Do you believe that Paul wrote his epistles to the churches? Do you
have any reason to doubt that? Paul knew the other desciples
personally---did he not say "I went up to Jerusalem and withstood
Peter to his face? " about a doctirinal issue? Did he not go to
Jerusalem and explain to the other desciples his encounter with the
risen Christ and convince them that he was, indeed, a desciple?
Have not I already stated that John's Epistle was received gladly as
authentic by all the
churches round about such that it can be reproduced in its entirety
from their writings. Therefore, I cannot dismiss your assertion
that the documentation is inexact. These people knew Christ and
walked with him on the earth, and they knew Paul and were convinced
of his authenticity. They are credible witnesses. By examining the
doucments one can see that they are quite credible, and
differ inasmuch only as different perspectives would differ among
separate witnesses, i.e., the point of view, what to place the
emphasis on. In addition, Paul's epistles add further coherence to
the entire event.
To
> answer your question about proof from History, well, you can't
> really prove anything about anything. Our senses are too flawed. On
> the next level, I choose to believe that which has a "Preponderance
> of evidence" and has the "simplest" answer. I believe that the
> Holocaust took place because the evidence to support this conclusion
> is overwhelming. There are accounts from millions of people, there
> are records kept of the incident, the locations where the holocaust
> took place still exist, and this list goes on and on etc... Anyone
> who disagrees with that the holocaust took place, would be hard
> pressed to find evidence and string it together in a logical and
> simple manner, in the same way that anyone who said the Earth was
> only a few thousand years old would be hard pressed to find evidence
> to support this conclusion. Also, it seems the prophecy of "The
> mark of the beast" is unfounded.
I am not trying to be stubborn, but it seems to me that what follows in the next
paragraph makes my point for me. John, 2,000 years ago, said that in the last days no one
would be able to buy, sell, or be a part of the marketplace without
"the mark of the beast." He said this as a warning for the believers
not to take that mark for to do so is to worship the anti-Chjrist and
to be a part of his dominion. So, even though there have always been
deeds, censuses, etc., never before has mankind been tracked to such
an extent. Not only that, he says there will be no place for them to
hide from this one-world system--no place on the whole earth.
With satellite tracking, I think I can understand that.
I don't think there are many people
> on the planet who aren't seen as a number today. In many countries,
> carrying a passport or papers to move about is common place. It is a
> necessity in today's world. Even in biblical times, records of
> people were kept for taxation purposes, land ownership, slaves kept.
> The social security number is just one in a long list of numbers,
> and the next will be the same. You can be tracked by every credit
> card purchase you make, every plane you get on, every paycheck you
> collect. This is the price of high technology and freedom.
So, John saw this 2,000 years ago? He saw the "high price of
technology and freedom". I find it difficult to believe that
anything like it existed in his time.
Some may
> question the freedom part, even I do a little (i am not as free as i
> would like to be - no atheist is) but freewill implies that some
> people will abuse this will, and choose to be evil with it. I think
> that sometimes we are over zealous in our efforts to control those
> who wish to abuse "freewill", and this leads to some negative
> issues. Overall though, the preponderance of evidence squarely sits
> on the side of the Big Bang, stellar evolution, expanding Universe,
> Expanding space-time, solar system formation, active complex
> geological earth, amino acid chains, life, evolution, sentience. As
> the evidence in the direction of non-divine evolution is so
> abundant, here is why I choose against religion:
>
> 1> There is no, 0, ZERO physical evidence to support it
> 2> It is so full of obvious plagiarism, and tampering
> 3> We can trace most of the religions back to their originators who
> all came at least 150,000 years after mankind was Homo Sapiens
> Sapiens 4> The probability of accurate translation and information
> gathering at the time is VERY suspect
>
> If god is omniscient, then he knew the terms we use today to
> describe things. Instead of number of the beast, he could have said
> "social security number". Many will say that people 2000 years ago
> wouldn't understand, yet they can make the conversion to beast, and
> expect us to properly translate. I'm sorry, but there is something
> afoul about the whole religion thing.
>
The word "beast" here means something like "hideous being". I am using
by King James Version, of course, but I understand what they mean,
especially in context.
> I do find, and in this we can agree, that the bible and most other
> writings of it's nature, there is a great deal of insight into the
> nature of humanity, and a great deal of good that can come from some
> of the information within, BUT, I find that the negative actions of
> biblical followers in general are worse than the benefits. If it was
> up to me, only the stable and non-violent should have access to it's
> information.
>
> Bill Roh
> AKA Sodom
> I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, AND COULD SEE MY BONES THROUGH IT
>
Bill, I have never seen your name before. I feel privledged. I also
enjoy our discussions very much. I did not join the list to convince
anyone to believe as I do. When challenged on my beliefs, I do not
mind giving reasons. Only you and the others can decide if my system
is irrational. For me, it is not.