.e. against the person. I point this out because our US culture promotes this as a way of dismissing a person, their credibility and the veracity of what they say without regard to what was said. So, I’m not going to dismiss a perspective simply because it comes from bronze age nomadic goat herders any more than I’m going to dismiss yours because you have an apparent ethnic origin that led to having an Mc at the beginning of your last name. Both are irrelevant to veracity.
The age of the earth and the universe is, in and of itself, irrelevant to whether God created it or it just “happened”. Any age or no age at all can not definitively decide the matter on its own. It is a byproduct of the investigations and seems to be useful in some of the investgative processes.
The Old Testament makes no direct statement about the age of the earth or the universe in calendar terms. The age attributed in your post actually came from Bishop Ussher, Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625-1656. His dating is not alone and, using the method he used, not as defensible as were others of his 17th century period such as John Lightfoot, (the venerable) Bede, Scaliger, Johannes Kepler and Sir Isaac Newton all of whom determined slightly different ages within a century or two of Usshers.
The critical point is that the methods all these persons used were very similar and made nearly identical assumptions that few biblical scholars would make about the language in hebrew from which those assumptions were drawn. The creation account is not a scientific journal containing a scientific time line or calendar. It is an account that gives a sequence that, so far, is not seriously scientifically disputed with credibility and is generally supported by fossil and age records and by evolutionist theories.
More importantly, though, it is focused on the source and intelligent cause of creation and not on the technology of creation. Personally, I find it fascinating that, unlike many other creation accounts, it makes no statements about the technology of creation at all. Today, we (humanity) are building things like the Hubble telescope and hadron colliders to explore the intensely complex technolgy behind how we physically came into being. Yet, the biblical creation account skips over all that so that one does not need to be a quantum partical physicist or astro-physicist to understand the import of creation. Man(kind) being created from the dust is about as close as it gets to giving a technological account. It is just as simple, accurate and reasonable a statement as one that says wheat turns dirt into bread. And it is understandable by anyone regardless of their academic prowess. To me, this is far more profound than any potential scientific interpolation of the biblical creation account that might be accessible only by those with advanced degrees in physics.
perry, i appreciate these e-mails very much. me and my best friend have finally started to talk about how we feel and what we believe. i have been to church my whole life, and believed that i was a firm believer. this was until of course, my best friend started to stir up doubt. this is when i came to the internet and found this site. it has been more help to me than any person i’ve talked to recently could offer. there are some questions that these e-mails leave un-answered, and hopefully you can provide some kind of answer, or at least some common ground. my question concerns evangelism, and how much you should strive to express your beliefs, when that person is going to be set in their’s. jesus says that we in the faith, should share the goood news of the gospel with others. so then the question of conviction arises, and how much you should act on it. could you please share your opinion?
Aaron,
This is a really great question and it could be discussed for hours. First of all I do think that Christianity is true, that Jesus is for real, and the implications of that, for everyone, are big.
I think that people need to know about Jesus and that’s why I wrote these emails. But I don’t think it’s necessary or appropriate to bang people over the head with this, insult them, or demonize their belief systems. I think the story of Jesus speaks for itself. So it’s not an issue of saying “My god can beat up your god” or having an argument about “I’m right you’re wrong, turn or burn” – it’s letting the true light of Christ shine. You don’t have to defend a lion, you only need to let him out of his cage.
In other words we SHOULD have a discussion. Religion shouldn’t be taboo. But that doesn’t mean we have to have an argument. There’s a fine art of discerning the difference.
Sincerely,
Perry
Perry, I’ve agreed with you so far but I think now I need some clarification. Have you investigated the claims of the Bahai Faith? While I am not a Bahai, I think they logically prove that there is a way that all religions can possess major elements of the truth. I think Jeremiah was right when he said “You shall seek for me, and shall find me after you have sought for me with all of your heart.”
If a Muslim truly wants to know God, he will know God. Who cares if the name is wrong? If you were on a first name basis with someone, and then one day you were walking down the street and found that person in a ditch with a car pinned on him, would you wait until he got your name right to help him?
What if he accidentally mixed you up with someone else and called you “Tim.” Would you refuse to help? How much more does your Father in heaven know how to be good to his children?
>>” In other words, if Islam is essentially true, then Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity are not. If Buddhism is essentially true, then Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are not. And so on.
>> How can I say such a thing? Because if you *really* study these religions, it will become clear that each makes bold, fundamental assertions about reality that are not compatible with the others.”
I think that you should read “The Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley.
He deals with these issues and proves logically, by going straight to the source, that all the saints of major religions who have truly sought God have experienced something and that something has been basically the same thing. I used to believe just like you, and I used to think those who disagreed with me were only trying to be “politically correct.”
Well, I still think some people who take my position are taking it based on political correctness, but that doesn’t invalidate the claim. Watch “Gandhi” and tell me how God could condemn such a man to hell. How could the Africans who were sold into slavery in the American south, who believed in Allah, be held accountable for their rejection of Jesus, the God professed by the white masters?
>>” C.S. Lewis was talking about this very thing when he said, ‘You don’t need to defend a Lion. You just need to let him out of his cage.”
Did you also know, that in the Chronicles of Narnia “The Last Battle”, C.S. Lewis’s figure Aslan, who represents Jehovah, is known to have said, “Any good deed done in the name of Tash (a false god) is actually done for me, and any bad deed done in my name is actually done for Tash.”
Please research this out. I would truly welcome a personal response, not a
pre-formatted “I’m kind of busy but thanks for the note.”
-Kevin
Kevin,
I certainly agree with the intent of what you are saying, and in fact as I was reading your email I thought of the Last Battle by CS Lewis and the very scene you mention, just before you yourself brought it up. Lewis’s analysis of such things is quite interesting, and what’s more he manages to avoid raising red flags among orthodox Christians through his manner of relating these concepts.
Let’s take Islam, just to name a specific example. Islam specifically denies the NT claims about Christ – resurrection etc. – and Christianity and Islam are logically incompatible in their truth claims. On the other hand if you were reduce both to an irreducible simplistic minumum, they both teach humility and repentance before God. So having said both those things, I don’t feel qualified to attempt to make a precise judgment of where the “fault line” lies or how God judges between Christians and Muslims. To a Muslim I can only tell him what I believe and point to images of Christ in the Koran and invite him to learn more about Jesus.
I believe that Jesus was the Son of God as he claimed to be and that certainly has logical implications for belief systems that disagree and whatnot. But at the same time I think that God’s grace is much more capable than most “fundies” give it credit for.
Sincerely,
Perry
Dear Perry
To follow up Kevin’s query, have you investigated the Baha’i Faith ? Specifically the concepts of Progressive Revelation, (or evolution of religion) and the Harmony of Science and Religion ?
Cheers
Darryl
Darryl,
I would LOVE to believe the Baha’i faith. Specifically, to believe that we can put a half dozen religions in a stir-fry and have them all fit together. Or maybe view it all as a buffet and take from each what we like. It’s the sort of idea that just feels great.
Unfortunately such a proposition doesn’t make logical sense. The various religions in question make completely incompatible truth claims. Either Jesus was the son of God or he wasn’t. Either Jesus was telling the truth when he said “Before Abraham was, I AM” or he was deluded. Either Mohammad was correct when he said that Jesus was only a prophet and NOT the son of God or he wasn’t. Either God is one and the same with creation as the Hindus say, or God is distinct from creation as the monotheists say.
Thanks Perry
I agree that there are many incompatible beliefs between the various religions. There is also many contradictions between the various sects of each individual religion. Such sectarian disputes have created much conflict and confusion about God’s One Truth. It is not so much that the Bible (or Quran) are out-of-date/inaccurate as the interpretations are. The Baha’i perspective is that over the millenia God has revealed His Will and Word in installments. Much like chapters of a Book. The readers/followers have repeatedly made the mistake of believing their chapter is actually the whole Book. Even though the preceeding chapters/religions are often acknowledged, whenever the next revelation/chapter occurs it is rejected. Hence the Jews rejected Christ, the Christians rejected Muhammad, and the Muslims rejected Baha’u'llah. This is an historical pattern and all based on human misunderstanding. It is not that the Baha’i Faith doesn’t make logical sense, or stand up to intelligent scrutiny, but more-so it is not truly investigated with an open mind or a pure heart. This same difficulty has plagued the advent of every major religion and corrupted God’s Will for peace, love and unity. The time is now ripe for all the flocks to be gathered together, and the sovereign remedy for the healing of the world is the union of all its people into one universal cause, one common faith. Only then, shall Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. – Cheers.
My opinion is this:
Koran is not word of God because it contradicts the ‘previous’ word of God, as it claims Jesus is not God but prophet. When I read Koran, I have a feeling that somebody was telling the writer some fragments of Bible, some fragments of Gnostic writings and some of his thoughts based on daily moods. (First Injil – Gospel is OK, then it’s not; First Jews are OK then they are not etc.)
How can anyone be moral yet at the same time do the things that are suggested in Koran (hate and kill enemies, beat women etc.)
The point is: you will recognize the tree from the fruits. The light will result with the light. (This is my free interpretation of some Bible fragments cause English is not my native language)
Therefore, true God’s son (God’s follower) is the one you recognize by his deeds, his views and his attitude in general. And I believe Jesus is the path, true and life.
As for Gandhi, Africans, (I would add Native Americans here also) etc., they would live and be judged by their conscience. Furthermore, my personal belief is that God gave them the same chance; the same knowledge of right and wrong and the consequences. Even Bible tells that nations other than Hebrew knew of Yahweh (take Balaam for example) and that they should do good.
I am not theologically qualified to answer a question that has a lot of depth. But I have dwelt long hours on which faith is true and which are not.
I have found that most religions do not give all details of everything, and each one adapts or suits itself to the one who practices it, and vice versa. Thus Islam may prescribe a mode of dressing and morals which suits the weather and social conditions in the Middle East deserts.
The rules extend to all areas of a man’s life – how one should sit, pray, wash their hands, eat , etc. etc. Over and above the laws from Koran, there are Hadiths detailing how to give alms, and how to kill a cow or a sheep. The rules are so numerous, that no muslim knows all of them, and cannot pass a day without breaching of a dozen of them.
But insisting that all Muslims any where in the world should practice it would be ridiculous. such a religion cannot be from God for all His people. Judaism also is not very different from Islam in this respect.
Christianity and Hinduism surmounts this problem in two ways.
In Hinduism, there are a variety of aspects of God you can choose from to worship. This is like reaching God on the peak of a mountain through different paths. You can have a favourite path, and use other paths as situation warrants.
God is like a Federal Government, with several offices everywhere, and their reach and governance extends to everywhere . You go to one for Postal service, another one for getting a passport, etc. Their God is one, but has many faces, or personalities, which are very human. One Goddess looks after education, another God is approached for money, another for Arts, etc, etc.
In Christianity, there is One God with 3 persons each one equal, interdependent, and trusting each other, and in total communion with the others like one human being / computer with one Soul (Father, CPU) , one body (Son, casing, power supply, motors, robotic arms , sensors, eyes, ears, mic, output- speakers, monitor, tongue, etc, and one soul/Holy spirit (the programmes, nerves, wires, Blue tooth, wifi, etc).
Rules in Christianity are reduced to a bare minimum. Everything is allowed as long as you keep God above everything else, and you love your neighbour as you love yourself. This is the best for mature individuals who know to discern good from the bad. It is also good for the ignorant, because then the ignorant can change the rules to suit a new environment instead of wearing middle east dress in the North pole.
Christians other than the Catholics, approach only GOD directly (the President in the Federal Govt.)for submitting their petitions and prayers.
Like the Hindu’s, Catholics have saints and angels who are centres of power and principalities who they send their petitions to according to their powers and departments they control. The Hindus and Catholics have also a negative set of powers, each like the positive ones, are identified by a name, and the power or principle they represent- like the Departments in a Federal Government.
The Jesus of the Gospels lived in a world controlled by a personal Satan and populated
with angels and demons. The beginning of Luke’s gospel is punctuated with visits from angels.
Gabriel even bears a name. Indeed, there is no indication in the Gospels that angels of the New
Testament are any different from the personal spirit-messengers encountered in the Old
Testament.
In Luke 4, Jesus endures a vigorous series of temptations at the hand of the devil. One
malicious spirit even claims ownership over all the kingdoms of the world: “To you I will give
all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will”.
(4:6). Christ does not object to Satan’s claim over the nations. Instead, his rebuttal is that only
YHWH is truly worthy of worship..Another negative power is called Beezelbub.
Satan and his followers demons, however have a spirit of separation and division (because that is how they became devils- by separating themselves from the rest of God’s creations), he and his gang are divided amongst themselves, and therefore will fall eventually.
From among all the above religions, all except Islam tolerates others’views, and practices, while Islam believes in killing, snuffing out non-muslims, whenever and whereever possible, and prohibits practices of other religions.
It seems that Islam has a mode of operation similar to those of Communists, and Nazis, and is more like a cult than a religion of God.
Only in Christianity is there a God that showcases His humility, preparedness to sacrifice himself for his people, tolerence, forgiving nature as His chief attributes. Gods of other religions are proud, show-offs, and are often cruel to his subjects.
my reply to Lie #6: ‘The Bible is out of date, inaccurate and over-rated. People in the 21st century are way too smart for that.
this is a product of misunderstanding of what the bible is all about. Poeple with this comment does not know really what is the bible so there is a need for some clarification:
1. the bible is not a history book, even though it is full of HIS-TORIES.
2. the bible is not a science book.
BUT the bible is a success story of people who in their lives find ( keep finding) God in their daily lives. with this understanding, we can understand why the bible even today in the 21st century has its message heard and observed by millions of people and refuted by people who cannot really understand it.
Though I definitely do not classify myself as a Christian, I’ve actually begun to truly understand the Bible. I looked too much from the typical Atheistic side in the past, and have noticed how much it makes sense now, after stripping out the “miracles”. I was surprised how easy it was to find God for myself.
Brittany-
Just out of curiosity, why did you strip out the miracles?
Question #1: How come the book of Enoch (noah’s great grandfather) is not in the bible?
Question #2: Please define the word angel for me.
Question #3: Who are the sons of god referred to in genisis 6: 1-4?
Brandon,
I intend to read it, I think it’s fascinating, and I suspect it’s sort of like the apocrypha – not as reliable as other books but quite informative.
When books are not found in the Bible some people see this as some kind of conspiracy. I think if you actually read and study you find there are sound reasons why these books are not included. But often are still worth reading.
Angel: Spiritual being created before the advent of humanity
#3: I think this is referring to angels.
To your question #3, there is interesting explanation here:
http://www.douglasjacoby.com/view_article.php?ID=2189
Mostly Bible scholars consider them the sons of Seth (Adam&Eve’s 3rd son) and the author of the text thinks they might be fallen angels.
The bible difficulties include:- Words above Jesus on the cross: Four different versions. Last words of Jesus before dying: Three vastly different “last words.”
Contradictions include the Epistles knowing nothing of a virgin birth, and saying that Christ, who had been raised by God, appeared to the Twelve. The later-written gospels invented the virgin birth, and talked about Jesus appearing to the Eleven.
Oops!
John,
Regarding Jesus’ words on the cross, this article may be helpful: http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php#17
Romans 5 directly implies that Paul accepted the virgin birth because Jesus was not considered a son of Adam. Note that absence of mention of something is not, by definition, a contradiction, but an omission.
To the extent that the 4 gospels differ, it is proof that they are independent of each other; that there was no collusion and everything mentioned by more than one of them is doubly validated by the historical narrative.
There is an excellent book I’ve read regarding this topic:
“Reasons For Belief: A Handbook of Christian Evidence” by John M. Oakes, Ph.D. published by http://www.ipibooks.com .
It’s a step by step analyze of this subject why Jesus is what He claims He is.
Exd. 24:10-11 “And they saw the God of Israel…and did eat and drink. If the Bible say nobody can see God and live, how come about this episode?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Alleged-Contradictions-in-the-G.pdf – see page 7
Greetings Perry
Can you please explain the rationale for the typically anti-religious stance of Communism ?
Cheers
Darryl
I’m sure others could do this better than I can. But here’s my best shot: Communism rests on the premise that private ownership of property is wrong and all property should be commonly controlled and owned. This idea is explicitly contrary to the Judeo-Christian idea of property ownership. Since in the Judeo-Christian worldview God and faith are higher priority than government, Communism is not compatible with Christian culture. I am sure that this is similarly true in Muslim culture. I don’t know about Buddhism or Hinduism.
You forgot to mention that none of the “sources” you quoted were actual eye witnesses, as none of the canonical gospels were either. Why does Paul not speak of the earthly Jesus?
Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus’ short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus’ birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.
Tacitus, the Roman historian’s birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a “Christus” in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus’ mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.
Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a “Chrestus,” a common name. Apologists assume that “Chrestus” means “Christ” (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant “Christ,” it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius’ birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.
Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
So… why aren’t Matthew and John eye witnesses?
BTW this page addresses this general subject quite well: http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/anne-rice-atheist-christ/
One other thing to note is that Jesus’ last name was not “Christ”. Referring to Chrestus and linking this to
Jesus as the complete family name of Jesus Christ is incorrect. Jesus “the” Christ is more correct as Christ is a title. Jesus of Nazareth was more likely the name that people knew him by. Did you know that native North American people used a similar method of identifying others. A name such as Mary Walking Fast could have been an example, or John Iroquoise, meaning he was a person from the Iroquois tribe. The times that Jesus lived in used a similar approach to identify people with the same first name.
Hi Perry
What is your understanding of this Sacred Prophecy :
1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
(King James Bible, Revelation)
It refers to the 2nd coming of Christ.
Thanks Perry
More specifically, what if “every eye shall see Him” ….. eventually…… but initially, he shall be obscured “in the clouds” ? This could mean that He has already come ! and only the sharpest eyes of perception have seen Him – so far! Which is why we need to be so Alert and Watchful. And this interpretation would also give added dimension and meaning to Him “coming as a thief in the night” IE while we are asleep in ignorance.
Yet as His New Teachings become more widespread, more and more seekers of God, with “ears to hear” will awaken to His Greater Manifestation of the “Spirit of Truth” until there shall eventually be the long-awaited World Peace – as promised, “Thy Kingdom come. Thy Will be done…”, and there shall be ‘One Shepherd and One Flock’ and it will be then, that “every eye shall see Him”, and not straight away…..(?)
Cheers
Perry,
I was brought up a good Irish Catholic and I have been boosted by reading through your site (and Cosmic Fingerprints, which I found first), but I have to admit I’m struggling with my faith at the moment. There was one recent event that triggered the doubt in my mind, and another realisation which is keeping it there. I’ll relate them both if I may, and I’d really appreciate your perspective if you have the time.
Ironically, the event that started this all off was a talk (in office hours, sponsored by my company) given by a local Protestant preacher on what was wrong about Dawkin’s book ‘The God Delusion’. I went along with an open mind – I was quite relaxed about religion and my faith and I really just wanted to see what the fuss was about.
In the talk, I was struck by the arguments of the preacher. His rebuttal focussed on one of the points in the God Delusion which is where Dawkins says ‘All religions are the same’. The preacher’s whole response to this boiled down to him saying; ‘Aha! This is the flaw in Dawkins argument; he says all religions are the same; they’re not; Christianity is different; why? Because it says so in the Bible.’ I couldn’t help thinking that, say if he had been a local rabbi, or an Imam, or a Buddhist monk, he would probably be saying exactly the same thing. That started me wondering what made Christianity special or different? Why is the Bible ‘better’ than those other Holy Books?
I was also struck by my fellow attendees at the talk. When the preacher was making a point about how science had explained many things since Jesus’ time, like for example, why the sun rose in the east, and why the rain fell, etc – one lady got very angry and insisted that God still made the sun rise every morning and made the rain fall; all by His will. Another guy told the room how he was converted because he lay in a field of grass when he was 18 and actually heard God whisper a couple of words in his ear. I have to admit I’d never met people who were so vehement and insistent about their religious experiences.
Now, I studied psychology at college, and I’ve kept up to date on the neuroscience journals as they are still relevant to my job. I know that there have been many repeated experiments done recently where religious feelings, visions and sounds have been produced in people’s minds by artificial means – usually by transcranial electrical stimulation after ‘priming’ the subjects with religious imagery. It had always been my view that ghost stories (and probably many religious experiences) were as a result of these types of brain activity firing off by itself. But continuing my previous thought process – what if these types of experiences by a few key people, magnified over time (like Chinese whispers) were the source of many of the stories in the Holy Books…even the Bible? I’ve read elsewhere here that there are inconsistencies and errors in the Bible so you should only take it as a fuzzy edged story rather than a history or science book; this only seems to reinforce the potential fallibility of It as a document of truth & proof.
The seeds having been sown, I started to do some comparative analysis on various religions (growing up in a school run by priests, we had over an hour of RE every day but we never got told anything about other religions! – a tragedy!).
I’m a scientist by trade now, and have an analytical, empirical-based way of looking at things. When I looked into the various religions that are out there, most put great store (and by ’store’ I mean that they use them as a guide but also as proof) in their Holy Books; the Bible, the Qu’ran, etc. This is what the preacher had done. I had always thought that it would be great if you could run an ‘experiment’ to see whether you could make up a religion based on a very charismatic personality, and see whether it could turn into something big. If you could, then it would show that any of the worlds religions just needed some time and they would grow. If you couldn’t, then it would demonstrate that there was something unique about Christianity….and then I found out about the Church of the Latter Day Saints! What a story! Joseph Smith, a mystic and treasure hunter, is ‘visited’ by an angel who gives him some golden plates that noone else sees, and founds a religion based on this story. This is my ‘experiment’ come to life, and I never knew about it until I did some solid reading. Unfortunately, this wasn’t what I needed to hear as it validated my hypothesis that all it takes is a good story, a good leader and some time to grow the legend.
So now the issue that’s now keeping the doubt in my mind is; how can we trust that the Bible and the Christian Church is the ‘right’ religion, when the only difference between it and the Church of the Latter Day Saints is about 1800 years? They almost match otherwise. They both had charismatic leaders with many followers; they both have Holy Books written by men (and therefore potentially fallible) discussing miracles and visitations, etc; and they’ve both built up considerable followings around the world over varying periods of time.
Does “Charismatic Person+Holy Book+Time=Religion”? The Christian church I grew up in fits this formula, as does the Church of the Latter Day Saints. As does the Church of Scientology as far as I can see (although I don’t know a lot about it – I know in the US it’s classified as a religion but it doesn’t have that status in Europe).
If I ‘run’ an experiment twice today with the same result, what reason do I have to believe that it would be different 1800 years ago? How can I know Christianity is ‘right’ without using the Bible as the main basis?
Yours, in doubt,
Zach
Zach,
From a certain POV answers like “because the bible says so” are good but that only works for some people. That doesn’t necessarily work for me.
In no particular order, some thoughts and links – btw I would encourage you to read/listen to the links very carefully cuz there’s a lot here:
1. Christianity is the only religion that 100% endorses another religion – namely Judaism.
2. The Jewish culture is the only intact culture after 4000 years – same holidays, religion, customs and language. The Christian culture is the 2nd oldest intact culture. All others are in ruins.
3. Science got started in Rome, Greece, China, Egypt and Islam and stalled in all those cultures. It got started in Christian Europe and became a juggernaut. Why? Because it had a theology to support it. See Why I embrace Christianity as opposed to other views:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian
4. In the above link you will also find reference to miracles (read and follow every link, there’s a lot there) and the extremely unique claims of Christ.
5. I often ask people:
“Name 5 protestant Christian countries that have rampant poverty, illiteracy and human rights abuses.”
And:
“Name 5 Buddhist countries… or 5 Hindu countries… or 5 Muslim countries… or 5 Atheist countries… that do NOT have rampant poverty, illiteracy and human rights abuses.”
6. The modern Western idea of equality originated in Christianity and nowhere else. See http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/equality-technology/
7. There are myriads of theories about Jesus’ resurrection but the only one for which there is any significant consensus – and for which there is any significant historical evidence – is that He actually rose from the dead. See http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/
8. Anne Rice gives a superb argument for the traditional Christian interpretation of Jesus and the gospels at http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/anne-rice-atheist-christ/
9. I think that if you take the Bible as only an account of what happened, written down by people who were there or passed down to the writers by oral tradition (which in ancient cultures was much more reliable than modern people with Google-assisted memories would ever assume) – and if you do not assume it’s inerrant, but only reasonably accurate – it loses VERY little. In particular the prophesies in the Old Testament – which we now know were undoubtedly written BEFORE Christ, match Jesus in a most uncanny way. This is an entire rabbit hole worth exploring. http://www.gty.org/Resources/Print/Sermons/1320
10. Genesis 1: If you make a very modest set of assumptions – “day” is a period of time, vantage point is terrestrial, “animals” = livestock, Genesis 1 matches modern cosmology and the fossil record tit for tat. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm
11. Archaeology overwhelmingly supports the Bible. It does NOT support the book of Mormon. BTW there is a LOT of similarity between Islam and Mormonism – stop and consider that for a bit.
12. I believe that one begins with faith but one’s spiritual life grows through EXPERIENCE. Contrary to the modern “enlightenment” notion that the universe is a closed system, people really do have spiritual experiences. Yes I can understand if it seems at first like this is just peoples’ imagination or over-excited neurons. But I think if you look a little closer and spend some time exploring this deeper not only will you find that their experiences are consistent and real, but you will have your own experience with God as well.
BTW did you see this article? http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/top10/
I hope this helps. Let me know if there are other things I can help with -
Perry
Perry/Zach,
First, I would like to thank Perry for making the effort to inform all of us about the existance of God. My reply here centers on the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I am a member of the LDS Church. I joined the Church in my 17th year not becuase I had to, but because I finally found something that made sense. You could say that my story was very similar to the prophet Joseph’s.
Zach, your ‘experiment: holy book + charimatic leader = time = religion’ seems OK, but doesn’t apply here. For one, how long is ‘time’? One year, one decade, one century? This would be very hard to quantify.
Aslo, you need to realize that many of the members that joined in the early church had never seen or heard the prophet. So the ‘charismatic leader’ doesn’t fit into the equation either.
Perry, I am studying Islam now. I am in a Muslim country and have many Muslim friends. I will have to disagree with your assertion “BTW there is a LOT of similarity between Islam and Mormonism”. There is very little in common other than the first prophet of each recieved instruction from God.
The Prophet Mohammed recieved revelation from God and only once. The Prophet Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and the Son (which makes our religion vastly different than other christian relegions). founding prophet had a vision. He was then visited by other angelic messengers and recieved instruction. In Islam, all is done. In the LDS religion, there is continuing revelation. And one last item. The LDS religion is not a new religion as Zach suggests. It is the Church of the Restored Gospel. Joseph Smith was simply the messenger.
There are many other tenants and beliefs that are different. I am sure there are other similarities, but these would apply to all chistian religions and not just to the LDS sect.
A good article on this is at http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormon_islam_similarities.htm
Perry, when I first connected with you it was on your Information Theory and how God ’spoke’ thorough DNA, thus proving intelligent design. At the time, I was intrigued and thought you had more enlightening information to pass on. However, after following the link that you provided in you reply to my last post, I have serious doubts as to your ability to properly research and therefore comment on any subject.(http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormon_islam_similarities.htm)
It took me a while to stop laughing when I visited this site. Anyone who has taken the time to actually inveistigate the LDS church or Islam would know that many of these claims are in error or downright false. Besides that, the author can’t even spell correctly. Please, before you offer up any more gems of wisdom or special links, do some proper reseach and vet the sites that you are promoting.
Peace out, Bro. I am out of here.
Not that I consider you bad, just that you don’t seem to take the time to correctly investigate a subject before commenting on it.
I spent no more than about 20 seconds finding this link. I’m sure there are better articles which delineate this thesis. Spelling errors notwithstanding, I think the author has accurately pointed out quite a few similarities between Islam and Mormonism: Revelation by an angel to a single special prophet; polygamy; a statement that Judeo-Christianity is nice but tragically incomplete; gross distortion of the person of Jesus Christ. You are welcome to dispute any of these specific statements.
Hah Zach, Your thought patterns and experiences are similar to mine. I came from a Catholic family and the priest’s name was father McAvoy at our school and church. My great great grandfather came from Ireland too, County Cork, an Irish Catholic type of place. I always said that the Irish Catholics are “different” from the others. Do Irish Catholics question the faith more than the others? I think so. Why? Because lurking in the background of any strong Irishman is the other religion. You know, the Gaelic one when the Druid Priests (teachers) ran Irish society. Then, The Romans invaded and murdered all of the Druid teachers they could. The Romans then transplanted Catholicism into Irish society. It worked! Well sort of anyway. You see, the Irish person thinks differently than most other peoples. This is why Ireland has put out so many poets, authors and famous writers, more than any other country, ever. So now, you are questioning your belief in the Holy Bible as you should. You must realize that God did not sanction one church, God did not write one Bible story, nor did God expressly give one man the authority to have power over anyone else. The Bible is only inaccurate because God did not write it! I will give you someting else to think about. There is one pivotal story in the bible which should set you to thinking. Go to John 20:17. What happens when Mary goes to the Gardener and asks where is Jesus? Well you may have missed this because it is so plain to see and to understand. The Gardener said, “Mary”. Then Mary realises this man the Gardener is Jesus! Jesus did not die on the cross as later repeated by religious leaders over and over until most Christians think it is true. Even Jesus said that a man can only die once. Do you remember doubting Thomas? Thomas thought that Jesus was a Ghost until Jesus proved otherwise. Jesus was not a spirit but alive and in the flesh. There are other references that you can read which shows Jesus did not die on the cross. Don’t get me wrong, Jesus is still one of my favorite heroes of all time. I could write a short book on why this is so. But for now, keep on exploring and writing your thoughts, I would like to hear more of them. Best Regards, Tony Waters, CanadaNorth
Tony,
Do you have documented examples of any other people who survived crucifixion so successfully as to inspire worldwide movements and belief in immortality?
Hi Tony
The “crucifixion”/execution/martyrdom of The Bab, 1850 AD, is well documented in the Baha’i Faith. As is the following 40 years of imprisonment/exile/persecution of His immediate Successor, Baha’u'llah. The followers of these two Divine Founders (The Baha’is) are now established in every country and territory in the world. Although relatively small in number, within only 160 years we are now as widespread as Christianity /very close to it ! Some of these Divine Teachings highlight the immortality of our Soul, and the immortality of Christ…… Cheers Darryl
Anthony,
about John 20 – Mary saw Jesus and thought he was a gardener. Remember she didn’t expect to see living Christ!
All other gospels confirm that he was risen.
What are other references? Surely, you don’t consider Qu’ran (they thought they crucified Jesus) and some old Jewish scripts that claim that his body was found and dragged through town? So you see that the negative claims are not consisted, they are just speculations.
Tony,
I love the way North Americans have investigated their family trees more extensively than anyone else (I couldn’t tell you where my great great grandfather came from!), as if they aren’t happy to be Americans/Canadians, but need to seek a ‘grounding’ in the Old World somewhere. While I’m not sure it’s confirmed that the Romans brought Christianity to Ireland, having grown up here I can assure you there’s no sense of ‘other religion’ that ever comes up or is taught or even is felt in society – it’s Catholicism all the way with no exceptions. In fact you only need to read the recent terrible stories of child abuse in schools and orphanages in Ireland over the past 50 years to see how the Church is respected and bowed to in almost everything – almost above the law. But I digress. However, I do agree that there’s a bit of truth in the ‘nation of poets’ epithet we have, as well as in our (probably equally accurate) stereotype of enjoying our booze. I admit to the latter, but can’t promise to have excelled in the former!
From the second half of your post, I take it that you’re one who separates the historical Jesus from the theological Jesus (a la Baigent/Leigh), and you suspect he didn’t actually die on the cross, but it was faked or didn’t happen. I’ve read quite a bit about that tonight, with most theories based on the unusual speed of his death (crucifixion typically took days) and the fact that he was not crucified in public (so easy to take him down without anyone noticing). I don’t know if John 20:17 as you describe it shows that though – you would expect him to know Mary’s name if he HAD been resurrected. (Not to mention that John 20:17 in my King James version says: ‘Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”’. Also, according to the Bible, Jesus did only die once – which would be true whether he was resurrected or not.
In response to Perry’s answer to your post, there are examples of historical figures that fit these criteria, but we in the modern world would consider them mythological. Romulus (one of the legendary founders of Rome) was resurrected, as was Osiris, an Egyptian man/god, as was Bodhidharma, a Buddhist monk.
The question is always how trustworthy is the documentary evidence. St. Patrick is a good example of how a myth can be built up. We were taught in school (in History and Religion classes) that Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland around 400, and he used the shamrock to illustrate the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Yet, a brief bit of research seems to indicate that Palladius was sent as the first Bishop to Ireland in the early 400s to an established Catholic presence. The historical record is inconsistent and dates for Patrick/Palladius arrival/departure/death vary by up to 50 years, and it’s probable the stories of these men were confused due to the oral tradition and general illiteracy of the times. You can examine one of the key texts (if your Latin or Gaelic are any good!) at http://www.archive.org/details/tripartitepatrick00stokuoft.
Has St. Patrick inspired worldwide movements and influenced people? Anyone who’s been in Dublin, New York or Chicago for St. Patrick’s Day celebrations will know the answer is yes. Is his existence documented? Yes. Is it cast iron? No. Did he exist? Probably. Would I bet my house on it? Probably not!
Now Jesus on the other hand, was thought by his followers to be the Messiah, and his life to have fulfilled a number of prophesies. So there was even more pressure on his Apostles to make the story of his life that they told after his death fit those prophesies. For example, it’s been well documented that the birth story of Jesus has probably been altered to fit the prophesies; Luke points out that Joseph was a descendant of the House of David (as the Old Testament prophesy said the Messiah would be), however Jesus was the Son of God, not Joseph, so isn’t that irrelevant? Another example is the story of how they travelled to Bethlehem for a census as that is where Joseph’s descendants came from. Now, my parents filled in a census in Ireland when I was a kid, and it didn’t say that my father had to travel to where his ancestors lived; that seems like a bit of a stretch (but a necessary one) to make Jesus’ birth story fit the prophesy. There is the temporal inconsistency between Luke and Matthew’s accounts as well, but that’s a separate point.
One last comment on this line of thought is this: I haven’t done all my homework yet on the links Perry gave me in his reply to my original post, but to his point 9, my immediate response at the moment is that Jesus’ life matches the prophesies so well because the story of his life has been adjusted deliberately to do so.
I guess all this is to say to Perry that whether there are documented examples or not, the factual accuracy of those examples can’t really be confirmed, as the narrators were either not there so it’s based on hearsay (Luke 1:1-4 seems to say just this), or they were biased reporters, seeking to make sure Jesus life fit the Messiah story of Jewish tradition. History doesn’t give us the tools to properly investigate these claims anyway, due to the nature of the time in which the events happened.
In terms of historical belief in immortality and resurrection, that’s been a part of many religions over the years, so Jesus didn’t bring belief in immortality to the world. What about Buddha or Osiris, who I mentioned before? Osiris in Egyptian mythology died (was killed) and was resurrected on a spiritual plane – in a very similar way to Jesus.
I’m still reading up after Perry’s answer to my original post and will respond soon on that. The reading I’m doing to support my thinking on all of this is proving very helpful, so thanks all for listening to my journey and catharsis!
Dear Perry
A close look at the Baha’i Faith would render your no. 1 point inaccurate.
Baha’u'llah has endorsed all religions as having their origins in God. Special acknowledgement is given to the major religions : Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and even the Indigenous religions of the previous cycle. The fact that most sectarian religions have strayed from/unfulfilled their Founders Guidance doesn’t change the endorsement. I would also add that True Islam also recognises the Divine Ordinance of Judaism and Christianity. Some Muslims are even anticipating the return of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Cheers.
Darryl,
Again, I would love to believe that but it doesn’t make logical sense. These belief systems make logically incompatible truth claims, therefore according to the law of non-contradiction they cannot all be true.
Perry
Please consider the following : “The ability to distinguish between the eternal spiritual truths and the social instructions specific to a time and place makes it possible to appreciate both the unity of religion and their diversity.” All the major religions teach about oneness, unity, love, developing virtues, omnipresence/omniscience, the after-life, the ‘golden rule’ etc. These fundamental truths do not vary. What does is the relative truths/social teachings for a particular stage of humanity’s evolution. EG Moses Law about an ‘eye for an eye’ was apt for a time without adequate prisons/judicial system. Then it was changed by Christ, (perhaps to encourage more faith and love?) IE ‘vengeance is the Lord’s’ – ‘Love your enemies’ – ‘return good for evil’…. (Notwithstanding that much of religion’s contradictory divergeance is man-made misunderstandings /egoistic power-tripping /satanic corruption of the original Divine Instruction) …cheers
‘Some Muslims are even anticipating the return of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.’
I highly doubt they are sincere. They consider him to be the prophet, born of Mary without man, performed miracles, but that he wasn’t crucified.
‘I would also add that True Islam also recognises the Divine Ordinance of Judaism and Christianity.’
I agree on this. I read somewhere in Qu’ran that Gospels and Torah are the holy books given to Jews and Christians by God. Muslims should consider that.
My question:
1. Have you ever read the Holy Bible? 2. Do you believe in God? 3. If you are a Christian, do you pray before you read the Holy Bible? 4.Do you limit yourself on doing research that is anti-God? 5. Have you ever researched on materials that is pro-God? 6. Have you ever considered reading materials written by individuals who were inspired by God?(the saints) 7. Last question, do you truly believe you are right about all the contents of this website? May God enlighten your heart and your spirit.
Did you read any of the articles on the site?
Hi Perry
My question is : Where is the ‘new comment’ about the 2nd coming of Christ that I was recently notified of ? (NB I am somewhat unskilled at navigating your site, and internet stuff in general) Keep up the God-Work – Cheers
Go to Google and type site:coffeehousetheology.com followed by a phrase in the message you’re referring to. Like
site:coffeehousetheology.com 2nd coming of christ
All said I have learnt that the physical interpretation of religious issues does not worked. I believe in God as a Christian becoz many good things happen to me when I dedicate my life to GOD than when I am leading a secular life. To me that tells that GOD is in control through the blood of Jesus. We have seen glory not with our naked eyes but spiritual ones.
Dear Perry ;
Very interesting
You know that the Dog and the Cock are witness for the truth of Islam how ? I advice every one on this web site to make the same experience . Muhammad said that the Cock when he make his special voice he see Angels and Muhammad teach us to said “ God give us the great award” and the Dog when he see angels he make special voice like wolf “ou ou “ and the Dog when he see devils he make his usual voice “how how”. The quran said that Ange are created from light and devils from fire . Muhammad also said that when you hear the bad voice of emule “ said “ God protect us from devils “ Muhammad said because the emule when he make this voice he see devils . by experience I have check that each time of praying the cock said “ kou kou kouko” and the Dog said “ ou ou” , sometimes the cock start his sound before the caller of prying by few seconds . Muhammad said at the time of praying Ange go down to the earth of course near the place of praying (mosque for example). Well perry it is very easy to do this experience if you are really objective. in islam there is 5 praying time . take with you Cock and Dog and go near to some mosque and take note and do the experience ask the leader of the mosque to give you the time of praying each day , I am sure he will give you very accurate time , if he can not just give me where you want to do the experience exactly I give you a very accurate time about this place . we know that if some thing is random he hasn’t a law for that or he has probabilistic law , just to see if there is a correlation between the sound of the cock and the time of praying . another information is that animals has the capacity to see what we can not see . well Ange are ultra violet light the cock can see this range and devils are infra-red light the emule can see in this range . we know that the Ozone block the ultra-violet light so ? just read on this subject you will find what I said is true and try to do the experience mentioned above it is very easy may be this can help you see the truth.
Best Regards
Bouneb zine el abidine
good day everybody,
I think the problem is not in the bible but in the way the religions chamged by people, and i belive that if anybody hardly studied the bible out of any church ideology he will be highly pleased by what he will discover, and i do believe that all reigions have the same problem, we must get rid of the power of the church and mosque, the real knowledge is in the books out of any human intervention specially monks and imams
Over-rated ? From what I seen so far in my life that (almost) everything that was claimed over-rated is really that good.
Religion is man made and astrology is rubbish…
Religion was designed to keep the peasants in their place and provide an income for the ‘church’…Nothing has changed…A little religious brainwashing goes a long way with ignorant people.
It is now 2010 and time to move on and accept that an unseen transparent God in the sky will not solve the problems we have on earth.
We have to solve them ourselves…Praying is not of any use to anyone.
Good stuff. The Bible is reliable. I used to find it difficult handling this. So if the Bible history is unreliable then any other book bears a question mark. The only truth is the devil is behind the scheme to hide his tracks.
I agree with you Mafo. But would like to impress upon all here that it’s not about religion, it’s about relationship. God will not ask you what religion you are when you stand before Him. He will ask you what have you done with His Son and why should He let you in to eternity. How did you glorify His name and spread the good news of salvation through Christ. Christianity in itself is also not a religion its a way of life. If I am born in Ukraine, I am Ukrainian, I am born of Christ and therefore am Christian and do as a Christian does.
The Word says we should lean not on our own understanding. For a mere mortal, a created being will not be able to contain all the knowledge of the Creator. It is simply impossible which is why we must “Trust the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding”; Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches;
The message of the Cross is so simple, that the wise are confounded. We can’t possibly be getting all of this grace and mercy for nothing. there must be more. But there’s not. The price was already paid for us and the payee simply wants a relationship with us. “Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.” The Word continues “do not be wise in your own eyes, reverence the Lord,turn away from evil and lean not on your own understanding.” For our understanding is very limited.
The Bible is exceptionally relevant today as ever. Without following its precepts our world looks like it does now.. chaotic. But know that God is a God of order and is not an author of chaos or injustice.
Are we sure the church we have today is reflecting the original Church that the Lord Jesus Christ established? Don’t you think it is more counterfeit that the church from the beginning?
My question is this: Do you think what we call the Church or what we practice as Christianity today is reflecting or portraying the ORIGINAL CHURCH that the Lord Jesus Christ established? In other words, one could ask, if Matthew, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Luke, John, etc. the first apostles who suffered and died for this faith – were they to visit the earth again to inspect what they left – will they think it is the same think in quality as they left it? Cast your eyes back to the Church at that time in comparism with what he see and experience today, even among the clergy. Is it the same? I am worried and I need an answer. Thank you.
Dear ALL
Islam is the religion of all prophetes , if we compare religions , let compare it from a common factor , like there goal , all religions want a good education for humanity , but I think islam is the only truth on this earth , the christianity when jesus was on this earth , it was islam , now the right religion is islam , all what I have written on this web site can not show the truth !!!! I have understandting why God in quran said that he is angry from jewsh and he give a name to christian as lost people , christian will never see the truth , because they are not objective even Great scientist , because they don’t want to see the truth , there selves can not accept that islam is the truth they know that islam is the truth, they don’t accept do not drinking bear , they don’t accept that commission in credit is not good , they don’t accept many good things , islam is in the middle, why the leader of the church do not maried !!! what is the problem in mariage !!! i think God never frobide good things , if we follow the leader’s of the church we will make end of this life , I think blind people never see the truth , all what said the quran happen now the ecologic problem of Global warming is said in the quran before scientist , the economic crise of today is also in the quran , why you don’t want to accept the truth ?
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/110197
If you don’t mind, I have one important question. Now, as it’s said, God’s ultimate aim is that we should all be leading a truly faithful life while on earth so that in the end of our life, He will allow us to be with Him in heaven. That means He do not want us to do anything against another person, I’m sure not even if they are of other religious faith or race, or even if they are atheists. He will judge us on all our doings on earth on judgment day while we were alive. But why is it that Islam’s Allah tells Muslims to kill those of other religions, or kill the Muslims who converts to other religion? Isn’t it so that He will judge us when we die; and not when we are here on earth, the Muslims already do the judgment for Allah? People can only be judged on stealing, murder, rape and so on, but not just because the person is not with their religion. If Allah wants to do that, then why did he put people here and then ask the Muslims to kill? It doesn’t make sense. Want to judge us, do it only when we die, not before. If any Muslims were to say I am wrong about that Islam says about killing the non Muslims, why can’t the Al’Qaeda know it? Don’t tell me they read a different Quran or don’t understand it?