Tom,

>>
>>First of all, there are records outside of what we call the Bible that also record the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Look at the works of Josephus for example.
>>
>>As to the bit about circular reasoning there are some issues that you do not appear to be aware of or you'd see that your remark wasn't accurate.
>>
>>One of these has to do with the notion that of the 66 books in the Bible there were some 44 authors whose lives covered some 1500 years. The remarkable issue is that there is so much harmony actually among the authors. I've been studying and reading the Bible for some 30 years now and I can attest to this uniformity.
>>
>>Another issue that you may find interesting is the whole notion of textual criticism. THat is, the studies that are involved with answering the question, "How did we get these documents and are they accurate?" This, of course, is a science and aplies to all extant documents. Given the remarkable methods Jews employed to propigate their Torah and prophests and so forth it really is a remarkable story.
>>
>>Yet another issue is the historical accuracy of the Bible. There is not one single case where archaeology has proven a Biblical passage innacurate. Quite the contrary. Critics over the centuries have consistently and constantly challenged various parts of the recorded Bible histories and in every case the Bible has been proven accurate rather than the critics.
>>
>>Still another interesting isue is that of prophecy. There are some 300 specific predictions of the first coming of the Christ. They were all fulfilled - one of them to the specific day - 173880 days after the proclamation to 'restore and rebuild Jerusalem'. To the day. There are over 300 specific prophecies concerning the 2nd coming. Many many many of them have come together - none more remarkable that the re-emergence of the state of Israel - specifically predicted some 5-700 years BC.
>>
>>Then there are the countless millions who's lives have been changed.
>>
>>And so on..
>>
>>I certainly understand your skepticism and, quite candidly, I applaud you for it. I can assure you that should you ever decide to do a little real investigation yourself you can rest assured you will come to the same conclusions I have. The Bibke is a singularly unique book. No other book or series of books declares with the same authority that which the Bible does.
>>
>>Don't reply out of ignorance. Please go dig and find out for yourself that what I am telling you is true. If you are serious I can provide references. Start with Josh McDowell's book, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict".
>>
>>I wish you well....
>
>Doug;
>
>Somehow I have been lead to believe the Bible is a document whose passages have been interpreted by many to mean different things. It has been suggested that few people agree upon the meaning of specific passages of the Bible. Historically, this has been a reason for the large number of different Protestant Churches being established. Martin Luther may have begun the creation of the Protestant Church by questioning the attitude of the Catholic Church in his time. Today it takes disagreement to create a new Church. I know of several examples in my area where this has happened.

Well, the problem I've observed over the years Tom actually has much more to do with the deplorable lack of education. That is, particularly with respect to the definition(s) of words and phrases. Additionally, there are cultural issues also at play here as well I'd think.

>
>Watching television evangelists discuss the same biblical passage can be interesting. To a point that is. I can recall a person wearing a “Sign Post” standing at Fifth Street and Market, at the stairs of the Bank of America, near the Powell Street Cable Car Turntable, in San Francisco, since the late 1940’s. The sign reads to the effect the end of the world is here and quotes the Biblical passage. A person wearing the same sign (very worn by now) is still at that location.

Ughh.. Far too many of the tele-vangelists do not make it past my stink test. <g>

As to the 'end of the world', there are some very interesting prophetical issues at play here. Issues such as Russia joining in with Muslim nations to lead an invasion of Israel that will result in the loss of 5/6 of ther army. SOme other issues that simply could not have happened even 20 years ago that can now fullfill prophecy. One is in Isiah (27:6) that states that in the 'end days' the regathered nation of Israel will fill the earth with fruit . Well, Israel is about the third largest fruit and flower exporter in the world as I type. Coincidence? Hardly. Never happened in Israel's history ever; until now.

Isaiah 27:6 "He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root: Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit."

>
>After researching the origins of the Bible I read about the differences due to the various translations. Words have specific meaning in one language and may not have the same meaning when translated. The history of Bible translations is interesting. Have you ever gone to the Huntington Library in San Marcus, California, near Pasadena? That is one of my favorite places on the face of the earth! They have one of the finest collections of Bibles in the world, and a collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Well, there are actually two major 'lines' of thought. One is derived from the Textus Receptus and the other from the Alexandrian Texts. The second is what the more 'modern' interpreters use. I use the word 'interpreter' as many, if not most, of the modern Bibles that have been produced come from the second line popularized by Westcott & Hort (Alexandrian) and are more correctly classified as interpretations as opposed to being true translations. They use the notion that it is older (if memory serves) than some of the fragments that make up the Textus Receptus as proof of its greater accuracy. Well, when you start to dig into all of the supporting documentation such as personal letters that quite scriptures you will actually find that the Textus Receptus is more accurate. Something like 98.7 percent of the entire New Testament can be reassembled from sources other than the actual original extant manuscripts. SO much for the circular reasoning argument. <g> Evidence plainly proves that the text that we now have is what was familiar, used and accepted by early Christians in even the 1st century. As the council (Nicean?) only ratified what was already accepted in something like 430 AD into what we now know as our modern Bible (39 OT books & 27 NT books) was already 'assembled' unofficially starting almost immediately after the death & resurrection of Jesus. Peter refers, for example, to Paul's writings in his second epistle.


>
>In college while taking one of many Religion Classes, we were instructed that there was a basic difference between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics go to Mass on Sunday to “Celebrate the Last Supper of Jesus Christ”. Protestants “have been given the ability by God to Interrupt the Word of the Holy Bible”. I asked a Southern Baptist in class “if this were true, why do you go to Church and allow a minister to tell you what the Word of the Bible means”? He got very mad at me. So mad in fact he quit the class at that moment.

*chuckle*

Well, he must have been a scriptural dunce. In the book of Corintihians, Galations, Ephesians and so forth Paul specifically states that gifted men have been given to the church to teach, exhort (encourage), admonish, rebuke and in so many words train up Christians. Christianity puts a huge emphasis on individual responsibility and continued education. For the life of me I am (as my buddy Craig Berntson says) 'stumpified' <g> as to why the church ceded the intellectual territory is commanded for so long. Essentially it got side-swiped by existentialism and bought into the notion that thought and faith were somehow mutually exclusive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Usually it's the detractors who are the factual dunces. <g>

>
>Doug, I wish we lived closer – I know we would have many interesting conversations. Too bad the Internet is so limited when it comes to subjects of any depth.
>
>Tom

Thanks Tom! I do so enjoy these kinds of discussions. I don't suppose that was at all obvious here... *gd&rvvf*

I'd love to have the opportunity to sit down with you (or anyone else for that matter) and have a good, lively discussion. While I may stand for what I believe I will absolutely not condone forcing it on anyone. I just refuse to cede territory to avoid 'offending' anyone (who's probably a textbook case of hypersensitivity anyway <g>).

Any time you or anyone else comes our way the offer stands for lunch or dinner.