LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCan someone please answer the question about whether we can sin in heaven?
Can someone please answer the question about whether we can sin in heaven?
But this is the point. The gospels were written based on the testimony of those who had seen this happen. Who believed it, not because they thought it might be nice, but because they had seen it and were convinced. It was the extraordinary resurrection they didn't think was possible, but nevertheless they witnessed 1st hand that is the crux of the whole religion. As Paul puts it in his letter to the church in Corinth, widely accepted as being written by AD54:Originally Posted by Alex
I feel it would be useful to summarise the evidence for the Jesus of the bible.
Firstly, there is obviously the Bible, and specifically the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. These closely describe the events of the life of Jesus as these four authors had agreed had happened over the 30+years after his death. The originals have been lost but through literary analysis we can be fairly confident that the later copies of these gospels we have are probably fairly close to the originals - making these fairly reliable. What we must note is that these were four dependent witnesses, and the books were the recollection of events from decades before.
We can be fairly sure then that these 4 men had discussed at length the events surrounding Jesus life and death and were fairly convinced of it. Now imagine one of the cults around today whose followers are willing to give their entire lives to these 'messiahs' - and it becomes clear that believing that someone is the Son of God and that they can do miracles is far from proof of the truth of the matter. You need independent corroboration of the facts. That's where searching for other hisotrical data becomes important.
When you say, therefore,
My answer is no, that's not what I mean. That would be good evidence indeed, if he had been certified dead and then confirmed alive. What I meant however is evidence of that having happened. Other than the above which I have just posed, do you have any other reason to believe such a miraculous claim?
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. I've yet to see more than one source of very ordinary evidence that this happened (the Bible) and have certainly not seen any extra-ordinary evidence of this.
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins [ie at odds with God].... If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Corinthians 15:17,19)
The Christian faith stands or falls by the resurrection of Christ. If you can prove to me it did not happen I will gladly give up my faith.
The short answer is no.
The long answer is below:
By heaven I presume you mean the new creation, ie when Christ has returned.
While we will still (hypothetically) have the means to sin, eg we could (theoretically) still be greedy and take more than we need. The difference is we also will have been made new and so we simply won't want to. Not even just want, we won't even conceive of doing so. Sin is basically living without God, at odds with Him, not having Him as king. When Christ returns all those who trust in Him will be made new, perfectly like Him, walking in step with God and living for Him perfectly. So there will be no Sin (rejection of God) or sin (the actions that stem from that) in heaven (ie eternity made right)
Last edited by ik9000; 20-08-2011 at 03:12 PM.
So why didn't god create the world that way to start? Could he and chose not to?
Oh, and as to the above... Of course I can't prove the resurrection didn't happen, but I've shown just how weak the evidence is that it did happen.
I have to go out - my gf will kill me I'm so late. Can I reply to this later?
I don't have a problems with that at all... but - David sings that - to a God he believes in. The but he could have sung that anyway, although his belief in God may have moved him to actually commit it to song (and religious beliefs inspire man (as a species) to create many fantastic works of art - but it is the belief rather than the actual existence that I would argue is the motivation - just as the belief in a particular religion has used as justification by man to do pretty despicable things to other 'tribes'.)
Assuming that the words are as Jesus stated... that is still only one persons interpretation of the mind of God - unless you believe that Jesus was the son of God, Holy Sprit and Trinity - and then only as a Christian. Judaism recognises Jesus as a Messiah, but not as the son of God.
So at best - for a non-believer - those are Jesus's opinions - to make them fact is a statement of faith.
I think that is your statement of faith.The bible repeatedly states creation, ie the entire universe, is not as it should be. It is broken.
David continues to sing:
"You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swims the paths of the seas."
(Psalm 8:6-8)
Man is intended to rule the world, but rule under God, administering God's will for the good of the world. Instead man rejects God and everything is out-of-kilter. The bible states creation itself groans longing for the day it is restored.
And God has set a time when it will be restored. Jesus tells people not to worry about this ["about the rest"], for those trusting in God will be safe with Him in the new creation, (ie everything put right) for eternity.
Imagine this world, but without the crap.If this is true then I want to be there to enjoy it. Nothing wrong anymore. Nothing wrong.
The bible argues the stakes are this high - eternity itself! Therefore it, and Christians who believe it, repeatedly encourage everyone to look at the bible, and seriously consider it. Check out the arguments for and against Christ's resurrection. Does it add up? Is it consistent? Is the evidence for it reliable enough to be trustworthy, ie to make trusting its claims reasonable, and therefore to make believing God's promises reported in it a sensible step?
The bible's stance is that God simply asks Christians to tell others what the bible says about Christ, that people who haven't heard might also come to Him. After that? Well it's between the person and God. The Christian has no room for coercion or forcing others, no right to reject, dismiss and persecute them should they not believe the same thing. It's just, "hey check this out, what do you think?"
I believe the resurrection happened, and therefore I believe Christ's promise that He will bring me to eternity with Him. It's a promise I trust is worthy of being trusted in. What about you?
Personally I find too many inconsistencies in some of the dogma of the Catholic and Protestant churches to make the leap of faith that you have made in the last paragraph. But that then comes down to a personal decision, which - rightly - is yours to make.
My 'cop out' if you like is that if there is an all knowing God who made me, he also knows my imperfections and of my inability to make that leap of faith - but will still love me in spite of them.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
I'm a bit late to this debate but I thought I'd tell you about a book that I've recently read.
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
I doubt that any of you will read it and that is a shame because it is a fantastic book. It presents a case against all religion, not just christianity or islam. I thought I would share some of the things that I discovered from this book.
In Tehran there are imams who, for a fee, will marry you to one of the women on offer and after you have finished consummating your marriage, provide a divorce, all within a few hours. A neat way of avoiding the laws about prostitution don't you think.
There have been a non-trivial number of baby jewish boys who, in New York City, in the late 20th century, contracted herpes as part of their circumcision procedure. The traditional method not only involves a ceremonial slicing, but the final removal of the fore skin is done by the rabbi using his teeth !!
The Mormon faith (of which I knew nothing before reading the book), changed its rules in 1978. Only then did they concede that black people where actually human beings !!
One chapter examined people through history who probably were atheist, but would have been afraid to say so. It pointed the dangers of admitting such a thing and cited the case of one person (I can't remember their name) whose reluctance may have come from them seeing one of their friends "broken on the wheel" for attempting to convert one of his house from one flavour of christianity to another. I had to look up "broken on the wheel". It was a torture that involved strapping a person to a large cart wheel, then breaking all the bones in their arms and legs, as well as their knee and elbow joints, then raising the wheel (on an axle) into the air so that the wheel can be spun around. I cannot even imagine the pain that would result from the body weight shifting from broken bone to broken bone. It certainly leads me to think that Monty Python may of had a point when they claimed "crucifixion is a doddle".
Which country in Africa has the most churches per head of population ? Rawanda !! Not only that but the majority of the Hutu population are roman catholic. The catholic church has not been quick to condemn the genocide. One of the things that helped the Hutus kill so many people so quickly is that the Tutsis took refuge in the churches.
The (audio) book is available on youtube.
This thread has contained some discussion on the bible, so to lighten the mood a little I thought I'd post a link to a song on that topic. It's by Tim Minchin (quoted in a previous post). Most of his stuff is very sweary but this one is pretty clean, just a bit blasphemous (but no more so than the majority of this thread). The Good Book.
If you enjoy that, try searching for "tim minchin religion".
I don't have trouble in believing there might be a god. I think we are 50/50 there.
I would disagree with anyone who thinks god is good though.
You might be right, but I can see no evidence to favour one particular theist mythology over all the others. Why limit yourself to one god ? If there's one, surely there might be several ?
I quite like the hindu mythos. Blue elephants are kind of cool don't you think ?
And what about the Greek's Zeus and his extended family. There's some really good stories around that lot and they pulled off some really cool miracles. Don't you think we should thank Prometheus, he did give us fire after all.
And let's not forget the the Norse. They gave us Thor and we should thank him for the joke punch line ("Your Thor ! I'm tho thor I can't even pith"), if nothing else.
There are numerous others that we westerners know little about (mostly because our missionary ancestors went round the globe murdering anyone that wouldn't convert). The Aztecs, with their sun worship, deserve a mention. I mean who doesn't like a nice tan ! There's also the North American "Indians" and Australia's Aboriginals. They all had their own sky fairy stories.
Interestingly most of them had "son of god - virgin birth" stories (there are dozens, pre-christ). The Greek gods were always popping down to earth, sticking it to some woman and begating a son.
BTW, when I said "you might be right", I was being ironic. I do agree with your last point though.
One last point, any case I may present is not an attempt to convert anyone to atheism. I don't care what you choose to believe in (just so long as it doesn't involve child abuse). The points I make are to prevent people from trying to convert me. It's tiresome. If you want to do that, bring me some scientific data, explain your method and allow me the time to reproduce your results. I'll "believe" in god when it/they appear on a TV chat show. Obviously my questions would depend on which mythology turned out to be true. If it did turn out to be the Abrahamic god then I'd ask some rude questions. Like, "so I was made in your image ? What's your penis for ?". I dread to think what the response would be, given the link above and that he only has a son ! Thankfully this will never happen.
format (22-08-2011)
Were they? Mark, Luke and Matthew contain so much of the same material that it is most likely that two were written based only on the other. 97% of the verses in Mark are identical to verses in the other gospels.
John contains unique material, as do the other gospels (non canonical).
A race of ancient aliens influencing early man is a rational and plausible suggestion (Stargate?). I don't believe it, but you could start looking for evidence. A far better idea than magic.
sometimes all you need to do is ask why am I here. we all do at some point.
Indeed. And for the simpler minds of the past, the answer they came up with was the Gods made us.
You shouldn't let the Hexus forums get you down. Every now and then you come across a post worth reading ;-)
The answer is yes - but no one ever will.
By way of comparison, a similar question might be, "Can we jump out of a sixth floor window?"
We all have the freedom and capacity to jump out of windows or in front of cars but we don't do it because there is nothing to be gained from it - and much to be lost.
There will be no sin in heaven because choosing to sin will be like choosing to jump out of a window. There would be nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Last edited by Galant; 23-08-2011 at 05:18 PM.
Perhaps. It would certainly force a response, but that response would not have to be positive. It could be joyful acceptance and pursuit. It could be rejection. It could be sad hesitance. It would depend upon how the Son of God presented Himself, and upon what terms. Looking at the accounts in the New Testament we see all of these and more. We see those who latch on to Jesus and love Him and follow Him. We see some who feel threatened by Him and want rid of Him because the truth He spoke would cost them their pride. We have also the 'rich young ruler' who left faced with the question going round his head - 'If being with God cost me my great wealth, would I choose Him or it'? Still others recognised and honoured Him but secretly for fear of their peers, and then there are those who were unsure and inquiring. Certainly, what we do see, if the New Testament accounts are true, are the stories of many lives being forever changed, and many of those changed lives going on and other lives being changed because of them. So that fits your requirement.
Be careful here. This wasn't the age of quick and easy publications, nor even cheap and easy access to pen and paper. Things were shared by word of mouth more than by text. Expecting thousands to write about anything back then is a misjudged expectation. It would never happen for anything.I would expect at least some of the thousands of people who were present at his ascension to have written about it...
Following on from the previous thought - what was it that you would expect them to write about? It seems that perhaps your question assumes some sort of incredible world or region-wide event or miracle - something obvious like clouds glowing or the sky ripping in two. If you're going to have expectations about what happens, those expectations should be clear, and also, as mentioned before, should fit the context. At the time, the Roman authorities were little concerned with the Jews - who were more a nuisance than anything else, the grand Roman Empire had bigger and more interesting things to deal with than a man preaching the Kingdom of God - rather than inciting rebellion. One of the most striking things of Jesus' birth and ministry was that He cam humbly, as a servant - challenging the Jewish religious authorities of the time in completion of the revelation brought to and through that people - and then sending the full message of the Gospel to the whole world via His disciples -ordinary men, simple men - empowered to serve and fulfill the task - of proclaiming His message - a message of love, of service, of joy and hope and salvation. Jesus' message was both astounding and humdrum because of what it was. It was not the expected or even often seen - I've come to conquer the world, revolt against the government uprising - it spoke of humility and love and forgiveness because of the humility and love and forgiveness of God. It had a Messiah who would be killed that others may live. Due to this it was remarkable. Yet, also due to this, it was unremarkable. He blessed the poor and spent time with the insignificant. Jesus did not press for the courts of power - apart from a few clashes with Jewish authorities (things the world at large did not care about). He spoke of a need for a transformed heart and mind - not government. Yes he healed the sick and did miracles. And apparently word of Him spread - but then - if you are a historian in his time you're looking backwards not at the present, and you're looking at the centres of power in Rome and maybe Greece, not Judea - significant only for its trade route in between what are now Europe, Asia and Africa. If you're someone in power or who watches significant events, are you going to take time to investigate rumours of a Jewish rabbi who heals? Lives were changed. That must be true, for the Gospel spread and believers increased. Eventually it would reach the highest levels of Rome and the mythologies of old would be usurped. The great Roman empire would call itself - or else Constantine would call it (not that I agree with his decision - people become Christians, nations do not and cannot) - Christian. Perhaps that is spectacular news? I confess I don't know if that had happened before with another religion in Rome. Does anyone else?- or at least some contemporaneous historians to have done so at the time.
Of course, other religions have had followers and spread too. Human psychology is complex. So, if we are looking for changed lives, we must begin to ask - what sort of change? What would we expect to see from lives that are changed by God as opposed to those changed by anything else, or any other religion?
I suppose the simplest answer, is that lives changed by Jesus, if He was the Son of God, should begin to reflect Him. They should begin to be like Him. Live as He did. Certainly, we know that early Church was not spread by the tip of the sword as was with other religions. Christianity was not forced. Quite the opposite. Christianity spread on the receiving end of the sword. There are accounts of how Christian bore up under suffering and that their manner of doing so was spectacular in the eyes of many. It appears the early Christians were known for their 'pure' behaviour, which made them stick out in the melting pot of the Roman Empire, and especially in lascivious Rome. And the religion that suffered much and was more than once under attempt of extinction, overcame all others of the time. Perhaps that is spectacular? I do not know. I think it might be. Maybe not.
I only imagine that to identify something unique and spectacular, we should have an idea and be able to express that. I know that the teachings of Christ were, in some ways, unique and even revolutionary at that time and place.
Are these the sorts of things the powerful people of the time would want to write about? If not, how long after would we expect them to start writing? If they did start writing, after the fact, what would we expect them to talk about? Would they humbly start to seek the wisdom of a dead man many hail as God, or would they instead look analytically at those who took His Name? Would they be seeking truth, or reporting stories?
When I consider these things, when I consider the teachings of Christ and the whole of the Bible, I see light in them, I see truth, I see a something different. When I consider the history, I see mistakes, some times grave mistakes by men, especially some men who, it seems to me, neither knew nor cared for God. Yet I also see something powerful and something different.
As I have started to dig into it and seek to follow His way, to know Him, and to follow Him and to love Him and be loved by Him, I have found it good and true. I have come to know it is true by experience as well as by study and mental ascent. There have been pitfalls and struggles, questions and fights. Yet, thus far, they have all been overcome. It makes sense and it works.
As I said in a previous post, in the words of CS Lewis, "I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun: not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else." This is not a statement about how I started out my walk in coming to know and get to know Christ, but it is a statement I have grown into and come to use as my appreciation for Christ and His word and His ways have become deeper and more thorough.
I have heard many questions and criticisms of Christianity and Christ. I have not yet found any that have stuck. And I try not to dodge anything. If nothing else, I have come to value truth greatly. It's true that often, Christians (and others), fear criticism and feel an urgent need to respond quickly to it, to prove what they know or feel is true - even if they can't. I think that's a common experience for anyone with a passion or commitment though. We hate to be ridiculed and feel like an outsider. We also want to protect what we love. With maturity comes understanding, wisdom and better control over those emotions and responses. Those responses might not make Christians, or a particular group of them look very good, but in truth, it doesn't change the reality of any underlying truth.
Most criticisms of Christianity or Christ I have found to be just that. Things that point fault at the surface. Relatively shallow faults that usually do not prove or disprove anything but only seek add doubt - possibilities of shadow where death of God or Christianity may lie - and which people may stand in or point to. Yet, the underlying truth remains.
And whatever people feel about the New Testament, I have found it to hold true. It contains much truth, and much is to be learned from it. Much more than maybe can be learned. I don't see it as a text book though. For me, a Christian, the Bible isn't the Holy One, God is. It is Him whom I am to know and follow. The Bible is a unique source from which I learn about Him. A revelation of truth. A sign pointing the way. Not the destination.
Still, for those who don't believe, they can at least look at what it has to say and consider it. What Christ has to say.
Because one thing that baffles me, is why, after all the suggestions of falsification and corruption, anyone would end up putting together a book like that with the teachings that it holds? A manifesto for revolution maybe. Some instruction to follow the almighty hierarchy and do whatever they say and give them everything - maybe. But not what it actually is.
Have to go!
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Objective evidence of changed lives, is evidence that christianity changes lives by a mechanism which other religions don't.
Such evidence does not exist.
The bible was quite obviously a manifesto for a revolution, and a successful one. It put power squarely in the hands of the catholic church, where it remained for hundreds of years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote