Darrell Bock begins his critique of Ehrman's latest book. As Bock identifies here, Ehrman has a modus operandi that, once you recognize it, basically deciphers the flaws in his books. But that M.O. creates a lot of hype and sells a lot of books.
Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted by his own admission says nothing new. It packages what scholars have been saying for two decades. Since he learned the historical critical method in place of the devotional method, he discovered the Bible was full of contradictions and discrepancies, a completely human book with Christianity being a religion that is completely human in its origin and development. That is the core thesis of Bart Ehrman's new book, who has become a one man marching band to make clear what everyone should know about the origins of the Christian faith. We cannot speak of the divine in any of this, he says, because historians cannot handle that kind of data. This represents a convienient limitation on what he can speak about (even as he makes all kinds of pronouncements about what is taking place and who is responsible).
One has to wonder when an author admits to providing nothing new in a book what the motive is for writing. Informing? Apparently not. Crusading? Perhaps. But to leave the criticism on this point would be to ignore the case Ehrman tries to make. The conservative writers Erhman apparently wishes to challenge (and mostly ignore) have engaged on all the "non-new" points Ehrman makes, even highlighting themselves the "human" side of the Bible's production. But partly by caricature and partly by setting rules where God cannot be invoked in a historical discussion, Ehrman proceeds. God is not even able to be brought into the possibility of an interpretive spiral, because "miracles are not impossible," just very much unlikely and a least likely explanation (read a "next to impossible" category). I think what is most bothersome in this book is the way it sets up discussions, pursues a topic for several pages, often noting the point is not as devastating as the impression given (usually with a sentence that qualifies things so the author has cover) and then continues to launch in a direction that implies more than the evidence really gives, leaving a greater impression about what is said than the author claims in the qualification.
One has to wonder when an author admits to providing nothing new in a book what the motive is for writing. Informing? Apparently not. Crusading? Perhaps. But to leave the criticism on this point would be to ignore the case Ehrman tries to make. The conservative writers Erhman apparently wishes to challenge (and mostly ignore) have engaged on all the "non-new" points Ehrman makes, even highlighting themselves the "human" side of the Bible's production. But partly by caricature and partly by setting rules where God cannot be invoked in a historical discussion, Ehrman proceeds. God is not even able to be brought into the possibility of an interpretive spiral, because "miracles are not impossible," just very much unlikely and a least likely explanation (read a "next to impossible" category). I think what is most bothersome in this book is the way it sets up discussions, pursues a topic for several pages, often noting the point is not as devastating as the impression given (usually with a sentence that qualifies things so the author has cover) and then continues to launch in a direction that implies more than the evidence really gives, leaving a greater impression about what is said than the author claims in the qualification.
Bock responds to some of the specifics claims in Ehrman's book, so read the rest.
Doesn't matter what evidence I would accept with regards to Jesus writing his own story. Fact remamins that he didn't.
As to the rest, I think I'm done.
Posted by: Joe | April 01, 2009 at 07:33 PM
Waste of time
Posted by: David Blain | April 01, 2009 at 08:45 PM
Yup.
Posted by: Joe | April 01, 2009 at 08:53 PM
At least we can agree on that
Posted by: David Blain | April 01, 2009 at 09:05 PM
Daniel, I don't know how I Cor 15:12-19 shows that Jesus was raised physically, much less that anybody that died for this belief claimed to have an encounter with a physically resurrected Jesus. It only says that he was raised. I'm not denying they say people believed he was raised. I'm saying we don't know that anybody martyred claimed to have seen a physically raised Jesus.
This is a key point. Because it's not hard to imagine people would die for a belief that they had seen Jesus after his death. I know people that have claimed to see that. But the people I know don't view the encounter as physical.
Let's assume Andrew and Phillip and James and Thomas and Thaddeaus and Matthias and Peter all died for their Christian beliefs. How do we know what they believed? You can point to the gospels, but if you regard them as reliable why bother pointing out that these people died? Just say that the gospels say Jesus rose, so we should believe it.
Posted by: Jon | April 02, 2009 at 07:40 AM
...And is there any chance that we can also agree that it's more plausible that Smith actually had golden plates than it is that he made this up? Isn't this consistent with the previously described logical construct"?
...And is there any change that we can also agree that it is reasonable to read a given history in such a way as to be more skeptical of the supernatural elements than of the ordinary elements. After all, I think everyone here would read Roman and Japaness history in that way, yes?
Or is this too much to ask? If it is, so it goes.
Posted by: Joe | April 02, 2009 at 08:17 AM
Jon, I can see your point on 1 Cor 15. Paul's encounter was probably a vision, as those with him did not see anything (Acts 9:7), but they did hear the voice. Anyway in 1 Cor 15 Paul's vision is listed in there, so at least some of the references are visions rather than encounters with the resurrected body of Jesus. Also no explicit mention of a physical body is made, although I would think it's implied...
I haven't been paying close enough attention to this thread, but I'd like to ask-- has the empty tomb factored into this conversation yet?
Posted by: Jesse | April 02, 2009 at 09:52 AM
Joe,
"So you think that humans are as good as God?"
Why would you think that they would have to be to pass on his message of redemption?
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | April 02, 2009 at 09:58 AM
Kevin
I missed this one earlier so that's why I'm late responding.
"Then are you justified in accepting the NT documents based on the speculation as to the noble motives of the authors? Are their motives any more undoubtable because they say their motives are noble?"
No, I am saying we are not justified in inferring anything about the credibility of the accounts based on speculation as to their motives.
Posted by: Daniel Wynne | April 02, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Louis,
I should have been clearer. The sentence was meant to refer to relative ability to write the New Testament. It was meant to answer the question "why should He (write his own biography)?". Presumably, God would do a better job of conveying His message than human authors.
Posted by: Joe | April 02, 2009 at 10:08 AM
"...And is there any chance that we can also agree that it's more plausible that Smith actually had golden plates than it is that he made this up? Isn't this consistent with the previously described logical construct"? "
Not necessarily. If the only 'construct' was the four documents, that would only follow if that was the only line of evidence.
"...And is there any change that we can also agree that it is reasonable to read a given history in such a way as to be more skeptical of the supernatural elements than of the ordinary elements. After all, I think everyone here would read Roman and Japaness history in that way, yes? ?"
It is only reasonable if you can justify an anti supernatural bias as the basis for your skepticism. Even skepticism needs to be justified.
""Suppose I was to suggest that you are only suggesting the NT accounts are unreliable because of a desire to avoid the logical consequences of their veracity..."
again, the point was to SPECULATE as to your motives as you were doing with the NT authors.
"For the record, I've always thought that eternal damnation was an obscenely absurd punishment for doubt."
Wow! Me too! Who'da thunk it? We agree on something.
"By the way, if I accepted the statement that Jesus rose from the dead, the impact on my lifestyle would be minimal. I lead a remarkably dull and boring life."
At the risk of redundancy, let me say again, this was a statement of SPECULATION, and not an assumption of any horrendous behavior on your part. For all I know, you may have more good behavior in your life than I do.
BTW, and perhaps a little OT, the Japanese historical claim that it was a Kama Kaze that destroyed the Mongol fleet is a little different. ( I am going on the quite possible assumption that I could be mistaken.) If the account is that the Mongol fleet was destroyed by a typhoon (ok, no problem there, theoretically verifiable, at least) but they go on to claim that this was a storm sent by a divine spirit. This part would be difficult at best to falsify.
The NT claims for a physical resurrection of Jesus is quite different in that if it happened, it would be a true miracle, which, given Jesus' prediction, and his claims, would be evidence of a supernatural act. The point is, one is a natural act that may or may not have a supernatural cause, the other, a necessarily supernatural act.
What IS clear, is that the Roman historians claim that emperors became gods and the NT claims cannot BOTH be true.
Posted by: Daniel Wynne | April 02, 2009 at 10:32 AM
So it goes.
Posted by: Joe | April 02, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Louis: Why would you think that they [humans] would have to be to pass on his [God's] message of redemption?
Quite simply because of the following:
1) Humans have a tendency to make stuff up.
2) More specifically, humans have a tendency to invent gods, invisible creatures, scripture, special revelation, etc. Basically, there seems to be no limit as to religious creativity.
3) Humans have a tendency to invent stories to explain or support their worldview. They also have a tendency to rewrite history and forge documents.
4) Humans have a tendency to join all sorts of bizarre followings, both large (e.g. Scientology, Mormonism, Spiritualism etc.) and small (e.g. Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, etc.)
5) Human testimony is a very fragile thing. It's barely useful for the small things (e.g. evidence in trials) and seems to be absolutely worthless regarding something quite important like the true nature of reality and our place in it.
6) Humans have a tendency to be gullible, mistaken, wrong, misinformed, deceived, mentally ill, etc.
7) It seems unlikely that something as important as the "message of redemption" would rely upon some of the worst aspects of humanity (see items 1-6).
I keep wondering, why would the One True Religion have so much in common with every false religion?
Humans have many ways to invent a religion and gain a following. We see it all the time. Why would God choose to use the very same ways to communicate and pass on His message?
That doesn't feel particularly divine to me, and really affects my ability to cling on to faith.
Rather than remaining distant and hidden and relying upon humans, God could certainly interact with us at a personal and direct level. The Bible has many such stories of this.
Posted by: Jim T. | April 02, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Daniel,
"If there were hostile witnesses present who could have refuted them but remained silent, it would lend credibility to it."
Well, there are 72 documented interviews with David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses (see http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss), after he left the Church where he continued to proclaim his testimony. He never returned to the Church, yet he still proclaimed this on his death-bed. Oliver Cowdery, another of the Three Witnesses, was excommunicated but, even then, he repeated his testimony in a court of law. So here we have two men who claimed to have seen and angel and physically hefted the plates, who left the Church, sometimes had hard feelings against Joseph or the Church, and yet didn't deny their testimony.
Posted by: Kevin Winters | April 02, 2009 at 01:42 PM
Kevin
This may sound like I'm being a moving target, but that in not my intention. I just wasn't clear enough about what I meant by 'hostile witnesses.' I meant that if the claim (about the golden plates) was false and there were those who knew it, let's say they were there where the 'alleged' plates were found and 'knew' there were no such thing. That would be an example of what I meant. The parallel would be there were many who were hostile to the disciples, who knew they were preaching a resurrected Jesus, who if they could have, would certainly have falsified their claim.
Posted by: Daniel Wynne | April 02, 2009 at 06:54 PM
Jim
"1) Humans have a tendency to make stuff up."
And skeptics are somehow immune to this tendency?
"2) More specifically, humans have a tendency to invent gods, invisible creatures, scripture, special revelation, etc. "
You mean like universes that create themselves out of nothing? Like complex living systems building themselves from chemicals in a hostile environment?
"Humans have a tendency to invent stories to explain or support their worldview."
See above
"They also have a tendency to rewrite history and forge documents."
You have any evidence this is the case for the NT documents?
"4) Humans have a tendency to join all sorts of bizarre followings, both large (e.g. Scientology, Mormonism, Spiritualism etc.) and small (e.g. Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, etc.)"
... and skeptics' societies..." Sorry, couldn't resist. :P
"5) Human testimony is a very fragile thing. It's barely useful for the small things (e.g. evidence in trials) and seems to be absolutely worthless regarding something quite important like the true nature of reality and our place in it."
And yet you seem quite confident that you know enough about the 'true nature of reality and our place in it' that we get it wrong. Hmmm...
"6) Humans have a tendency to be gullible, mistaken, wrong, misinformed, deceived, mentally ill, etc."
Been there, done that, still working it out. Which one do you see yourself in?
"7) It seems unlikely that something as important as the "message of redemption" would rely upon some of the worst aspects of humanity"
If God is, and He is powerful enough to create a universe, and merciful enough to become one of us, don't you think it is possible He is strong enough and wise enough to get the job done through any means He sees fit to use?
"I keep wondering, why would the One True Religion have so much in common with every false religion?"
Like what?
"Why would God choose to use the very same ways to communicate and pass on His message?"
Can you clarify this a little?
"That doesn't feel particularly divine to me, and really affects my ability to cling on to faith."
What would it mean to 'feel divine' and what do you mean by 'faith?'
"Rather than remaining distant and hidden and relying upon humans, God could certainly interact with us at a personal and direct level. The Bible has many such stories of this."
He could do whatever He wants. The question is "what DID He do?" If you reject that which He has revealed to ALL of mankind, how would you know it was HIM interacting with you on a personal level?
Posted by: Daniel Wynne | April 02, 2009 at 07:10 PM
Daniel,
>> And skeptics are somehow immune to this tendency?
Not at all. I would never make such a claim. I'm very skeptical of skeptics.
>> You mean like universes that create themselves out of nothing? Like complex living systems building themselves from chemicals in a hostile environment?
I'm not aware of anyone who claims the universe created itself. All I know is it's here. No idea how it got here. I'm skeptical of all proposed explanations.
>> You have any evidence this is the case [forgeries] for the NT documents?
Nope. I know some people doubt 2 Peter and the pastorals, but I'm undecided. Either way, someone wrote it all.
>> ... and skeptics' societies..." Sorry, couldn't resist. :P
Sure. But I don't know anything about them.
>> And yet you seem quite confident that you know enough about the 'true nature of reality and our place in it' that we get it wrong. Hmmm...
No, I was only talking about the trustworthiness of human testimony and claims regarding ultimate reality. Surely, most of the claims made throughout history regarding ultimately reality are incorrect. Maybe even all of them.
I proudly claim that I know nothing about the true nature of reality and our place in it. Sure, I have some opinions, and most are constantly shifting.
>> Been there, done that, still working it out. Which one do you see yourself in?
Well, I try my best. I try to keep the gullibility down to a minimum. I've been well trained by STR to at least attempt careful thinking.
>> If God is, and He is powerful enough to create a universe, and merciful enough to become one of us, don't you think it is possible He is strong enough and wise enough to get the job done through any means He sees fit to use?
Oh yes, quite possible. Just wondering if that's what we really have here.
>> Can you clarify this a little? ("Why would God choose to use the very same ways to communicate and pass on His message?")
Sure, this is exactly where I get hung up. I'm coming from our situation here today, since that's the only one we can really interact with directly.
Christian scripture has stories, reports of miracles, reports of visions, reports of prophecies, reports of invisible creatures, and reports of special revelation. We can't check any of this out, we can only gauge their probabilities. It's very subjective and personal. Utterly tenuous.
But yet every false religion has the same tools at its disposal to tell its story and support its claims. An invented religion can claim anything, including miracles, visions, prophecies, invisible creatures, and special revelation. All things that can't be investigated. Every man-made religion, to some degree, relies upon our inability to fully investigate truth. It always comes down to probabilities, and subjective and personal fealings.
For instance, it doesn't do me a bit of good that Paul received a vision from God. It doesn't do me a bit of good that the Israelites saw the Red Sea parted. It doesn't do me a bit of good that Thomas touched Jesus' wounds. Good for them, seriously.
All we have today are the stories, from long ago. Maybe they're true. Who knows?
But what I know for certain is that humans have no limit to their religious creativity. I'm amazed at what gets invented, even in our modern era (e.g. Scientology, Rev. Moon, etc.).
Plus, we have the hiddenness of gods. For false religions that posit a god, that pretend god certainly doesn't interract with our world in a tangible way. People only imagine it does. It amazes me to read the reports of answered prayers, miracles, etc. from many different religions. These fake gods are very real to people. Doesn't speak well regarding human testimony regarding divine things.
Yet the Christian God is also hidden. Distant and silent, supposedly to not trample upon our free will. Either way, He's not here today. Kinda like all the pretend gods.
>> What would it mean to 'feel divine' and what do you mean by 'faith?'
feel divine - well, hopefully my previous section sheds light on that.
faith - an active trust in things unseen.
>> He could do whatever He wants.
Absolutely correct.
>> The question is "what DID He do?"
No, that's one of many questions. Existence comes before purpose, motivation, and actions.
>> If you reject that which He has revealed to ALL of mankind,
I'm not aware of anything being revealed to all of mankind. Seems like the vast majority of humans that have ever lived never heard the name of Jesus.
>> how would you know it was HIM interacting with you on a personal level?
Because I beg Him for mercy on my doubting soul.
Because I beg Him to give me faith. Zap it right into me. Remove my free will, whatever it takes. I can't do it on my own.
The silence is deafening.
Thanks for the interaction. I enjoy it.
- Jim
Posted by: Jim T. | April 02, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Jim T. :
"Louis: Why would you think that they [humans] would have to be to pass on his [God's] message of redemption?
Quite simply because of the following:
1) Humans have a tendency to make stuff up."
That does not prove they always do or I could just take it as fact that your statement that "Humans have a tendency to make stuff up" as another statement you are making up and should not be taken seriously. A tendency of an individual is not enough and in fact is bleakly inadequate to determine the truthfulness of a particular report. We must examine the contents of the report, not what kind of socks the reporter is wearing in order to determine if he is reporting accurately. Claim one fails.
"2) More specifically, humans have a tendency to invent gods, invisible creatures, scripture, special revelation, etc. Basically, there seems to be no limit as to religious creativity."
Again, this is not dealing with the actual report, only the reporter. There is nothing to be learned about a particular report by looking at the tendency of a reporter to do a particular thing. Claim two fails for the same reason claim one does.
Why are you changing the subject and then making personal accusations instead of examining the contents of the report and dealing with them?
"3) Humans have a tendency to invent stories to explain or support their world view. They also have a tendency to rewrite history and forge documents."
I must conclude that you are also making up all this stuff and I should not trust any of it if I am to follow your lead and apply your reasoning. If it would not be fair for me to apply your reasoning to your response here, why would it be fair for you to apply it to mine?
"4) Humans have a tendency to join all sorts of bizarre followings, both large (e.g. Scientology, Mormonism, Spiritualism etc.) and small (e.g. Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, etc.)"
So what? So far, all I have seen is a change of subject to a collection of subjects unrelated to the topic under discussion, You keep claiming humans have a tendency to distort. If I were to believe your claim to human inability to tell the truth and only offer distortions due to a commitment to a particular world view, then I would have to simply ignore your claims as well for the same reasons. If you think that I shouldn't then why shouldn't I? Up to this point, you give me no reason.
"5) Human testimony is a very fragile thing. It's barely useful for the small things (e.g. evidence in trials) and seems to be absolutely worthless regarding something quite important like the true nature of reality and our place in it."
This is a very serious charge against our justice system then every single person imprisoned or executed has been done an injustice. We should open the prison gates and let them all out as the ultimate expression of justice. Since not a single one of them has been convicted of anything they actually did in a way of a crime. Would you like us to move them over to your neighborhood to live in after their release? I should think you would have no objection since you are firmly convinced that their convictions had nothing to do with the "true nature of reality or our place in it".
"6) Humans have a tendency to be gullible, mistaken, wrong, misinformed, deceived, mentally ill, etc."
Since you are a human being, I take it that you suffer from all this maladies?
Just because someone has a tendency does that mean that this tendency is actualized every single time? Wouldn't it be better to look at the evidence rather than the one holding it in order to determine if the evidence is valid or not? This is one huge change of the subject with many parts to it. Why not deal with the subject under discussion?
"7) It seems unlikely that something as important as the "message of redemption" would rely upon some of the worst aspects of humanity (see items 1-6)."
Well, now, you have not proven that it does. You have, however, changed to subject and launched an ad hominem attack against humanity itself...it seems.
"I keep wondering, why would the One True Religion have so much in common with every false religion?
Humans have many ways to invent a religion and gain a following. We see it all the time. Why would God choose to use the very same ways to communicate and pass on His message?"
Actually, he didn't do it exactly the same way. His laws are written in our hearts and our conscience informs us when we violate those laws. To think that God has given us only one form of revelation, the Bible, I think is a mistake. It really makes no difference what religion, or lack thereof, you adopt, we know that there are certain things that are inherently wrong. Even your post here is evidence of this truth. A dedication to the truth is a moral principle that peppers your response and it is quite clear that in your heart, you know that the truth is a moral principle that has an incumbency in all our lives and it really does not matter what religion or lack of it you happen to espouse. It simply seems strange to me that while thinking that you are denouncing my view on this topic, you are actually affirming it in the very attitude of your response as well as its content.
"That doesn't feel particularly divine to me, and really affects my ability to cling on to faith."
Well, now, I have no idea of what you mean by faith, but if it is a blind leap of faith, it is a different one than the one that Jesus taught his followers. He provided evidence for the claims he made. He did not say "Just believe what I tell you and ignore the evidence."
"Rather than remaining distant and hidden and relying upon humans, God could certainly interact with us at a personal and direct level. The Bible has many such stories of this."
He did. That's the point. He interacts on a personal and direct level today with many of those who claim to be his followers. But then, I have no idea of what you think is a personal and direct level. I take it pretty personally when someone willingly lays down his life for me to be rescued from an eternity of torment of my own choosing. He did it in a pretty direct way on the cross.
I get the impression from your statements that you harbor a great deal of hurt and anger and I am sorry if this is true and especially sorry if some segment of the Christian community is responsible for this state. I sincerely hope that I am mistaken about this. If I am not, then I hope that you will find it in your heart to set personal issues aside long enough to carefully and honestly and impartially examine the claims of Christianity and judge them on the basis and merits of the evidence and not the actual or perceived faults of those presenting it.
Louis
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | April 03, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Louis,
Thank you for the response.
I'm sorry if my main point got lost in the details. I'm merely trying to make sense of God choosing to use human vessels to carry His message, and remain distant while they go about His business. I know I can't prove it, I'm only weighing out the probabilities from where I sit.
Do you doubt the human tendencies that I list? How does it affect your own skepticism regarding other beliefs? How about your own beliefs?
I'll be blunt, I don't like the similarities between false and hopefully true religions. It makes me uneasy.
From our perspective today, every proposed God remains hidden and has His subjects going about doing his business. The rest of us can just observe and try to make sense of it.
I would have much preferred if Jesus had stuck around and not taken off. I envy Thomas. As we see in the Bible, people still had free will, and could accept or reject Jesus, even as he stood right before them. Where would I be? Hopefully on me knees, begging for mercy.
>> carefully and honestly and impartially examine the claims of Christianity and judge them on the basis and merits of the evidence and not the actual or perceived faults of those presenting it
I've been doing that for seventeen years, and the last twelve as a Christian.
STR has trained me to be such a good skeptic of others, it's now feeding back on itself. Yikes!
Posted by: Jim T. | April 03, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Jim T.
"Louis,
Thank you for the response.
I'm sorry if my main point got lost in the details. I'm merely trying to make sense of God choosing to use human vessels to carry His message,"
It seems to me that a message intended for human beings is appropriately carried by human beings. Elephant blood would not go well in human veins.
"and remain distant while they go about His business. I know I can't prove it, I'm only weighing out the probabilities from where I sit.
Do you doubt the human tendencies that I list?"
The tendencies may exist due to our fallen nature. However, it cannot stand in the way of God's grand plan, nor His rescue mission. I am confident of that because of the degree to which I know I was beyond reach prior to my conversion. If God could reach me, there is nothing that can stand in his way or in the way of achieving His ultimate purpose. Those things you list are not even a bump on the road. I think that the worst mistake in this is to take our eyes off of God's abilities in favor of focusing on man's disabilities. God's abilities have no trouble overcoming our disabilities. Didn't Jesus punctuate this point with the many healings the raising of the dead?
" How does it affect your own skepticism regarding other beliefs? How about your own beliefs?
I'll be blunt, I don't like the similarities between false and hopefully true religions. It makes me uneasy."
I can understand this feeling of unease. I don't know if this will be helpful, but here goes anyway's. Let's take the example of two pills. Let's say that they have similarities. They might be the same color, shape, smell etc. Now...one of them is a cure for a fatal disease you have and the other is poison. What is the most critical thing when comparing the two...the similarities or the differences?
I would say that it is not the similarities that make me uneasy, but the differences, which can be fatal.
"From our perspective today, every proposed God remains hidden and has His subjects going about doing his business. The rest of us can just observe and try to make sense of it."
I am hidden behind the cloak of this human form, but there is ample evidence of my impact on the world around me through that form that testifies that I am actually here. I think that we see that same evidence of God's presence all around us. If you have been around STR as you state, you must have listened to pod casts and read many articles that show examples of that kind of thing going on around us. But then, maybe this line of thinking is already familiar to you. What I am wondering is...is it persuasive to you or not?
"I would have much preferred if Jesus had stuck around and not taken off. I envy Thomas. As we see in the Bible, people still had free will, and could accept or reject Jesus, even as he stood right before them. Where would I be? Hopefully on me knees, begging for mercy."
I would think that this would be an appropriate posture for any of us. As to being around 2000 years ago...we must accept that we are not and look forward to that time when we will be in Jesus' presence.
>> carefully and honestly and impartially examine the claims of Christianity and judge them on the basis and merits of the evidence and not the actual or perceived faults of those presenting it
"I've been doing that for seventeen years, and the last twelve as a Christian.
STR has trained me to be such a good skeptic of others, it's now feeding back on itself. Yikes!"
I think that in your previous message your focus was on the unreliability of human messengers. Examination of the message and testing that, rather than the messengers, will yield far better results in determining if the message can be trusted. I think that there is more than ample evidence upon which to rest the case for the reliability of God's message to man, since both nature and scriptures conspire together to bring the same message. When you include the ability of God to keep his word in spite of our shortcomings, it only serves to increase our awe of His ability to ensure the fidelity of the message to us.
Louis
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | April 05, 2009 at 12:45 PM