Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:How do you see God?

Is God the loving Father that Jesus illustrated in his parable of the Prodigal Son who stands ready to run to you, arms extended to receive you when you want to return? Or is God like to ancient God Zeus (and I choose that image very deliberately) who sits upon the mountain waiting for you to trip up so you can serve as the target for his lightening bolt practice? The reality is that we all view God somewhere in between those two extremes, but Jesus appears to be telling us, and showing us by His sacrificial love, that God really IS that loving father who wants the type of relationship with us that is illustrated by that second child in the family I described.

All of these elements and illustrations are not unique with me or new. They are very Biblical. Knowing about them (head knowledge) and living them (heart knowledge) are very different things. The Pharisees had one and lacked the other. Jesus took them to task for it because they not only lived in that manner for themselves but they took others with them who trusted their leading.

I spent 20 years in formal ministry thinking I really understood this. The last 5 years outside of that are showing me I have very little real idea of what I talked about back then and I've been that first child who really just lives like a servant in the home, performing and outside the relationship of those parents who desire it so much, but my own misperceptions blind me to living in what is right there for me.

Anyway, sorry for the sermon but that's been rising up in me and I felt the need to get it out.

blessings,

bart

And one of the hanged criminals blasphemed Him, saying, If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.

But answering, the other rebuked him, saying, Do you not fear God, for you are in the same judgment?

And we indeed justly, for we receive things worthy of what we did. But this One did nothing wrong.

And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when You come in Your kingdom.

And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you will be with Me in Paradise.

Different_Name wrote:

And one of the hanged criminals blasphemed Him, saying, If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us. But answering, the other rebuked him, saying, Do you not fear God, for you are in the same judgment?And we indeed justly, for we receive things worthy of what we did. But this One did nothing wrong. And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when You come in Your kingdom. And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you will be with Me in Paradise.

The criminal on the cross is one distinct example of someone being assured of heaven after death. The first criminal said "If" Jesus is Christ, to save them. He was interested in only his own life. However, as mentioned elsewhere, you need to be born again to be saved. I think it could be compared to Pascal's wager, where you say, I don't wanna go to hell, so I'm going to wager that there's a God.

The second criminal said a few things:

1. He rebuked the other criminal.
2. He admitted he was a sinner and deserved death.
3. He called Jesus Lord. (in the King James Version and translations based on the Majority Text but not in those based on the Nestle-Aland Text)
4. He acknowledged that Jesus had a kingdom out of this world.
5. He asked Jesus to remember him.

Now obviously, those are just exterior things that he did, and it is what was on his heart that truly mattered and caused Jesus to assure him heaven. But the Bible is an inspired text, so those words could very well be inspiredly in the correct direction toward salvation. Though I don't ever recall hearing a sermon on this.

Apparently, that is a way toward salvation. Though this is one blatant difference I find between Bible versions, whether acknowledgment of Jesus' Lordship (presumably divinity) is necessary for salvation.

Do you recall the reason the Nestle-Aland Text Translated 'Jesus' instead of 'Lord' (i.e. Kurios)?

Next, would not crying out 'Jesus' as recorded in Luke 23:42 in the NA also be used a an acknowledgment of the supremacy of Christ in like manner that Kurios (Lord) implies?

The Nestle-Aland Text is based on different manuscripts than the Majority Text or the text on which the King James Bible was based. Its manuscripts are technically older, but that does not necessarily mean that they are more accurate.

The Nestle-Aland Text is based on different manuscripts than the Majority Text or the text on which the King James Bible was based. Its manuscripts are technically older, but that does not necessarily mean that they are more accurate.

Different_Name wrote:It is possible that the reason we have so few copies of these more ancient manuscripts is because they were known to be not as reliable and were not duplicated as much. It is also possible that the reason this particular copy of these older manuscripts apparently lasted the longest is because it was not used as much as other more reliable manuscripts so it was not worn out as quickly. Of course, this is just speculation, which is why I normally look at translations based on both text-types when looking up something in the New Testament.

There's not really that many issues that have any real impact on meaning and interpretation between the best manuscripts we have today and the Textus Receptus. I actually have an old Textus Receptus interlinear from the 1800s that I go to every now and then to compare with my UBS texts. Rarely do I find much difference and when I do, it's usually negligible.

John 20:31 wrote:But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Different_Name wrote: I think it could be compared to Pascal's wager, where you say, I don't wanna go to hell, so I'm going to wager that there's a God.