Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Hadley and Reason....

Expand Messages
  • Nikolai
    Anne wrote: Umm, I know this might sound weird coming from a Christian, but define from God. (That was rhetorical, don t feel obliged to answer.) For
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 1 6:11 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Anne wrote:
      Umm, I know this might sound weird coming from a Christian, but
      define 'from God.' (That was rhetorical, don't feel obliged to
      answer.) For example, in the OT, the prophets would sometimes
      record "The Word of God came to me" or some such. Now none of the
      gospels says anything like that. The gospel writers didn't claim to
      be "inspired" (whatever that means). John claims to have been an
      eyewitness. Luke claims good research from primary sources. In
      purportedly-factual accounts, the question of "inspiration" kind
      of muddles the issue.

      Nikolai:
      Muddles the issue? You kidding, right? The plenary, verbal
      inspiration of Scripture muddles the issue. Anne, if inspiration is
      denied there are no issues left, it's over, end of Christianity and
      welcome to the world of idolatry. Or are you suggesting the gospels
      only, since their authors did not explicitly claim being inspired,
      should be set apart from the rest of the Scriptures as being products
      of men alone? 2 Timothy 3:16 covers all 66 books as being God's
      breathed out words, including the gospels. Inspiration of course
      never meant in the same sense as we say the writings of poets (good
      ones at least) are inspired, 'breathed out by God' is a better term
      and a better translation (I think) of 2Tim 3:16.

      Anne:
      What matters is whether the accounts are reliable & trustworthy, not
      whether there is some sort of "inspiration" going on. The -content-
      is the amazing part of the gospel narratives, not how they came to be
      written down.

      Nikolai:
      There would be no reliability left if inspiration is denied for
      nothing would separate the gospels from other ancient literature.
      What is so amazing in the gospels if it's just another historical
      document? Why should I believe some John that some supposedly great
      religious leader called Jesus paid for my sins with his life? What
      makes John's writings any different from writings of other religious
      groups if Biblical inspiration is denied?
      Besides, how are you going to verify the reliability of the gospels
      anyway? By the reliability of other ancient documents which in turn
      also need verifying by yet another documents and so on? No wonder
      there's not much Christianity left in the world today for Christians
      themselves reject the very foundations on which they themselves are
      supposed to stand.

      Anne:
      (The ancient church accounts say that GJohn was written by some of
      the disciples, with John taking the lead & others reviewing, with the
      views of 1> recording more information on the spiritual aspects than
      was previously recorded in the already-existing accounts, & 2>
      recording more of the early part of Jesus' ministry, not just the
      last year as in the already-existing accounts. The last chapter of
      GJohn includes what is basically an addendum plus the testimony of
      the other disciples that they had reviewed John's account & agreed
      with it.)

      Nikolai:
      The ancient church accounts differ virtually on everything at some
      point or another and to formulate one's view based on these accounts
      is simply not helpful. There's enough internal evidence within the
      gospel itself as well as in other gospels to conclude John's
      authorship. That the last chapter of John's gospel includes other
      disciples' review and agreement is hardly plausible - compare
      the 'we' in 1 John 1 or 2 Peter 1:16.

      Anne: So to sum up, to me the argument is not whether the NT
      documents are from God, but whether Christ is from God.

      Nikolai:
      If the NT is not from God, then there's no reason *whatever* to
      believe Jesus is the Son of God.
    • Vincent Sabatino
      ... I don t think so, Nik. The author of 2 Timothy probably didn t even know about the Gospels, especially John...or Acts, or Revelation, etc. You re reading
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 1 6:39 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        > 2 Timothy 3:16 covers all 66 books as being God's
        > breathed out words, including the gospels.

        I don't think so, Nik. The author of 2 Timothy probably didn't even know
        about the Gospels, especially John...or Acts, or Revelation, etc. You're
        reading the term "scripture" in 2 Timothy as if it refers to what *you*,
        nowadays, consider to be inspired....

        > Nikolai:
        > There would be no reliability left if inspiration is denied for
        > nothing would separate the gospels from other ancient literature.

        And other ancient literature is *completely* unreliable? Of course not...

        > What is so amazing in the gospels if it's just another historical
        > document? Why should I believe some John that some supposedly great
        > religious leader called Jesus paid for my sins with his life? What
        > makes John's writings any different from writings of other religious
        > groups if Biblical inspiration is denied?

        These are legitimate questions...But why don't you apply them to your own
        stance also? Why don't you ask "Why should I believe these are inspired
        documents?" It seems that a lot of presuppers make demands that they can't
        meet themselves...

        > Besides, how are you going to verify the reliability of the gospels
        > anyway? By the reliability of other ancient documents which in turn
        > also need verifying by yet another documents and so on? No wonder
        > there's not much Christianity left in the world today for Christians
        > themselves reject the very foundations on which they themselves are
        > supposed to stand.

        This is all an overreaction...Anne definitely doesn't deny the inspiration
        of scripture...

        > Anne: So to sum up, to me the argument is not whether the NT
        > documents are from God, but whether Christ is from God.
        >
        > Nikolai:
        > If the NT is not from God, then there's no reason *whatever* to
        > believe Jesus is the Son of God.

        Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow at all that someone investigating
        the NT must *first* come to believe in biblical inerrancy or even
        inspiration before they conclude, based on the documents, that Jesus is the
        Son of God.

        I really don't want to get into a huge debate about presuppositionalism,
        inspiration, and whatnot...I really don't have time these days....But I
        think you are overreacting in much of this, and making some unwarranted
        logical leaps here and there....

        John
      • Tedd Hadley
        AnneAKim@aol.com writes ... Hadley: Not at all, John s indicated he doesn t really have the time for an involved discussion and I ll let him have the last
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 1 10:47 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          AnneAKim@... writes
          in message <3a.1175eaeb.27cf243c@...>:
          > Hi all
          >
          > I hope I'm not intruding on what's been a semi-private discussion, still I

          Hadley: Not at all, John's indicated he doesn't really have the time for
          an involved discussion and I'll let him have the last word.

          > saw a couple of things on which I wanted to comment.

          > Hadley: There's often the indication in non-religious arguments that
          > religion is dangerous and somehow foreign to human nature. At
          > the same time, there's the opposite idea in religious arguments
          > that religion is a sort of salvation to human nature. Between
          > the two is a sort of neutral truth -- religion is a part of
          > human nature. Of course that doesn't mean any given religion
          > is true or false, necessarily.
          >
          > I'd say that being re-united with God is nature coming back into
          > its own. If God really is the source of life, then being cut
          > off from God inevitably means death, like a branch cut off from
          > the tree will inevitably die. Being connected again is being
          > restored to the natural state.
          >
          > Vincent > Why is it that religious beliefs are not part of your intrinsic
          > > nature? Or are they just expressed differently?
          >
          > Hadley: Probably expressed differently. I'm undecided on how religious
          > tendencies or characteristics are practiced in contexts outside
          > of religion.
          >
          > Among the skeptics I've talked with, I've met several who have
          > basically undertaken skepticism, agnosticism, or even atheism
          > as part of a spiritual journey. Now I know on the surface that
          > sounds ludicrous but I'm as firmly convinced that in some people's
          > lives it's the way it is. One of these people was raised Mormon,
          > & as he grew up he decided that the LDS was a crock. He went
          > all the way to atheism, of a very angry variety too. But fo r
          > him even atheism was a spiritual quest. He had to start fresh,
          > step back, calm down, get some perspective, and build up from
          > ground zero. "What is true? How do I know?"
          >
          > I remember my own earlier days as a fledgling Christian, I
          > remember years of reading & asking questions & not being sure.
          > But the church I attended didn't worry about that, they just
          > let me be where I was. I really appreciated that. If the people
          > who wrote the gospel narratives knew what they were talking
          > about, then Jesus did the same with his followers. He let them
          > go for years wondering "Who is this?" without really pressing
          > the point.
          > He didn't press the point until it was time for him to set out
          > on his last trip to Jerusalem, and they needed to know.
          >
          >
          > I have a lot of respect for the honest skeptics. I think there
          > is one way in which some of the honest skeptics grasp what
          > Christianity says on a level that the complacent nominal Christians
          > don't: at least they recognize that what Christianity says is
          > radical.

          Hadley: Many forms of Christianity's foundation on sin and punishment
          to me is not radical, just wrong. I find it difficult to extract
          good from that.

          > If they didn't start with "Really? How do you know
          > something like -that- is true?" then I would wonder if they had
          > heard me right. The complacent types make me wonder if they're
          > awake. ("Did you hear me? I said 'rose from the dead.'") As
          > Vladimir Lossky (RO theologian) said: "There are fields in which
          > what is commonly styled 'objectivity' is only indifference, and
          > where indifference means incomprehension."
          >
          > Hadley: I know, that's why I suggested that you quiz me on
          > my famililarit y with the historical arguments.
          >
          > Anne: Ok, I'll bite. I'll tell you up front that I do not cede
          > the usual skeptic claim that we must work only with non-Christian
          > historical sources, so I also mention early historical Christian
          > sources. Starting from square one, are you familiar with the
          > NT accounts in 4 biographical sketches + assorted other works,
          > and of the early attestations of these? Of the other references
          > to Christ's death & resurrection as historical fact, recorded
          > by Christian writers in the 100's and even late 000's?

          Yes, pretty much.

          > Of the testimony of the early Christians that they had spoken
          > to some of the people that Jesus had healed, that these people
          > had not vanished but were living witnesses among them?

          I remember something like that, yes.

          > Of the
          > statue that once stood in Caesarea Philippi, depicting Jesus &
          > the woman healed of a hemorrhage who was from that city, a statue that
          > Eusebius says he saw with his own eyes and was still there to his day?

          I don't remember that, but it sounds reasonable.

          > Of the first & second bishops of the church in Jerusalem being
          > chosen because they were Jesus' brother and cousin? Of the
          > early testimony of Jesus' own family on points of interest such
          > as the gospel genealogies, & the fact that Jesus' relatives were
          > held in moderate honor amongst the early Christians, even having
          > their own title "desposyni" denoting the blood-relatives of
          > Christ? And if you want to talk about non-Christian reports of
          > Christ, there are a few, in which we can ascertain that Christ
          > was crucified under Pontius Pilate, & his followers were almost
          > immediately on the scene everywhere claiming a bodily resurrection,
          > & worshipping him.

          Hadley: Yes, this all sounds consistent with what I've read.
          But the most important time period is at or prior to the earliest
          writings and who and where of the earliest writers and what they
          knew. There just doesn't seem to be enough there to allow
          confidence that all the supernatural events in the NT took place
          as recorded.

          > Hadley: Can you imagine that there's a really good argument out there
          > supporting the NT, but it's buried in some obscure theological
          > journal in some library somewhere?
          >
          > Anne: I know there are many valid claims that the modern popular
          > apologists don't even work with, having (unnecessarily, I believe)
          > taken on the limitation of supporting Scriptural events only
          > from non-Christian sources. What other figure of antiquity is
          > only allowed hostile or indifferent witnesses? If it weren't
          > for Confucius' followers, what would we know about Confucius?
          > Likewise Socrates. In most cases of history, the testimony of
          > friends, family, & followers is not disdained but sought out
          > most earnestly and prized because they most likely knew the
          > person & the facts better than anyone else.

          Hadley: I think that's all fine and I don't find it necessary to draw
          those particular lines, but the problem I have is the human
          tendency to exaggerate, the tendency of rumours to grow, and
          how easy it is for people to believe things that make them feel
          better. This provides such a solid explanation for 99% of all
          supernatural accounts in history that I think there needs to be
          extremely good evidence to demonstrate this is not the case in
          the NT.

          > Hadley: I asked you this:
          > "Is it reasonable to have doubt that the NT account is from
          > God?"
          >
          > Anne: Umm, I know this might sound weird coming from a Christian,
          > but define 'from God.' (That was rhetorical, don't feel obliged
          > to answer.) For example, in the OT, the prophets would sometimes
          > record "The Word of God came to me" or some such. Now none of
          > the gospels says anything like that. The gospel writers didn't
          > claim to be "inspired" (whatever that means). John claims to
          > have been an eyewitness. Luke claims good research from primary
          > sources. In purportedly-factual accounts, the question of
          > "inspiration" kind of muddles the issue. What matters is
          > whether the accounts are reliable & trustworthy, not whether
          > there is some sort of "inspiration" going on. The -content- is
          > the amazing part of the gospel narratives, not how they came to
          > be written down. (The ancient church accounts say that GJohn
          > was written by some of the disciples, with John taking the lead
          > & others reviewing, with the views of 1> recording more
          > information on the spiritual aspects than was previously recorded
          > in the already-existing accounts, & 2> recording more of
          > the early part of Jesus' ministry, not just the last year as in
          > the already-existing accounts. The last chapter of GJohn includes
          > what is basically an addendum plus the testimony of the other
          > disciples that they ha d reviewed John's account & agreed with
          > it.)
          >
          > Anne: So to sum up, to me the argument is not whether the NT documents are
          > from God, but whether Christ is from God.
          >
          > Hadley: Only perfect people can logically take part in vast conspiracies,
          > therefore.
          >
          > Anne: So are you willing to say that, whatever else early
          > Christianity may or may not have been, at least it wasn't a
          > conspiracy?

          Hadley: Probably not. Many obviously false religions seems to
          have gotten started without any conspiracies, so there doesn't
          seem to be a requirement for it.

          > Hadley: Take a look for yourself. It isn't the evidence that
          > is important to conspiracy theorists; it can't be, there isn't
          > enough there.
          >
          > Anne: I enjoyed that one.

          Lack of evidence is just more evidence of a conspiracy :)
        • AnneAKim@aol.com
          Hi Nikolai Actually, my views on inspiration aren t so liberal as all that you might fear. But when I m discussing with a skeptic like Hadley, I don t want to
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 1 10:59 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Nikolai

            Actually, my views on inspiration aren't so liberal as all that you might
            fear. But when I'm discussing with a skeptic like Hadley, I don't want to
            force the issue of whether the documents are inspired (which assumes God and
            assumes truth, which the skeptic can't do yet. I won't even ask them to
            start there, since if they could start there they probably wouldn't be
            skeptics.) So I start with the issue of truth, at the first step, basically,
            "We have these documents. Are they true?" Their claim to being true is
            independent of the claims of whether the people writing down the words were
            "inspired" (which to a skeptic doesn't mean squat). And more to the point, I
            can have a much more profitable discussion with a skeptic if I'm willing to
            play on their field, & start where they are.

            Take care & God bless
            AnneK
          • Chris G Criminger
            I agree with John about over reactions (of course they are not over reactions to those building their theological system on a different foundation). When I
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 1 2:57 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I agree with John about over reactions (of course they are not over
              reactions to those building their theological system on a different
              foundation). When I was a hard core Innerancy person, I had to defend
              this view tooth and nail because if there was one error in the Bible,
              then the whole edifice fell (basically an all or nothing approach). I
              remember those days where may faith was so fragile and every time I came
              across a difficult scripture or an apparent contradiction, I had to
              figure it out or my faith would go by the wayside.

              I am much more content and secure in my faith without the grounding of my
              faith being in Innerant manuscripts we don't even have today but in a
              living God who meets us in the power of Christ's transforming Holy
              Spirit. I think Ann is rightly pointing to the living Christ as our
              foundation of faith and not a paper pope.

              Grace and peace - Chris Criminger


              ________________________________________________________________
              GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
              Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
              Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
              http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
            • AnneAKim@aol.com
              Nikolai was saying:
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 1 8:18 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Nikolai was saying: << OK, I'd like to see how would you prove what you claim
                you can prove apart from Scripture's claims of being God's word. You may
                either prove it to me or to Tedd, as you wish. >>

                Well, I'll start with Hadley since that's where we started with all this.
                Now when I take this approach with skeptics, how far it goes depends on how
                open the skeptic is. But really, if a skeptic can't start with "inspiration"
                (and most skeptics can't), then the testimony of history is a valid place to
                start.

                Take care & God bless
                AnneK
              • Nikolai Razouvaev
                I wrote: 2 Timothy 3:16 covers all 66 books as being God s breathed out words, including the gospels. John: I don t think so, Nik. The author of 2 Timothy
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 2 10:34 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  I wrote:
                  2 Timothy 3:16 covers all 66 books as being God's breathed out words,
                  including the gospels.

                  John:
                  I don't think so, Nik. The author of 2 Timothy probably didn't even know
                  about the Gospels, especially John...or Acts, or Revelation, etc. You're
                  reading the term "scripture" in 2 Timothy as if it refers to what *you*,
                  nowadays, consider to be inspired....

                  Nikolai:
                  So the NT is not, according to you, Scriptures and therefore inspired? Is
                  this your position?

                  I wrote:
                  There would be no reliability left if inspiration is denied for nothing
                  would separate the gospels from other ancient literature.

                  John:
                  And other ancient literature is *completely* unreliable? Of course not...

                  Nikolai:
                  If you take away the plenary, verbal inspiration of the NT, then yes,
                  reliability of it is as good as any other historical document - close to
                  zero, though with the NT it would be even closER to zero due to its content,
                  i.e. miracles and Jesus' claims.

                  I wrote:
                  What is so amazing in the gospels if it's just another historical document?
                  Why should I believe some John that some supposedly great
                  religious leader called Jesus paid for my sins with his life? What makes
                  John's writings any different from writings of other religious
                  groups if Biblical inspiration is denied?

                  John:
                  These are legitimate questions...But why don't you apply them to your own
                  stance also? Why don't you ask "Why should I believe these are inspired
                  documents?" It seems that a lot of presuppers make demands that they can't
                  meet themselves...

                  Nikolai:
                  I can meet my own demand, why not. I believe the Scripture is God's own
                  words because the Scripture claims to be God's word. I anticipate your
                  'begging the question' charge of course.

                  I wrote:
                  Besides, how are you going to verify the reliability of the gospels anyway?
                  By the reliability of other ancient documents which in turn
                  also need verifying by yet another documents and so on? No wonder there's
                  not much Christianity left in the world today for Christians
                  themselves reject the very foundations on which they themselves are supposed
                  to stand.

                  John:
                  This is all an overreaction...Anne definitely doesn't deny the inspiration
                  of scripture...

                  Nikolai:
                  I'd rather prefer to hear Anne's position from herself

                  Anne wrote:
                  So to sum up, to me the argument is not whether the NT documents are from
                  God, but whether Christ is from God.

                  I wrote:
                  If the NT is not from God, then there's no reason *whatever* to believe
                  Jesus is the Son of God.

                  John:
                  Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow at all that someone investigating
                  the NT must *first* come to believe in biblical inerrancy or even
                  inspiration before they conclude, based on the documents, that Jesus is the
                  Son of God.

                  Nikolai:
                  I don't see how your objection is relevant. My argument is if NT is not
                  God's truthful word (in its entirety), then there's no reason to believe
                  Jesus' claims of Sonship *and* Godship as it was recorded for us by NT
                  writers. The claims could be false or the accounts of the claims could be
                  false or both. you simply put my argument up side down.

                  John:
                  I really don't want to get into a huge debate about presuppositionalism,
                  inspiration, and whatnot...I really don't have time these days....But I
                  think you are overreacting in much of this, and making some unwarranted
                  logical leaps here and there....

                  Nikolai:
                  Well, maybe you should show me my logical leaps so I would know where I'm
                  wrong. Shouldn't we help and edify each other?

                  Nikolai
                • Nikolai Razouvaev
                  Hi Anne, you wrote: Actually, my views on inspiration aren t so liberal as all that you might fear. Nikolai: I thought so too. Anne: But when I m discussing
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 2 11:40 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Anne,
                    you wrote:
                    Actually, my views on inspiration aren't so liberal as all that you might
                    fear.

                    Nikolai:
                    I thought so too.

                    Anne:
                    But when I'm discussing with a skeptic like Hadley, I don't want to force
                    the issue of whether the documents are inspired (which assumes God and
                    assumes truth, which the skeptic can't do yet. I won't even ask them to
                    start there, since if they could start there they probably wouldn't be
                    skeptics.)

                    Nikolai:
                    If it was possible to prove reliability of the NT apart from its own claims
                    to the truth, then there wouldn't be any need for the doctrine of plenary
                    and verbal inspiration, don't you think? And again, how reliable is
                    reliable? Are you going to prove that every single proposition and word of
                    the NT is reliable or just some parts?

                    Anne:
                    So I start with the issue of truth, at the first step, basically, "We have
                    these documents. Are they true?" Their claim to being true is
                    independent of the claims of whether the people writing down the words were
                    "inspired" (which to a skeptic doesn't mean squat). And more to the point,
                    I can have a much more profitable discussion with a skeptic if I'm willing
                    to play on their field, & start where they are.

                    Nikolai:
                    OK, I'd like to see how would you prove what you claim you can prove apart
                    from Scripture's claims of being God's word. You may either prove it to me
                    or to Tedd, as you wish.

                    Nikolai
                  • Nikolai
                    Chris G Criminger wrote: I agree with John about over reactions (of course they are not over reactions to those building their theological system on a
                    Message 9 of 21 , Mar 5 7:09 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Chris G Criminger wrote:
                      I agree with John about over reactions (of course they are not over
                      reactions to those building their theological system on a different
                      foundation). When I was a hard core Innerancy person, I had to defend
                      this view tooth and nail because if there was one error in the Bible,
                      then the whole edifice fell (basically an all or nothing approach). I
                      remember those days where may faith was so fragile and every time I
                      came across a difficult scripture or an apparent contradiction, I had
                      to figure it out or my faith would go by the wayside.

                      Nikolai:
                      You are quite right in saying that if there's an error, even just
                      one, in the Bible, than the whole of Christian faith as doctrine
                      cannot stand. Now let me get this straight in case I misunderstand
                      you - your faith was fragile, then you have noticed some difficult
                      scriptures or apparent contradictions which further weakened your
                      faith, in order to strenghthen it you rejected the inerrancy of the
                      Bible so the apparent contradictions and other difficult scriptures
                      can be explained. Do I copy you correctly?

                      Chris G Criminger wrote:
                      I am much more content and secure in my faith without the grounding
                      of my faith being in Innerant manuscripts we don't even have today
                      but in a living God who meets us in the power of Christ's
                      transforming Holy Spirit. I think Ann is rightly pointing to the
                      living Christ as our foundation of faith and not a paper pope.

                      Nikolai:
                      Now first of all let each of us speak for ourselves, for from what I
                      gather so far Anne does not nor did not deny the inerrancy of the
                      Bible. You are the one who is "much more content and secure in [your,
                      ed] faith without the grounding of [your, ed] faith being in Innerant
                      manuscripts". The trouble, for you that is, is if the manuscripts you
                      so kindly call "a paper pope" are *not* inerrant you have no basis to
                      ground your faith in living Christ for, what it's worth, the "paper
                      pope" could be wrong in telling you that Christ is living or was
                      conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under
                      Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried and so on. If any
                      of the Biblical propositions is false, what ground do you have to
                      accept any other proposition you believe as being truthful?
                    • metacrock@aol.com
                      In a message dated 3/5/01 4:11:08 PM, nikolai@zorkidesign.com writes:
                      Message 10 of 21 , Mar 5 7:39 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 3/5/01 4:11:08 PM, nikolai@... writes:

                        <<
                        You are quite right in saying that if there's an error, even just
                        one, in the Bible, than the whole of Christian faith as doctrine
                        cannot stand. Now let me get this straight in case I misunderstand
                        you - your faith was fragile, then you have noticed some difficult
                        scriptures or apparent contradictions which further weakened your
                        faith, in order to strenghthen it you rejected the inerrancy of the
                        Bible so the apparent contradictions and other difficult scriptures
                        can be explained. Do I copy you correctly?


                        >>>That's absurd! Sorry, I dont' mean to be rude, but I just can't stand that
                        way of thinking. IT's so absurdly unnecessary! Why? Why does it make any
                        sense at all? The all or nothing mentality just doens't make any sense on
                        anything! If your pipes are slightly cracked you might as well rip them all
                        out of the wall right? If your windheild has a small tiny surface crack might
                        as well put a brick through it right? IF the Bible says Jesus wore a blue
                        robe and he really wore a read one than the whole things a lie and there's no
                        God right? That just doesn't make any kind of sense.What if MM was the only
                        woman who went to the Tomb, as John seems to imply, does that mean Jesus
                        didn't rise form the dead?



                        Chris G Criminger wrote:
                        I am much more content and secure in my faith without the grounding
                        of my faith being in Innerant manuscripts we don't even have today
                        but in a living God who meets us in the power of Christ's
                        transforming Holy Spirit. I think Ann is rightly pointing to the
                        living Christ as our foundation of faith and not a paper pope.

                        Nikolai:
                        Now first of all let each of us speak for ourselves, for from what I
                        gather so far Anne does not nor did not deny the inerrancy of the
                        Bible. You are the one who is "much more content and secure in [your,
                        ed] faith without the grounding of [your, ed] faith being in Innerant
                        manuscripts". The trouble, for you that is, is if the manuscripts you
                        so kindly call "a paper pope" are *not* inerrant you have no basis to
                        ground your faith in living Christ for, what it's worth, the "paper
                        pope" could be wrong in telling you that Christ is living or was
                        conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under
                        Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried and so on. If any
                        of the Biblical propositions is false, what ground do you have to
                        accept any other proposition you believe as being truthful?



                        >>>What's wrong with experincing God first hand. Have you no fatih in the
                        Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth? But the whole issue is so
                        illconcived it's absurd. The issue is not what if it's wrong on the
                        V.conception!?? The issue is really what kind of literary genere did the
                        various authors think they were writting in ? Did they mean to write a
                        literal historical account? Were thry always trying to be literal and
                        accurate?

                        >>
                      • metacrock@aol.com
                        In a message dated 3/6/01 4:41:12 AM, cccriminger@juno.com writes:
                        Message 11 of 21 , Mar 5 7:48 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 3/6/01 4:41:12 AM, cccriminger@... writes:

                          << ations. I simply do not
                          see it as a helpful term.

                          Grace and Peace - Chris Criminger
                          >>

                          Allow me to recomend a good book. It's by Avery Dulles, whose father was John
                          Foster Dulles, the sec of state in Ensenhauser administration, and he himself
                          is among the new American Cardinals just appointed by JPII.

                          The book is Models of Revelation. He shows strengths and weaknesses of 5
                          seperate models, including verbal plenary, and comes to his own version of
                          inspiration based upon his concept called dialectical retrival which employs
                          aspects of all 5 models.
                        • Chris G Criminger
                          Innerancy dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I simply do not see it as a helpful term. Grace and Peace - Chris Criminger
                          Message 12 of 21 , Mar 6 1:55 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Innerancy dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I simply do not
                            see it as a helpful term.

                            Grace and Peace - Chris Criminger


                            ________________________________________________________________
                            GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
                            Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
                            Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
                            http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
                          • Chris G Criminger
                            ... RE: Thanks! (I ll take a look) - Chris C. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers
                            Message 13 of 21 , Mar 6 3:47 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:48:14 EST metacrock@... writes:
                              > Allow me to recomend a good book. It's by Avery Dulles, whose father
                              > was John
                              > Foster Dulles, the sec of state in Ensenhauser administration, and
                              > he himself
                              > is among the new American Cardinals just appointed by JPII.
                              >
                              > The book is Models of Revelation. He shows strengths and weaknesses
                              > of 5
                              > seperate models, including verbal plenary, and comes to his own
                              > version of
                              > inspiration based upon his concept called dialectical retrival which
                              > employs
                              > aspects of all 5 models.

                              RE: Thanks! (I'll take a look) - Chris C.


                              ________________________________________________________________
                              GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
                              Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
                              Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
                              http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.