If there was universe before big bang

[PruePhillip]

There is nothing that you have quoted that is any way impossible for a human to say.

Sure, people can say anything. What shocked people with the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5, 6 and 7
was the absolute AUTHORITY by which he said these things.
And many people can be preachers, or prophets, or kings or wise men - but people don't want to be as
lowly as a lamb, and lay down their life daily as this man did.
And no-one has been spoken about this man over centuries like they did of the Messiah.

 

[ppp]

Of thousands of quotes in this book three or four stood out as being strange - impossible for any normal human to say.

Sure, people can say anything.

You directly contradict yourself. Which is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every religion believes the gods of other religions are false. So which,if any are not false? And like all other religions you believe your god to be the true god because of scripture???

All scripture in any religion has it's powerful passages, otherwise it could not attract a following. And most religion compels some to give up everything to proselytise for their belief


And as far as i know (i have read several bibles) Jesus has not given any first hand account of what he read. Every word claimed is second or third hand

All of them are false, except for the one true god:

Spoiler

 

[PruePhillip]

You directly contradict yourself. Which is it?

Wot I mean is that you can say anything, but in most cases you aint going to.
Or you say anything but it doesn't have credibility.
And you can say anything without authority.

That's why the Sermon on the Mount in Matt is so interesting.

 

[ppp]

Wot I mean is that you can say anything, but in most cases you aint going to.

So, we have established that every thing that Jesus said, any human could have said.

Now you are claiming that there is some sort of special credibility or authority there. And yet, history is full of people who have been taken as credible and authoritative, yet were not gods.

 

[PruePhillip]

So, we have established that every thing that Jesus said, any human could have said.

Now you are claiming that there is some sort of special credibility or authority there. And yet, history is full of people who have been taken as credible and authoritative, yet were not gods.

That's true. I haven't had anyone tell me a story of a human, be they a general, artist, philospher, poet, preacher,
scientist, economist, philanthropist etc that touched me the way the story of a man who laid down his life as Jesus.
And none spoken of BEFORE he was born. As Daniel put it, the one who would die but not for himself. Job called
him the Redeemer who was alive but yet to be born. Jacob spoke of his coming as ending Israel and bringing his
message to the Gentiles. David saw his suffering on the cross. And Zechariah spoke of his SECOND COMING,
where the Jews will mourn when they see their Messianic King as the SAME LOWLY MAN THEY CRUCIFIED.

 

[ppp]

That's true. I haven't had anyone tell me a story of a human, be they a general, artist, philospher, poet, preacher,
scientist, economist, philanthropist etc that touched me the way the story of a man who laid down his life as Jesus.

How much you are touched by a story is not evidence of a god either. It's only evidence of your feelings.

And none spoken of BEFORE he was born.

The writers of the NT were familiar with the stories of the OT. It hardly takes a miracle to write a sequel consistent with older material.

 

[Kfox]

Like i said from my first post to you. The definition was coined BEFORE the hypothesis of multiverses was born.

It therefore MAY be incorrect... It simply is not known. You can of course say, no. Ir is correct, that is simply ban unevidenced claim. As is my claim that our universe may not be the only one.

You will be pleased to note that Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin (both renouned cosmologists) have calculated the possible number of universes that we could recognise as universes to he around 10^10^16 with more than twice that number that we could not recognise.

Of course that little snippet of information will no doubt hit stony ground but i really dont care, do with it as you will

If Universe does not mean "all that exist", what does it mean then?

 

[Spirit of Light]

If Universe does not mean "all that exist", what does it mean then?

Could something exist outside of our known universe?

 

[PruePhillip]

How much you are touched by a story is not evidence of a god either. It's only evidence of your feelings.


The writers of the NT were familiar with the stories of the OT. It hardly takes a miracle to write a sequel consistent with older material.

Yes, that ol' theory that people in the First Century AD compiled all the Messianic Redeemer stories
and crafted an account that made them all fit together.
Kind of hard - do you MAKE UP the stories or do you STITCH EVENTS TOGETHER in some kind
of coherent whole?

Jacob (ca 1500 BC) says Israel will end with the Messiah, whom the whole world will believe in.
So do you stitch stories together for the purpose of getting the whole world to believe you?
And Isaiah and Ezekiel, amongst others, say that the Jews will be exiled, persecuted but return
to take back their land 'with the sword' in the 'latter days.' People in the 1800's laughed at that,
but it happened. Seems extraordinary that you could craft fiction to dovetail with historical facts.

 

[ChristineM]

I was drawn to this one quote in a quotation book once
Matthew 11
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,
for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”


Of thousands of quotes in this book three or four stood out as being strange - impossible for any normal human to say.

And there's this power and certainty when Jesus says

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Yes, scriptures from most religions are enticing to the believers.

To me Matthew 11 is enticement to give up your independence and ignore your problems in a hope that someone else will take your problems

As far as i am aware there is no gospel according to jesus. Only second hand claims

 

[ChristineM]

If Universe does not mean "all that exist", what does it mean then?

As i said TWICE now, that definition is old, from before modern thinking.

That is not to say there is an outside our universe, it is to say there could be

Which makes the definition all that exist to possibly be invalid.

Remember language evolves, a more modern definition of the universeis everything we can touch, feel, sense, measure or detect. It includes living things, planets, stars, galaxies, dust clouds, light, and even time.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, scriptures from most religions are enticing to the believers.

To me Matthew 11 is enticement to give up your independence and ignore your problems in a hope that someone else will take your problems

As far as i am aware there is no gospel according to jesus. Only second hand claims

So, in your logic, if someone says something but doesn't write it, they are fake.
And then, if someone claims to have heard it, and writes it, they are fake too.
And if something in the universe can't conform to the current view of the universe, then it's fake.
And as for gods, there are none. I therefore am a god myself.

 

[syo]

What if our universe was not the first one, but just one of many universes that has existed?

How would it affect your religious beliefs?

Would a string of universes be yet an other reason for people to not believe in a God or gods?

Nope.

 

[ChristineM]

So, in your logic, if someone says something but doesn't write it, they are fake.
And then, if someone claims to have heard it, and writes it, they are fake too.
And if something in the universe can't conform to the current view of the universe, then it's fake.
And as for gods, there are none. I therefore am a god myself.

Don't try to presume my logic. If someone says something and someone else writes it down many years after events then chances are it will not be accurate. And someone else hundreds of years later chooses (and perhaps edits) the text before including it in the bible. Well,

Matthew is assumed to be written a minimum of 40 years after JCs death, possibly as much as 100 years later. And actually compiled into the bible some 350 years after his death.

Even in court a few weeks after events witness testimony is taken with skepticism.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want but i consider facts and evidence.


Or are you telling me there is a gospel according to jesus? No, so consider the history.


As a side note. I have done considerable research into roman life which includes the time of jesus. It is my belief that the quotes you give are not the sort of thing jesus would have said (who i believe to have been a terrorist and traitor to rome). It seems more than likely such comments could be attributed to John the Baptist.

 

[PruePhillip]

Don't try to presume my logic. If someone says something and someone else writes it down many years after events then chances are it will not be accurate. And someone else hundreds of years later chooses (and perhaps edits) the text before including it in the bible. Well,

Matthew is assumed to be written a minimum of 40 years after JCs death, possibly as much as 100 years later. And actually compiled into the bible some 350 years after his death.

Even in court a few weeks after events witness testimony is taken with skepticism.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want but i consider facts and evidence.


Or are you telling me there is a gospel according to jesus? No, so consider the history.


As a side note. I have done considerable research into roman life which includes the time of jesus. It is my belief that the quotes you give are not the sort of thing jesus would have said (who i believe to have been a terrorist and traitor to rome). It seems more than likely such comments could be attributed to John the Baptist.

Hmm... Jesus as terrorist. Striking terror wherever he went. Doesn't jell with my reading of the man.
Dating of the Gospels is simple - last one written was John as an old man in Ephesus.
Luke the historian, never met Jesus but compiled tons of stuff. He was with Paul last journey to Rome - and presumably died with Paul under Nero, ca 66.
Paul wrote earliest letter about AD 53-55.
Mark could have been written earlier - I suspect Paul was quoting Mark in his 53AD letter.

Doesn't matter. You read it in faith. No faith in its word would mean you disbelieve it even if the Roman historians wrote it down and sealed it in nitrogen,
or the Egyptians chiseled it onto rock.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm... Jesus as terrorist. Striking terror wherever he went. Doesn't jell with my reading of the man.
Dating of the Gospels is simple - last one written was John as an old man in Ephesus.
Luke the historian, never met Jesus but compiled tons of stuff. He was with Paul last journey to Rome - and presumably died with Paul under Nero, ca 66.
Paul wrote earliest letter about AD 53-55.
Mark could have been written earlier - I suspect Paul was quoting Mark in his 53AD letter.

Doesn't matter. You read it in faith. No faith in its word would mean you disbelieve it even if the Roman historians wrote it down and sealed it in nitrogen,
or the Egyptians chiseled it onto rock.

The Gospels are all anonymous. Names were not associated with them until the second century at the earliest. None of them are thought to have been written by eyewitnesses. Luke was not a historian. He got a fair amount of his history wrong. His failure when it comes to the nativity myth really stands out.

 

[ChristineM]

Hmm... Jesus as terrorist. Striking terror wherever he went. Doesn't jell with my reading of the man.
Dating of the Gospels is simple - last one written was John as an old man in Ephesus.
Luke the historian, never met Jesus but compiled tons of stuff. He was with Paul last journey to Rome - and presumably died with Paul under Nero, ca 66.
Paul wrote earliest letter about AD 53-55.
Mark could have been written earlier - I suspect Paul was quoting Mark in his 53AD letter.

Doesn't matter. You read it in faith. No faith in its word would mean you disbelieve it even if the Roman historians wrote it down and sealed it in nitrogen,
or the Egyptians chiseled it onto rock.

As i said, you are welcome to whatever you believe. Having researched the period this is what i believe about Jesus.

My view on Jesus.

There is actually as much evidence (perhaps more) for my belief than yours.

 

[PruePhillip]

As i said, you are welcome to whatever you believe. Having researched the period this is what i believe about Jesus.

My view on Jesus.

There is actually as much evidence (perhaps more) for my belief than yours.

So he wasn't the lowly man on the donkey who was crucified and rises again as it says in Zechariah ca 500 BC
He was instead some Osama Bin Laden guy.
So maybe we all need to still wait for this Redeemer, the one Job said is alive already but one day will walk upon
the earth - and pay the price we should have paid.
And when the Gentiles no longer believe on him the Jews will return and take back Jerusalem - maybe that is
yet to happen?
And the whole world will gaze in wonder at how disfigured he is - maybe that wasn't the crucifixion but something
yet to happen.
Maybe.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor ?

 

[PruePhillip]

The Gospels are all anonymous. Names were not associated with them until the second century at the earliest. None of them are thought to have been written by eyewitnesses. Luke was not a historian. He got a fair amount of his history wrong. His failure when it comes to the nativity myth really stands out.

Sure - in the Second Century you would just ask a scribe, 'How much for you to copy some tracts from Anonymous 4536 scroll?'
Sounds odd to me. I would presume people would assign names to documents, ie 'That letter from John' and 'that account written
by Luke.'
Every other manuscript in the ancient world started out like this.