Why did God create the universe in the first place?

[oldcelt]

Just possible? And just possibly he doesn’t have other things to do?

There can only be a deep understanding of God if God has deeply revealed himself to us.

And we take it as a given that God is not just curious, but that he is deeply involved with his creation, or why would his power extend to creating the universe and everything in it?

Do you think this God of yours has an intellect? Or is your God a cold, mindless Force?

It doesn’t seem so, since you believe he created the universe out of curiosity.

That translates to consciousness, and to deep consciousness, deep enough to expect a relationship between himself and his creatures who are reaching out for a deep understanding and relationship with him.

The problem with basing knowledge on revelation is easy to observe in this world. Too many people get entirely different revelations about the same subject, and there is no way to weed out the truth from the nonsense.
The precise nature of God I can only guess at, but I would lean toward a highly intelligent force. How that equals wanting a relationship with individual humans, I’m not sure. It is just as possible that we are not even on his list of interesting things. Maybe God finds the cosmic aspect far more interesting.
I realize that I most likely don’t know the absolutely, 100% accurate answers to those questions, and that really doesn’t bother me most of the time.Then again, maybe we’ll all get to see in some other form of existence or time.

 

[Amandil]

Revealed religions tend to believe that they have a deep understanding of God. I am not certain how far His power extends or how great it is. I think it to be possible that He has other projects and concerns…just possible.

If you’re not certain how far His power “extends”(another contradiction that assumes arbitrary limits on an unlimited Being), how can you be certain that He doesn’t manage the universe contrary to your assumption?

His existence out of time may mean that time seems to flow very much for Him as it does for us. Since none of us have ever existed out of time, who’s to say? So far as the universe ever being broken that is impossible to determine because we have no frame of reference. We have never seen another universe to compare.

Again, time is the measurement of change; it is a part of creation as much as you or I am.

If God was in time, no matter what that “flow” may be, that would necessarily mean that God is temporally limited.

God cannot be subject to time. For God is the Creator of everything that changes: everything that raises a question about it’s own being. All beings subject to time raise that question. God cannot be like that.

The unboundedness by time is called “eternity”.

St. Boethius defined eternity like this: Life without limits, possessed perfectly and as a simultaneous whole.

Those words clearly convey one essential thing: God is not bound by the kind of changing being which time measures.

 

[Amandil]

Since it’s established that God cannot be limited by time, then neither can He be limited by any part of His creation. God cannot be part of the universe. If He were he’d be limited by other parts of of it.

But God is the Creator of all things, giving them their total being. He cannot be one of them, or the totality of them-for each of them, and so the totality of them, must be given being, must receive being from God.

So God must be transcendent.

At the same time God must exist in all things. They cannot be set over and against Him, for then they would limit Him.

Shakespeare was limited by his contemporaries, not by his creations; by Marlowe but not by Hamlet. God is the Creator, the giver of the total being to all things. As such he must be active in giving them what they need to be and to act.

If God were not actively communicating being to all things, they would cease to be. So God must be present to all things at their deepest core, existence itself. “In Him we live and move and have our being.”

God’s immanence makes the idea of Deism impossible.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Here is a simplistic; yet profound way; to search for a greatest good purpose

Did God have a complete plan for the creation of everything, did he think ahead? Were Christ’s life, death and resurrection planned before the creation of the universe began?
To search for a deeper meaning, was Christ freely given the choice to accept his sacrifice before the creation of the universe began?
What purpose can be so great, that it would compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance the suffering of mankind and that his son would die?
Would it be to forgive the sins of mankind, or can there be something greater?

Challenge your mind to find a greatest good purpose for creation; by searching for answers to three questions.

What greatest thing can God create?

God could create all the stars and planets of the universe; he then becomes God the builder.
God could create a whole variety of life with almost no intelligence like plants; he now becomes God the gardener’ God could create life with more intelligence but if the knowledge is limited he has now created the animal kingdom. He now becomes God the farmer. God could create life in his own image, a life that could understand him. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image, does he now become God the Father, and we pray to God our Father. Does the greatest thing that God creates, depend on the relationship that he can have with them?

What greatest purpose can God have to create children in his own image?

Could love be the greatest reason for God to create children?
Could the ultimate God be a God who loves in the greatest way?

God the Father willingly loves all of mankind as he loves HIMSELF.

Can there be any greater reason to create children, even for God; can God love us more than he loves himself? In a way, God loves us more than he loves himself, because he sent his Son to die for us. In a contradicting way, God loves himself more than us, because he is the greatest being in the universe and retains the power of heaven or hell over us. We can never have the wisdom to understand the fullness of God’s love during our lifetime, but to dare to think that God loves each and every one of us as he loves himself is indeed a profound thought. When you ask the question; why did Christ say they are the greatest commandment, can it possibly be because they are greatest for God also?

To find a greatest purpose for all God’s children.

What greatest purpose could God set for humanity? Would it be for everyone to turn to His kind of religion and pray the way that he stipulates, or would it be to banish poverty, gain intellectual superiority, conquer sickness and death, and subdue the universe or is there more?

If the greatest reason God could have to create mankind, is to love us, as he loves himself, then God could create mankind, with the freedom to return God’s love

All of mankind to be created with the freedom to love God the creator unconditionally, are we given the greatest commandment as a guide for this very purpose?

God willingly loves everyone as he loves himself; do we also need this same freedom to love everyone in the same way, so that the truth can be complete for God and mankind.

All of mankind, to be created with the freedom to love their neighbour; as they love themselves unconditionally; are we given the second greatest commandment as a guide?
Is this how God wants his children to be one? He wants us to love each other as we love ourselves.

Could the greatest commandments be a Greatest and Ultimate Truth?

John 15 – As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.

If our greatest purpose for creation is to live by the greatest commandments, then this freedom to love also gives us the choice to do both good and evil. Are the greatest commandments powerful enough, to compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance the costs involved?

We can marvel at the great attention to detail that is evident in everything from the microscopic cells of life and right up to the giant structures of galaxies. Can you find any greater purpose for all this to exist? Challenge the above statements in your mind in an honest way, test them against any religious beliefs, and test them against any form of logic.

This is only a collection of words to challenge the mind to think, I do not pretend to understand the meaning, or to make any claims of truth from these words.

 

[oldcelt]

If you’re not certain how far His power “extends”(another contradiction that assumes arbitrary limits on an unlimited Being), how can you be certain that He doesn’t manage the universe contrary to your assumption?

You are assuming that God is a being. What kind of being? How can you be certain that he is a being? How do you know what His exact powers are?My belief on non-intervention is based on observation of life here. I believe that God would be a much better manager if He chose to do so.

Again, time is the measurement of change; it is a part of creation as much as you or I am.

If God was in time, no matter what that “flow” may be, that would necessarily mean that God is temporally limited.

God cannot be subject to time. For God is the Creator of everything that changes: everything that raises a question about it’s own being. All beings subject to time raise that question. God cannot be like that.

The unboundedness by time is called “eternity”.

St. Boethius defined eternity like this: Life without limits, possessed perfectly and as a simultaneous whole.

Those words clearly convey one essential thing: God is not bound by the kind of changing being which time measures.

Since I never said that God exists in our time, or in time of any type there isn’t much I can say. I was merely contemplating how His existence out of time feels to Him. Of course, I am assuming that God is aware of His surroundings…I don’t know that for a fact…Oh wait, nobody does.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Since I never said that God exists in our time, or in time of any type there isn’t much I can say. I was merely contemplating how His existence out of time feels to Him. Of course, I am assuming that God is aware of His surroundings…I don’t know that for a fact…Oh wait, nobody does.

I heard that he didn’t have any surroundings, but then he created that host of angels and also opened the gates of heaven to earthlings, so I guess he has some company now, but I doubt you’d be accurate in calling them surroundings since God is pretty big to be getting something to surround him. Suffice it to say that God are not alone outside the universe anymore… or in the universe for that matter, although I doubt you could get him fully into the universe, what with it’s finite limits. On second thought, if he can squeeze into a piece of bread, he should be able to manage getting into a universe, which of course, negates the entire original premise of my post. Carry on! I’ll go back to my pondering.

 

[Amandil]

Since I never said that God exists in our time, or in time of any type there isn’t much I can say.

This is what you said:

oldcelt:

His existence out of time may mean that time seems to flow very much for Him as it does for us.

Time is the measurement of change. Change necessarily implies limitation.

God, to be called “god” in any proper sense, cannot be limited by anything, including time.

oldcelt:

I was merely contemplating how His existence out of time feels to Him. Of course, I am assuming that God is aware of His surroundings…I don’t know that for a fact…Oh wait, nobody does.

If you “don’t know that for a fact”, how can you claim that that fact is knowable or that nobody can know it?

That statement invalidates itself.

Secondly, we can reason back to it by contemplating existence itself(as has been done). Thus we can know by reason just how God experiences eternity without explicitly knowing it by experience(yet).

 

[Amandil]

oldcelt:

You are assuming that God is a being. What kind of being?

God is not A being. God IS Being itself.

It’s not based on my assumption, but on His own revelation: “I AM” or “I Am He Who Is.”

oldcelt:

How do you know what His exact powers are?

Irrelevent question.

oldcelt:

My belief on non-intervention is based on observation of life here. I believe that God would be a much better manager if He chose to do so.

You’re begging the question and presuming upon your own idea of “managment”.

How do you know that your idea of “management” is in accord with His?

If you’re presuming upon the idea “a good God would not allow bad things to happen” then you’re operating under circular reasoning.

 

[oldcelt]

God is not A being. God IS Being itself.

It’s not based on my assumption, but on His own revelation: “I AM” or “I Am He Who Is.”

Irrelevent question.

You’re begging the question and presuming upon your own idea of “managment”.

How do you know that your idea of “management” is in accord with His?

If you’re presuming upon the idea “a good God would not allow bad things to happen” then you’re operating under circular reasoning.

So you are now using a book that I do not believe answers anything to answer my question. That reminds me of when you ask soemeone how they know the bible is true and they answer, Because the Bible says it is.

And, my question is irrelevant why? Dis someone forget that chapter? The Christian God, according to you answer, said “I am who I am,” but didn’t reveal his powers?

Finally, there is nothing circular about my reasoning. As I have said before, I have far too much respect for God to place the human condition at his feet. We made things the way they are and God has not intervened.

 

[Amandil]

So you are now using a book that I do not believe answers anything to answer my question. That reminds me of when you ask soemeone how they know the bible is true and they answer, Because the Bible says it is.

Again, that says more about you than about me, or God, or Christianity.

If we were having a debate about biology would it be reasonable or rational to immediately dismiss an authoratative text on biology?

Hardly.

And, my question is irrelevant why? Dis someone forget that chapter? The Christian God, according to you answer, said “I am who I am,” but didn’t reveal his powers?

Explain what any description of God’s “powers” do anything to advance the discussion?

You admit that this God created everything in the universe. Even from a Deistic perspective, that’s not enough to describe what kind of “power” your god has?

Finally, there is nothing circular about my reasoning. As I have said before, I have far too much respect for God to place the human condition at his feet. We made things the way they are and God has not intervened.

Yet apparently not enough respect for God to respect His nature, His intellect, His wisdom, or His person.

And if “God has not intervened”, who was Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ?

 

[oldcelt]

Again, that says more about you than about me, or God, or Christianity.

If we were having a debate about biology would it be reasonable or rational to immediately dismiss an authoratative text on biology?

Hardly. The bible is not a book, it is many and those books do not always match with each other.

Explain what any description of God’s “powers” do anything to advance the discussion?If this Deity’s goal is to have people love Him, as much coherent information as possible would be very helpful. We agree on his creative powers, but where might we part ways? That is what discussion is about.

You admit that this God created everything in the universe. Even from a Deistic perspective, that’s not enough to describe what kind of “power” your god has?

Deists discuss what can be observed and try to determine from that what is possible, or even likely. You and I both know that the revealed religions attribute many powers to their deity. So, I would have thought that you would be anxious to give the list. Not all Deists agree on all things…basically just God’s creative power and man’s innate ability to reason. Beyond that, it is up for friendly discussion.

Yet apparently not enough respect for God to respect His nature, His intellect, His wisdom, or His person. How do I show disrespect for God? Because I don’t believe the Christian version, or Jewish, Hindu, Muslim…

And if “God has not intervened”, who was Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ?

It is possible that a man named Jesus existed, but his deity is a matter of faith that Deists do not accept.

 

[Amandil]

oldcelt:

The bible is not a book, it is many and those books do not always match with each other.

That assertion is too vague to even be addressed. I’ll chalk it up to another one of those, “what is asserted without reason…” statements.

oldcelt:

Deists discuss what can be observed and try to determine from that what is possible, or even likely.

Are you trying to claim that the only things which are objectively true are those which can be observed?

oldcelt:

You and I both know that the revealed religions attribute many powers to their deity. So, I would have thought that you would be anxious to give the list.

What would make you think that I would be “anxious to give a list”? Frankly that makes little sense.

Not only would such a list be absurd, it would also place limits on God.

The only limits that exist in God are those He places upon Himself. That fact necessarily presupposes such aspects of God’s nature such as His absolute and infinite essence, His oneness, His unboundedness by time, His transcendent and immanentness, His intelligence, His omniscience and omnipotence, and His goodness, rather than refutes them.

Not all Deists agree on all things…basically just God’s creative power and man’s innate ability to reason. Beyond that, it is up for friendly discussion.

oldcelt:

If this Deity’s goal is to have people love Him, as much coherent information as possible would be very helpful.

You had the Church and her 2000 year-old Tradition. What more could you possibly need?

Did you even take the time to learn or read the works of the doctrinal and spiritual masters of the Church, like Augustine or Thomas Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, John Chrystosom, John of the Cross, or even Erasmus or Thomas More?

How do I show disrespect for God? Because I don’t believe the Christian version, or Jewish, Hindu, Muslim…

You disrespect God by attempting to place God in your rather tiny deistic box.

The Christian God is the same God as the Jewish God.

Hinduism is pantheistic, they believe that everything is “god”, thus they violate the law of non-contradiction.

The “god” of Mohammedism claims the right to deceive and for his followers to deceive for the sake of the spread of Islam. A “god” which permits deception is no god at all, because there is no reason not to believe that the original message is also a deception.

And neither the Hindu or Mohammedist “god” did what Jesus of Nazareth did.

Nor your Deistic “god”.

So I can definitely put your god on par with that of Hinduism and Mohammedism in that they are self-deceptions at the least.

 

[Amandil]

It is possible that a man named Jesus existed.

So you’re saying that not only the Apostles but the vast majority of Christian tradition, along with the Jews and the Roman empire, are lying?

Sure. That sounds entirely reasonable.

oldcelt:

… but his deity is a matter of faith that Deists do not accept.

Well, since you apparently believe the idea that the Apostles were great myth-makers or deceivers in regards to even the existence of Jesus of Nazareth(although it buggers the mind as to how you arrived at this because you didn’t observe it), it would do no good to even ask how you came to that conclusion.

It would also be pointless to address until you accepted the fact of the existence of Jesus to begin with.

Even the Roman historian Tacitus(who was no friend of Christianity or Christians) testified to Christ’s existence.

The Jews went to extraordinary lengths of character assassination to deny His divinity.

But its only “possible that Jesus existed”?

 

[oldcelt]

So you’re saying that not only the Apostles but the vast majority of Christian tradition, along with the Jews and the Roman empire, are lying?

Sure. That sounds entirely reasonable. Aside from the Apostles, I would like to see all there references of which you speak. Tacitus gives only one rather vague reference in a book called Annals, written nearly 100y ears after Christ’s death (C. 116)princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Tacitus_on_Christ.html
Josephus, Pliny the younger, Seutonius and so on offer no affirmative proof of Jesus of Nazareth as they were all written well after the death of Jesus would have occurred. Remember that many Jews are said to have thought him possessed or insane in the Bible.
Jesus is a matter of faith, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Well, since you apparently believe the idea that the Apostles were great myth-makers or deceivers in regards to even the existence of Jesus of Nazareth(although it buggers the mind as to how you arrived at this because you didn’t observe it), it would do no good to even ask how you came to that conclusion. The Apostles may simply have been swept up in their association. We have seen such behavior in the not too distant past. What they truly believed none of us can say because their writing are either lost or were rejected for the Canon. Most of what is written in the Bible is second-hand by people we know nothing about,

It would also be pointless to address until you accepted the fact of the existence of Jesus to begin with.

Even the Roman historian Tacitus(who was no friend of Christianity or Christians) testified to Christ’s existence.** I suggest that you read Tacitus. Not only is the name wrong , the account was written well after Jesus died and Tacitus offered no source for his account**

The Jews went to extraordinary lengths of character assassination to deny His divinity. Were they extraordinary or just business as usual?

But its only “possible that Jesus existed”?

 

[Amandil]

The above is a perfect example of willful ignorance mixed in with self-deception.

I doubt providing my sources would do anything to advance the discussion since you apparently have concluded in your own mind that you’re correct.

You’ll impose your own interpretation and methodology to achieve the end which you seek to justify.

It’s rather absurd of demythologizers such as Ehrman, and apparently yourself, to impose modern methods of historical criticism onto a text in which the authors of the text had no intention of meeting the criteria that you impose on them.

The only reason why you do so is because of the fact that it undermines your opinion.

Do you apply such criticism to other texts from the same period which speak of other historical events? Do you even apply the same criticism to the the same works themselves. Because if Tacitus was so “inaccurate” or sloppy about Christ and his existence, how can you be certain that he has any credibility at all in recording any event of the time?

No. The only reason why you are so irrationally doubtful about THAT passage of Tacitus is because it bears witness to Christ’s existence and therefore undercuts your position.

 

[Amandil]

oldcelt:

The Apostles may simply have been swept up in their association.

Yes, because men definitely will die for an “emotional association” equivalent to exactly what? A rock concert? Spare me.

We have seen such behavior in the not too distant past.

And someone could say the exact same thing about you and Deism.

In any case, it’s only just your opinion based upon your circular logic.

What they truly believed none of us can say because their writing are either lost or were rejected for the Canon.

That’s absurd. There are plenty of extant documents from the ECF’s, who quoted the Scriptures extensively, to such a degree that we are quite certain that due to the comparisons of the writings of the Church fathers, the NT manuscripts from prior to Constantine, and the extant Septuagint, that the Canon that we have now is consistent with the Gospels and the epistles of the Apostles.

oldcelt:

Most of what is written in the Bible is second-hand by people we know nothing about,

So what. Even Ehrman admits that despite the possibility of numerous possibilities of inaccuracies, misspellings, “typos”, etc. that the scholarship done by exegetes, such as St. Jerome, has kept the Christian message and the content of the Canon in tact. Aside from Irenaeus’ and Justin Martyr’s accounts of the lists of books that were read during liturgical celebrations.

In any case, Erhman is not the authority which produced the Canon, nor is he its keeper. That responsibility belongs properly with the Church, who produced, proclaimed, and protected them.

I suggest that you read Tacitus. Not only is the name wrong…

Yes because there were so many men named “Christ” who founded the sect called “Christianity” who were executed under the Emperor Tiberius at the judgement of the Procurator of Palestine named Pontius Pilate by crucifixion.

, the account was written well after Jesus died and Tacitus offered no source for his account.

So what. Historical writers at the time didn’t provide extensive lists of bibliographies.

That’s simply you imposing modern textual criticism and standard onto a text in which the author had to reason to abide by. Do you question with the same textual criticism about his account of the fire of Rome? I sincerely doubt it. You’re simply cherry picking and raising the bar to suit your opinion.

Its like imposing that same criticism against someone who wrote Hitler’s biography. And since you either don’t like Hitler or the biographer, then you toss out the work as a whole and claim that Hitler never existed.

Were they extraordinary or just business as usual?

Nope, can’t have it both ways. Either the person whom they were trying to slander, Jesus, truly existed or they were foolishly trying incredibly hard to discredit a figment of everyone’s imagination.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is possible that a man named Jesus existed, but his deity is a matter of faith that Deists do not accept.

Your assumption that the Deity exists but that we cannot surmise anything about him except that he created the universe out of curiosity seems to beg the question.

How would you know this? Was it revealed to you? How was the existence of the Deity revealed to you? How was it revealed to you that the Deity was once curious enough to create the universe, but then immediately became indifferent as to its destiny?

You seem to have experienced many revelations, but deny that God has revealed himself to anyone else … except maybe another deist like yourself with whom you happen to agree.

All this is too quaint for me.

Why not just admit that maybe God has revealed more of himself to others than to yourself? And that this is more likely than not to be true?

 

[oldcelt]

Yes, because men definitely will die for an “emotional association” equivalent to exactly what? A rock concert? Spare me. Remember a little place called Jonestown, or the countries that follow their leaders as Gods…Japan in WWII comes to mind

And someone could say the exact same thing about you and Deism. No idea what you are talking about. It must be late there.

In any case, it’s only just your opinion based upon your circular logic.**You will, of course, explain how and where I utilize circular logic **

That’s absurd. There are plenty of extant documents from the ECF’s, who quoted the Scriptures extensively, to such a degree that we are quite certain that due to the comparisons of the writings of the Church fathers, the NT manuscripts from prior to Constantine, and the extant Septuagint, that the Canon that we have now is consistent with the Gospels and the epistles of the Apostles.** You just made my point. The ECF were quoting the documents that they had decided were holy, What is sorely lacking is eye witness era accounts. All of those ECF are well after the time of Jesus.**

So what. Even Ehrman admits that despite the possibility of numerous possibilities of inaccuracies, misspellings, “typos”, etc. that the scholarship done by exegetes, such as St. Jerome, has kept the Christian message and the content of the Canon in tact. Aside from Irenaeus’ and Justin Martyr’s accounts of the lists of books that were read during liturgical celebrations. That’s good…they kept highly flawed documents intact.
Seriously, the only things I would trust in the Bible are the teachings of Jesus, minus all the miracles, etc. just like the Jefferson Bible.

In any case, Erhman is not the authority which produced the Canon, nor is he its keeper. That responsibility belongs properly with the Church, who produced, proclaimed, and protected them.

Yes because there were so many men named “Christ” who founded the sect called “Christianity” who were executed under the Emperor Tiberius at the judgement of the Procurator of Palestine named Pontius Pilate by crucifixion. **The earliest copies of Tacitus dates to about the 1100s,the original is lost. Even if I accept the account it only proves that the historic Jesus existed. Something I consider to be possible
**

So what. Historical writers at the time didn’t provide extensive lists of bibliographies. True, but still a problem on the proof side

That’s simply you imposing modern textual criticism and standard onto a text in which the author had to reason to abide by. Do you question with the same textual criticism about his account of the fire of Rome? I sincerely doubt it. You’re simply cherry picking and raising the bar to suit your opinion. As someone who more than dabbles in history, I am very cautious about every source and you are now accusing me of things you couldn’t possibly know. A book I wrote on a US Civil War battle had nearly 1000 footnotes.
Pliny the younger is actually more famous for another event that he actually witnessed.

Its like imposing that same criticism against someone who wrote Hitler’s biography. And since you either don’t like Hitler or the biographer, then you toss out the work as a whole and claim that Hitler never existed.

Nope, can’t have it both ways. Either the person whom they were trying to slander, Jesus, truly existed or they were foolishly trying incredibly hard to discredit a figment of everyone’s imagination.

Of course, there are no references to this slandering except the Bible

So far as I am concerned, we have reached the end of the line on this subject. I’ll continue merrily along, and I;m sure you will too.

Be well,

John

 

[Amandil]

oldcelt:

Remember a little place called Jonestown, or the countries that follow their leaders as Gods…Japan in WWII comes to mind

That’s an interesting, or as Charlemagne put it, quaint view considering that Christ-that is if you actually admit that Jesus Christ actually, and not just “possibly”, existed-was just executed by the Romans via scourging and crucifixtion.

Yes, the Apostles were “swept up” in their “Association” and the emotional high that comes with the brutal public execution of a figment of their imagination.

Makes total sense…

You will, of course, explain how and where I utilize circular logic.

You include your conclusion of Deism in your premise. You don’t approach the writings or lives of the Apostles from an objective point of view but rather from your biased and prejudiced view of Deism. And you reject their words based upon that circular idea.

You just made my point. The ECF were quoting documents that they decided were holy, Whatis sorely lacking is eyewitness era accounts. All of those ECF are well after the time of Jesus.

Wrong. They didn’t decide that the books they recived were holy. They affirmed that the books they received came from the Apostles who in fact witnessed Christ.

Big difference.

That’s good…they kept highly flawed documents intact.*
Seriously, the only things I would trust in the Bible are the teachings of Jesus, minus all the miracles, etc. just like the Jefferson Bible.

That’s not called honest historical criticism, that’s called simple prejudice and bias.

As someone who more than dabbles in history, I am very cautious about every source and you are now accusing me of things you couldn’t possibly know.

If you say so, then it must be true. Whatever…

Of course, there are no references to this slandering except the Bible.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

 

[Amandil]

oldcelt-

The problem is that if if we used the same crtical standards on other ancient literature that modernists like yourself use on the Bible, we would doubt every single fact we know today about every single writer and event before the Middle Ages. If modernists applied to the Bible the same standards that historians and textual scholars apply to secular literature of ancient times, the biblical records would be accepted as some of the most reliable and credible of all ancient documents.

"It is sometimes claimed that historians simply as historians regard Old and New Testament history as unreliable on some independent historical grounds. But…many events which are regarded as firmly established historically have far less documentary evidence than many biblical events, and the documents on which historians rely for much secular history are written much longer afther the event than many records of biblical events. Furthermore, we have many more copies of biblical narratives than of secular histories; and the surviving copies are much earlier than those on which our evidence for secular history is based…

If the biblical narratives did not contain accounts of miraculous events or have reference to God, angels, etc., biblical history would probably be regarded as much more firmly established than most of the history of, say, classical Greece and Rome. But because biblical accounts do mention miracles and do involve reference to God, angels, demons, etc., considerations other than purely historical ones come into the picture…(“historians” like yourself) are convinced as part of their general worldview that miracles don’t happen…Those who wish to demythologize Scripture reject particular accounts of miracles in Scripture because they hold a general view about the meaning of miracle stories(as mere myth, not historical fact)."-Richard Purtill, Thinking About Religion, chpt 6

I wonder if you’ve ever read anything besides Erhman regarding this issue, such as F.F. Bruce’s The New Testament Documents, Johs McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict, or Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels?

Basically, your criticism of the Bible is not objective or neutral historical or textual criticism. It’s eisegesis, not exegesis; its you reading your worldview (Deism and the denial of God’s interaction with His creation) into the text and judging the text on the basis of that worldview.

The rest is just rationalization for maintaining that worldview.

If that’s what you want to believe, that’s fine, your entitled to that belief. But let’s not pretend that you came to your conclusions based upon some pretense of “objectivism” or “seeing the world as it really is”. Because it’s simply not true.