First off, I have no idea what answers you are talking about. I thought the name of the thread was "Eyewitness accounts fact or opinion" I am making the point that you believe the most FANTASTIC claim in human history. What is shocking to me --is you say you have "Faith".
Most believe it because of the amount of evidence that actually makes it credible.
You base your whole outlook on life based on the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead.
Yet, you seem to hold no standard by which you believe this FANTASTIC claim.
Apparently, you take it "On Faith" that some guy--2000 years ago was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. You don't know anyone who saw this--you can't quiz them or gauge if they are telling the truth--yet you believe it.
Didn't you say "What you have are his words ,his view. I could give you many reasons why that does not qualify as facts" OR "As I pointed out there are lots of differing on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony. Is just because someone posted here and is of the same mind set as you , does that make them the keeper of facts? Doubtful"
Which is it going to be?
Why DO you believe that FANTASTIC claim??
What the truth is--is that we believe it--because of the eyewitness and first hand accounts. That is what we have. A strong, no, VERY strong case can be made that it is true--from the record we have. But, we rely HEAVILY on testimony and eyewitnesses. That is usually sufficient to convince an ardent skeptic--when laid out in a reasoned and logical manner.
You don't seem to require even a case being made. You take it on "Faith".
Yet, when reasonable people come forward in DROVES telling similar stories--people from varied backgrounds, people of "Faith"--people with alot to lose by telling their story--eyewitnesses to these events--you SUDDENLY require new and exacting standards by which they can be deemed credible. Their claims do not include being raised from the dead.
One of the compelling things about the bible is that the people who are written about are usually not cast in the best light. Remember poor Peter--rebuked as Satan by Jesus?
These victims-- although innocent--may feel some shame at what happened to them.--yet, they are willing to tell their story anyway. It lends them real credibility.
At least be consistent in what you require as evidence--maybe it could be that discrediting the abused might make the abusers seem okay. Sorry, doesn't work like that.
As for JAL? I really do not see a logical comparison--but if you are more specific--I am sure I can reason it out for you.
You seem a bit confused
First to assume that there is any comparison between what the Bible says and what a man says is lacking. As a Christian I certainly accept the scripture as inspired. Belief in Biblical matters like the resurrection vs what a human might say concerning a subject are not even on the same level of comparison one is fallible one is not, oranges and apples. I don't accept human words because they say so. And I'm not debating a doctrinal issue like the resurrection here on this forum . Suffice to say in short, I do believe the accounts in the scripture are true including the witnesses as a matter of faith. Those who do not accept the Bible as God breathed won't accept it as the same. That is why I referred to it as a matter of faith. Additionally we have the spirit which you apparently think is quote gobbledy gook SIT you learned from VP to confirm the account of the resurrection. You can believe what you want about that.
RD was a MOG in the Way hierarchy just as many others, he enjoyed the same status and perks as others. While in the way he was supportive of their views ,upon leaving he aligned himself with the early CES group then Capital City Saints supporting their views, now he has a third set of views (at least, he may have had some others in between)
His views flip flop about as fast as our Democratic Candidate for president. So tell me which is the facts? Will the real facts please stand up ? Why should I believe him as some authority it seems he is still working out after three different views his facts. I don't mean to pick on RD here really , you could substitute any name here, which is why I threw out a few like G**r, Ly*n, Finn*g*n ,Cl*p they are all fallible people as you and I are. I trust their words zero without proof ,period, Just because they say so doesn't move me ,as I pointed out many of those same others that were as someone put it close to the top all have different views than his. To pick out one because he posts here or because he fits your mindset about the way as having the true facts is absurd. Facts are not based on likeability although I'm sure RD is very likable at times, that's simply not enough neither is his Ex MOG status ,there are lots of those around to pick from, and about as many conflicting views of the facts. Words are cheap....... proof comes much harder. No confusion here I just don't buy your apples and oranges comparisons.
First to assume that there is any comparison between what the Bible says and what a man says is lacking. As a Christian I certainly accept the scripture as inspired. Belief in Biblical matters like the resurrection vs what a human might say concerning a subject are not even on the same level of comparison one is fallible one is not, oranges and apples. I don't accept human words because they say so. And I'm not debating a doctrinal issue like the resurrection here on this forum . Suffice to say in short, I do believe the accounts in the scripture are true including the witnesses as a matter of faith. Those who do not accept the Bible as God breathed won't accept it as the same. That is why I referred to it as a matter of faith. Additionally we have the spirit which you apparently think is quote gobbledy gook SIT you learned from VP to confirm the account of the resurrection. You can believe what you want about that.
Words are cheap....... proof comes much harder. No confusion here I just don't buy your apples and oranges comparisons.
White Dove,
If the bible is God breathed and He used eyewitness accounts and the testimony of men to assure us of the resurrection--and it is good enough for Him--why such a greater standard is demanded by you?
Hate to tell you how many skeptics have come to Jesus--given a reasonable explanation of those facts.
You don't even make any sense--why is it God breathed--cause you think so--or because it proves itself--by its witnesses.
What an odd way to look at "Faith"?? Maybe--you just like the message and WANT to believe it--it doesn't seem you have solid reasoning--
what you claim to be asking of others here.
BTW---Men --PEOPLE--wrote the bible. Differing language styles--differing perspectives--He wrote the ten commandments--seems if He wanted to--He coulda handed down a tablet with the NT on it.
You don't seem to like what the victims of abuse here tell you---so you can twist and turn logic on its head--but they are very credible.
Words are cheap--when YOU claim they are--is that the standard? It may be yours--but you have to turn reason on its head to claim it.
If the bible is God breathed and He used eyewitness accounts and the testimony of men to assure us of the resurrection--and it is good enough for Him--why such a greater standard is demanded by you?
Hate to tell you how many skeptics have come to Jesus--given a reasonable explanation of those facts.
You don't even make any sense--why is it God breathed--cause you think so--or because it proves itself--by its witnesses.
What an odd way to look at "Faith"?? Maybe--you just like the message and WANT to believe it--it doesn't seem you have solid reasoning--
what you claim to be asking of others here.
BTW---Men --PEOPLE--wrote the bible. Differing language styles--differing perspectives--He wrote the ten commandments--seems if He wanted to--He coulda handed down a tablet with the NT on it.
You don't seem to like what the victims of abuse here tell you---so you can twist and turn logic on its head--but they are very credible.
Words are cheap--when YOU claim they are--is that the standard? It may be yours--but you have to turn reason on its head to claim it.
I"ll make it simple for you......Former MOG's words are not God breathed while they may be men like those in the Bible their opinions which change day to day, and in no way compare to to scripture in which Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit, your comparison is lacking.
Speaking of who did his level best to fix what was wrong, who tried to warn people, why is it that the rest of that group he was a part of seem to have a different view? I mean after all they were saying the same thing at one point, shouldn't we believe that as well because they said it.
Shouldn't "we" believe?...I didn't know I was part of a collective. Actually, each of us makes a personal decision as to who is credible and who is not...it seems obvious to me but apparently not to everyone else...and that's fine. I don't need a consensus to express what I believe to be true.
...nor do you Whitedove...you can continue to demonstrate to all of us, your very special form of "logic"...
Here we go again...don't we all know by now that any time anyone says anything critical of Wierwille WhiteDove will raise his hand from the back of the class and remind us of the lack of documentation and witnesses and how that makes it all opinion and not facts.
Then we all argue with him. And he doesn't change his mind.
I"ll make it simple for you......Former MOG's words are not God breathed while they may be men like those in the Bible their opinions which change day to day, and in no way compare to to scripture in which Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit, your comparison is lacking.
I 'll make it simple for YOU--Opinions of men in the bible changed as well--look at the life of Peter. I am still waiting for you to tell me why it is "God Breathed" other than IT SAYS SO?? Other than you have "Faith". Cause that means nothing when trying to prove a point. Right?
Sounds like opinion to me.
Ought to get some "Facts" to back that up.
HMMMMM??? What would they be?? OH OH OH I Know--eyewitness accounts and personal testimony.--But, then we would have to employ YOUR standard wouldn't we?
At least to be consistent.
Men and woman of the bible--were HUMAN--not SUPER HUMAN --no different than those telling their stories today--Some of those witnesses in the gospels were even HOSTILE to Jesus.
Get a clue!
Sounds to me like you should spend LESS time being a Wierwille APOLOGIST--and more time learning APOLOGETICS!!
Hey, I know why this thread is here! It's so WD can, almost exclusively, present his point of view, be challenged by everyone else, and thereby WD gets to say his piece, and stays off other threads (well, hopefully).
You guys - you know what WD is going to say. Why do you keep rising to it?
I went back and looked at the Christian Soldiers thread that this was supposed to be a spinoff of.
Jeff makes the point that "leadership" should never have been even asking people to obey man rather than God, he doesn't even address whether anyone was forced to do anything, or whether anyone actually took actions that they knew were against God's will.
Once again the strawman is thrown out so it can be shot down.
Hey, I know why this thread is here! It's so WD can, almost exclusively, present his point of view, be challenged by everyone else, and thereby WD gets to say his piece, and stays off other threads (well, hopefully).
You guys - you know what WD is going to say. Why do you keep rising to it?
I 'll make it simple for YOU--Opinions of men in the bible changed as well--look at the life of Peter. I am still waiting for you to tell me why it is "God Breathed" other than IT SAYS SO?? Other than you have "Faith". Cause that means nothing when trying to prove a point. Right?
Sounds like opinion to me.
Ought to get some "Facts" to back that up.
HMMMMM??? What would they be?? OH OH OH I Know--eyewitness accounts and personal testimony.--But, then we would have to employ YOUR standard wouldn't we?
At least to be consistent.
Men and woman of the bible--were HUMAN--not SUPER HUMAN --no different than those telling their stories today--Some of those witnesses in the gospels were even HOSTILE to Jesus.
Get a clue!
Sounds to me like you should spend LESS time being a Wierwille APOLOGIST--and more time learning APOLOGETICS!!
Shouldn't "we" believe?...I didn't know I was part of a collective. Actually, each of us makes a personal decision as to who is credible and who is not...it seems obvious to me but apparently not to everyone else...and that's fine. I don't need a consensus to express what I believe to be true.
...nor do you Whitedove...you can continue to demonstrate to all of us, your very special form of "logic"...
Actually, each of us makes a personal decision as to who is credible and who is not...
I could not agree more and your standards are apparently different than mine so what? You want me to believe what your laying down ,have some substance to prove your point . People are fickle facts are not.
I could not agree more and your standards are apparently different than mine so what? You want me to believe what your laying down ,have some substance to prove your point . People are fickle facts are not.
I'm not trying to prove a point...I'm merely commenting on what is self evident to me...believe what you like, I really don't care.
I went back and looked at the Christian Soldiers thread that this was supposed to be a spinoff of.
Jeff makes the point that "leadership" should never have been even asking people to obey man rather than God, he doesn't even address whether anyone was forced to do anything, or whether anyone actually took actions that they knew were against God's will.
Once again the strawman is thrown out so it can be shot down.
I agree that is what he said and then in the next post the straw man as you put it came out ,only as usual it was not I who put it forth, it was Twinky who proclaimed
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Uh...where did this get overruled? Ah, got it! When TWI replaced itself as God and the Prez as the MOGFODAT, supplanting Jesus.
To which I took exception as I don't believe that it got overruled I think some decided to make that decision on their own, and if that is the case why not just say so? rather than once again trying to blame someone or something else for your actions. Now I could have just ignored the remark but I chose not to. My choice what I respond to or not. From there the subject has changed generally when some don't like the questions so it is easier to change the subject . Ok with me I take the subjects as others put them forth.
I'm not trying to prove a point...I'm merely commenting on what is self evident to me...believe what you like, I really don't care.
Then we agree.... But what is self evident to me is that some peoples opinions flip flop like the wind on a windy day (Oh and whether they were fired from their MOG status or not). And when you can look back on documented facts that show this to be true, IMO that is not a credible testimony it may change again tomorrow if the wind blows........I'm not looking for a collective either the point was that there are a large group of people that were in top leadership, and there are about as many different views now . I find it interesting that out of them all only the one one who posts here seems to be picked as the authority on things. Telling someone what they want to hear is not necessarily the same as the truth ,it just agrees with their preconceived mindset. Personally I don't see any of them as any more believable as the next without proof.
Hey, I know why this thread is here! It's so WD can, almost exclusively, present his point of view, be challenged by everyone else, and thereby WD gets to say his piece, and stays off other threads (well, hopefully).
You guys - you know what WD is going to say. Why do you keep rising to it?
Exclusivily ? Really??? Because as I look it seems that I have answered the posts as they have come.
When it comes to a court of law WD is correct. There I said it. An eyewitnessin a court of law is not proof, it is one perspective which might present evidence upon questioning and cross examination. The "over 500 eyewitness accounts" of Jesus are not actually eye witness accounts, btw. That is someone who was not there saying that there were 500 eyewitnesses. We don't know who Paul heard that from, plus he compares the other eye witness accounts to his vision... and doesn't include "those that were with him" that supposedly also saw Jesus at the same time, which doesn't jive with the Acts account. That is called hearsay. It doesn't mean it isn't true but it is not rock solid proof. In the end, one takes it on faith whether you realize it or not. There is a blind spot in there or two or twenty or five hundred. BTW, there is a life time of "eyewitness" accounts of seeing people that were supposedly dead. Morrison. Uncle Fred. Great Grandma Smith. Cousin Beavis. Elvis anyone? Thank you very much. Oh and No mas el probe-O pequeto verde hombre.
The same goes for every day occurrences. I highly doubt though, that when one of White Doves friends comes to him saying, "Hey I was mugged and raped yesterday," that he says, "I don't believe you. Prove it!" Or that he questions the price of milk on the carton until it is rung up at the cash register. Or that some one isn't going to obey the traffic signals at every intersection. He doesn't trust you guys plain and simple. No matter how long WD and Ex others here have been friends.... he doesn't trust you. He said that already. Some friend.
There are a lot of really interesting topics to delve into on the topic of eyewitnesses and perspective. I won't do that, but feel free to use the internets and/or your local library.
There has to be a balance. You can't live your life like everything and everyone needs to be proven to a jury of their peers. People would think you were a d**k, and they would be right. On the other hand, you can't except everything because he/she/it says so. People would think you were gullible and/or stupid, and they would be right. Basic critical common sense.
Some of us tend to know what it is like to be a victim of certain types of abuse and understand and believe the accounts. Some faith is involved.
When it comes to a court of law WD is correct. There I said it. An eyewitnessin a court of law is not proof, it is one perspective which might present evidence upon questioning and cross examination. The "over 500 eyewitness accounts" of Jesus are not actually eye witness accounts, btw. That is someone who was not there saying that there were 500 eyewitnesses. We don't know who Paul heard that from, plus he compares the other eye witness accounts to his vision... and doesn't include "those that were with him" that supposedly also saw Jesus at the same time, which doesn't jive with the Acts account. That is called hearsay. It doesn't mean it isn't true but it is not rock solid proof. In the end, one takes it on faith whether you realize it or not. There is a blind spot in there or two or twenty or five hundred. BTW, there is a life time of "eyewitness" accounts of seeing people that were supposedly dead. Morrison. Uncle Fred. Great Grandma Smith. Cousin Beavis. Elvis anyone? Thank you very much. Oh and No mas el probe-O pequeto verde hombre.
The same goes for every day occurrences. I highly doubt though, that when one of White Doves friends comes to him saying, "Hey I was mugged and raped yesterday," that he says, "I don't believe you. Prove it!" Or that he questions the price of milk on the carton until it is rung up at the cash register. Or that some one isn't going to obey the traffic signals at every intersection. He doesn't trust you guys plain and simple. No matter how long WD and Ex others here have been friends.... he doesn't trust you. He said that already. Some friend.
There are a lot of really interesting topics to delve into on the topic of eyewitnesses and perspective. I won't do that, but feel free to use the internets and/or your local library.
There has to be a balance. You can't live your life like everything and everyone needs to be proven to a jury of their peers. People would think you were a d**k, and they would be right. On the other hand, you can't except everything because he/she/it says so. People would think you were gullible and/or stupid, and they would be right. Basic critical common sense.
Some of us tend to know what it is like to be a victim of certain types of abuse and understand and believe the accounts. Some faith is involved.
Thanks for your honesty in posting....... and I do agree on the accounts in Acts one does take that on faith or not depending on ones beliefs. personally I do accept it as truth because I believe the Bible is true, is Gods Word, and that God is not a man that He should lie. Well and then there is that gobbledygook thing
In regard to everyday occurrences we also agree. You may have missed it but in several cases before I have posted that it is reasonable to accept things at face value in those situations however in the case where someone's character is being maligned or they are being accused of a crime then I feel it prudent to have a little more content than I say so. This tends to get buried as it is more fun to opposition to misrepresent the point. I've never implied that someone who said they had an orange for breakfast should be suspect. Generally in routine matters people tend to be honest. I'd exclude people who post on a admittedly biased exway site from being routine. the same for those on a pro way site each has an agenda. .
No matter how good and kind a person may be often their words are empty, we are human, fallible and we lie ,just as the scriptures said. You don't need to look far to see that, look at the divorce rate all of those people who vowed a vow to love, honor, cherish ,support one another in good and bad situations. Those who were the love of their life, those who they would have entrusted their very life and secrets of the heart and yet now their words are empty, the situations changed and with it their views on the other person have as well. What once was he or she is wonderful has turned to they are an a**hole The same is true for best friends until something like a guy gets in the way, then all of a sudden that best friend forever seems to get tossed by the wayside. Empty words...... The same is true for former Way followers life was all and good until they were on the wrong side of the atta boy line, or they lost their cushy life as a MOG, then all of a sudden they have a different view. That's why facts are important they don't change with emotions, job loss, or other temporal things. They remain constant through all the BS all the I'll be true forever claims, all the best friends claims.
Your correct to some degree we all must trust people , I've learned from past mistakes to keep that to a minimum. perhaps you have heard the phrase fair weather friends? Many of us had friends ,people we trusted in the way who because of choices to stand with the way, despite years of trust now their words were empty one moment we were the best the next we were gangrene.
Really think about it ,if someone that you gave your heart to ,who knows your innermost secrets, someone you sleep with every night, can change their words from you are the love of my life to you are a so and so ,then I'd guess some exwafers would surely be capable of changing their words as well. I've seen it happen here, once friends, nothing but praise for each other until something happens and then their words are void. Now they are the dirt of the earth. I choose not to play that game anymore Experience will tell you..... Trust no one.......
When it comes to a court of law WD is correct. There I said it. An eyewitnessin a court of law is not proof, it is one perspective which might present evidence upon questioning and cross examination. The "over 500 eyewitness accounts" of Jesus are not actually eye witness accounts, btw. That is someone who was not there saying that there were 500 eyewitnesses. We don't know who Paul heard that from, plus he compares the other eye witness accounts to his vision... and doesn't include "those that were with him" that supposedly also saw Jesus at the same time, which doesn't jive with the Acts account. That is called hearsay. It doesn't mean it isn't true but it is not rock solid proof. In the end, one takes it on faith whether you realize it or not. There is a blind spot in there or two or twenty or five hundred. BTW, there is a life time of "eyewitness" accounts of seeing people that were supposedly dead. Morrison. Uncle Fred. Great Grandma Smith. Cousin Beavis. Elvis anyone? Thank you very much. Oh and No mas el probe-O pequeto verde hombre.
The same goes for every day occurrences. I highly doubt though, that when one of White Doves friends comes to him saying, "Hey I was mugged and raped yesterday," that he says, "I don't believe you. Prove it!" Or that he questions the price of milk on the carton until it is rung up at the cash register. Or that some one isn't going to obey the traffic signals at every intersection. He doesn't trust you guys plain and simple. No matter how long WD and Ex others here have been friends.... he doesn't trust you. He said that already. Some friend.
There are a lot of really interesting topics to delve into on the topic of eyewitnesses and perspective. I won't do that, but feel free to use the internets and/or your local library.
There has to be a balance. You can't live your life like everything and everyone needs to be proven to a jury of their peers. People would think you were a d**k, and they would be right. On the other hand, you can't except everything because he/she/it says so. People would think you were gullible and/or stupid, and they would be right. Basic critical common sense.
Some of us tend to know what it is like to be a victim of certain types of abuse and understand and believe the accounts. Some faith is involved.
Wow Lindyhopper,
Perhaps you would like to join me in a paticular fight I am involved in. That being prisioners ALL OVER THE WORLD--imprisioned on EYEWITNESS testimony that they preach Jesus. Seems it IS accepted as proof. Otherwise many of my friends would now be free. Having been convicted on one eyewitnesses account. Come join me, after-all you say it is not fair--right?
A little closer to home. If a person charged with DRUG TRAFFICkING--cooperates with the police--goes in and buys drugs from another dealer---testifies as an eyewitness to the deal--they are sometimes offered consideration. How credible are they? Police us eyewitnesses -- as do DA's. In fact people are offered immunity for eyewitness testimony. We are populated in a world of people! This is unavoidable.
This is from an article in Justice Denied: An article AGAINST eyewitness testimony.
Eyewitness testimony plays a crucial, daily role in our court system. Many cases are decided either substantially or entirely on the testimony of eyewitnesses. Since this testimony is given by inherently fallible human systems of perception, memory and recall, there is the continuous worry that it may not be quite as accurate as it is purported to be. Basically, the only way to prevent erroneous eyewitness identifications would be to invent a perfect world inhabited by perfect human beings. . . . . . . . . Traditionally, eyewitness identification has been readily accepted in the U.S. -- even though numerous studies back up the inherent problems with it. One U.S. Court said this of the problems with eyewitness identification: "We think it is evident that an identification of an accused made by a witness for the first time in the courtroom may often be of little testimonial force as the witness may have had opportunities to see the accused and to have heard him referred to by a certain name; whereas a prior identification, considered in connection with the circumstances surrounding its making, serves to aid the court in determining the trustworthiness of the identifications made in the courtroom."
People are convicted on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony. You can look at the NEw York state of appeals Court ruling on this very issue. I never said it was fair--but it is a reality we deal with in our courtrooms.
Now, here at greasespot--the plethora of eyewitnesses recounting specific incidents--such as VP speaking of FONDLING HIS DAUGHTERS--lends real WEIGHT and CREDENCE to these allegations. It takes them from the realm of impossible into the realm of probable!!! An allegation I am willing to entertain as FACT given I heard the very same thing.--Although second-hand--I heard it from a VERY solid and credible source.
As for the bible-- greater legal minds than yourself have built an incredible case for the resurection using the testimony of the bible. In fact, DR Frank Morrison,
a lawyer---who considered himself a rationalist---set out to refute the resurrection. He ended up--after years of study writing an amazing book called
Who Moved the Stone He called it "the book that refused to be written." He was an ardent skeptic--a Lawyer FAMILAR with the law--who was convinced by the testimony presented.
C.S Lewis--a bright guy generally--considered a smart fellow--at least in Oxford--was once an ARDENT atheist--he said he had no where to run--once he evaluated the evidence--he was the cynics of cynics--look where he ended up. One of Christianity's greatest minds.
However, determining ANYTHING of value requires it be approached with HONESTY--a FAIR VIEW of the history--and the one investigating an issue must not approach it with PRECONCIEVED notions or already dawn CONCLUSIONS. The evidence must speak for itself--even if we don't LIKE where it is going to take us.
Josh McDowel--
Professor Thomas Arnold, for fourteen years the headmaster of Rugby, author of the three-volume History of Rome, and holder of the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts.
" I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Textual critic Brooke Foss Wescott, English scholar, said, "Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ."
Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded that, "If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement."
Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, has written:
"My faith began with and was grounded on what I thought was revealed in the Bible. When, particularly, I came to the New Testament, the Gospels and other writings of the men who had been friends of Jesus Christ seemed to me to make an overwhelming case, merely as a matter of strict evidence, for the fact therein stated ... The same approach to the cardinal test of the claims of Jesus Christ, namely, His resurrection, has led me, as often as I have tried to examine the evidence, to believe it as fact beyond dispute."
One man who was highly skilled at dealing with evidence was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. The rise of Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States is to be ascribed to the efforts of these two men. Greenleaf produced his famous three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which still is considered one of the greatest single authorities on this subject in the entire literature of legal procedure.
Greenleaf examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.
Greenleaf came to the conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.
But then again, these are serious men who were never in a CULT--why listen to what they found on the evidence. They are not trying to rewrite history--or have some great NEW revelation on the unreliability of the bible.
Sheesh--my point is White Dove believes it and doesn't even know why--it is eyewitness testimony built on an historical foundation. My point is-HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IT--unless you look at this stuff--sorry anything takes a bit of "FAITH" to believe, but you don't need a whole lot if you really look at the EVIDENCE.
That is what makes someone credible--not taking it on "Faith"
BTW--The gospel records DO qualify under the "ancient documents rule" and WOULD be admitted as evidence in any Common Law court. They assert that they are firsthand NONhearsay testimony to Jesus Christ. 1John1.1 Or are the product of careful research concerning him.
This is why critics ALWAYS try to impugn the gospels authenticity-It always comes down to that. Or to impugn the sanity of the writers--after all it is a metaphysical event we are looking at.
However, evidence must be examined as I stated above. Objectively. Little chance of that with someone who has their mind made up. After all how many legs do locust have?
I don't really feel like getting into a defense of the Gospel thing.
I just want to know why--people can't tell there story here--as hard as it is--without getting quizzed in a irrational way--being told their experience is opinion and their recollection flawed --Everytime they open their mouths.
Seems it is no way to come to the truth of the matter?
It seems more a defense of the abusers--who wants to do that?
Are all the tellers of their stories--which fit together to create a pattern of abuse, under mass delusion here?
That is one of the arguments against the gospel accounts whitedove.
All the arguments you present here--they are used AGAINST the bible. Do you even realize that?? Yet, you parrot the same thing against victims.
What happens when it is used against something YOU believe to be true--and can't prove it. Do you ceede to the critics or do you know it to be true?
By your own standard you cannot believe the bible to be true--it would contradict you standard for what can be deemed factual. (I can believe it because I rely on the evidence) You believe it because it says so.
Also Whitedove--do you understand that critics of the bible say the gospel writers were not objective because they had an interest in the outcome of the story. Much like you are saying about posters here. Remember, these were everyday men that wrote the bible.
Applying one standard for yourself and another for others on the same matter--well, that is called hypocrisy.
Personally I don't see any of them as any more believable as the next without proof.[/color]
Sounds like a rather detached and cold point of view...I suppose if you don't really know any of these people then perhaps you are merely commenting from an "academic" point of view.
When you have personal experiences with people, you discover that some are more trust worthy than others...perhaps, for you, you need "legal proof" before you draw any conclusions...some of us are more realistic and draw conclusions based on the integrity of those who give first hand testamonies and their motivations for speaking out. (Are they still in the "God business" trying to make money?) and the voluminous amount that all paint the same picture...Every person's story here is like another piece of a jigsaw puzzle...when considered as a whole, the conclusion should be self evident and obvious. Only someone with a "different agenda" would disagree...IMHO.
Now, here at greasespot--the plethora of eyewitnesses recounting specific incidents--such as VP speaking of FONDLING HIS DAUGHTERS--lends real WEIGHT and CREDENCE to these allegations. It takes them from the realm of impossible into the realm of probable!!! An allegation I am willing to entertain as FACT given I heard the very same thing.--Although second-hand--I heard it from a VERY solid and credible source.
Plethora? Really?? exactly how many do you think that is? My point exactly second hand from a good source (Isn't it always) who probably heard it from another good source who was a cousin of someone that knew someone that heard it .
By your own standard you cannot believe the bible to be true--it would contradict you standard for what can be deemed factual. (I can believe it because I rely on the evidence) You believe it because it says so.
Also Whitedove--do you understand that critics of the bible say the gospel writers were not objective because they had an interest in the outcome of the story. Much like you are saying about posters here. Remember, these were everyday men that wrote the bible.
Applying one standard for yourself and another for others on the same matter--well, that is called hypocrisy.
Well it would if I were to do such a thing but there is that slight problem with your theory. You see I never said that, you seem to have decided what I believe all by your lonesome. My standard applies to fallible humans not God or his scripture there is a big difference He does not lie. You also seem to have forgot that these everyday men you speak of wrote as they were moved by the holy spirit something I doubt can be said for posts here, including my own. Oh and third You believe it because it says so. Really??? You know this how??? no I believe it because it has been tried and found documentable, and every day it becomes more so in science archaeology and various other fields. And then there is that unmistakable proof that gobbledygook thing
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
5
24
15
Popular Days
Sep 7
24
Sep 6
21
Sep 8
13
Sep 10
10
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 5 posts
Oakspear 5 posts
WhiteDove 24 posts
geisha779 15 posts
Popular Days
Sep 7 2008
24 posts
Sep 6 2008
21 posts
Sep 8 2008
13 posts
Sep 10 2008
10 posts
WhiteDove
First to assume that there is any comparison between what the Bible says and what a man says is lacking. As a Christian I certainly accept the scripture as inspired. Belief in Biblical matters like the resurrection vs what a human might say concerning a subject are not even on the same level of comparison one is fallible one is not, oranges and apples. I don't accept human words because they say so. And I'm not debating a doctrinal issue like the resurrection here on this forum . Suffice to say in short, I do believe the accounts in the scripture are true including the witnesses as a matter of faith. Those who do not accept the Bible as God breathed won't accept it as the same. That is why I referred to it as a matter of faith. Additionally we have the spirit which you apparently think is quote gobbledy gook SIT you learned from VP to confirm the account of the resurrection. You can believe what you want about that.
RD was a MOG in the Way hierarchy just as many others, he enjoyed the same status and perks as others. While in the way he was supportive of their views ,upon leaving he aligned himself with the early CES group then Capital City Saints supporting their views, now he has a third set of views (at least, he may have had some others in between)
His views flip flop about as fast as our Democratic Candidate for president. So tell me which is the facts? Will the real facts please stand up ? Why should I believe him as some authority it seems he is still working out after three different views his facts. I don't mean to pick on RD here really , you could substitute any name here, which is why I threw out a few like G**r, Ly*n, Finn*g*n ,Cl*p they are all fallible people as you and I are. I trust their words zero without proof ,period, Just because they say so doesn't move me ,as I pointed out many of those same others that were as someone put it close to the top all have different views than his. To pick out one because he posts here or because he fits your mindset about the way as having the true facts is absurd. Facts are not based on likeability although I'm sure RD is very likable at times, that's simply not enough neither is his Ex MOG status ,there are lots of those around to pick from, and about as many conflicting views of the facts. Words are cheap....... proof comes much harder. No confusion here I just don't buy your apples and oranges comparisons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
White Dove,
If the bible is God breathed and He used eyewitness accounts and the testimony of men to assure us of the resurrection--and it is good enough for Him--why such a greater standard is demanded by you?
Hate to tell you how many skeptics have come to Jesus--given a reasonable explanation of those facts.
You don't even make any sense--why is it God breathed--cause you think so--or because it proves itself--by its witnesses.
What an odd way to look at "Faith"?? Maybe--you just like the message and WANT to believe it--it doesn't seem you have solid reasoning--
what you claim to be asking of others here.
BTW---Men --PEOPLE--wrote the bible. Differing language styles--differing perspectives--He wrote the ten commandments--seems if He wanted to--He coulda handed down a tablet with the NT on it.
You don't seem to like what the victims of abuse here tell you---so you can twist and turn logic on its head--but they are very credible.
Words are cheap--when YOU claim they are--is that the standard? It may be yours--but you have to turn reason on its head to claim it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I"ll make it simple for you......Former MOG's words are not God breathed while they may be men like those in the Bible their opinions which change day to day, and in no way compare to to scripture in which Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit, your comparison is lacking.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I'm sorry I tried to delete but couldn't.
All I can say is White Dove, I agree to disagree.
Edited by vicklesLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Shouldn't "we" believe?...I didn't know I was part of a collective. Actually, each of us makes a personal decision as to who is credible and who is not...it seems obvious to me but apparently not to everyone else...and that's fine. I don't need a consensus to express what I believe to be true.
...nor do you Whitedove...you can continue to demonstrate to all of us, your very special form of "logic"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Here we go again...don't we all know by now that any time anyone says anything critical of Wierwille WhiteDove will raise his hand from the back of the class and remind us of the lack of documentation and witnesses and how that makes it all opinion and not facts.
Then we all argue with him. And he doesn't change his mind.
I recommend putting him on "ignore".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I 'll make it simple for YOU--Opinions of men in the bible changed as well--look at the life of Peter. I am still waiting for you to tell me why it is "God Breathed" other than IT SAYS SO?? Other than you have "Faith". Cause that means nothing when trying to prove a point. Right?
Sounds like opinion to me.
Ought to get some "Facts" to back that up.
HMMMMM??? What would they be?? OH OH OH I Know--eyewitness accounts and personal testimony.--But, then we would have to employ YOUR standard wouldn't we?
At least to be consistent.
Men and woman of the bible--were HUMAN--not SUPER HUMAN --no different than those telling their stories today--Some of those witnesses in the gospels were even HOSTILE to Jesus.
Get a clue!
Sounds to me like you should spend LESS time being a Wierwille APOLOGIST--and more time learning APOLOGETICS!!
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Hey, I know why this thread is here! It's so WD can, almost exclusively, present his point of view, be challenged by everyone else, and thereby WD gets to say his piece, and stays off other threads (well, hopefully).
You guys - you know what WD is going to say. Why do you keep rising to it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I went back and looked at the Christian Soldiers thread that this was supposed to be a spinoff of.
Jeff makes the point that "leadership" should never have been even asking people to obey man rather than God, he doesn't even address whether anyone was forced to do anything, or whether anyone actually took actions that they knew were against God's will.
Once again the strawman is thrown out so it can be shot down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Honestly Twinkie--For practice. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I could not agree more and your standards are apparently different than mine so what? You want me to believe what your laying down ,have some substance to prove your point . People are fickle facts are not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I'm not trying to prove a point...I'm merely commenting on what is self evident to me...believe what you like, I really don't care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I agree that is what he said and then in the next post the straw man as you put it came out ,only as usual it was not I who put it forth, it was Twinky who proclaimed
To which I took exception as I don't believe that it got overruled I think some decided to make that decision on their own, and if that is the case why not just say so? rather than once again trying to blame someone or something else for your actions. Now I could have just ignored the remark but I chose not to. My choice what I respond to or not. From there the subject has changed generally when some don't like the questions so it is easier to change the subject . Ok with me I take the subjects as others put them forth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Then we agree.... But what is self evident to me is that some peoples opinions flip flop like the wind on a windy day (Oh and whether they were fired from their MOG status or not). And when you can look back on documented facts that show this to be true, IMO that is not a credible testimony it may change again tomorrow if the wind blows........I'm not looking for a collective either the point was that there are a large group of people that were in top leadership, and there are about as many different views now . I find it interesting that out of them all only the one one who posts here seems to be picked as the authority on things. Telling someone what they want to hear is not necessarily the same as the truth ,it just agrees with their preconceived mindset. Personally I don't see any of them as any more believable as the next without proof.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Exclusivily ? Really??? Because as I look it seems that I have answered the posts as they have come.
By the way ..... Not Likely......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Good one
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
When it comes to a court of law WD is correct. There I said it. An eyewitnessin a court of law is not proof, it is one perspective which might present evidence upon questioning and cross examination. The "over 500 eyewitness accounts" of Jesus are not actually eye witness accounts, btw. That is someone who was not there saying that there were 500 eyewitnesses. We don't know who Paul heard that from, plus he compares the other eye witness accounts to his vision... and doesn't include "those that were with him" that supposedly also saw Jesus at the same time, which doesn't jive with the Acts account. That is called hearsay. It doesn't mean it isn't true but it is not rock solid proof. In the end, one takes it on faith whether you realize it or not. There is a blind spot in there or two or twenty or five hundred. BTW, there is a life time of "eyewitness" accounts of seeing people that were supposedly dead. Morrison. Uncle Fred. Great Grandma Smith. Cousin Beavis. Elvis anyone? Thank you very much. Oh and No mas el probe-O pequeto verde hombre.
The same goes for every day occurrences. I highly doubt though, that when one of White Doves friends comes to him saying, "Hey I was mugged and raped yesterday," that he says, "I don't believe you. Prove it!" Or that he questions the price of milk on the carton until it is rung up at the cash register. Or that some one isn't going to obey the traffic signals at every intersection. He doesn't trust you guys plain and simple. No matter how long WD and Ex others here have been friends.... he doesn't trust you. He said that already. Some friend.
There are a lot of really interesting topics to delve into on the topic of eyewitnesses and perspective. I won't do that, but feel free to use the internets and/or your local library.
There has to be a balance. You can't live your life like everything and everyone needs to be proven to a jury of their peers. People would think you were a d**k, and they would be right. On the other hand, you can't except everything because he/she/it says so. People would think you were gullible and/or stupid, and they would be right. Basic critical common sense.
Some of us tend to know what it is like to be a victim of certain types of abuse and understand and believe the accounts. Some faith is involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well they say practice makes perfect......Good Luck!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Thanks for your honesty in posting....... and I do agree on the accounts in Acts one does take that on faith or not depending on ones beliefs. personally I do accept it as truth because I believe the Bible is true, is Gods Word, and that God is not a man that He should lie. Well and then there is that gobbledygook thing
In regard to everyday occurrences we also agree. You may have missed it but in several cases before I have posted that it is reasonable to accept things at face value in those situations however in the case where someone's character is being maligned or they are being accused of a crime then I feel it prudent to have a little more content than I say so. This tends to get buried as it is more fun to opposition to misrepresent the point. I've never implied that someone who said they had an orange for breakfast should be suspect. Generally in routine matters people tend to be honest. I'd exclude people who post on a admittedly biased exway site from being routine. the same for those on a pro way site each has an agenda. .
No matter how good and kind a person may be often their words are empty, we are human, fallible and we lie ,just as the scriptures said. You don't need to look far to see that, look at the divorce rate all of those people who vowed a vow to love, honor, cherish ,support one another in good and bad situations. Those who were the love of their life, those who they would have entrusted their very life and secrets of the heart and yet now their words are empty, the situations changed and with it their views on the other person have as well. What once was he or she is wonderful has turned to they are an a**hole The same is true for best friends until something like a guy gets in the way, then all of a sudden that best friend forever seems to get tossed by the wayside. Empty words...... The same is true for former Way followers life was all and good until they were on the wrong side of the atta boy line, or they lost their cushy life as a MOG, then all of a sudden they have a different view. That's why facts are important they don't change with emotions, job loss, or other temporal things. They remain constant through all the BS all the I'll be true forever claims, all the best friends claims.
Your correct to some degree we all must trust people , I've learned from past mistakes to keep that to a minimum. perhaps you have heard the phrase fair weather friends? Many of us had friends ,people we trusted in the way who because of choices to stand with the way, despite years of trust now their words were empty one moment we were the best the next we were gangrene.
Really think about it ,if someone that you gave your heart to ,who knows your innermost secrets, someone you sleep with every night, can change their words from you are the love of my life to you are a so and so ,then I'd guess some exwafers would surely be capable of changing their words as well. I've seen it happen here, once friends, nothing but praise for each other until something happens and then their words are void. Now they are the dirt of the earth. I choose not to play that game anymore Experience will tell you..... Trust no one.......
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Wow Lindyhopper,
Perhaps you would like to join me in a paticular fight I am involved in. That being prisioners ALL OVER THE WORLD--imprisioned on EYEWITNESS testimony that they preach Jesus. Seems it IS accepted as proof. Otherwise many of my friends would now be free. Having been convicted on one eyewitnesses account. Come join me, after-all you say it is not fair--right?
A little closer to home. If a person charged with DRUG TRAFFICkING--cooperates with the police--goes in and buys drugs from another dealer---testifies as an eyewitness to the deal--they are sometimes offered consideration. How credible are they? Police us eyewitnesses -- as do DA's. In fact people are offered immunity for eyewitness testimony. We are populated in a world of people! This is unavoidable.
This is from an article in Justice Denied: An article AGAINST eyewitness testimony.
Eyewitness testimony plays a crucial, daily role in our court system. Many cases are decided either substantially or entirely on the testimony of eyewitnesses. Since this testimony is given by inherently fallible human systems of perception, memory and recall, there is the continuous worry that it may not be quite as accurate as it is purported to be. Basically, the only way to prevent erroneous eyewitness identifications would be to invent a perfect world inhabited by perfect human beings. . . . . . . . . Traditionally, eyewitness identification has been readily accepted in the U.S. -- even though numerous studies back up the inherent problems with it. One U.S. Court said this of the problems with eyewitness identification: "We think it is evident that an identification of an accused made by a witness for the first time in the courtroom may often be of little testimonial force as the witness may have had opportunities to see the accused and to have heard him referred to by a certain name; whereas a prior identification, considered in connection with the circumstances surrounding its making, serves to aid the court in determining the trustworthiness of the identifications made in the courtroom."
People are convicted on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony. You can look at the NEw York state of appeals Court ruling on this very issue. I never said it was fair--but it is a reality we deal with in our courtrooms.
Now, here at greasespot--the plethora of eyewitnesses recounting specific incidents--such as VP speaking of FONDLING HIS DAUGHTERS--lends real WEIGHT and CREDENCE to these allegations. It takes them from the realm of impossible into the realm of probable!!! An allegation I am willing to entertain as FACT given I heard the very same thing.--Although second-hand--I heard it from a VERY solid and credible source.
As for the bible-- greater legal minds than yourself have built an incredible case for the resurection using the testimony of the bible. In fact, DR Frank Morrison,
a lawyer---who considered himself a rationalist---set out to refute the resurrection. He ended up--after years of study writing an amazing book called
Who Moved the Stone He called it "the book that refused to be written." He was an ardent skeptic--a Lawyer FAMILAR with the law--who was convinced by the testimony presented.
C.S Lewis--a bright guy generally--considered a smart fellow--at least in Oxford--was once an ARDENT atheist--he said he had no where to run--once he evaluated the evidence--he was the cynics of cynics--look where he ended up. One of Christianity's greatest minds.
However, determining ANYTHING of value requires it be approached with HONESTY--a FAIR VIEW of the history--and the one investigating an issue must not approach it with PRECONCIEVED notions or already dawn CONCLUSIONS. The evidence must speak for itself--even if we don't LIKE where it is going to take us.
Josh McDowel--
Professor Thomas Arnold, for fourteen years the headmaster of Rugby, author of the three-volume History of Rome, and holder of the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts.
" I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Textual critic Brooke Foss Wescott, English scholar, said, "Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ."
Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded that, "If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement."
Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, has written:
"My faith began with and was grounded on what I thought was revealed in the Bible. When, particularly, I came to the New Testament, the Gospels and other writings of the men who had been friends of Jesus Christ seemed to me to make an overwhelming case, merely as a matter of strict evidence, for the fact therein stated ... The same approach to the cardinal test of the claims of Jesus Christ, namely, His resurrection, has led me, as often as I have tried to examine the evidence, to believe it as fact beyond dispute."
One man who was highly skilled at dealing with evidence was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. The rise of Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States is to be ascribed to the efforts of these two men. Greenleaf produced his famous three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which still is considered one of the greatest single authorities on this subject in the entire literature of legal procedure.
Greenleaf examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.
Greenleaf came to the conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.
But then again, these are serious men who were never in a CULT--why listen to what they found on the evidence. They are not trying to rewrite history--or have some great NEW revelation on the unreliability of the bible.
Sheesh--my point is White Dove believes it and doesn't even know why--it is eyewitness testimony built on an historical foundation. My point is-HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IT--unless you look at this stuff--sorry anything takes a bit of "FAITH" to believe, but you don't need a whole lot if you really look at the EVIDENCE.
That is what makes someone credible--not taking it on "Faith"
BTW--The gospel records DO qualify under the "ancient documents rule" and WOULD be admitted as evidence in any Common Law court. They assert that they are firsthand NONhearsay testimony to Jesus Christ. 1John1.1 Or are the product of careful research concerning him.
This is why critics ALWAYS try to impugn the gospels authenticity-It always comes down to that. Or to impugn the sanity of the writers--after all it is a metaphysical event we are looking at.
However, evidence must be examined as I stated above. Objectively. Little chance of that with someone who has their mind made up. After all how many legs do locust have?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I don't really feel like getting into a defense of the Gospel thing.
I just want to know why--people can't tell there story here--as hard as it is--without getting quizzed in a irrational way--being told their experience is opinion and their recollection flawed --Everytime they open their mouths.
Seems it is no way to come to the truth of the matter?
It seems more a defense of the abusers--who wants to do that?
Are all the tellers of their stories--which fit together to create a pattern of abuse, under mass delusion here?
That is one of the arguments against the gospel accounts whitedove.
All the arguments you present here--they are used AGAINST the bible. Do you even realize that?? Yet, you parrot the same thing against victims.
What happens when it is used against something YOU believe to be true--and can't prove it. Do you ceede to the critics or do you know it to be true?
By your own standard you cannot believe the bible to be true--it would contradict you standard for what can be deemed factual. (I can believe it because I rely on the evidence) You believe it because it says so.
Also Whitedove--do you understand that critics of the bible say the gospel writers were not objective because they had an interest in the outcome of the story. Much like you are saying about posters here. Remember, these were everyday men that wrote the bible.
Applying one standard for yourself and another for others on the same matter--well, that is called hypocrisy.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Sounds like a rather detached and cold point of view...I suppose if you don't really know any of these people then perhaps you are merely commenting from an "academic" point of view.
When you have personal experiences with people, you discover that some are more trust worthy than others...perhaps, for you, you need "legal proof" before you draw any conclusions...some of us are more realistic and draw conclusions based on the integrity of those who give first hand testamonies and their motivations for speaking out. (Are they still in the "God business" trying to make money?) and the voluminous amount that all paint the same picture...Every person's story here is like another piece of a jigsaw puzzle...when considered as a whole, the conclusion should be self evident and obvious. Only someone with a "different agenda" would disagree...IMHO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well it would if I were to do such a thing but there is that slight problem with your theory. You see I never said that, you seem to have decided what I believe all by your lonesome. My standard applies to fallible humans not God or his scripture there is a big difference He does not lie. You also seem to have forgot that these everyday men you speak of wrote as they were moved by the holy spirit something I doubt can be said for posts here, including my own. Oh and third You believe it because it says so. Really??? You know this how??? no I believe it because it has been tried and found documentable, and every day it becomes more so in science archaeology and various other fields. And then there is that unmistakable proof that gobbledygook thing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.