If God appeared to you at the gate and asked you "Why should I allow you into heaven? how would you answer? Most people no matter if they are Christian, Hindu, or Muslim would answer with: "I always do ....... "I never have done........." I've done more good than bad....." "I've tried my best to be......."

Wouldn't the Christian answer be, "I have done nothing worthy of entrance into Heaven. I am not perfect. I have often fallen short. However, I have been washed clean by the blood of your son. He has taken my sins upon him and I am now spotless. By grace alone will I enter. By grace alone am I worthy."

So even more so, you have faith that all these men, like Paul, are actually interpreting Jesus' message correctly.[/quote] YES, you betcha. Because I know it wasn't really them. It was the Holy Spirit directing them....unlike Mark Twain. I feel the HS leading in my life. It's very obvious and my life has been changed forever as a result. I imagine they too filled with the HS were able to pen the words directed and guided by the HS like Peter said. Christ also said that he would send them the HS to help them in this after he left. You're trying to pretend I am a "doubter" when I am just honest enough to admit it. ok, so you're honest and I'm a liar? Is that it? You're right and I'm wrong? By Faith" is the cornerstone of your dogma. Period. Faith is the cornerstone. But faith is not blind as you'd like to believe it is. Nowhere did God expect any to believe in him on faith alone. He did say those that did would be more blessed. But he always put evidence to his existence because he knows that's what we need because our faith is weak. In the OT it was the cloud that followed them and the pillar at night. He then gave many signs, words and wonders thru the OT prophets. What they said came true. Still they didn't listen nor believe. Then at last he sent his son and yet again, they chose not to believe even after he did all his miracles. Faith is the crux yes, but he also shows me daily, he's around. He doesn't leave me in the dark. Substance is what people ask of you all the time, for which you poo-poo them as not having faith... and then you poke someone like Lucas for not having something substantive I don't poo poo anybody. I'm just asking what their faith is in. Themselves or something outside of themselves. The reason you're having this hissy fit is because Lucas' answer is yours as well. If you're going to say your faith is in you then yes I'm going to ask what you are backing that up on. That's pretty scary to me. To have faith in myself for my eternal destiny when I can't seem to get to work on time most of the time. Besides this is what Lucas said and what I was referring to. He was saying there was no absolute truth only truth as we see it. Sorry if it bothers you that I responded to him. No one knows *the* truth, because the truth for each individual is different. I can only live life. (and hope) What you fail to point out is that Josephus doesn't back up any of your doctrine, or quote anything that Jesus said. hmmm what about the others I mentioned? You pick what you want I see to blast me with? What you fail to mention as well is the fact that Josephus not only mentions this Jesus but he also backs up the gospels with his date, time, place and events in history that are directly mentioned in scripture. Like I said....go ahead and read him. He's just one "proof" the gospels are accurate and he wasn't even Christian. Most of what we believe in terms of that comes from Paul, and various councils and Christian theologians over the 2000 years after His death Well let's look at Paul shall we? Paul directly had an encounter with Christ. His life changed big time. The first thing he did was spend time with the disciples. He then took three years to put this all together and then he met directly with Peter for 15 days before he started his ministry. So I would say that he had a pretty good eye on what was going on. So yes, Paul was a pretty good credible witness to what was going on. He totally backed up the 4 gospel writers. The councils and Christians theologians over the last 2000 years? Well I'm more apt to go back to the first century preachers and teachers and the early reformers than I am now. I do listen to only the modern preachers who are faithful to the word most of them as I do, go back frequently to the early church and the reformers as well. [quote]If you put all that Jesus said in a book, at least what we have quoted, it wouldn't have many pages at all.

We have all we need. I don't think we could ever have enough for you to totally believe it anyway if I'm reading you correctly. It wasn't meant to be exhaustive.

"And many other signs truly did Jesus do in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing you might have life through his name." John 20:30-31

"YES, you betcha. Because I know it wasn't really them. It was the Holy Spirit directing them....unlike Mark Twain."

You believe, you don't know.

"ok, so you're honest and I'm a liar? Is that it? You're right and I'm wrong?"

If you are trying to tell Lucas that you have something more than faith, then yes, you are lying to him.

"Faith is the crux yes, but he also shows me daily, he's around. He doesn't leave me in the dark. "

You BELIEVE through FAITH that those things you see daily come from God, and say what you think they say. You have nothing but belief to prove it. The Philistines believed their victories came from Baal.

"I don't poo poo anybody. I'm just asking what their faith is in. Themselves or something outside of themselves."

And next week you'll be poo pooing people because they are believing what they see with their eyes and not using their faith, as you have in umpteen different conversations on evolution and everything else...

"hmmm what about the others I mentioned? You pick what you want I see to blast me with? What you fail to mention as well is the fact that Josephus not only mentions this Jesus but he also backs up the gospels with his date, time, place and events in history that are directly mentioned in scripture. Like I said....go ahead and read him. He's just one "proof" the gospels are accurate and he wasn't even Christian."

Lol, feel free to back that one up. Link it. I wanna see him quote a single WORD that Jesus said. Tell me what page to look on. It's funny when people tell me to read something and in the process prove that they haven't read it themselves. I'm aware of what Josephus is purported to have said about Jesus, are you?

"Well let's look at Paul shall we? Paul directly had an encounter with Christ."

After Jesus had died... and you know it because... he said so. Not because you witnessed the event. Again, simple faith in what someone said, hearsay testimony. Period.

What proof do you have that it was really Jesus and not the devil Paul saw? Surely not his "works". You have faith in what you believe, but you have no "truth" that you can verify, no "fact", not an ounce.

"Well I'm more apt to go back to the first century preachers and teachers and the early reformers than I am now."

I doubt you could name any other than the ones listed in the Bible. In reality most of your doctrine was honed out hundreds of years later. Your particular breed didn't even exist until the 1800's.

Lol, feel free to back that one up. Link it. I wanna see him quote a single WORD that Jesus said. Tell me what page to look on. It's funny when people tell me to read something and in the process prove that they haven't read it themselves. I'm aware of what Josephus is purported to have said about Jesus, are you?[/quote] I didn't say that. I never said he directly quoted Christ.......I said this: "hmmm what about the others I mentioned? You pick what you want I see to blast me with? What you fail to mention as well is the fact that Josephus not only mentions this Jesus but he also backs up the gospels with his date, time, place and events in history that are directly mentioned in scripture. Like I said....go ahead and read him. He's just one "proof" the gospels are accurate and he wasn't even Christian." now the proof's on you. Where did I say he "quoted" Jesus directly? This is a game you're playing Baker....it's called twister...not unlike the old 60's game or the dance......I'd bet you'd be really good at it. I've got the book. Right here. Since I'm much more of a book person, I've never looked Josephus up on the net before but I did tonight..since you so need me to link you.... here you go....from the link Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear. First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF". Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest. But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned. WWW Link I used Josephus to show that the gospels were credible. He's just A source not even close to be the only source. [quote]I doubt you could name any other than the ones listed in the Bible. In reality most of your doctrine was honed out hundreds of years later.

You do really? Funny I already have....more than once even here on this thread I have.....did you miss them? Also, what about the Link I provided to you way back of all the early reformer preachers complete with many of their sermons...including Luther? BTW....I love Calvin and read him almost daily. He was before 1800 in case you didn't know.

you really need to stop "believing" your doubts Baker.

"now the proof's on you. Where did I say he "quoted" Jesus directly? This is a game you're playing Baker....it's called twister...not unlike the old 60's game or the dance......I'd bet you'd be really good at it. "

You said that you had more than just faith to base your "truth" on. I assumed you meant that you were saying that Josephus could ATTEST TO SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE. Again, you're just posting that someone said Jesus existed and pretending that such a statement offers evidence of the truth of your beliefs.

Mohammad existed, too. Does that prove Muslims are right? I'm sure there are a lot of Atheists that believe that Jesus existed. Sorry, but you made it seem like Josephus could attest to something in the way of your faith. Not having been witness to any of it, I don't see how.

"You do really? Funny I already have....more than once even here on this thread I have.....did you miss them?"

The list you quoted only has one first century figure, Josephus, and he was neither a Christian, nor a teacher, nor a reformer, nor in any way a witness of Jesus's life and teachings. Your first quote is abysmally apocryphal, given a Jewish historian wouldn't have referred to Jesus in that way. The second betrays the first, given he refers to Jesus as "so-called".

You'll say that I'm nitpicking, but you are asserting that you have something more than hearsay. I don't see how people who lived 100 or more years after Jesus's death can be considered eyewitnesses. Therefore, you just BELIEVE what they are saying, based on faith, not their eyewitness account.

Josephus wasn't a Christian, and given such, you can't believe for a moment the first quote you list are really his words.

"He's just A source not even close to be the only source"

Post more, please. Show me another that was in the same century Jesus lived. Tacitus? Pliny? Not what you'd consider to be folks on your side of the argument. If you have any other contemporaries of Jesus that can attest to DOCTRINE it would be good to know.

Short of that, you're just proving Jesus existed, not that anything you believe is true. Like I said, there was probably really a Siddhartha Gautama. There was probably really a Muhhamed. If I offered you contemporaries that can verify their existence, would it offer substantive reason to believe Buddhist and Islamic doctrine?

Even if you had any witnesses besides the Bible to what Jesus really said, you'd still have to BELIEVE them. You wouldn't have anything substantive or objective that shows you that the doctrine itself is true. You don't have an ounce more than Lucas. Not a scrap, other than faith.

Mohammad existed, too. Does that prove Muslims are right? [/quote] they're right that Mohammed lived. yes. You said that you had more than just faith to base your "truth" on.[/quote] let's go back to what faith is. Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1 What is substance? Faith gives reality and proof of things unseen treating them as if they were already objects of sight rather than hope. This is what Jesus kept trying to tell those who chose only to see with the physical eyes. The evidence is there, open your eyes....he was saying. "Look at me. When you see me you see the Father." That type of thing. [quote]You'll say that I'm nitpicking, but you are asserting that you have something more than hearsay. I don't see how people who lived 100 or more years after Jesus's death can be considered eyewitnesses. Therefore, you just BELIEVE what they are saying, based on faith, not their eyewitness account. he (Josephus) was born in 37AD....just a couple, maybe 4 years after Christ died. That's not 100 years. The entire bible was penned (lastly by John) by the mid 90's. Again that's not 100 years after Christ was killed. The entier NT was either written by eyewitnesses or those who had first hand info from the eyewitness accounts. For instance Mark wrote the gospel but it's clearly senn thru the eyes of Peter. We learn from Acts that Peter and Mark traveled together. That was part of the criteria for putting the canon together. It had to be by eyewitness accounts or first hand by an Apostle only. [quote]Like I said, there was probably really a Siddhartha Gautama. There was probably really a Muhhamed. If I offered you contemporaries that can verify their existence, would it offer substantive reason to believe Buddhist and Islamic doctrine?

there was and I have no problem beliving this to be true. You don't have to offer me anything. I'm already convinced they lived. The documents point to their existence although you may want to find out when their writings were first published in contrast to the bible's. If I remember correctly, for both it was hundreds of years later, when all who would be able to verify were long since dead. The gospels were written when many were still alive during the happenings 20-30 years prior.

oh and here's another link on Josephus...from my POV one of my favorite sites....I find this guy very fair and honest in everything I've read from him. He's very dedicated to the truth...no matter where it might lead and I think you can see that in what he had to say here.


WWW Link

Post more, please. Show me another that was in the same century Jesus lived. Tacitus? Pliny

ok...Polycarp who was a disciple of John before John died. Polycarp linked the Apostles with the 2nd Century Christians. Iraneaus was a disciple of Polycarp. I think Ignatius died in 110 but unsure of his birth and he started out pagan.

There was also Justin Martyr who also was born a pagan. He was born about 100AD. These were pretty much contemporaries and I belive all were killed for their faith by the Roman officials.

So you can start there.....Polycarp, Iraneaus, Ignatius, and Martyr.

That should give you HW if you really want to research them.

"Faith gives reality and proof of things unseen treating them as if they were already objects of sight rather than hope."

OH... so by believing, you see more "substance" than people who don't? Are you serious? That's like page one of any cult playbook. "You can't really know what the proof is until you believe."

"he (Josephus) was born in 37AD....just a couple, maybe 4 years after Christ died"

Which pretty much rules him out as an eyewitness to anything that you could call "substance". Which makes his testimony hearsay, and yours hearsay of hearsay. Given that you'd have to be blind not to see that his words about Jesus were tampered with, I don't see how you can say its of any objective value in terms of making your ideas more than belief.

Anyway, as I said, the mere fact that Jesus existed doesn't prove a thing about your Christian doctrine.

"The entire bible was penned (lastly by John) by the mid 90's..."

You can't possibly be offering the Bible as an eyewitness account of... the Bible. There was a ton of other stuff penned that you don't agree with then, too. There is more apocryphal material than accepted material. The Church just picked out what best suited their beliefs about Jesus.

So, if you point to the Gospel of Mark, why can't someone else point to the gospel of Judas, or the gospel of Thomas? If they wrote it in the year 100-something, or 200-something, well, you list great names from that era as testament of Jesus, too. You don't think, just maybe, you're working backward from your beliefs, do you?

Of course you are. You accept what you accept to be true about Jesus, and reject what you think doesn't fit. Just like my take on God, just like Lucas' take on religion in general. You aren't any different, you just refuse to admit it.

So you can start there.....Polycarp, Iraneaus, Ignatius, and Martyr.

You're just naming people at random now. I can name people too. Nero, Marcus Auralius... I keep a copy of his Meditations right on my desk, too. Please explain to me how any of those people you mention offer any substance to your Christian beliefs. None of them offer anything but hearsay testimony of Jesus.

You keep saying, basically, that you have "substance" to your beliefs because you can name other people who believed them a long time ago. No doubt a lot of other religions can say the same. The people you are citing from the first century are CHURCH fathers, the ones that drafted your beliefs, not secondary "substance" to back them up.

If a Muslim came to you and offered you "proof" of Islam's veracity in the form of the earliest Muslim theologians, you wouldn't accept it. You'd say "Of course THEY attest to it, it's their work to begin with." Pointing to the guys who drafted your beliefs as substantive proof of your beliefs makes little sense.

I'm not debating the existence of Jesus or the Christian faith, I'm debating how you KNOW it to be true in a substantive form moreso than the mere "belief" you seem to have disdain for.

yes there is. No, the church went with the sure things first, and then carefully went outside that. I know that there was initial discussion on a few books but in the end I believe there was full agreement on the Cannon being put together.



OH... so by believing, you see more "substance" than people who don't? Are you serious?

spiritually speaking yes. It's not like I see dead people walking tho...LOL.



no, I was just saying the whole bible was penned before the 100 mark that you had mentioned. The cannon was completely written by then most of it written during the time of live witnesses to most of the events listed. Josephus was not an eyewitness but he lived just a few years after the death of Christ. It would be like someone growing up in the 40's and hearing all the stories of WWII. They would have full knowledge from the eyes of those who lived thru it.

In our time we had 9/11. We can tell our children, who were being born during this time, of all the events we witnessed. You can call it heresay if you want, but there is a general consensus that it did indeed happen. Was Josephus going to discount all because he didn't see it with his own eyes even tho he grew up hearing the stories? Isn't that what you're doing? What kind of logic is this?

I know you don't really agree with that, because it would be like denying the Holocaust never happened because you never saw it. So years from now I can't really rely on your daughter's view thru your eyes because it's not valid. It's just heresay regardless if all had the same stories. It's still stories.

Funny you will use diff sets of principles for modern times than you do for ancient times. Why is that?

It's interesting that you keep trying to change the point here. No one is saying that it did or didn't happen. No one is saying that you have nothing but belief to prove that Jesus existed. You were saying that you have something more than belief to base your religious beliefs on.

Do I have something more than belief to base my knowledge of the holocaust on? Sure. Photographs, confessions, documentation in film, Nazi records, heck, I can look at the tattoos on the people's arms. In order for me to believe that the holocaust happened, though, I DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL.

As I said, you keep trying to shift this to whether or not Jesus existed. Mohammad existed, Buddha existed, but you choose not to worship them. You are saying you have something more than belief to back up what you know to be true. Surely the truth of Christianity is more than just Jesus existing.



All that Jesus can attest to is that Jesus lived, was crucified, and people subsequently worshiped him. You have such outside testimony in other religions. Are you saying that Josephus can attest to the divinity of Christ? Or the miracles?

What about your religious beliefs does Josephus offer testimony of?

ok, now I'm really banging my head against the wall. Did you or did you not ask this question:



so I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Baker you're either very tired or just like to argue for argue's sake. gah!!

[quote]I'm not debating the existence of Jesus or the Christian faith, I'm debating how you KNOW it to be true in a substantive form moreso than the mere "belief" you seem to have disdain for./quote]

Belief is enough for me. I don't need to prove anything to you or anybody else. Three things I've learned to live by to get the most of life...

1. Lve with nothing to prove.
2. Live with nothing to hide
3. Live with nothing to lose

when you live with nothing to lose you let go what the world has to offer. This drove Paul's enemies crazy. They sought to kill him, his answer? Well to live is for Christ and to die is gain. If I die, I get promoted.

Nero did finally kill him. What Nero didn't see was Paul running to his father. Paul lived with nothing to lose, nothing to prove and nothing to hide.

Arguing just for argue's sake is not good. I think really that's all you want to do. Argue. If I say black, you are going to say white even if it violates what you really believe deep down.

Yeah, "another" in terms of another person you were referring to, i.e. independant sources of information about Jesus. People who were contemporaries of Jesus. You said:



Granted, the people who invented the religion will vouch for the religion, but other than Josephus and maybe a couple of Romans who didn't believe, I don't know who you mean.



Then I really don't understand why you took Lucas to task for saying something that you basically just said yourself.

Belief is enough for me. I don't need to prove anything to you or anybody else

Lucas doesn't need to prove it either. Nor does he need to pretend that he has something more than belief in order to make his beliefs seem more reliable.

I will treat you the same as any person claiming they have more to prove Darwinism than Creationism. All they have is belief. All you have is belief. Period.

I do to. Belief is all I need as I said, I don't have to prove anything, although I've said numerous times that my belief is not just on belief but on the evidences that God has put in front of me to bring me to the point of belief. I'm not just beieving to believe in something. That's the substance of Heb 11:1...like the story of Gideon...like the stories all thru the OT and the NT. The whole reason for the miracles was to "prove" to them that Christ was who he said he was because "belief" would not have been enough for most. Those that did, were highly commended by Christ.

You say you have photo's confessions, documentation and the like? How do you know they're real? How do you know the Nazi records aren't faked or the film not produced 20 years after the so called holocaust? Isn't that what you're saying about the works of antiquity?

I say that I have that too, but it's in changed lives including my own, it's in little things daily that God has shown me that validate his word, it's in his fingerprints all over this creation. It's in the miracles I've witnessed that the only explanation left is it's God. I've seen the doctor's faces when they have no explanation for something happening. It's medically not possible otherwise.

BTW...you can't see too many tatoos anymore because there aren't that many still alive to show you so you're going to have to go to photos to prove that pretty
much.




well I'll give ya you're an equal opportunity arguer....lol.

This just is one of the reasons I believe evolution is nothing but another religion cloaked in Science. It's based on belief like you said. Only it's not in God but in man. But let's not get into that....