TGHusker

Very interesting. Never heard of him before. I'm glad the univ is still expanding and not collapsing Guys like him who know all of this stuff on the univ are incredibility smart - well above my paid grade. A puzzling question - what is beyond the universe? He said it may go on infinitely however, wouldn't that contradict that there are other universes outside of our own? If one univ is infinite, then it would cover the space where the other universes would be. Did I miss something? Or if the multi universes are floating around in a big room separate from each other - what do you call the space in between the universes. Boy we could get our brain in a cramp real quick here. Only got time to listen to the first 13 minutes up to 'dark matter'. I'll have to come back to it. Pretty interesting.

The 2nd coming of Johnny the Jet.

The problem with God revealing himself to our hearts is, Vishnu does this, Allah does this, Zoroaster does this, etc, etc, etc. Yes, I agree. The testimony that 'I've been changed, etc" shows that I really believe what I believe but it doesn't mean that there is hard evidence of the kind we've been talking about. There is evidence of a changed life, I contribute that to the teachings of Christ and the power behind those teachings but the next guy may claim his change is because of Budda or Richard Dawkins. I personally believe in the power of Christ to change a life, because I experienced it and because I believe His teachings and the resurrection event.

80 mph - that lowers the time to drive from SF to Rapid City considerably. I had to make that drive on the day they changed the speed limit from 75 to 55 back in 1974 due to the Arab Oil Embargo. Boy, it felt like eternity to drive that slow in wide open western SD.

That's your opinion. And, I agree with you if an atheist is walking down the street minding his/her own business and some bible thumper comes up and tries to convert them....the atheist has nothing to prove. "leave me alone, I'm perfectly happy till you can prove to me God exists" is a perfectly fine attitude in that situation. However, if I'm a believer and I'm walking down the street minding my own business and an atheist comes up and tries to tell me God doesn't exist and that my ideas of reality are stupid and ignorant, then it is up to him/her to prove why my ideas of a God are wrong. I don't believe I have ever started a conversation on here about God. However, if I am asked, I will tell someone why I believe there is a God. Now, you can accept my explanation and walk away or, you can question it more. If you just look at me and say, "well, that's stupid, he doesn't exist". Then....fine.....either prove to me why my ideas of reality are stupid and wrong or get out of my face and leave me alone. However, I will always have complete intentions of being respectful to the atheist's view point and I expect the same from them on my view point. (and BTW..., I think lately we have had that on here) If we want to assign shifting burdens of proof (which I disagree with, but I'll play along with for the sake of argument), the only thing the atheist would have to say is, "Show me your god." That's a sufficient question for the discussion, and places the burden solely on the theist to prove. When the god is not produced forthwith, as gods never are, evidence comes into play - but again, the evidence also must submit to that burden of proof, and it is incumbent on the theist to show the validity of their "proofs." Knapp, that reminds me of a situation I was in when in college. From your Christian days you may have had a similar experience. I was sharing my faith with someone (back when I had a lot of zeal but zero tack) and the person in anger said to me "I won't believe until I see a hand come out of the clouds and point a finger at me and I hear a voice saying 'repent'". Of course it is impossible to present God in a nice box and say here he is - that defies the very description of God. I do think God reveals himself to us when we turn our hearts towards him but that may be too much of a 'supernatural' event to be shown as evidence even if it has been life changing for billions of people from all cultures throughout the ages. Hard evidence or proofs - Jesus said 'this generation looks for a sign' and then he says he will give the 'sign of Jonah' - referring that he'd be raised up in 3 days. The Christian faith specifically revolves around one issue - the resurrection. Everything else are just 'rabbit trails'. If Jesus was resurrected then most issues are resolved. If he wasn't then I'm with you and X - believing in only a see and touch world of materialism. I believe He was. Regarding the hard proofs you are seeking, I think we all know that there are scholars on both sides of the issues who bring up strong arguments for and against God's existence. It is a matter of what side we individually accept as valid.

From BRB Agree 100% - Good points and attitudes by all. I think some of the best I've seen on HB - political/religion forum.

The Theist still has the initial burden of proof to show that God exists. Without that proof, literally every other part of the conversation is speculation. Yes, but that brings us all back to the point that both sides have a hard time proving that God does or does not exist. The atheist might have certain arguments and 'evidences' and the theist the same (First Cause, Fine Tuning, Complexity,Moral, etc) What I am saying is that the atheist cannot use the existence of evil as a argument to refute the existence of God. They would have to prove first that God and evil cannot co-exist at the same time to use that as a valid argument against God's existence. X - can I bingo myself ? Just kidding. I agree both sides have burdens to prove and perhaps the Theist more so - esp if the argument is only based on naturalistic evidences - what I can feel, see, touch etc. I just want to clarify something. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. It is NOT the claim: God does not exist. That position is called hard atheism and is actually pretty rare. This distinction is important because it places the burden of proof solely on the religious advocate. Atheism is just the default position until the person with a God claim can substantiate it. X that is a newer clarification for me. I've always defined atheism towards the hard side. I've taken the "simply a lack of belief' as more agnostic.

This is the crux of the argument for why God left us in the shed, but it just doesn't hold water. If I really love my little child, and I want him to really love me, I have to let him play in my gun room for a year so he has the opportunity to choose not to harm himself? Little children are not capable of making profound consequence decisions like not not touching the really pretty guns. He's inevitably going to mess up, possibly with dire consequences. A loving father doesn't leave his son in that situation. He walks with him, holding his hand and pointing out the dangers. He doesn't even let the child touch the guns, just shows him from a distance. Because the consequences of a misstep are too great to risk it. This is where the story began to fall apart for me. Where I began to critically look at what the Bible says, and how human-centric it is. It's Crime & Punishment, Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not, all Earth-based, all specific to human culture and society. Knapp, I understand your point & it is well taken. You know I respect you and your journey - as well as how X detailed his journey in this thread. So any of my statements aren't to make light of your journey or your conclusions. I also don't understand why this is the path presented to us. Yet in the Bible I see two clear paths throughout. #1 Man's inhumanity to man & man disobedience to God (primarily shown in man's inhumanity to man - even the Bible heroes are shown at their worse and their best) and then #2 the thread seen in all of the books of the Bible - God's redemptive plan - his love for mankind. Well I think God did point out the dangers of wrong choice - The Christian faith would put it this way I think: first the natural law written in everyone's heart. The 10 commandments, Jesus, his teachings and his example, then the Church to teach by word and example Jesus' teachings (this is the point were too many of us flub it up - the example part). Other faith families may state it a different way. I would say that is more of an OT focus. The law - 10 commandments were given to show how we have broken the natural law written within us. They were to lead us or point us to Christ- show our need of God in life. We find in the NT, the emphasis being not on the "laws of dos and don'ts" but on the grace enabling ability to love. The emphasis is on the 'kingdom of God within us' and thus the ability to love with a focus on the kingdom to come. Which is a heaven-ward look instead of man centered. (sorry some churches are still all about 'do's and don'ts' but that isn't what Christ's teaching was about - that is were 'religion' gets in the way of practicing grace.) PS - thanks X for teaching me how to use the quote box.

This is the crux of the argument for why God left us in the shed, but it just doesn't hold water. If I really love my little child, and I want him to really love me, I have to let him play in my gun room for a year so he has the opportunity to choose not to harm himself? Little children are not capable of making profound consequence decisions like not not touching the really pretty guns. He's inevitably going to mess up, possibly with dire consequences. A loving father doesn't leave his son in that situation. He walks with him, holding his hand and pointing out the dangers. He doesn't even let the child touch the guns, just shows him from a distance. Because the consequences of a misstep are too great to risk it. This is where the story began to fall apart for me. Where I began to critically look at what the Bible says, and how human-centric it is. It's Crime & Punishment, Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not, all Earth-based, all specific to human culture and society. Knapp, I understand your point & it is well taken. I also don't understand why this is the path presented to us. Yet in the Bible I see two clear paths throughout. #1 Man's inhumanity to man & man disobedience to God (primarily shown in man's inhumanity to man - even the Bible heroes are shown at their worse and their best) and then #2 the thread seen in all of the books of the Bible - God's redemptive plan - his love for mankind. Well I think God did point out the dangers of wrong choice - The Christian faith would put it this way I think: first the natural law written in everyone's heart. The 10 commandments, Jesus, his teachings and his example, then the Church to teach by word and example Jesus' teachings (this is the point were too many of us flub it up - the example part). Other faith families may state it a different way. I would say that is more of an OT focus. The law - 10 commandments were given to show how we have broken the natural law written within us. We find in the NT, the emphasis being not on the laws of dos and don'ts t but on the grace enabling ability to love. The emphasis is on the 'kingdom of God within us' and thus the ability to love with a focus on the kingdom to come. (sorry some churches are still all about 'do's and don'ts' but that isn't what Christ's teaching was about - that is were 'religion' gets in the way of practicing grace.)

The Theist still has the initial burden of proof to show that God exists. Without that proof, literally every other part of the conversation is speculation. Yes, but that brings us all back to the point that both sides have a hard time proving that God does or does not exist. The atheist might have certain arguments and 'evidences' and the theist the same (First Cause, Fine Tuning, Complexity,Moral, etc) What I am saying is that the atheist cannot use the existence of evil as a argument to refute the existence of God. They would have to prove first that God and evil cannot co-exist at the same time to use that as a valid argument against God's existence. X - can I bingo myself ? Just kidding. I agree both sides have burdens to prove and perhaps the Theist more so - esp if the argument is only based on naturalistic evidences - what I can feel, see, touch etc.

Well, I'm going to have an MRI on my knee. It appears I may have a torn MCL or minicus. Has anyone dealt with this? Any advise on how to take care of it until surgery if needed and how hard is the recovery period/time. Also, this throws a curve ball at my workout - losing weight goals. Anyone have any good tips on how to remain active, exercise with such an injury? Thanks much

The first argument - I think you make the mistake of stating that time is eternal. God started time with the creation of the universe. Time cannot be eternal (infinite) as time would be going infinitely backwards and we could never arrive to 'today'. So to say God has lived with evil forever is incorrect. God lives outside of time and can see the beginning from the end. But even with that, as I posted in my 1st post at the beginning of this thread, God's knowledge of our actions do not control our actions. Psalms 139 tells us that God is everywhere and we cannot hide from His presence it is Omni. However, His actions may differ - His presence may be there to judge, to sustain, or to bless. God's presence with the existence of evil is to judge it. Also, evil has not been eternal either. Read my 4th post which is from Geisler's book "When Skeptics Ask". God chooses to tolerate evil for a period until the right time comes to destroy it. The 2nd argument - God's omnipotent nature isn't bound by the concept of free will. Again, God, "who works all things after the counsel of His will" Ephesians 1:11 takes our free will actions/choices and works them towards and after His ultimate will and plan - that is Omnipotence. Philippians chapter 2 tells us that Jesus Christ being both God and Man - temporarily laid aside the advantages of His God nature to suffer and serve mankind. His action, His choice. In the same way, while God could predetermine all of our actions, he chooses to give us free will. Our free will does not negate or control His power. His choices control and direct His power. His power is demonstrated in that he will ultimately take our free will choices (all of the events of history) and work them together for good after his will. One could argue and many have, that God took the misery and choices of WW2 to cause the re-creation of the nation of Israel as a part of his prophetic plan. Free will is the tool, gift, or ability God gave man to be able to love freely. For believers, we see God taking events and our choices and working them for our ultimate good - Christlikeness which is God's ultimate goal for us and take us to our ultimate destiny in heaven. (read Romans 8:28-30) From my 1st post: In order for true love to exist, true free will must exist.God’s fore knowledge does not control our actions.In the same way, that I knew with 90% accuracy that my wife was going to pick the pistachio nut ice cream when we walked into the ice cream shop (because I know her intimately – her tastes for ice cream included, and I saw the sign “new pistachio ice cream”) – I still didn’t control her choice – I knew it but it was still her free will choice.God, even with greater certainty, knows our actions but still allows us the freedom to choose according to our free will.God doesn’t remove the choice of our action ( or the consequences –good or bad)or gives us the appearance of a choice.For real love to exist – real choices have to be made. So, I still stand that if evil is the atheist's strongest point against God's existence, the atheist has a burden of proof to show how God and suffering cannot co-exist. Now all of us may have an emotional response to that. I react and question God on an emotional level when bad things happen. We all have an emotional reaction. But I still believe that God's love transcends the evils of this world and his Power will ultimately bring justice and set things right.

This thing about predestination comes from places in the bible that say your name is written in the book of life (or not) before you were born. How can that not be predestination? I've grappled with this question. But it’s really not a question of predestination. I’d say it’s more of a question about what omniscience means. Forget about the book of life for a moment. What if we actually DO have freedom of choice—that is, we can decide our own fate? I think that’s the way it is. I can choose to goof around on Huskerboard all afternoon. Or I can choose to take my deer rifle and climb up a clock tower. The choice is mine. The book of life merely records, ahead of time, what fate we choose for ourselves. It’s like when you were a kid and you held your hand behind your back and asked some person to guess how many fingers you were holding up. If you did this twenty times, and the person guessed correctly twenty times, it wouldn’t mean that you lacked the choice of which fingers to hold up. It would simply mean that somehow the person knew ahead of time what fingers you were going to hold up, regardless of what you chose. Maybe that person could tell the future. Or maybe the person just knew a lot about you and your propensity to select a certain number of fingers to hold up next. So if God has your name written in his book of life, it’s because he’s omniscient and knows what you are going to choose. Or perhaps he lives in a realm outside of our linear time, and he can see in our future, present and past. In any case, I don't think his book of life means that he controls what you do. I think we have freedom of choice inasmuch as we can control our own actions and beliefs. /JMHO Would you prefer that he only created an earth and filled it with people who did exactly as he wanted? Essentially we are getting into a chicken or the egg argument here. If all life is predetermined then God knows the outcome. If God knows the outcome it is because he set it in course. If we have choices but god knows what we choose ahead of time why create us at all? By creating life God chooses our outcome from the get go right? He creates us, we act accordingly to his will, he dislikes our actions yet created us anyway. Quite the confounding idea is it not? Redux, I don't think all of life is predetermiend by God any more than I think that all of our actions, decisions are a result of chemical reactions - determinism. I think God 'knows and sees the beginning from the end' as He isn't bound by time/space. He then 'works all things (even our actions/choices) together after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11). He created out of His desire to share His love. He didn't need us. God's ultimate goal for us is Christlikeness - to live as Jesus taught. (Romans 8:28-30). His eventual destiny for us is Heaven. I mentioned this in my Steven Fry revisited thread in post 2 of my 4 post "essay": God’s fore knowledge does not control our actions.In the same way, that I knew with 90% accuracy that my wife was going to pick the pistachio nut ice cream when we walked into the ice cream shop (because I know her intimately – her tastes for ice cream included, and I saw the sign “new pistachio ice cream”) – I still didn’t control her choice – I knew it but it was still her free will choice.God, even with greater certainty, knows our actions but still allows us the freedom to choose according to our free will.God doesn’t remove the choice of our action ( or the consequences –good or bad)or gives us the appearance of a choice.For real love to exist – real choices have to be made.

When I read the thread headline I thought we were talking about the drought . My Dad, who lives in SF, said my hometown of Parker was pretty dry. But I guess we are talking about the other kind of dry I don't think anything will come of this - too much money and too many dry throats are at stake.

I think the key is humility. We only know in part - as Paul (the real ST Paul not our friend in this forum) said "we look through a glass dimly". It is no fun to be on our dogmatic high horse and get bucked off. It is ok to believe firmly in what you believe otherwise we are wishy washy tossed here and there, but be open for discussion. For example, I may believe firmly in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (and I agree wt ST Paul again - if it isn't true - our faith is in vain and we are to be pitied), however there are too many doctrinal things (religion doctrine, political doctrine and even scientific doctrine) that we hold too dogmatically and too tightly. I've changed my views on various doctrinal issues as I've gotten greater clarity on the issue. I suspect when we get to heaven (my doctrinal belief), we'll realize how 'off' we were in our pet doctrines and be thankful for God's grace. I think 'religion' in general helps us to define values and gives us a worldview to help us to navigate this complex, confusing, mysterious world we live in. It is a framework - like the 'Snorkel Blanket' cartoon I posted earlier. It gives us boundaries yet sometimes those boundaries need to be expanded, reviewed and adjusted as we gain more understanding.

That's where I'm at. I engage in this discussion not because I'm trying to sway opinion one way or the other, but because I find the topic fascinating, as much from this side of the aisle as the other. I don't know the answers, but I can throw out probabilities from what we do know. I'm more interested in Truth than anything. If that turns out to be the Christian god, groovy. If it turns out to be no god, groovy. If it turns out to be Zen Buddhism... meh. Less groovy, but OK. Good post Knapp. - I like the "less groovy' part

That's actually not true. We use pretty much all of our brains. Back on the main topic, though (and to be clear, only the first part was directed specifically at 1995's post). Why is it so easy to believe that there's a mystical being in a dimension other than our own who created an entire universe, including a race of beings in his image, and loves all these beings, but will punish them eternally if they don't worship him, yet it's so hard to believe that in an infinite expanse of time, the right conditions to create self-sustaining, gradually-evolving life systems could form? This right here is the crux of a major question in my mind that lead me to believe there has to be a higher power. You simply look at the question from one direction and I look at it from the other. You find it easier to believe that there was this mass of matter (always has been because our brains can't comprehend the beginning coming out of nothing) that exploded and set existence of everything on the path to where we are today with complex life forms that feel, think, move....etc. and it was nothing more than one big chemical reaction and that is all it is still to this day. I find it easier that the first mass of matter was created by a higher power (that has always been because our brains can't comprehend the beginning coming out of nothing). That higher power took that mass of matter and created everything that has been and everything we see today. I honestly don't see why one is harder to believe than the other one. I fully accept science and what it has proven. I just simply believe there is a higher power that is directing things and what science shows is simply the evidence of that higher power's work. Both thought processes get to a point where the human brain just can not comprehend and faith in something is required. Now, some atheists baulk at that statement but, it's true. If you don't believe in a higher power that created this world, you still have to have faith in some how that first bit of mass came from somewhere or has just simply....always been. God as the First Cause behind the univ. An unembodied mind - the intelligent designer behind the finely tuned universe

SPH: No one in my 'real life' is as intellectually challenging as Knapp and HuskerX and everyone else on this forum. Besides, I think most of us are too busy caring on with life and its mundane-ness. Here we actually get to solve all of the world's greatest problems, mysteries, and challenges. One day, we will solve global warming but for now we'll settle the issue about God and suffering. (I like that smiley face icon as it cracks me up each time I see NUance use it - which is often. - normally following some funny line) Seriously, I occasionally get into discussions like this but it is often a 'live and let live' discussion. In my work, I deal with and talk to people from many cultures & countries. I always find it interesting to discuss some of these issues with them to get their view point. I fould it extremely amusing that a gentleman from UAE visiting our office thought it was no big deal that ISIS is on the move 'over there' or that Yemen was collapsing "over there". It didn't affect his neighborhood but yet it is all over the news here in the USA wt all of the anxiousness of a cat with a long tail in a room of rocking chairs. Actually, even though we go on for pages and pages in this forum and probably not change anyone's mind, I think it would be a real neat experience to do what CS Lewis did at Oxford - with his fellow Oxford scholars (believers and non) - sit down at the pub table wt a cigar (I don't smoke but I know some of you guys do), a glass of wine, beer or Pepsi and talk like we do here.

So, it's highly challenging for Christians to use Flew as legitimizing their god. Flew did no such thing. Flew specifically said, if there is a god, it is most likely the god described by Aristotle, perhaps not even a conscious god, more a "force of nature." Knapp, read my post - I'm not utilizing Flew to legitimizing 'my' god. Only saying the God factor is out there to be considered.

I reject the concept of faith because we live in a world where there have been literally thousands––tens of thousands––of religions, all of which basically say the same thing for the same reasons. Repeating "I believe it, I believe it, have faith" to myself is not a pathway to true knowledge. Muslims and Mormons are just as adamant as you, again for the same reasons. I also don't think that the Bible is the word of a god––there's certainly nothing within the text or the historical record to suggest it. See the giant quote in the OP for more on that. I do believe that the existence and complexity of the universe presents human beings with a genuine stumper, just as much today as two thousand years ago. You choose to 'solve' the mystery with faith––meaning your answer can't be confirmed and is therefore not much of an answer––but I'm personally more interested in following the science wherever it leads.The last hundred years or so has proven time and again that this old universe of ours is, to paraphrase a famous saying, stranger than we know and stranger than we can know. X,- yes the universe is amazing and complex. I agree. That does not dismiss the 'God Factor". Many serious scientists, mathematicians, philosophers who also believe in God and the complexity of the universe would disagree wt your last paragraph. There are those who would argue for a designer based on the 'fine tuning of the universe' both from a macro and a micro perspective (astronomy to biology to mathematics) Anthony Flew, the great atheist philosopher of the last century changed his mind when he saw new science present the complexity of life and the universe and died believing there was a god (Diest) behind the universe. Yes let the science lead us but brushing off faith as 'not much of an answer' is closing the door on one possibility and insulting to real scientists who believe otherwise. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/arts/17flew.html?_r=0 In 2004, however, he (Flew) announced on a DVD titled “Has Science Discovered God?” that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views. DNA research, he said, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.” In “There Is a God” he explained that he now believed in a supreme intelligence, removed from human affairs but responsible for the intricate workings of the universe. In other words, the divine watchmaker imagined by deists like Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html For years, Antony Flew has been a figurehead for atheists. Now, though, he has abandoned his atheism and accepted the existence of God. In a recent interview for Philosophia Christi with Gary Habermas, Flew explained his new beliefs. Though Flew has not embraced Christianity, he now accepts the existence of God, saying that he “had to go where the evidence leads”...... For Flew, it is the argument from design that shows that the existence of God is probable. He has been impressed by recent scientific developments that suggest that the universe is the product of intelligent design. “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design,” explains Flew. Flew cites Gerald Schroeder’s work The Hidden Face of God and Roy Abraham Varghese’s The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God as particularly impressive. In the foreword to the new (and final) edition of his God and Philosophy, which Flew now describes as “an historical relic”, he acknowledges that the argument from design “becomes progressively more powerful with every advance in humankind’s knowledge of the integrated complexity of what used to be called the ‘system of nature’.” As this progress continues, perhaps more will follow Flew’s lead in conceding ground to theism.

More books, writings and literature have been written about Jesus than anyone who ever walked the face of the earth. Including prophesies written before he was alive, writings from people who were alive at the time of Jesus and met him, and an immense body of literature following his death. Yet at least some atheists still doubt that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood human being. Mmmmkay. There's a lot written about Achilles, too. The trouble with verifying the existence of ancient figures (especially poor anonymous peasants) is that you have no primary sources. The gospels are anonymous texts written decades after the guy allegedly was crucified. They're also technically speaking propaganda. And most of the stories contain what we would call "magic" in English. Just FYI: there is a real debate about this in the scholarly community. Look at the work of Richard Carrier or Robert Price for a start. My opinion is Jesus probably does correspond to one or several real historical people. That's my hunch. It's very difficult to say either way. X, I would agree that there is a real debate in the scholarly community. You and I and our other friends here won't settle this here when the scholars have not been able to settle it over centuries. We each have our 'pet' scholars to quote. You will find that Christian scholars will point out the nearness of the event to the actual writings by eye witnesses or those who interviewed those eyewitnesses. You mentioned the writings coming decades after the resurrection account. That is 'seconds' vs typical ancient historical accounts. You believe Alexander the Great existed, yet the gap between his life and reliable historical accounts are much greater than that between Christ and the gospels. This can be said of many of the historical figures of ancient days. The apostle Paul spent 15 days wt Peter (eyewitness) after his (Paul) Damascus road experience. Mark, an understudy of both Paul & Peter, wrote the self name Gospel around 55 AD or so. John was an eyewitness and Gospel writer. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, has been judged to be an excellent historian because of the great detail he used in his writings. Being a Greek and a doctor would explain his scientific and orderly approach to the books, giving great attention to detail in his accounts. He was of course a companion of Paul and had interviewed the apostles. Written approx 60 AD. 1Corithians in which Paul speaks of other witnesses was written approx 50-55AD. Modern scholarship generally accept that gospels were written with the purpose of being historical, biographical accounts We have to remember that the Gospels and the Book of Acts were each written as a historical retelling of the experiences of the eyewitness or once removed (interviews of those eyewitnesses) accounts. They were later compiled into what we have today in the NT. The often sited & not included gnostic gospels (of the Da Vince Code fame, etc) came very much later. You may also want to note that Bart Ehrman (one of the agnostic scholars) makes a big show out of his disbelief but when pressed he often admits that the gospels are appropriately preserved. Lee Stobel, former atheist journalist, recounts his journey from Atheism to belief in God due to the evidences for the resurrection in this video starting at around minute 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVoKR_cvJJM One poster after the video had this to say regarding 'myths or 'magic' : From the point of view of literature, and I am speaking as one who has both studied and taught literature over fifty years, the New Testament gospels do not fall in either category or compare at all to any of the legends or myths we have to examine. They are far too realistic, for one thing. Any student of literature should be able to notice that. In fact, they are so realistic that it took literature more than a millennium and a half to produce anything similarly realistic. C.S. Lewis certainly agreed with that and after examination of the New Testament documents was so convinced that he turned from atheism to faith. The only comparison they have to myths is that they present a reality that is larger than the material world and includes a spiritual dimension. But that is the point of the narratives. If you complain that they must not be true because they include a spiritual dimension, you are creating a circular argument and excluding the possibility of their truth by your definition of reality. As an aside, the fact that human beings have always held that there is more going on than meets the eye. The myths actually are evidence of that. What the gospels and Jesus do is connect the real material historical world to the spiritual dimension. The resurrection is the most obvious point of connection. It was an event in history that can be examined by the methods of the historian. You may not think that there is enough evidence to conclude the resurrection was a real event. But you cannot argue that it is not real because it is supernatural. That is illogical. It is the supernatural that it is intended to demonstrate. end Quote Gary Habermas, former skeptic/agnostic historian, presents the story of his path to faith & historical data on the resurrection with this video and his website info https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ocvI9TXfgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znVUFHqO4Q http://garyhabermas.com/ For everyone's viewing enjoyment I've added these links to take you to discussions between scholars Gary Habremas, Michael Licona and Robert Price and Richard Carrier, Richard Spencer I like how this discussion went as these guys are civil with each other (just like all of us ) while discussing these difficult topics. At about the 1:23:00 point to the end, some good honest thoughts about their journeys by Licona, Habremans and Price Much of this discussion centered around the reliability and dating of the gospels and writings of Paul to support the resurrection account. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnEa40t06Ns Discussion wt Habremas, Licona, and Carrier, Finley

Thank-you X for responding to my PM. Much appreciated. I do appreciate your journey and I respect your answer. Keep searching. Oh, forgot to answer the question as you all know - believer

Thanks Obama. Funny that a place called Pew Research Center did a religious study Front or back pew I wonder.

Thanks Obama.

We all have a Monster Snorkel to help us with our world view and make sense out of life!