Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ

[Beck]

Hey Twospirits,

I'm not sure what's going on, but I can't 'quote to reply' from your post, maybe Richard can check on this. I'll be copying and pasting

Hi Beck Good question, to answer this we need to look to the other passages.

This appearance in Galilee is not to be confused with the earlier appearances at Jerusalem to his 11 disciples (John 20:19-29) who then believed; the Galilee appearance occurred later. Jesus had many disciples other than his immediate 12 disciples (Luke 24:13-35). Jesus also appeared to 500 disciple all at one time (1 Cor. 15:6). Reading the context of Mt. 28:7, “tell his disciples”; Mark 16:12-13: Luke 24:9, “to the eleven and all the rest,” I believe Mt. 28:17 Jesus' appearance in Galilee refers to not only the 11 apostles but other disciples of Jesus as well who were there. I believe it is not the 11 who doubted, but some of the other disciples who were there. The texts of 1 Cor. 15:6, “appearing to 500 disciples at one time” seems to indicate of the event “some doubted” spoken of in Mt. 28:17.

All in all even if that is the case with the 'eleven' and some of the five hundred we still have them seeing the risen Lord and then doubt what they have seen. Just how would one see him and worship him then later doubt? It appears that is what is meant by Paul saying that some of the five hundred have fallen asleep. This is of course is how Paul imployed 'asleep' as spiritual death or awareness as here being decevied or having doubts.

Their doubts to me would seem to have to do with them having doubts about Jesus through his death and his resurrection would bring about the restoration of Israel. Please take note that Jesus was made 'under the law' (Galations 4:4) which is considered by Paul to be death and in bondage as if one was in an grave. Thus Jesus is made the first fruits of them that 'slept'. This 'slept or asleep' is denoting those 'under the law of sin and death' which has nothing to do with physical death, but that of spiritual death. Jesus being made under the law where the first to be rised out of this death.(Romans 8:1-4) This flesh which is mentioned in verse 1 of Romans 8 isn't physical, but of the carnal mind that follow after the law. Though the Spirit of God they were made free from this law of sin and death.

Paul often spoke to them as he did in Ephesians of them being once died and that by the Spirit being quicken to life. Once died in their trespasses and sins walking according to the course of this world (age) the Mosaic age. Thus Jesus was the first (firstfruits) of those that was born under the law and was dead yet was rasied by the Spirit. (1 Peter 3:18). For Christ was put to death in the flesh [flesh here isn't physical] but quicken by the Spirit.

So the claim that Jesus rose from the grave physically is clouded by the spiritual raisen up of Christ from the grave. This later of his death and resurrection to new life by the Spirit is what some doubted, that is to be spiritually understood.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Twospirits,

I'm not sure what's going on, but I can't 'quote to reply' from your post, maybe Richard can check on this. I'll be copying and pasting

Glad you mentioned that Beck! There was a bug in the forum software that broke the reply feature. I fixed it last week, but then vBulletin put out another update to fix a security leak and I forgot that it would overwrite my fix. So I just installed the fix again and all is well.

[Twospirits]

Hey Twospirits,

I'm not sure what's going on, but I can't 'quote to reply' from your post, maybe Richard can check on this. I'll be copying and pasting



All in all even if that is the case with the 'eleven' and some of the five hundred we still have them seeing the risen Lord and then doubt what they have seen. Just how would one see him and worship him then later doubt? It appears that is what is meant by Paul saying that some of the five hundred have fallen asleep. This is of course is how Paul imployed 'asleep' as spiritual death or awareness as here being decevied or having doubts.

Their doubts to me would seem to have to do with them having doubts about Jesus through his death and his resurrection would bring about the restoration of Israel. Please take note that Jesus was made 'under the law' (Galations 4:4) which is considered by Paul to be death and in bondage as if one was in an grave. Thus Jesus is made the first fruits of them that 'slept'. This 'slept or asleep' is denoting those 'under the law of sin and death' which has nothing to do with physical death, but that of spiritual death. Jesus being made under the law where the first to be rised out of this death.(Romans 8:1-4) This flesh which is mentioned in verse 1 of Romans 8 isn't physical, but of the carnal mind that follow after the law. Though the Spirit of God they were made free from this law of sin and death.

Paul often spoke to them as he did in Ephesians of them being once died and that by the Spirit being quicken to life. Once died in their trespasses and sins walking according to the course of this world (age) the Mosaic age. Thus Jesus was the first (firstfruits) of those that was born under the law and was dead yet was rasied by the Spirit. (1 Peter 3:18). For Christ was put to death in the flesh [flesh here isn't physical] but quicken by the Spirit.

So the claim that Jesus rose from the grave physically is clouded by the spiritual raisen up of Christ from the grave. This later of his death and resurrection to new life by the Spirit is what some doubted, that is to be spiritually understood.

Hi Beck,

I agree that the passages you mention speak of the law, flesh and spirit in the spiritual sense, but I don't believe this applies to 1 Cor 15 or Mt. 28:17. Here's what I believe "some doubted" is to mean, whether you agree or not is up to you.


In Mt. 28:17 we read, “And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted.” The Greek word “doubted” is “distazo,” which means “doubt, waver, hesitate.” So the word can also mean “hesitate.” This meaning “hesitate” seems to fit the context here that while they obviously saw the literal resurrected Jesus and believed on him, some “hesitated” to offer him such unbounded worship that others were giving him. I believe this is what the wording and context of the passage means, that they didn't doubt Jesus' resurrection, but being Jews they hesitated (distazo) giving him worship like they would to Yahweh. With this understanding of the passage it would then also harmonize and agree with the other event passages I quoted in my post, they being literal events.

God bless---Twospirits

[Beck]

Hi Beck,

I agree that the passages you mention speak of the law, flesh and spirit in the spiritual sense, but I don't believe this applies to 1 Cor 15 or Mt. 28:17. Here's what I believe "some doubted" is to mean, whether you agree or not is up to you.

It's good that we agree on the spiritual usage of flesh and death pretaining to the law.

In Mt. 28:17 we read, “And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted.” The Greek word “doubted” is “distazo,” which means “doubt, waver, hesitate.” So the word can also mean “hesitate.” This meaning “hesitate” seems to fit the context here that while they obviously saw the literal resurrected Jesus and believed on him, some “hesitated” to offer him such unbounded worship that others were giving him. I believe this is what the wording and context of the passage means, that they didn't doubt Jesus' resurrection, but being Jews they hesitated (distazo) giving him worship like they would to Yahweh. With this understanding of the passage it would then also harmonize and agree with the other event passages I quoted in my post, they being literal events.

God bless---Twospirits

It could very well be translated as 'hesitate' toward worshipping him, but the underline reason of their 'hesitation' is by thier doubts or simply wavering in unbelief. This is what I believe to mean 'asleep' for which Paul called the Epheisans to 'Awake thou that Sleepest and Arise from the Dead' (Eph.5:14).

I know we might differ on this, but I truely think this same meaning that Paul used as 'asleep' to mean spiritual death in Ephesians, Romans, Galations, 1 Thessalonians and yes in 1 Corinthains. For when Paul mentions verse 18 "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Chirst are perished" might be better understood to read as "Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost."(NIV) Where rendering 'fallen into sleep' would mean fallen into darkness of the night as if one where to sleep. Thus those that have fallen into darkness might see the light and be saved. Paul illustrated that by saying if first Christ be not rasied to newness of life by the Spirit then the dead be not rasied and if the dead be not rasied then also those that have fallen into sleep are lost and have no chance to be saved.

Otherwise why was people being baptised for the dead? The dead is'nt the physical dead, but those that have not awoke to the truth. Are else the bible would be teaching us that some where being baptised for their dead love ones and those dead would be rasied to life when God put all things under him, that God may be all in all (Matt.15:28-29) even if they where not among the saints before they died.

[David M]

I took a quick look at Richard' blog and found nothing.
I am here. Not there.

Good to know you can read Richards mind and know when he is close to banning or not.

You speak of my humility while telling me that a Bishop of the church and most scholars are wrong in their view. Shrink the log in your eye before looking at the splinter in mine.

Regards
DL

Hello DL
We have been communicating under the following title; 'Should man rule over women for women’s own good?' I am confused that this appears as a new blog post and is also featuring in the forum. Perhaps Richard can explain what is going on.

We all have moats in our eye and I am not exception. I challenge you to start debating from the scriptures. At one time I think you are saying that Jesus is not God and now you are saying that you agree with Richard. I am not for taking anyone's side, I will reason with you from the Bible. If you want to start quoting other people to support your views then that does not interest me.

As far as the following posts are concerned it is clear that that others have you similarly pegged.

jce

Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Here is a good example of two spiritual people like Richard and Beck plus me makes three ----- as compare to those of religion, Charisma T S and jce who are too blind to see and prefer miracles and magic to base their theology on instead of thought.

This Bishop has you three pegged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AfFc...feature=relmfu

Regards
DL

You are not in the same class of Richard and Beck and do them a disservice by mentioning their names with yours in the same breath. You trashed your moral high ground in your earlier posts.

John

So everyone is clear about the comment I made about you being close to being banned, here is the quote from that thread;

Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post

Richard.
I like this place. Please do not ban me for calling a cock sucking liar a liar.

I don't want to ban you, but you need to use a little self-control and find some respect for others no matter how much you disagree with them. Calling someone a "cock sucking liar" is itself a lie, so you condemn yourself even as you accuse others. So please get your act together. It is a wonderful thing if passionate folks with different opinions can find a way to communicate. Comments like yours destroy the chance of any meaningful communication.

This has nothing to do with "Good to know you can read Richards mind and know when he is close to banning or not" It is obvious to a blind man that you cannot speak the truth or admit to the truth that another person speaks. Unfortunately, your words betray you. As Jesus said; (Matt 15:11) Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Now do you want to challenge the truth spoken by Jesus? Just so we can understand where you are coming from, what are your beliefs concerning the Bible as the word of God? Is anyone going to have a meaningful discussion with you on this forum?

Let's hope we can reason together,

David

[David M]

Hi David,

There are good reasons that book fails to change anyone's mind about the resurrection of Jesus. Have you read it? It reads like something written by a fully-convinced Christian apologist who begins by assuming, rather than proving, that the Bible is a reliable historical account. He assumes the truth of the Gospels and then explains away all the problems in a way that proves he was not really a skeptic (let alone atheist) at all. The book is thoroughly debunked here.

All the best,

Richard

OK Richard, I have also read your reply to Charisma. Here is the book description from Amazon;

Book Description
"I owe Morison a great debt of gratitude. Who Moved the Stone? was an important early link in a long chain of evidence that God used to bring me into his kingdom. MorisonÆs stirring intellectual exploration of the historical record proved to be an excellent starting point for my spiritual investigation." --From the foreword by Lee Strobel English journalist Frank Morison had a tremendous drive to learn of Christ. The strangeness of the Resurrection story had captured his attention, and, influenced by skeptic thinkers at the turn of the century, he set out to prove that the story of ChristÆs Resurrection was only a myth. His probings, however, led him to discover the validity of the biblical record in a moving, personal way. Who Moved the Stone? is considered by many to be a classic apologetic on the subject of the Resurrection. Morison includes a vivid and poignant account of ChristÆs betrayal, trial, and death as a backdrop to his retelling of the climactic Resurrection itself. Among the chapter titles are: * The Book That Refused to Be Written * The Real Case Against the Prisoner * What Happened Before Midnight on Thursday * Between Sunset and Dawn * The Witness of the Great Stone * Some Realities of That Far-off Morning Who Moved the Stone? is a well-researched book that is as fascinating in its appeal to reason as it is accurate to the truthfulness of the Resurrection.

Maybe you should post a counter-claim on Amazon to set the record straight.

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
But thanks again for presenting his arguments. I find it very stimulating to refute them. I feel like I've been shooting Dutkos in a barrel.

Richard, you gave Twospirits your usual type of answer, and I do not see refuting the points Dutko makes. Perhaps you have dealt with this in another thread the same as the book "Who Moved The Stone?". I can do a search for that thread. I would like to know how you account for the sudden turnaround of the disciples from being cowards to the giving of their lives preaching the Gospel, and how the Roman soldiers could have let the body of Jesus be removed from the tomb they were guarding with their lives? Dutko raised many points and I did not see you answering them. Please point me to the thread where you have done this already.

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Again, you are basing your arguments on the presumption of the truth of the Bible. But if we begin with that presumption, then there is no need for argument!

This is why we shall be forever passing by each other (as we have already come to this conclusion). Twospirits and others have come to realize that the Bible is true; this is not a presumption (as you say it is). I can say; "you are presuming that the Bible is not true". That is what you are bent on proving. I can accept that errors have crept into the text, but that does not destroy the truth of the Bible. You are using the errors in the Bible to support your claim that all the Bible is a work of men and is not true. It is not surprising that any evidence anyone puts forward to support their belief, you will trash as not being valid. As far as Frank Morrison's book goes, I will go on the relevancy of his findings and not on what his personal belief was. That goes for anyone contributing on this forum. I might agree with with Twospirits, jce, and Chrasima where they are basing there comments on the word of God. I am not going to accept blindly everything they say. We can agree on lots of things, but also we can differ in our interpretation of some passages in the Bible. At least we are on common ground when reasoning.

I want to reason from the scriptures and not the writings of Bible scholars, atheists or agnostics; many of whom I and others will not agree with. We all have to be scholars and do our own study unless we take all of God's word on trust. I see nothing wrong in anyone putting their trust in God; it is better than putting their trust in man; that is what I have come to believe and I do not have to go into giving a proof every time I make a statement like that. The human intellect can be what prevents a person trusting in God. 2 Tim 3:7 is so true; "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. I wonder how much of God's instruction and teaching is going unnoticed by writing the Bible off as myth and not studying it in depth or by overcoming the objections to it, because of the way God punishes people for their abominations. If you accept that the whole of the Bible is myth and the work of men, there is absolutely no point to our discussions. Either we reason together from the Bible using it as the common ground, or else we cease from discussion, because each or our premise is diametrically opposed to one another, and therefore, we will never agree; only agree to disagree.

All the best,

David

[jce]

This argument begins with a false presumption that the Bible is an accurate record written by eyewitnesses. There is no reason to believe that. Indeed, the names were not attached to the Gospels until long after they were written. And there is a lot of evidence that they copied from each other, so they are not independent witnesses. Can you prove that the stories were not made up decades after the events supposedly happened?

How did Joseph Smith pull off his hoax? Mormonism is particularly enlightening because it happened in recent history so anyone can check the facts and prove it was a hoax. Yet millions still believe. If this can be done in the modern era, how much easier was it 2000 years ago when there were no newspapers?

Again, you are basing your arguments on the presumption of the truth of the Bible. But if we begin with that presumption, then there is no need for argument!

Richard, are you suggesting by this argument that the New Testament has been factually disproven to the same degree as the Book of Mormon?

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, are you suggesting by this argument that the New Testament has been factually disproven to the same degree as the Book of Mormon?

John

No, not "to the same degree" but certainly of the "same kind." Mormonism is a particularly enlightening case because it was invented so recently. We have newspaper reports and LOTS of documents written by the people involved with the invention of the cult. We have nothing like that with Christianity. But when we compare the claims of how Mormonism began (angels speaking to Joe Smith, etc.) we see that they are similar to those of Christianity and so they give us a counter-example to the claims of apologists concerning the psychology of believers. That's why those arguments are so weak. Furthermore, we wouldn't know anything about what really happened to the first Christians except by assuming that the Biblical record is accurate. But the Biblical record was decades after the fact, and as we can see in the case of Mormonism, the folks pushing the religion were free to write whatever they wanted. So why should we trust it?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi David,

There are good reasons that book fails to change anyone's mind about the resurrection of Jesus. Have you read it? It reads like something written by a fully-convinced Christian apologist who begins by assuming, rather than proving, that the Bible is a reliable historical account. He assumes the truth of the Gospels and then explains away all the problems in a way that proves he was not really a skeptic (let alone atheist) at all. The book is thoroughly debunked here.

All the best,

Richard

OK Richard, I have also read your reply to Charisma. Here is the book description from Amazon;

Book Description
"I owe Morison a great debt of gratitude. Who Moved the Stone? was an important early link in a long chain of evidence that God used to bring me into his kingdom. MorisonÆs stirring intellectual exploration of the historical record proved to be an excellent starting point for my spiritual investigation." --From the foreword by Lee Strobel English journalist Frank Morison had a tremendous drive to learn of Christ. The strangeness of the Resurrection story had captured his attention, and, influenced by skeptic thinkers at the turn of the century, he set out to prove that the story of ChristÆs Resurrection was only a myth. His probings, however, led him to discover the validity of the biblical record in a moving, personal way. Who Moved the Stone? is considered by many to be a classic apologetic on the subject of the Resurrection. Morison includes a vivid and poignant account of ChristÆs betrayal, trial, and death as a backdrop to his retelling of the climactic Resurrection itself. Among the chapter titles are: * The Book That Refused to Be Written * The Real Case Against the Prisoner * What Happened Before Midnight on Thursday * Between Sunset and Dawn * The Witness of the Great Stone * Some Realities of That Far-off Morning Who Moved the Stone? is a well-researched book that is as fascinating in its appeal to reason as it is accurate to the truthfulness of the Resurrection.

Maybe you should post a counter-claim on Amazon to set the record straight.

Good morning David,

It would have been better if you had answered the points I raised. Have you read the book? Did you read the refutation I linked? Or are you siding with the book merely because you agree with its conclusion? That would be a grave error.

I'm glad you quoted Lee Strobel's unsupported assertions that are printed on the book. As far as I know, Morison wrote nothing that suggested "he set out to prove that the story of Christ's Resurrection was only a myth." Can you give me any documentation of this claim? I have shown you what Morison said about himself in his book. It contradicts the myth that Srobel is promoting.

I'm glad you brought up Strobel since I was going to mention him as another example of a supposed "atheist" who converted because of the "evidence." I see no reason to believe Strobel's claims. He refutes himself in his own book "The Case for Christ" because he fails to address the real issues that skeptics raise, and he fails to present any arguments that would convince a true skeptic. His book reads like a religious tract preaching to the choir. I've never seen any evidence that he was ever an atheist. Have you?

Richard, you gave Twospirits your usual type of answer, and I do not see refuting the points Dutko makes.

If any answer is "usual" it is yours David. You simply brush aside the reasons I gave without even attempting to refute them.

The reasons I gave stand unrefuted, and will remain so until you or someone else chooses to actually answer them.

Perhaps you have dealt with this in another thread the same as the book "Who Moved The Stone?". I can do a search for that thread. I would like to know how you account for the sudden turnaround of the disciples from being cowards to the giving of their lives preaching the Gospel, and how the Roman soldiers could have let the body of Jesus be removed from the tomb they were guarding with their lives? Dutko raised many points and I did not see you answering them. Please point me to the thread where you have done this already.

I've already answered in Post #4 of this thread, but you ignored it. Why don't you respond to the answers I gave?

Your comment begins by assuming that the Bible is true in every details. If we begin with that assumption, then there is nothing you need to prove. Your logic is, therefore, a classic case of circular reasoning. It seems like you don't understand this fundamental fallacy. You constantly repeat it.

The simple fact is that we don't know anything about a "sudden turnaround" or an "empty tomb" except in the stories written in the religious tracts known as the "New Testament." Would you accept the official history of Joseph Smith written by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as valid? Of course not. Why then do you accept the NT as valid? It contains a lot that is highly questionable and most of it cannot be confirmed as true history by the standard methods of historical science.

Again, you are basing your arguments on the presumption of the truth of the Bible. But if we begin with that presumption, then there is no need for argument!

This is why we shall be forever passing by each other (as we have already come to this conclusion). Twospirits and others have come to realize that the Bible is true; this is not a presumption (as you say it is). I can say; "you are presuming that the Bible is not true". That is what you are bent on proving. I can accept that errors have crept into the text, but that does not destroy the truth of the Bible. You are using the errors in the Bible to support your claim that all the Bible is a work of men and is not true. It is not surprising that any evidence anyone puts forward to support their belief, you will trash as not being valid.

You still don't understand your fallacy if circular reasoning. Would you accept a Muslim basing all his arguments on the assumed truth of the Koran? Of course not.

There is no problem with you believing the Bible is true. The problem arises only when you try to argue that the Bible is true by assuming that the Bible is true. Why can't you see this? It is the most plain and obvious fact which you understand perfectly in any context other than Christianity. You reject circular reasoning if it is used by Catholics (the Pope said the Pope is infallible and this proves the Pope is infallible) or anyone else.

I do not "presume the Bible is not true." I make no presumptions at all in that regard. I simply follow the evidence. This allows me to conclude that it contains both truth and falsehood depending upon the evidence. You have no such freedom. There is no equivalence between my view based on evidence and your presumption that the Bible is the very Word of God!

"That is what you are bent on proving." - Yes, I am "bent" on proving the truth. The Bible contains a mix of truth and falsehood, with the balance decidedly in favor of the false (creation myth, flood myth, exodus myth, using striped sticks to make speckled goats, walking on water, etc.).

"It is not surprising that any evidence anyone puts forward to support their belief, you will trash as not being valid." - Really? Is that what I'm doing when I prove that your reasoning is based on the most elementary and fundamentally fallacious logic of Petitio Principii?

As far as Frank Morrison's book goes, I will go on the relevancy of his findings and not on what his personal belief was. That goes for anyone contributing on this forum. I might agree with with Twospirits, jce, and Chrasima where they are basing there comments on the word of God. I am not going to accept blindly everything they say. We can agree on lots of things, but also we can differ in our interpretation of some passages in the Bible. At least we are on common ground when reasoning.

Well, the issue about Morison's personal beliefs was raised by Charisma who falsely asserted he had been an atheist. If he wasn't an atheist, then there is nothing special about his book. It's just another Christian tract preaching to the choir. Why do you think folks like Lee Strobel and Charisma make such a big deal about him being skeptical? They are trying to say that there is real evidence that should convince a skeptic. But no skeptic will EVER be convinced by circular reasoning, and that's exactly what Morison does in his book from beginning to end! He began by assuming the Bible was accurate in most of what it says. This is why skeptics are not convinced by his book - it is based entirely upon one of the most elementary and fundamental of all logical fallacies.

I want to reason from the scriptures and not the writings of Bible scholars, atheists or agnostics; many of whom I and others will not agree with. We all have to be scholars and do our own study unless we take all of God's word on trust. I see nothing wrong in anyone putting their trust in God; it is better than putting their trust in man; that is what I have come to believe and I do not have to go into giving a proof every time I make a statement like that. The human intellect can be what prevents a person trusting in God. 2 Tim 3:7 is so true; "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. I wonder how much of God's instruction and teaching is going unnoticed by writing the Bible off as myth and not studying it in depth or by overcoming the objections to it, because of the way God punishes people for their abominations. If you accept that the whole of the Bible is myth and the work of men, there is absolutely no point to our discussions. Either we reason together from the Bible using it as the common ground, or else we cease from discussion, because each or our premise is diametrically opposed to one another, and therefore, we will never agree; only agree to disagree.

All the best,

David

I've already explained this error but you don't seem to understand. You are relying on men when you study your Bible in English. You are relying on men when you use dictionaries and concordances to study the original languages. And most significantly, you are relying on a mere MAN when you trust your own fallible logic as the final arbiter of truth. You can't get away from your reliance upon men when you study the Bible or do anything.

Your error is based on your belief that a person must accept a DOGMA about the Bible. You think I "accept that the whole of the Bible is myth and the work of men" as if that were a dogma like your belief that the Bible is the "Word of God." But that's simply not true. Every Bible that has every been handled has been produced by the hands of men. You cannot deny this. Therefore, we can agree perfectly that the Bible is "the work of men" in a most literal sense. Now you think that the Bible is in some sense "divinely inspired" though we haven't discussed the details as yet. I have no problem with that as a possibility. But you are making a HUGE ASSUMPTION that the whole Bible is the "Word of God" in such a way that everything in it (except a few incidental errors) is "true." You have never given any reason for this radical assumption, and worse, your assumption is directly contradicted by a mountain of evidence. Yet it is the basis of everything you write. So yes, we will be just "going past each other" as long as you begin with such an unfounded assumption.

All the very best to you my diligent friend,

Richard

[jce]

I've already explained this error but you don't seem to understand. You are relying on men when you study your Bible in English. You are relying on men when you use dictionaries and concordances to study the original languages. And most significantly, you are relying on a mere MAN when you trust your own fallible logic as the final arbiter of truth. You can't get away from your reliance upon men when you study the Bible or do anything.

Isn't that statement true about all of man's endevours? We all build on the works of men who came before us relying on the tools and the rules they have devised. The Bible has been put to the test by many who have tried to disprove its claims and in many such pursuits has demonstrated an uncanny ability to convert even its persecutors.

May God enrich your understanding my friend.

John