IS THE END NEAR??

[Sharp_Kid]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan
There were plenty of witnesses to Christ's miracles.

I'm not sure you can determine the truth of that.

I saw an alien space craft land on Wimbledon Common last night and an army of 8 inch tall little green men with big guns jumped out and wandered off down Old Kent Road, and there were twenty or thirty other people there to witness it.
By your logic, a space craft really did land in Wimbledon Common last night, because I have told you that there were numerous witnesses. You don't need to coroborate my story.

[ANDY-J2]

And of course what Fear did was very skilfully skirt around the point which I made about revelation by concentrating on the miracles of Christ.The argument that the prophecies haven't come true yet is hardly very compelling.Revelation is the account of one man and can we even be certain of his true identity or when he wrote it?As a historian were I confronted with such a piece of textual evidence I would not regard it as having any practical use.Is there any sound reason why I should consider the account of this one witness to be reliable?Christians are willing to believe revelation solely because they want to believe it is a book of prophecy-their creed relies on the supernatural and if they were capable of examining it with any degree of objectivity they would,like me,be forced to accept there is no real reason to believe that it does contain a revelation from God.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Sharp_Kid
I saw an alien space craft land on Wimbledon Common last night and an army of 8 inch tall little green men with big guns jumped out and wandered off down Old Kent Road, and there were twenty or thirty other people there to witness it.
By your logic, a space craft really did land in Wimbledon Common last night, because I have told you that there were numerous witnesses. You don't need to coroborate my story.

I would need to coroborate your story. This is the case whenever someone makes an extraordinary claim. And if I found out your story was made up, I wouldn't believe you.

The disciples made similarily extraordinary claims, in the face of intense opposition from the Jewish leadership. If there was no evidence to back up their claims, I don't think they would have been so sucessful in preaching the Gospel.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
The argument that the prophecies haven't come true yet is hardly very compelling.

Well, I suppose the only way this will be settled decisively is if the prophecies do come true.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Revelation is the account of one man and can we even be certain of his true identity or when he wrote it?

Well, modern scholars widely accept that the book was written during the reign of Domitan, between A.D. 81-96. The author identifies himself as John. Tradition holds that this John is John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, though we can't be sure.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
As a historian were I confronted with such a piece of textual evidence I would not regard it as having any practical use.Is there any sound reason why I should consider the account of this one witness to be reliable?

Well, I don't think it's possible to argue this point. It's just a matter of accepting it or not. I accept it because it's in the same book as the most accurate accounts of ancient history that are extant and the best moral teachings that have ever been written by human hands.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Christians are willing to believe revelation solely because they want to believe it is a book of prophecy-their creed relies on the supernatural and if they were capable of examining it with any degree of objectivity they would,like me,be forced to accept there is no real reason to believe that it does contain a revelation from God.

I don't particularily want the Apocalypse to happen. I like being alive and I want to live long enough to see my grandchildren grow up. I accept this book with trepidation.

[Sharp_Kid]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan
I would need to coroborate your story. This is the case whenever someone makes an extraordinary claim. And if I found out your story was made up, I wouldn't believe you.

The disciples made similarily extraordinary claims, in the face of intense opposition from the Jewish leadership. If there was no evidence to back up their claims, I don't think they would have been so sucessful in preaching the Gospel.

You didn't really address my point.
My point was that you're saying the Bible claims there were plenty of witnesses.
I'm saying there might have been, and there might not. There's no-one around today to coroborate the stories.
That doesn't mean they're not true by any means. But it means you can't justify any argument with something as historically 'shaky' as the Bible.
No offense intended, I just think there are too many practical and logical question marks hanging over the Bible to treat it as fact for the purposes of dedicating ones life to it's professions.

To clarify my standpoint, I would say that I am as much a Christian as Jesus was. I try to live my life by similar rules to Jesus. I come nowhere close to his awesome way of preaching, and my tollerance is nothing in comparrison to his, but I hear what he tried to say, and I, like him, do not wrap it all up in Dogma. I think the poor fella has been misrepresented by the Bible, and perhaps his wonderful gift to mankind has been so misconstrued and distorted over time that it has been buried under un-importances.

Dead Sea Scrolls, my friends.