The John 3:16 & 4:16 flaw?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Bible is my source of authority. I cite it in support of my arguments. Unfounded personal opinions are meaningless.

But you only have one source, and you are trying to prove that source with its self. That does not work, unless you believe the source to begin with.

That would be like me telling you that the Lotus Sutra is the absolute truth, and then quoting the parts of the Lotus Sutra that say it is the absolute truth. Unless you believe the Lotus Sutra is the absolute truth, quoting from the Lotus Sutra is not convincing.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. My argument relies on the eyewitness accounts contained in the Bible. Those who reject the Bible (and the New Testament in particular) are unlikely to be impressed with my argument. That said, one might argue the same thing for evolutionists, were they required to make their case without the scholarship of secular humanists behind them.

Your demand for so called "extraordinary evidence" is arbitrary. My premise is simple; the New Testament contains 27 documents written by at least 8 independant historians. If you like, then, each book of the New Testament can be seen as corroboration for other Bible books. There you go -- multiple sources.

Keep in mind, there is no contemporary evidence supporting the authenticity of Homer's Iliad. All available manuscript evidence for his great epic dates more than three centuries after he wrote it. Yet no serious scholar challenges its authorship or authenticity. The internal evidence of Homer's work is self-supporting.

While the Iliad is by nature pseudo-fictional epic, the New Testament Gospels are by nature carefully recorded historical biography. It is inequitable of you to impose a higher critical standard on the New Testament than objective scholarship demands.

Evolution makes sense on a logical level and there is evidence to support it, so a sound conclusion can be reached.

There is no proof that God told Moses via burning bush his laws, and that goes all the way up to Jesus coming from the dead, moving that boulder and flying into heaven.

As Shaky and others have pointed out, all you're saying is "the Bible is fact, because the Bible says so."

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. My argument relies on the eyewitness accounts contained in the Bible. Those who reject the Bible (and the New Testament in particular) are unlikely to be impressed with my argument. That said, one might argue the same thing for evolutionists, were they required to make their case without the scholarship of secular humanists behind them.

Eyewitness accounts alone are too low of a standard for scientific inquiry.

No, you cannot argue that the same is true for evolutionists. Evolutionists do not rely on below standard evidence. I would suspect that you have never studied evolution, beyond the Christian propaganda that would be on most Christian web sites about evolution. I say this because you make unsubstantiated claims that ignore current findings and ideas about evolution. Science does not respect the position of people, and rather they are humanists or not. Science only respect observations of nature. Science also never stands still. Review and reexamination by scientists around the world is what drives the progress of science. Sure some people may have agendas, but this content reevaluations will cast those ideas to the side.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Your demand for so called "extraordinary evidence" is arbitrary. There is, for example, no contemporary evidence supporting the authenticity of Homer's Iliad. All available manuscript evidence for his great epic dates more than three centuries after he wrote it. Yet no serious scholar challenges its authorship or authenticity. The internal evidence of Homer's work is self-supporting.

Your argument is erroneous. I have never made the claim that Homer's Iliad was true. Do you believe that Homer's Iliad is a true story?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
While the Iliad is by nature pseudo-fictional epic, the New Testament Gospels are by nature carefully recorded historical biography. It is inequitable of you to impose a higher critical standard on the New Testament than objective scholarship demands.

Again you have made an extraordinary claim and not supplied any evidence out side of the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Your argument is erroneous. I have never made the claim that Homer's Iliad. Do you believe that Homer's Iliad is a true story?

Be funny if he does, considering it's littered with mythology and supernatural happenings, err wait.

Originally posted by Robtard
Evolution makes sense on a logical level and there is evidence to support it, so a sound conclusion can be reached.

There is no proof that God told Moses via burning bush his laws, and that goes all the way up to Jesus coming from the dead, moving that boulder and flying into heaven.

As Shaky and others have pointed out, all you're saying is "the Bible is fact, because the Bible says so."

The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. My insistence is this: The New Testament documents should be evaluated using the same objective standards we apply to other ancient literature. I agree that one must examine New Testament writings with a critical eye, but that's not what you guys have been doing. I provide a long and detailed argument, to which each of you responds with dismissive contempt. You show your true colors.

So now the ball is back in your court. Prove to me that the New Testament is NOT a reliable history book. Surely you must be able to do so with eloquent ease, given your frequent accusations against it.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. My insistence is this: The New Testament documents should be evaluated using the same objective standards we apply to other ancient literature. I agree that one must examine New Testament writings with a critical eye, but that's not what you guys have been doing. I provide a long and detailed argument, to which each of you responds with dismissive contempt. You show your true colors.

So now the ball is back in your court. Prove to me that the New Testament is NOT a reliable history book. Surely you must be able to do so with eloquent ease, given your frequent accusations against it.

I have never show contempt! All I have said is that you have not met a high enough standard.

Why do you reject faith?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Your argument is erroneous. I have never made the claim that Homer's Iliad was true. Do you believe that Homer's Iliad is a true story?

Neither did I make the claim that Homer's Iliad was an account of real history. In fact, I specifically referred to it as pseudo-fictional epic. My argument was simply this: One must evaluate the New Testament by the established standards of historical criticism. Serious scholars agree that Homer's Iliad was really written by Homer. Applying this same standard, we can also conclude that the Gospel of Luke (for example) was really written by Luke. Homer was writing a work of obvious fiction. Luke was writing real history and never claimed otherwise.

Your dismissal of eyewitness testimony might be very comforting to you, but it wouldn't fly in a court of law. People face legal penalty every day on the testimony of eyewitnesses. And when one considers the extraordinary multiplicity of eyewitness testimony contained in the New Testament, it becomes difficult to set aside. But set it aside you will. That's what scoffers do.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. My insistence is this: The New Testament documents should be evaluated using the same objective standards we apply to other ancient literature. I agree that one must examine New Testament writings with a critical eye, but that's not what you guys have been doing. I provide a long and detailed argument, to which each of you responds with dismissive contempt. You show your true colors.

So now the ball is back in your court. Prove to me that the New Testament is NOT a reliable history book. Surely you must be able to do so with eloquent ease, given your frequent accusations against it.

We have, you haven't. The Iliad is loaded with mythology and supernatural happenings, e.g. Hermes helps King Priam sneak into Achilles camp. Do you seriously think scholars take that as actually happening?

Now, it is very possible there was a war, as Homer described, but logic dictates that the implausible parts are just fiction and used to enhance the story. Same goes for the Bible, was there a Jesus? Sure, there probably was a guy named Jesus who preached a kinder view of God, was he actually God in the flesh born from a virgin? You do the math using your "critical eye".

Balls back in your court.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have never show contempt! All I have said is that you have not met a high enough standard.

Why do you reject faith?

Your assertion assumes facts not in evidence. I do not reject faith.

Originally posted by Robtard
We have, you haven't. The Iliad is loaded with mythology and supernatural happenings, e.g. Hermes helps King Priam sneak into Achilles camp. Do you seriously think scholars take that as actually happening?

Now, it is very possible there was a war, as Homer described, but logic dictates that the implausible parts are just fiction and used to enhance the story. Same goes for the Bible, was there a Jesus? Sure, there probably was a guy named Jesus who preached a kinder view of God, was he actually God in the flesh born from a virgin? You do the math using your "critical eye".

Balls back in your court.

Ponder with great care my use of the words "pseudo-fictional epic". I never said Homer wrote real history, even if the generalities of the battle have some historical basis. But the authors of the New Testament certainly DID claim to be writing real history and I would love to see you to prove them wrong.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION - SECTION 1

Was there ever a man named Jesus of Nazareth? The Bible certainly says there was. Is the Jesus of Scripture also the Jesus of history? The Bible certainly claims as much. Yet one need only Google the word “Bible” to discover a seemingly endless list of critics ready to ridicule every page of it. Members of the so called “Jesus Seminar” have tried to draw a broad margin between what they call the “Jesus of faith” and the “Jesus of history”. But born again Christians everywhere still stand on the Bible as their unshakable source of historically accurate theological authority. Can an intelligent, educated person truly believe the content of so ancient and enigmatic a book?

For sake of simplicity, our study will focus on the New Testament. We will show that this collection of religious writings is in fact a very accurate reflection of real history, and not the pretentious fairytale many critics assert.

The New Testament is not a singular document, but rather a collection of 27 individual documents written by no fewer than eight different people over a forty-five year period during the first century AD. The New Testament contains four Gospel accounts – four books that center on the life of Jesus Christ. It also contains a history book (Acts), twenty-one letters (called epistles), and an apocalyptic work relating to the end times (Revelation). There is real evidence supporting the authenticity of the New Testament, and therefore real evidence supporting the existence of the biblical Jesus.

All four Gospels were written by people who either claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, or claimed to base their writing on the testimonies of eyewitnesses.

All four Gospels were written within the lifetimes of people who knew Jesus personally and lived in Judea during the first half of the first century. If the content of the Gospels were wholly untrue (as critics suggest), surely we would find stacks of contemporary sources wishing to challenge them...but we don't. Not until the later days of Nero (60-68AD) do we see vigorous slander slung at the Christian gospel, and history informs us of the political bias involved.

There are more than 24,000 manuscripts of the ancient New Testament available for scientific analysis and comparison; some 5000+ of these are in the original Greek. Compare this with Homer's Iliad – the next best preserved ancient text – and you will find only 600 extant manuscripts. The oldest New Testament manuscript dates to within 35 years of its original, while the oldest manuscript of Homer's work was penned about 400 years after the original. Since older copies are more likely to reflect the autograph, the New Testament is the most richly supported, authentic ancient text in existence.

The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of Jesus' disciples, whom He also named Apostles. Interestingly, these two documents paint a very dim picture of the Lord's twelve friends. They are seen as moronic idiots who repeatedly failed to grasp even the simple lessons their Master tried to teach them. They were faithless, foolish and fearful; and they had a leader, Simon Peter, who was the dumbest dolt of them all. False religious writings are always designed to further the purposes of the author. Yet Matthew, John, and all the other New Testament writers, simply tell it like it happened, no matter how stupid it made them look. One would hardly expect this from apocryphal works. The evidence points to authenticity.

All four Gospels report that women were the ones to first discover the resurrection of Christ. Given the extraordinary significance of the resurrection to Christian theology, and the overwhelming patriarchalism of ancient Jewish culture, it is unimaginable that the male authors of the New Testament would uniformly assert such a thing if it were not true. The testimonies of women were considered unreliable.

The four New Testament Gospels are the oldest and most reliable records of the life of Jesus. Other so called “gospels” belonging to the pseudoepigrapha – books like the “Gospel of Thomas”, or the “Gospel of Mary”, or the “Gospel of Judas” -- were written centuries after the time of Christ by various pseudonymous authors, and have absolutely no basis in real history.

Down through the years there have been many religious leaders who have characterized themselves as “the messiah”. From this perspective, then, it is easy to see why so many people dismiss the claims of Jesus, who clearly identified Himself as the messianic Son of Man [John 8:28]. But unlike all the false messiahs who pop up from time to time, Jesus of Nazareth is the only one who successfully passed the authenticity test by coming back from the dead. The Gospels say that Jesus is God [John 1:18]. If this is so, He must therefore be immortal [Psalm 90:2]. The Bible says:

“And Jesus Christ our Lord was shown to be the Son of God when God powerfully raised Him from the dead by means of the Holy Spirit.” [Romans 1:4/NLT]

In recent times, a man named Vernon Wayne Howell (who preferred to call himself David Koresh), claimed that he was an incarnation of God's Son. His followers worshiped him as their messiah. On April 19th 1993 Koresh died, along with many of his followers, in a raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. While some debate the nature of Koresh's demise, claiming that he shot himself rather than dying in the fire that raged throughout his Waco compound, the undeniable fact of the matter remains; David Koresh is dead! Fifteen years later, he is STILL dead! In spite of his bold insistence that his enemies would never be able to keep him in the grave, the false teacher has been proven a liar. Jesus was the real deal, and hence the grave could not hold Him.

Bible critics are quick to point out that all sorts of ancient myths contain resurrection stories. The Egyptians talked about the repeated resurrections of Osiris the god of life, death, and fertility. Later, Greeks told tales about Persephone the earth goddess, who was responsible for life, death, and rebirth. In fact, most ancient pantheistic religions contained some sort of resurrection myth.

So what makes Bible believing Christians so sure that Jesus' resurrection is factual?

In order to answer this question, we must first understand that there are a few contemporary sources outside the New Testament who mention Christ. For example, the annals of Tacitus (15.44), a non-Christian Roman historian who lived from 56 to 117AD, clearly records the existence of a man called “Christus” (Latin for Christ) from whom those troublesome Christians derived their name. And Josephus (37 to 100+ AD), a Jewish historian with no Christian affiliation, wrote the following:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats.... He was Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

No serious scholar can deny that a man named Jesus lived in the neighborhood of Jerusalem during the first half of the first century. No serious scholar can deny that within a very few years of this man's death, thousands of people had become completely convinced that Jesus had risen from the grave. With the exception of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus then committed suicide, ten of the remaining eleven Apostles were all murdered for their faith. Only John lived to be an old man, though history is silent as to how he met his end.

That's a lot of fun, but no where do I see it present actual evidence. It mentions the Iliad (which no less a work of historical fiction) and goes on and on about evidence, but never actually delivers any; other than bible verse, which we've already stated does not substantiate anything. Once again, the author of this defaults to the typical biblical idea that the bible is it's own best evidence.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Bible is my source of authority. I cite it in support of my arguments. Unsupported personal opinions are meaningless.

So you believe the Bible is supported by history and you believe history because it is supported by the Bible?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Ponder with great care my use of the words "pseudo-fictional epic". I never said Homer wrote real history, even if the generalities of the battle have some historical basis. But the authors of the New Testament certainly DID claim to be writing real history and I would love you to prove them wrong.

LOL... you'll dismiss Homer's work as being "psuedo-fictional", I assume because of the implausible scenarios in the poem, and rightfully so, but you won't apply that same logic to the Bible. I wonder why. Actually, do tell me why you won't use the same scrutiny?

Logic proves them wrong at every step. Virgin births, man-god, talking bushes, all people being of one man etc. etc. etc. Homer's work has less sillyness.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
EVIDENCE – SECTION 2

Some critics assert that Jesus never rose from the dead – that He is still in His grave somewhere in Palestine. They insist the disciples were so heartbroken when they discovered Jesus had lied to them – since He had predicted His resurrection [Luke 18:31-33] – that they stole His body and hid it. Thus, the resurrection of Jesus is nothing more than an ancient religious conspiracy by a group of overzealous devotees. But what does the evidence say?

Remember, all four Gospels are brutally honest in their portrayals. The Apostles were a bunch of babbling idiots whose egos often wrote cheques their bodies couldn't cash. As they were leaving the last supper with Jesus, they all vowed insistently that they would never abandon their Master, even if it meant death [Mark 14:27-31]; but when soldiers came to arrest Jesus, every one of the disciples ran away. Following the crucifixion, they cowered together behind the locked door of someone's house, wondering when the authorities would come for them [John 20:19]. These men where gutless through and through. It is inconceivable that they would have had the gumption to steal Jesus' body, never mind fight off the Roman guards at the tomb [Matthew 27:65]. But more than this, it is utterly unbelievable that these eleven cowards would then be willing to face torture and death for something they knew to be a lie. Yet the evidence clearly shows that each of them suffered dearly for testifying that they had seen Jesus risen. The only reasonable explanation for such heroic courage is the actuality of the resurrection. The Lord had told them that because He lived, He would cause them to live beyond death, in heaven [John 14:1-3].

Other critics foolishly suggest that the Apostles simply experienced some sort of mass hallucination when they thought they saw Jesus alive after His burial [Luke 24:35-49]. But this makes no sense at all. Firstly, each of the eleven Apostles, along with a number of women, would have to have hallucinated exactly the same thing, since they all told the same story about it – and that's not how hallucinations work. Secondly, present at Jesus' post-resurrection appearance was the Apostle Matthew, a tax collector. Revenue agents have many faults, but they DON'T hallucinate!

Before we go on, it is important to note that all scholars from every school of thought have some sort of bias. Even I, as a conservative evangelical, have certain philosophical leanings that can interfere with my objectivity if I'm not careful. Unfortunately, many Bible critics pretend to be objective when they're not. They begin with the premise that miracles don't really happen and the resurrection of Jesus is a myth, then they set about tearing the New Testament to shreds. A real seeker of truth will always begin with an open mind, even if the facts seem somewhat unpalatable. I didn't become a Christian until the age of 20. It took me many years and many questions before I finally came to believe that the Bible speaks exclusive truth. But once you have examined the evidence, it becomes increasingly difficult to accept the expostulations of the critics. In truth, the people who wrote the New Testament claimed to be writing real history, and nothing in the vast body of ancient evidence proves otherwise. Do we not owe them the benefit of what little doubt remains?

Let's take a closer look at the Gospels and see what else they have to say about Jesus.

There are four Gospels in the Bible – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These appear at the beginning of the New Testament. The first three documents (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are often referred to as the “Synoptic Gospels”, since they follow a similar chronology, were written within ten years of each other, and cover much of the same material -- though from differing perspectives. The forth document, the Gospel of John, is unique. Scholars sometimes refer to John's account as the “Evangelistic Gospel”. While the Synoptics were written around the 50s to 60s AD, John's Gospel was authored around 90AD. Matthew, Mark and Luke predate the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70AD, while John's work has a later outlook. All four Gospels tell the story of Jesus.

Matthew does not sign the Gospel that bears his name, though all three Synoptics record that a Jewish tax collector named Matthew Levi was a disciple of Jesus and one of the twelve Apostles [Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-28]. The Gospel of Matthew employs the man's given name, while Mark and Luke use his family name. Early scholars uniformly credited Matthew Levi with the writing of this document.

The Gospel of Mark is also technically anonymous, though from the day it was written the early church always ascribed its authorship to a young man named John-Mark, cousin of Barnabas [Acts 15:37; Colossians 4:10].

Luke actually signed his work. While Matthew and Mark are addressed to a broad group of people – Jews for Matthew, and Romans for Mark – Luke, a physician by trade [Colossians 4:14], aims his Gospel at a single man. He opens with these words:

“Most honorable Theophilus: Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of His promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught.” [Luke 1:1-4/NLT]

Whether critics want to acknowledge it or not, the Gospel of Luke claims to report carefully investigated eyewitness testimony. Luke was a Greek doctor and recent convert to the Christian faith. He had no Jewish bones to pick. Rather, as a scholarly professional, he understood the importance of presenting a coherent evidential case for Christ. So we might say, therefore, that the whole of Luke's Gospel stands as his offer of proof. The same can be said for the book of Acts, also written by Luke.

While modern forensics and the wonders of DNA testing have diminished the weight of eyewitness testimony in recent years, there was a time when eyewitnesses bore the greatest influence. While eyewitness testimony can sometimes be unreliable, Luke used a plurality of sources and compiled his information carefully. There is no logical reason to reject his report out of hand. Those who insist the Gospels were written much later by pseudonymous authors, have nothing more than conjecture and irrational self-assertion to stand on. The Gospel of Luke is a faithful, historically accurate document. This is why early Christians sought to preserve it and adopt it into the canon of recognized Scripture.

John wrote his unique Gospel around 90AD, along with three brief epistles (1, 2, &3 John). He also wrote the book of Revelation around 95AD. The Gospel of John is aimed at a broad, Gentile audience and has a singular theological agenda. “Jesus' disciples saw Him do many other miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him you will have life.” [John 20:30-31/NLT] While Luke wanted to provide factual assurance to new believers, John targeted nonbelievers. This is why evangelicals often recommend that new Bible students start with John's Gospel.

Before we continue, I must take a moment to comment on a particularly ridiculous theory proposed by some critics. This theory relates to the Christmas story as taught in both Luke and Matthew; namely, that the story of Jesus is merely a metaphorical reflection of various astrological phenomena. Such critics postulate a relationship between biblical events, characters and geographic localities, and various astrological signs, constellations and ages.

same with this part.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Neither did I make the claim that Homer's Iliad was an account of real history. In fact, I specifically referred to it as pseudo-fictional epic. My argument was simply this: One must evaluate the New Testament by the established standards of historical criticism. Serious scholars agree that Homer's Iliad was really written by Homer. Applying this same standard, we can also conclude that the Gospel of Luke (for example) was really written by Luke. Homer was writing a work of obvious fiction. Luke was writing real history and never claimed otherwise.

No one knows who Homer was or if Homer was one person or more. Also, Homer's Iliad never makes extraordinary claims, therefore, standard levels of evidence is all that is required.

If I were to go into a court of law and testify that I walked on water and I had eyewitnesses that testify that I walked on water, all of the testimony would be thrown out. Even in the court of law, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Your dismissal of eyewitness testimony might be very comforting to you, but it wouldn't fly in a court of law. People face legal penalty every day on the testimony of eyewitnesses. And when one considers the extraordinary multiplicity of eyewitness testimony contained in the New Testament, it becomes difficult to set aside. But set it aside you will. That's what scoffers do.

It's not a point of comfort. Please stop taking this debate personally.

The multiplicity of eyewitness testimony contained in the New Testament is not extraordinary. The bible is just a book written my humans. Please prove otherwise.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
As for the doom of infidels, I understand from my limited comprehension of Islamic theology that Allah will judge those who reject his authority (like I do), reject his prophet Mohammad (like I do), and claim that God exists as three persons (like I do). I do not pretend to understand the Muslim conception of hell, but it seems to me Allah doesn't spank infidels gently.

And that whole "burning in fire and brimstone" a method of spanking infidels gently?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
EVIDENCE – SECTION 3

Their assertions are based on an assumption of December 25th as Jesus' birth date – and they're wrong. Jesus was born much later – probably in the spring. December 25th is merely the traditional, cultural date for Christmas in the west. The Eastern Orthodox tradition generally prefers January 7th as their day of celebration, though this too has a limited basis in actual history. But just as Elizabeth II celebrates her birthday on May 24 (Queen Victoria's date of birth) rather than April 21 (her actual date of birth), so Christians around the world choose to mark the birth of Christ on a fixed date of some sort. There is no theological necessity to celebrate Christmas on the actual date, and the Bible never reveals this date to us.

In addition to the dating problem, critics who propose the so called “Zodiac Theory”, improperly allegorize and decontextualize Bible passages right left and center. Their presentation, while marginally entertaining, is theologically meaningless and downright doltish. If you 're ready for a groan, take a look for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rnScLjEZw

The sad thing is, there are actually people out there who believe this bunk. From now until the day you die, whether you're reading the Bible or a billboard, never forget that a text without a context is nothing but a pretext.

So then, taking the Gospels in context, there are some things we should keep in mind:

Firstly, 80% of Luke's content is reported in Matthew and Mark. If Luke's report is trustworthy, then parallel passages shared among the Synoptics are also trustworthy. Even though some of the details differ slightly, none of these differences impact the truthfulness of the accounts; such asymmetries are easily attributed to the differing perspectives of three distinctive human authors. Yet even though these men wrote independently to varied audiences, there is a thread of consistency that binds them together, suggesting that the Apostle Peter was right when he claimed that the Holy Spirit inspired their work, even as He inspired the prophets of old [2 Peter 1:21]. While critics insist that the similarities between the Synoptics is conspiratorial, there are sufficient incongruities to set aside such accusations. Police officers, for example, often look for excessive agreement between witnesses as evidence of conspiracy. Such inordinate agreement is not present in the Synoptics.

Secondly, Luke paints for us a poignant picture of this man Jesus, and clearly shows his audience that Jesus is more than a mere mortal. It was his expressed purpose to give a young Christian named Theophilus, a strong reassurance of the things he had been taught verbally. Consequently, Luke pulls no punches in presenting Jesus as the God who became man. Let's look at some examples in Luke's Gospel.

Consider the words an angel spoke to Mary, the mother of Jesus: “You will become pregnant and have a son, and you are to name Him Jesus. He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give Him the throne of His ancestor David. And He will reign over Israel forever; His kingdom will never end!” [Luke 1:31-33/NLT]

To a person familiar with Old Testament prophesy, this passage clearly portrays Jesus as the coming Messiah who would sit on the throne of David, Israel's greatest human king, and reign eternally over the people of Israel.

Consider Luke's references to real history: “At that time the Roman Emperor, Augustus, decreed that a census should be taken throughout the Roman Empire. (This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)” [Luke 2:1-2/NLT]

For years, critics assumed this passage was clear evidence of error in the New Testament, since they held that Jesus was born in 1AD and Quirinius left office in 4BC. But it is the critics who are in error.

Firstly, the establishment of our current year numbering system did not begin in Jesus day. It was developed years later by well meaning scholars who wanted to calculate the precise years of Jesus' birth. Unfortunately, they missed. While modern scholars debate the specifics, Jesus could have been born as early as 4BC or as late as 6AD. This makes no theological difference to the message of the Bible, but it does set aside the critics' first assertion.

Secondly, Quirinius served as governor of Syria twice ---- the first time from 11BC – 6BC, and the second time from 3AD – 8AD. If Jesus was born as late as 6AD, this places Him squarely in the middle of Quirinius' second term.

So rather than disproving the historicity of Luke's Gospel, this verse confirms it. Furthermore, we can clearly see that Luke was not interested in writing mere conjecture or fanciful fairytales, but real history. Historical markers of this sort are absent from Greek mythology.

Consider how Luke represents Jesus in childhood. He is the only New Testament author to provide these details: “So Jesus grew in both heights and wisdom, and He was loved by God and all who knew Him.” [Luke 2:52/NLT]

Luke portrays Jesus as a real human child who grew up in the usual way – starting as a baby, then getting bigger – beginning with no knowledge, and progressively growing in wisdom. Some critics wrongly equate Jesus with Hercules – the man who would become God. But in fact, Luke shows us that Jesus is precisely the opposite – the God who would become man. Suggesting that Jesus is a mythological character, is as ludicrous as suggesting that a car is a 747 because both have wheels.

Consider how Luke presents Jesus' humanity. While there is no attempt made to diminish His deity, Luke shows us that Jesus was in many ways just like us – susceptible to the norms of mortal life.

Jesus could get hungry: “Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan River. He was led by the Spirit to go out into the wilderness, where the devil tempted Him for forty days. He ate nothing all that time and was very hungry.” [Luke 4:1-2/NLT]

John tells us Jesus could experience thirst: “Jesus knew that everything was now finished, and to fulfill the Scriptures He said, 'I am thirsty.'” [John 19:28/NLT]

Jesus needed rest: “One day Jesus said to His disciples, 'Let us cross over to the other side of the lake.' So they got into a boat and started out. On the way across, Jesus lay down for a nap....” [Luke 8:22-23a/NLT]

Jesus experienced emotions: “But as they came closer to Jerusalem and Jesus saw the city ahead, He began to cry.” [Luke 19:41/NLT]

again, more nothing. Lots of bible verse, though.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Your assertion assumes facts not in evidence. I do not reject faith.

Then the core reason for believing the bible is true would be faith, and not because the bible says so; is that correct?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Ponder with great care my use of the words "pseudo-fictional epic". I never said Homer wrote real history, even if the generalities of the battle have some historical basis. But the authors of the New Testament certainly DID claim to be writing real history and I would love to see you to prove them wrong.

Just because someone claims to be writing real history is not evidence of writing real history.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
EVIDENCE – SECTION 4

Yet in some ways Jesus differed greatly from the human norm.

For example, eyewitnesses claimed that Jesus had been personally authenticated by God at His baptism. “You are My beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you.” [Luke 3:22b/NLT] Witnesses reported that Jesus claimed to be the living fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy. One day, after Jesus read a passage from the Book of Isaiah, this happened: “Jesus rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat back down. Everyone in the synagogue stared at Him intently. Then He said, 'This scripture has come true today before your very eyes.'” [Luke 4:20-21/NLT] And witnesses also claimed that Jesus performed many miracles in their presence. “As they reached the place where the road started down from the Mount of Olives, all of His followers began to shout and sing as they walked along, praising God for all the wonderful miracles they had seen.” [Luke 19:37/NLT]

Luke also reports that Jesus had certain authorities that are exclusive to God. Among these were the ability to read people's minds, and the power to forgive sins. Consider one occasion when Jesus healed a crippled man:

“Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the man, 'Your sins are forgiven.' 'Who does this man think he is?' the Pharisees and teachers of the religious law said to each other. 'This is blasphemy! Who but God can forgive sins?' Jesus knew what they were thinking, so He asked them, 'Why do you think this is blasphemy? Is it easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or 'Get up and walk'? I will prove that I, the Son of Man, have the authority on earth to forgive sins.' Then Jesus turned to the paralyzed man and said, 'Stand up, take your mat, and go home, because you are healed.' And immediately, as everyone watched, the man jumped to his feet, picked up his mat, and went home praising God.” [Luke 5:20-25/NLT]

Not only did Jesus have the power to perform miracles, He used this ability to prove His authority to forgive sins. Also, the text clearly says that Jesus knew what his critics were thinking. So then, while the Gospels report Jesus' humanity, they also report abilities that are unique to God, making repeated references to the various witnesses present at these happenings. Unlike the wild fantasies of Greek mythology, the Gospel writers are very concerned to present their material in the realm of reality. The brothers Grimm make no pretense of an audience, since their work is clearly fable. Either the writers are reporting historical fact, as they claim, or they are dastardly liars, as Bible critics claim. Thankfully for us, there is absolutely no substantive evidence pointing to the latter. On the contrary, all available evidence demonstrates that the biblical Gospels had strong support among early scholars.

It is typical of critics to reject the Bible as a source of historical authority. Since the New Testament contains the bulk of evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus, and since the last thing a Bible critic wants to do is submit to His sovereign authority, it makes sense that they would begin with an assault on Scripture. These onslaughts are often wrapped in acrid accusations against the text, its human authorship, or its divine inventor. Passages are quoted out of context in an attempt to generate contradictions were none exist. God's holy commands are ridiculed, as though the Almighty had to justify His righteous decrees before human courts. The Bible is abused and grossly misinterpreted. Christians are called judgmental hate mongers and bigots for preaching from its pages.

But all this is entirely unsurprising to the Christian. We have come to realize that the Bible is not merely believable, but is in fact the highest written authority in human history. It predicts that ignorant, unstable people will misrepresent God's Word [2 Peter 3:15-16]. It predicts that anyone who stands up for Jesus will find a world of hateful antagonists just waiting to attack [2 Timothy 3:12]. It predicts that so called “experts” will teach all sorts of lies, even believing their own babble [2 Timothy 3:13; 4:3-4].

Let us have no more talk about Jesus being a great moral teacher. Jesus claimed to be God [John 10:30]. If this is not so, then there is nothing great about the man – He was a liar, or possibly a nut-bar. And let us have no more talk about the Bible being a venerable ancient book of wisdom. The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God [2 Timothy 3:16]. If this is not so, then it is nothing more than mythological flapdoodle. But if you believe the evidence supporting the Bible, and if you acknowledge the utter lack of evidence negating it, then you have no choice but to take everything it says seriously. There is no fence upon which one may sit. If the Bible's testimony about Jesus is correct, then Jesus is Yahweh the Son – your Creator – and you must submit to His authority.

The Bible predicts that those who love the Lord will stand fast [2 Timothy 4:5]. We can say with certainty that Jesus is coming back one day to set things right [Titus 2:11-13]. We know with full assurance that those who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb will enjoy an eternity with God in heaven [John 14:3]. We know that without Jesus, no one can access God the Father [John 14:6]. And we know that until our dying breath, every Christian has the privilege and responsibility to share the Bible's message with others, so they too can become disciples of Jesus [Matthew 28:18-20]. And so, those of us who follow the Lord Jesus Christ, the risen King of all creation, can gladly say with the Apostle Paul, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” [Philippians 1:21/KJV]

It takes some big round shiny balls to mention the Grimm brothers in an essay that claims evidence, but provides none.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's the thing about "latter day saints", there can always be a latter day. Can I be your second in command? I also purpose we take 15% and not the measly 10%, I want to retire soon.

sure, if you can find them.