Misrepresentation - Page 3

Apocrypha - it means "hidden away". OKciity, I didn't say anything before but the understanding I recieved about the O.T. Is that because the Hebrews didn't include it in their accepted version therefore the Protestant didn't do so either. Which may have consulting the original source for verification.
wesdawgy, names that were changed. Not having a Catholic version of the Bible, I can't say but GOD is given by several names in the O.T. by various (Hebrew) tribes dependent upon the time and area (GOD of the Mountain, etc) where they were located.

wesdawgy said:

quote:

---

How do you explain Jehovah, Yahweh, or any other names that were changed in the catholic version of the bible then?

---

This isn't a very specific question, but I think I might know what you're asking.

You won't find the names Jehovah or Yahweh used in any Catholic or Protestant Bibles for a very good reason. And most "PREFACES" of modern Bibles explain why.

Here's an exerpt from the preface of the New International Version (Protestant Bible):

quote:

---

In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translation adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered "Sovereign LORD."

---

Now, there is something you must also realise. In Jewish culture, the name YHWH is considered too sacred to be spoken. Protestants and Catholics alike hold to this same tradition in the Bible. So this is not actually a change per se; but just a way of holding God in highest esteem. Both Catholic and Protestant Bibles do this.

okcitykid said:

quote:

---

That is why these books were included in the original bibles Protestant and Catholic. It was the protestants who decided these things were not scriptural by saying that we cannot know for sure that Apocrypha is the word of God. But of course, how could they know it wasn't.

But the protestants weren't the first to do this. The Catholics did this first.

---

In responce, here's an exerpt from Josh McDowell's The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:

quote:

---

It is important to note that the church did not create the canon; it did not determine which books would be called Scripture, the inspired Word of God. Instead, the church recognized, or discovered, which books had been inspired from their inception. Stated another way, "a book is not the Word of God because it is accepted by the people of God. Rather, it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God. That is, God gives the book its divine authority, not the people of God. They merely recognize the divine authority which God gives to it." (Geisler/Nix, General Introduction to the Bible,210)

---

I would also like to state that from the writings of biblical and church history we can discern at least five principles that guided the recognition and collection of the true divinely inspired books.

1. Was the book writted by a prophet of God?
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?
3. Did the message tell the truth about God?
4. Does it come with the power of God?
5. Was it accepted by the people of God?

The books of the Protestant Bible have been recognized as divinely inspired from the beginning; only the Old and New Testament Apocrypha have had any considerable doubt throughout history. If you do more research, you will find that not until A.D. 1546 in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church. (Geisler/Nix, GIB,272-273). And if further research is done, you will find why these apocryphal books are not considered divinely inspired.

Given this stance on how the books of the Bible were recognized as canon, how could you go wrong? By using these quesions to poke at the Apocrypha we will find that they are not the word of God. And if you want me to go more into these five examples and explain how they work I'd be glad to do so.

Though I am not Roman Catholic (I was raised Catholic though), but a Protestant I would like to know a few things.

wesdawgy said:[quote]But either way, the Catholics took plenty of stuff out, and changed alot of stuff.[quote]

What stuff would that be?

Let me repeat: "But the protestants weren't the first to do this. The Catholics did this first. Origenes Adamantius. Born 185 AD. It took him 27 years, but he put together the first bible. In his new testament he included the Shepperd of Hermes and Letters of Barnabas. The Catholic Church had them removed."

Once again Strongclad you're throwing opinions at us and telling us its a fact. Just because an author of a book said something doesn't make it fact. Just because you believe something doesn't make it fact.

Share your opinion and dissagree if you may, but don't insult me by trying to prove to me that your opinion is a fact and my opinion is false only because it differs from you.

What about those scriptures about the virgin birth not found in the original text? You haven't replied to that yet.

okcitykid said:

quote:

---

What about those scriptures about the virgin birth not found in the original text? You haven't replied to that yet.

---

It's true that I haven't replied to that yet. But if you think about it, I couldn't have replied because nowhere in this thread is there any mention of such a subject! I mean no disrespect here, but dang!!! Throw me a bone here okcitykid!

Listen, I'm not trying to cause heated debate here, and I am in no way disagreeing with your whole "Origen-put-together-the-first-Bible" bit. I don't doubt your statements, but somehow you are confused about making statements of fact and opinion. And if you want to take the discussion in this direction, that's fine, but start thinking before you begin pointing fingers.

You want to point the finger at me when we are both in the same boat. You fail to realise that you -- just as I -- make plenty of truth claims around here. Explicit and implicit. And in my opinion, that's all good and fine -- how else are we to share in the conversation if we can't make such statements? But the way you play the game is childish if you are saying that no one can bring other opinions to the field.

You want to proclaim that I'm forcing opinions on everyone when in no way am I putting a knife to anyone's back. I may imply throughout my posts that what I state is fact -- because I do want to clear false notions -- but at least I'm bringing the testamony of others (others with Ph.D's and experience who know way more on the subjects than I do), and extra evidence to help back up my claims. At least I use sources.

you also said:

quote:

---

Once again Strongclad you're throwing opinions at us and telling us its a fact. Just because an author of a book said something doesn't make it fact. Just because you believe something doesn't make it fact.

---

It's true that just because someone makes a statement, or because someone believes something, it doesn't make it a fact. Duh! That's blatantly obvious! But turn your statement back on yourself. Are not you the one who claimed this as fact:

quote:

---

"But the protestants weren't the first to do this. The Catholics did this first. Origenes Adamantius. Born 185 AD. It took him 27 years, but he put together the first bible. In his new testament he included the Shepperd of Hermes and Letters of Barnabas. The Catholic Church had them removed."

---

Where's your source for this? I don't doubt there is one, but where's the proof?

quote:

---

Share your opinion and dissagree if you may, but don't insult me by trying to prove to me that your opinion is a fact and my opinion is false only because it differs from you.

---

I wasn't aware that I had given out any insults. I don't try to prove you false just because it conflicts with what I believe. I try to prove things false, that are false, that don't coincide with truth. Jeez, you don't have to take my word on everything. Test what I say and see what happens. That's the only way you'll get affirmative answers.

In talking to one who seems to imply in all his posts that everything is opinion, and nothing is fact, I know you won't take what I say seriously. You won't look into anything I say for yourself because you believe that "faith" is believing with your eyes closed. The reason you won't even take into consideration what I say, is because you don't think history has any proof or evidence in the matter. In this way you already stand biased saying that my opinions are wrong, and that your opinions are Almighty.

Ok - I'll try to be nicer. : (

But " because I do want to clear false notions"

Who are you calling false?

okcitykid said:

quote:

---

But " because I do want to clear false notions"

Who are you calling false?

---

I'm not calling anyone false in particular here. I'm just making a generality. If someone says something that doesn't match up to the well established facts, I will generally combat their opinion or statement so that they will be better informed.

Or consider for example the statements I made about the books of the Bible and how certain ones do or do not belong in the canon. The sitations and opinions I brought forth were made for other peoples' benefit, that they may draw their own conclusions or even read into the matter further.

Remember, I gave five principles or guidlines for finding the truth about what books were meant to be in the Bible. If you or anyone else were to look at any supposed scriptures using these questions, you would probably arrive at the same conclusion that many biblical scholars have arrived at -- that the books excluded from the Protestant Bible were not God inspired and were not meant to be in the canon.

Even think about it this way. There is a law of "non-contradiction" that rules in this universe, and I believe this is something that we can both agree upon. You and I both know that we can't both agree on two contradicting statements. Take this for example: I can't believe that a nickel is worth 10 cents while you, at the same time, believe that a nickel is worth 5 cents. American currency standards regulate that a nickel is worth only 5 cents; therefore you are right while I am wrong. This is the law of non-contradiction in affect.

The same law still affects biblical doctrine and scripture. Two opposing ideas or statements made in the these manuscripts cannot both be true at the same time. Therefore, some could be right, some could be wrong, and even all could be wrong. It is up to us to scrupulously investigate the matter to find out what statements are indeed trustworthy, and which are not. And when looking closer at pseudo-scripture, you will find contradicting statements made about God, false theology, errors in geography and historical innacuracies.

The only thing I can say is, that when confronted with so many opinions, beliefs, and world views in this day and age, the only way one can find the truth, is if they know how to search for truth properly. And that means knowing what questions to ask, and finding the best places to look. And that means you can't take everyone's word seriously, even the word of religious leaders because they may be unknowingly spouting falsities (look at all the differences in opinion in worldviews -- you can't tell me that everyone is right!). The only thing you can do is take everyone's opinion at half-value, and then search to see if it is worth meriting with your personal trust.

Apologetics can bring a non-Christian (in the conservative sense of the term) to try faith in God, but only God can speak to your heart to put full faith in His Son who became a man.

"generality. If someone says something that doesn't match up to the well established facts"
WELL ESTABLISHED FACTS. According to Strongclad.

"I gave five principles or guidlines for finding the truth about what books were meant to be in the Bible."
YES'M BOSS

"same conclusion that many biblical scholars"
Just the christian scholars, and not all of them agree. Strongclad - I don't care what they think - what is it that you think? or can you, do you have an opinion or do you follow the opinions of others? Just share what you think, if I want the opinion of a scholar, I'll go look for one. You have an opinion, share it.

"The only thing I can say is, that when confronted with so many opinions, beliefs, and world views in this day and age, the only way one can find the truth, is if they know how to search for truth properly. And that means knowing what questions to ask, and finding the best places to look. And that means you can't take everyone's word seriously, even the word of religious leaders because they may be unknowingly spouting falsities (look at all the differences in opinion in worldviews -- you can't tell me that everyone is right!). The only thing you can do is take everyone's opinion at half-value, and then search to see if it is worth meriting with your personal trust."
I have searched for the truth and still have not found it and have come to the conclusion that our little minds are not big enough to hold the truth. But obviously you think you have found the truth. I don't think you have (that's my opinion), you think you have and that's your opinion. So we disagree. Thanks for the pointers on finding truth, I'll keep it in mind.

"but only God can speak to your heart"
We agree on something. But God still hasn't told my heart that Jesus is the Christ the only true Son of God, the actual third part of God. I have asked many times for this answer, still haven't gotten it. Because of that, I'm not going to say it is so, and I'm not going to say it is not so. I'm going to say I don't know. It doesn't hurt, I don't feel stupid, ashamed or less proud of my ability to recognize truth. You can tell me it is true and I will thank you for sharing. But until you are God speaking to my heart. Your words are just opinions. You think they are truth, I think they are opinions and we will dissagree. That is that.

okcitykid said:

quote:

---

Just the christian scholars, and not all of them agree. Strongclad - I don't care what they think - what is it that you think? or can you, do you have an opinion or do you follow the opinions of others? Just share what you think, if I want the opinion of a scholar, I'll go look for one. You have an opinion, share it.

---

Admittedly, I do follow the opinions of others. We have no other way to draw conclusions but by testing the claims and stories of others, because there are no other lines of communication and learning but these. And to make it clear, I do not believe every arguement I hear. Not all opinions are false. Many are credible, and have evidential corroboration. You get your information from scholars, scientists, and historians in the same similar fashion as I.

quote:

---

I have searched for the truth and still have not found it and have come to the conclusion that our little minds are not big enough to hold the truth. But obviously you think you have found the truth. I don't think you have (that's my opinion), you think you have and that's your opinion. So we disagree. Thanks for the pointers on finding truth, I'll keep it in mind.

---

Opinions are meaningless in the scheme of things if you think about it. Everyone has one in some way or another, and they don't necessarily speak the truth of reality most times since many opinions clash. Any serious Christian knows that our beliefs aren't based on opinion but on the claims of a living, breathing, human being. In this way we dissagree, but who is right?

quote:

---

God still hasn't told my heart that Jesus is the Christ the only true Son of God, the actual third part of God. I have asked many times for this answer, still haven't gotten it. Because of that, I'm not going to say it is so, and I'm not going to say it is not so. I'm going to say I don't know.

---

Not knowing the truth of a matter is understandable, and asking questions to find the answers is the only way to go that I know of. But I've never in my life had God give me what I asked for on a platter and don't expect Him to do so the rest of my life. I've only gotten answers by searching for them. He spoke through His Word and through His Church to give me the answers I needed. And these answers never came quickly.

As stated above, you know there's a claim that Jesus is God's Son, the third part of God. Looking at the Old Testament, you kow that prophecy speaks of his coming, and predicts many of his actions that take place in the New Testament. All these are stated as fact in the Bible, but how will you find out whether they're true or not? What kinds of questions will you have to ask, and where will you look for the answers?

This might be a good link to check out if you are serious about answers. It is a long and wordy article, but has much information about Christ that is very compelling. It contains information about the resurrection, historical reliability of the Gospel claims as well as the historical reliability of the claims of the early church after the apostles. Also contained in the article is biblical criticism, evidence for the empty tomb, evidence for the resurrection appearances, origins of the Christian faith, and external evidence from secular sources (soon after Christ) that help confirm the truth of the biblical accounts. Apologetics.com is a very good resource for answers.

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_
apologetics/craig-resurrection.html

OKcitykid? What happening? Rather a long list here to enjoy reading (I am still reading) but I think Strongclad has a valid point. When I read a book I read the introduction as well as the Table of Contents, etc., most bibles state the members and their qualifications as particular references for acceptance of translations, setting forth their standard and the Standard of Reference.

quote:

---

(Note each group deems it neccessary to have acceptance by their own group. Niv, Asa, King James, etc . . . etc)

---

After all they each have their pet peeve and . . . those things they choose not to see? Or the Truth they don't want to receive?

quote:

---

It contains information about the resurrection, historical reliability of the Gospel claims as well as the historical reliability of the claims of the early church after the apostles.

---

This site does speak of Truth . . .

quote:

---

A second popular argument against the disciples' being deceivers was that their character precludes their being liars. Humphrey Ditton observes that the apostles were simple, common men, not cunning deceivers. They were men of unquestioned moral integrity and their proclamation of the resurrection was solemn and devout. They had absolutely nothing to gain in worldly terms in preaching this doctrine.

---

. . . One problem is some might surmise that something with more like deceit concerning the resurection? Does not the scripture itself admit to the existence of such doubts? So their arguments sits on belief in dead men's (womens' testimony? Which becomes an issue of integrity.

quote:

---

Strauss's approach to the gospels, and to the resurrection in particular, may be seen as an attempt to forge a third way between the horns of the dilemma posed by the traditional apologetic, which says that if the miracles and resurrection of Jesus are not historical facts, then the apostles were either deceivers or deceived, neither of which is plausible.

---

Then there is the issue of misconceptions (parial conceptions) especially when dealing with dead languages during periods when they were in use and local or social use of terms or expressions to form particular perception?

quote:

---

Strauss believed that the chief problem in applying the mythical interpretation to the NT is that the first century was no longer an age of myths. But although it was a time of writing, if there was a long period of oral transmission during which no written record existed, then marvelous elements could begin to creep in and grow into historical myths. Strauss recognized as well that adherence to this theory necessitated denying the contemporary authorship of the gospels and the influence of eyewitnesses. Hence, Strauss regarded it as "the sole object" of his book to examine the internal evidence in order to test the probability of the authors' being eyewitnesses or competently informed writers.

---

Wow, I read the whole thing well at least the first page? woe dude my head is spinning, got anything for a headache?

quote:

---

Conspiracy Theory
According to this explanation, the disciples stole the body of Jesus, thus faking the resurrection. This was, as we say, the first counter-explanation for the empty tomb, and it was revived by the Deists during the eighteenth century. Today, however, this explanation has been completely given up by modern scholarship. At least three considerations undergird this consensus:

---

I question the validity of Paul.

The scriptures concerning the virgin birth are not found in the earlier transcript. Scientificly a male child cannot be born of a virgin but a female child can.

There was a lot happening long ago. Jews killing Christians, Christians killing jews, Ceasor killing everybody. Lots of religions were wiped out, etc, etc, etc.

Your faith is strong Cturtle - much stronger then mine, and I apreciate that.

But Strongclad does not have the facts. He just thinks he does. He can ramble on all he likes. Because if he can prove it to me, he will believe it himself. That's what its all about.

okcitykid said:

quote:

---

I question the validity of Paul.

---

What makes you think that Paul's statements or claims are invalid?

quote:

---

The scriptures concerning the virgin birth are not found in the earlier transcript.

---

There are around 20,000 New Testament manuscripts dating from around 130 A.D. to the present. Which ones are these claims not found in?

quote:

---

Scientificly a male child cannot be born of a virgin but a female child can.

---

I've never heard of this, but I have no argument against it. Just show me how this works, and give me some examples. It sounds pretty interesting.

quote:

---

But Strongclad does not have the facts. He just thinks he does. He can ramble on all he likes. Because if he can prove it to me, he will believe it himself. That's what its all about.

---

First off, on what grounds can you claim expertise in making statements such as these? I don't claim to be an expert in what I say. I believe based on the evidence Christianity has, in comparison to all other religious worldviews whose arguments don't compare and are not fully grounded in logic and reason. I had to find all this out for myself. Truthfully, you cannot prove anything to anyone unless they themselves are witnesses to the matter. That's where faith comes in. And let me clarify that I do not mean that "faith" is defined as a blind leap; it does not have to be in the least bit, blind. Faith is not limited in such a way. Faith is based on the verifiability and consistency of the evidence. It doesn't have to be, but it helps to lay the groundwork for a "reasonable" faith. Faith doesn't claim to invoke intellectual suicide.

Second of all, it's not about proving something to you so I can believe or believe more. If I didn't believe in the first place I wouldn't be bringing any arguments to your own claims. What it's really about is showing you the reasonableness of Christianity so that you may believe also and claim the gift of Christ that I have also received.

How can you conclude that I have no facts? Although I am not proficient in Historiography, Science, the studies of Philosophy, logic and reason, you cannot claim that everything I say in regards to these is untrue. You believe that you have the facts also; who am I to say they are not true unless I show that they are not or unlikely to be? While I try most times to do this, you do so very slightly.

Take the challenge of reading the article at the link I posted and give me a reasonable critique as to why it is false. My belief follows the reasonableness of these arguments along with many others. cturtle has read the article and I would assume that he believes any "faith" would have to come from logical, reasonable lines such as these. Maybe he has reservations with these arguments, I don't know. But I believe he agrees with the principles of logical reasoning that underlie these arguments. The "object" of faith has to be consistent with the laws of the universe.

cturtle said:

quote:

---

. . . One problem is some might surmise that something with more like deceit concerning the resurection? Does not the scripture itself admit to the existence of such doubts? So their arguments sits on belief in dead men's (womens' testimony? Which becomes an issue of integrity.

---

cturtle, you are right on the money here! Integrity is pretty much the biggest issue when believing in anything. The Bible does admit to the existence of doubts concerning the Christian faith. The apostles were sent out among the nations (by Christ!) to spread the Gospel and silence the doubts held by the Jews and the Gentiles that they may come to believe in Christ for salvation and forgiveness of sins. Only by questioning the integrity and consistency of the Message bearers, can we find whether or not they are trustworthy.

Thanks for taking the article seriously.

parthenogenesis. It was explained to me once. Something about the female gene the woman already has. Its a freak thing, not very common, but has been known to happen.

I don't claim to be an expert. I don't have to be an expert to disagree with you.

Your missing the point. I don't claim to have the facts - YOU DO. I don't think you do. I think you only have opinions you are trying to pass off as facts. A lot of people around here keep trying to do that. I express my opinions, I don't call them facts, because I know better, period.

I'm not going to prove anything. I don't have to. You keep trying to prove something. Once again. We're talking religion, not science. The wicked have to have proof, but the faithful don't.

quote:

---

I believe based on the evidence Christianity has, in comparison to all other religious worldviews whose arguments don't compare and are not fully grounded in logic and reason.

---

These are the worde of a bigot - I'd be ashamed to talk that way. You say you are not an expert, yet you make statements like this. What do you know of other religions. You only know what other Christians have taught you about other religions. I dare you to go outside the box, and become a buddist and see for yourself if they are false, or Hindu, etc. You don't know - thats a fact.

okcitykid said:

quote:

---

These are the worde of a bigot - I'd be ashamed to talk that way.

---

Making comments in opposition against another's worldview isn't racism my friend. You paint me as being bigoted when I am in no way intolerant of peoples right to difference of choice in religion. That is the freedom everyone has, and I claim no right to take that freedom from them.

But in no way is it bigoted to say that "arguments" and "opinions"' and "beliefs" don't stack up.

quote:

---

What do you know of other religions. You only know what other Christians have taught you about other religions.

---

Those are some pretty unfounded statements and assumptions you've made here. How could you possibly know me?

quote:

---

I dare you to go outside the box, and become a buddist and see for yourself if they are false, or Hindu, etc. You don't know - thats a fact.

---

How come come all the same things I tell you, end up coming right back at me in one way, form or another? Have you taken the challege of reading the article that I issued to you earlier? It's just information that claims to back up Christianity. It's no real threat to you if after reading it you don't believe it to be true.

But either way, you still couldn't have known that I studied world religions while I was in college. You imply that I'm not neutral enough, that I don't look at all other religions equally or find good in all of them. I guess you figure that if I read the Qur'an or the Vedas or tried following the "four noble truths" or the "Eightfold Path" or sifted through the Pali Canon that I might find truth. I don't doubt certain truths that are in these religions. The moral and ethical values found within each contain some righteousness, and all have a yearning for the transcendent.

I took a neutral stance at the very beginning and kept an open mind as to what I was reading and learning, but what I learned was that even though many of these religions contain similar truths, all of them make claims that are oppositional and contrary to one another. You are so obsessed in telling me that my Christianity is intolerant when all the worlds religions state claims not only different in nature, but outright defy their so-called "competition." So where do you go from there? How do you differentiate between the ultimate truth claims as to find which is true? There's plenty of options. You could choose to achieve Nirvana; transcend into ultimate reality; you could choose the many lives of reincarnation; become one with the Ultimate All; you could choose atheism, pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, deism or theism or break down and choose one of the many subcategories of any of these. You can also choose to believe in one who claims to be the Son of God, or one of the cults who claim the same thing in their terminology by the way they speak, but mean something completely different and believe God is an alien who sent Jesus from outerspace (no kidding!).

Not only do you have all these choices, but you also get the many different perceptions of the world that come with them. Do you wish to believe the world is logical, reasonable, or illusory; or that God is in everything or that everything is God? And when you get right down to it, all you can ask is: "How does everybody know all this stuff about God?","Did He tell them Himself?", and "Who is right?"

The earliest Buddhist scriptures were compiled and written too far after the death of Gautama Buddha (almost half a millenia) that we cannot tell if legends about him have crept in. Plus there is the added fact that Buddhism is a derivative from Hinduism and both have many different forms of belief. We know only little of how each came into the world and have no real basis for proving the historic legends of their beginnings. There are supposed legends of Siddhartha Gautama and the Vedas, but we can't make any well drawn conclusions as to their truth. For them, we can only see so far back into history.

As for Islam, Mohammed never proved to be who he said he was. He only claimed to recieve word from the Angel Gabriel. Mohammed claims the same God as Jews and Christians, but in comparison to both, he never proved himself to be a prophet by showing signs and wonders from God the way the Old Testament Prophets and Jesus had. Why would you believe his claims that the Bible is tainted when his rumors are basically reduced to hearsay?

I believe that Jesus is the Messiah sent by God because the message of salvation sent by the apostles has come to us retaining it's original form as written in the Bible. There is in existence numerous manuscript evidence (like I said, 20,000 manuscripts) which shows that the letters, epistles, and gospels of the apostles have kept their original wordings and meanings since their originals were written. And there are in existence, manuscripts so early as to be within the lives of those who knew the apostles. When even checking the chronology of the New Testament, you will find that the letters of Paul were written before the four Gospels and are in agreement with their central truths about Christ.

Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy time after time and proved to be the one he claimed to be. There were eyewitnesses who back up that claim.

Non-Christians and Jews like Josephus alive during Christ's lifetime have written about the man named Jesus who did many miracles and was believed to have been crucified, died, and risen from the dead.

Early church history from then until the present have passed along the beliefs about Christ in sermons, letters, and books, which show that the claims and beliefs have not changed in 2,000 years.

There is so much more evidence from History that helps show that belief in Christ is more reasonable than that of other religions, and that there are more dire consequeces in rejecting Christianity than there are in rejecting any other said religion.

I know you will not take even one word of this seriously because of your preexisting bias which keeps you from testing Christianity's claims -- or even the claims of other religions for that matter -- to see if they are literally true or not (you won't step out of the box). Your predispostition to thinking that religious facts and history cannot be true is a hinderance to what all religions are saying. People can live moral lives and gain moral insights and wisdom on their own if they really wanted to. Nobody needs scripture or religion to tell them that. There are no hidden or underlying truths of morality in any scripture other than what they are literally saying. A line of scripture can never mean what it never meant. The Bible itself never meant to teach just an underlying moral lesson. It shows that God asks for more than that.

Read the article and get out of your own box.

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_
apologetics/craig-resurrection.html

Oh, and what is this supposed to mean?

quote:

---

The wicked have to have proof, but the faithful don't.

---

Are you implying that you have faith in something? In who specificly?

I'm sorry, I don't remember you sending me an article, but I may not have been paying attention. I read part of your article:

quote:

---

if Jesus did not rise, our faith is futile and we fall back into despair. How credible, then, is the NT witness to the resurrection of Jesus?

---

I don't understand this. If I had never heard the story of Jesus I would believe in eternal life in the hereafter. Even knowing about Jesus, even if I had no evidence I would still believe he was immortal and had gone to the hereafter. The story of his resurrection makes no difference to me in believing in the hereafter or immortality.

The rest of it makes no sense to me. I don't understand the authors reasoning in any of this. If its the word of God, it makes no difference who wrote it, if it is the word of God. Who is this "The traditional apologetic?" I have been accused of being a liberal and I have been accused of being a conservative many times in my life. But I am neither one. I'm me, and everyone else is who they are. I haven't read any further. I tried.

I am sorry - I did say I would try to be nicer and I haven't been. And I was wrong about you not studying other reliegions.

I'm sure you're a good person. If we were in the battle field together you would cover my back instead of run like a coward and leave me stranded, and likewise I would do the same for you.

You have chosen to believe in Christianity, good for you. Feel free to share your beliefs and tell us why. But be sure that as soon as you say I am right, him, her, they or them is wrong, I will argue with you. Because I think that is wrong. Even Paul whom you believe in said that we see things through a smokey glass but will see things clearly when we are taken up. Jesus tells the story about the seperation of the goats and sheep. Remember, both of them were wrong. They both thought something and discovered something different.

When we cross over, then we will know what is and what is not. I think we will all be surprised.