M.W.
07-23-2005, 03:23 PM
An Oxford Professor of philosophical theology has a book out that
supposedly uses a combination of mathematics and formal logic to
prove that the biblical account is true in details and thus there is
-- according to Dr. Richard Swinburn -- a 97% certainity that Jesus
lived and rose from the dead.
This claim about frosted my whatsoever! I don't know how to give a
link to the article without losing this page...but one can find the
story on Rense.com about 1/3rd of the way down the news list.
I doubt if Rense will use my contribution...they are quite pro
defensivly christian and my comments might rub the editors the wrong
way...so here our my comments for whatever they are worth. And i
could be dead wrong.
I would have liked to put in a plug for Accession 2000, asc2K and the
law of one etc. etc....but that would be reaching too far I'm afraid.
The books that I mention below were kinesiologically assessed by
Dr.David Hawkins as below 200 ...thus on the negative (polarity?)
side. However, if I had not been a student of them I would not be
working away even now trying to understand what RA attempting to get
across to his students ...so I question Hawkin's blunt assessment
and makes me suspicious. ...but his finding does make me more
cautious in dealing with other's belief systems, and to avoid
stumbling their "free will" ...but then I often don't know when to
keep my mouth shut!
#### comments to the 97% article as submitted to Rense.com
Concerning the conclusions of the professor of theological
philosophy, Dr. Richard Swinburne, as reported by Barney Schwartz,
religious editor
Thanks largely to Rense.com I do realize that one of the avowed aims
of the "Iluminati" is to destroy Christianity. Despite my hesitation
in seeming to advocate or advance such a NWO agenda I am compelled to
say that I suspect this to be one of the most flawed and circular so-
called proof of the Biblical account ever!
With the "given" pre-suppositions used to construct the argument
lending some of the qualities of a tautology how could it turn out
otherwise no matter how sophisticated the formulation?
According to historical records there were something on the order of
fifteen crucified saviors antecedent to the account of Jesus. They
fulfilled virtually the same scenario found in the story of Jesus and
what's more, in many cases ?such as Krishna--there was a
remarkably similar supporting casts of extras ... and what should
catch one's attention is that some have names with a remarkable
phonetic resonance to their later parallel as found in the bible..
Question: Why didn't the professor's calculations include the other
similar saviors and their accounts? Should we suspect that he is
prejudiced in favor of Christianity?
There is a similar thread common to all of the savior stories that
are traceable back to roots originating in Astro-Theology. This
implausible "coincidence" should make one wonder. A bunch.
There are many books available covering various aspects of this
mystery...including one that is actually entitled "The Jesus Mystery"
Another fine effort is found in Earl Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle." One
might do well with Acharya S.'s "The Christ Conspiracy" and followed
by her more specificly detailed work, "The Suns of God".
I want to emphasize that I am by no means an atheist even if no
longer an orthodox Christian. I do hold to a spiritual reality that
might be described as the "Christ Consciousness" ... but in my
opinion the biblical account is so FLAWED that it should be
approached with supernatural suspicion -- even by professors with
such impressive credentials as Dr. Swinburne.
For a solid pursuit of the "god question" one can Google the late Dr.
Charles Hartshorne and check out the logical construction he used to
examine the various concepts of god. (26+) Note: a colleague hailed
Hartshorne as "The Einstein of Religious Thought" That at least tempt
one to take a look! And Please compare his work and findings with
that of the Oxford Don here in question.
One further note: True, Stephen Hawking gives credence to the idea
that there is indeed evidence in the Cosmos of intelligent design.
Furthermore the Atheistic Philosopher, Antony Flew ? long a thorn
in many sensitive theologian's side ? has recently adopted
the logical necessity of such a cosmic intelligence.
But in no way does either one's concession equate to their
endorsement of what we think of as Christianity!
One last comment. Much of what we construct in our efforts to
describe God's nature depends ever so much on where we start from.
Please keep in mind that the "Aristotelian" structured God of the
Christian theologians is not THE necessarily defacto starting point!
still struggling to understand. Best to all! Bill Gieskieng
supposedly uses a combination of mathematics and formal logic to
prove that the biblical account is true in details and thus there is
-- according to Dr. Richard Swinburn -- a 97% certainity that Jesus
lived and rose from the dead.
This claim about frosted my whatsoever! I don't know how to give a
link to the article without losing this page...but one can find the
story on Rense.com about 1/3rd of the way down the news list.
I doubt if Rense will use my contribution...they are quite pro
defensivly christian and my comments might rub the editors the wrong
way...so here our my comments for whatever they are worth. And i
could be dead wrong.
I would have liked to put in a plug for Accession 2000, asc2K and the
law of one etc. etc....but that would be reaching too far I'm afraid.
The books that I mention below were kinesiologically assessed by
Dr.David Hawkins as below 200 ...thus on the negative (polarity?)
side. However, if I had not been a student of them I would not be
working away even now trying to understand what RA attempting to get
across to his students ...so I question Hawkin's blunt assessment
and makes me suspicious. ...but his finding does make me more
cautious in dealing with other's belief systems, and to avoid
stumbling their "free will" ...but then I often don't know when to
keep my mouth shut!
#### comments to the 97% article as submitted to Rense.com
Concerning the conclusions of the professor of theological
philosophy, Dr. Richard Swinburne, as reported by Barney Schwartz,
religious editor
Thanks largely to Rense.com I do realize that one of the avowed aims
of the "Iluminati" is to destroy Christianity. Despite my hesitation
in seeming to advocate or advance such a NWO agenda I am compelled to
say that I suspect this to be one of the most flawed and circular so-
called proof of the Biblical account ever!
With the "given" pre-suppositions used to construct the argument
lending some of the qualities of a tautology how could it turn out
otherwise no matter how sophisticated the formulation?
According to historical records there were something on the order of
fifteen crucified saviors antecedent to the account of Jesus. They
fulfilled virtually the same scenario found in the story of Jesus and
what's more, in many cases ?such as Krishna--there was a
remarkably similar supporting casts of extras ... and what should
catch one's attention is that some have names with a remarkable
phonetic resonance to their later parallel as found in the bible..
Question: Why didn't the professor's calculations include the other
similar saviors and their accounts? Should we suspect that he is
prejudiced in favor of Christianity?
There is a similar thread common to all of the savior stories that
are traceable back to roots originating in Astro-Theology. This
implausible "coincidence" should make one wonder. A bunch.
There are many books available covering various aspects of this
mystery...including one that is actually entitled "The Jesus Mystery"
Another fine effort is found in Earl Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle." One
might do well with Acharya S.'s "The Christ Conspiracy" and followed
by her more specificly detailed work, "The Suns of God".
I want to emphasize that I am by no means an atheist even if no
longer an orthodox Christian. I do hold to a spiritual reality that
might be described as the "Christ Consciousness" ... but in my
opinion the biblical account is so FLAWED that it should be
approached with supernatural suspicion -- even by professors with
such impressive credentials as Dr. Swinburne.
For a solid pursuit of the "god question" one can Google the late Dr.
Charles Hartshorne and check out the logical construction he used to
examine the various concepts of god. (26+) Note: a colleague hailed
Hartshorne as "The Einstein of Religious Thought" That at least tempt
one to take a look! And Please compare his work and findings with
that of the Oxford Don here in question.
One further note: True, Stephen Hawking gives credence to the idea
that there is indeed evidence in the Cosmos of intelligent design.
Furthermore the Atheistic Philosopher, Antony Flew ? long a thorn
in many sensitive theologian's side ? has recently adopted
the logical necessity of such a cosmic intelligence.
But in no way does either one's concession equate to their
endorsement of what we think of as Christianity!
One last comment. Much of what we construct in our efforts to
describe God's nature depends ever so much on where we start from.
Please keep in mind that the "Aristotelian" structured God of the
Christian theologians is not THE necessarily defacto starting point!
still struggling to understand. Best to all! Bill Gieskieng