"Nice" Christians

I will get back to my second article in continuation of my last post soon, I have begun writing for another Blog located here:



Here is my first post to that blog:


"Nice" Christians

Awhile ago a local talk radio host from my area made this comment that really got me thinking:

“Christians today aren’t good, or decent, or honorable they’re just nice.”

This really got me thinking. Am I just “nice”, do I just recite wishy washy platitudes to try and make people like me, instead of stating the truth? Am I just trying to conform to my culture so as not to offend anyone?

This bit of self-examination really hit home that day.

I think this is a big problem in many Christian circles. We aren’t counter culture any more. Many of today’s Churches are more interested in filling the pews with rear ends than giving them a good boot when needed. Until the 20th century the Christian church formed our culture. The preacher’s of these churches spoke out vehemently against sin and the decline of morality. They admonished there parishioners to adhere to God’s word and to be faithful to Him above all else. When an individual was seen to be straying from the straight and narrow the congregation came to retrieve their lost sheep, confronting him or her with the truth and they didn’t condone any pandering to the wayward’s “self-esteem”. This attitude seems to be lost from a great many of our churches today in the name of “tolerance.” WE no longer form society, we conform to it. One of the main causes of this pandering seems to stem from the non-biblical doctrine of Jesus is our “friend”, a buddy who is only there to pat us on the shoulder and say “it’s alright I understand.” This misses the point entirely on the nature of Christ. Christ is God’s wisdom personified so in totality he is God. What is God? Of course he is love, but we seem to forget that he is also Just, and righteous. He is the creator of everything we see and so far above us that his very essence cries out for worship, reverence, and respect. Look at the early church. Here was a group of people who in every way shape and form were counter-culture. They radically changed the shape of history, not by giving lip service to the pagan society that they lived in but by standing firm in truth even unto to point of persecution, prison and even death. What will be our excuse when we face God? “So sorry I was afraid that they wouldn’t like me.” While our neighbor and friends our sent into eternal separation from God, cast into the outer darkness. Christ didn’t mince words when he confronted his days peddler’s of lies. When he confronted the Pharisees, a group of people who where leading an entire generation into hell, He called them for what they where; Snakes, viper, white washed sepulchers. However when dealing with those that where not peddling lies but who where simply lost he ate dinner with them, he loved them, but he never never gave lip service to their sin. He admonished them and told them in no uncertain terms to “go and sin no more.” Should we do anything less? God forbid.

So this is my question of the day:

Are you (or I) just acting in a way that is no-confrontational so as not to “ruffle others feathers”? Is this attitude setting you apart from society so that the unsaved see something different in you, or is this just placating others into an acceptance of an unrighteous life apart from Jesus because they see no difference in you than in any number of other “nice” people? Truth is exclusive by nature. It either is or it isn’t there is no middle ground. We can apply truth with love and gentleness, but we MUST apply it in our lives, in thought and action. Otherwise we are no different than the rest of the world and so we will have lost our witness.

Luken

Jan 10 2006 Historical ignorance

I'm going to attempt a link here.

What is the common link between the world view of an Atheist, environmentalists, and a
Liberal democrats (socialist)??

Its a blurred, distorted, and uninformed opinion/view of History.

Lets take them case by case shall we.

Atheists:

My "favorite" class of the woefully uninformed are notorious for their distorted view of History. The atheist mind-set on historical events is so all encompassing that I can only touch on a few of their most glaring inaccuracies.

Here are just a few of their claims:

1.) All atrocities that have been committed by men have been done in the name of Religion. In particular Christianity.

I have heard this remark made by atheists so many times that my eyes start to glaze over in utter boredom. In evitably the Inquisition, Crusades and of course the witch hunts will come up. Now, I am not saying that these things did not happen for indeed they did. I am also not saying that these atrocities where not horrible. For indeed they where. What I am saying is that we need to examine these events in a historical context, with the accurate facts being presented.
The Inquisition: Lets go back for a second to the time between 1184 and 1808 when the Medieval Inquisitions, Spanish Inquisition, Roman Inquisition, and the Portuguese Inquisition occurred. The world during this time frame was not in anyway similar to what we have today. Society was always one step away from anarchy. Tight control of the population by those in power was often required to keep order. The Catholic Church was the one institution that keep society from unraveling as the people looked to the church for guidance and survival. Those that the inquisitions persecuted where often instigators of attempts to unravel a society always on the razor's edge. These instigators (such as the Cathars)where on the level of modern day terrorists. I grant that more than a few where innocent but even in today's society with our technological advances in forensics and the criminolgy sciences we still manage to convict the innocent at times.
Today we are not teetering on the razor's edge as they where in those days and so we can afford to be more tolerant. However During the time of the inquisition such heretical stances posed a very real threat to the overall stability of the society as a whole. However wrong the inquisitions where in application they where still simply a response to a perceived danger to public life and stability.

The Crusade are somewhat of a different matter however. Though they where instigated under religious pretenses they where in fact nothing more than political machinations by Popes that where more political than pious.

2.)The middle ages where called the dark ages for a reason. The Church squashed scientific, economic, and social advances.

For one thing the middle ages are no longer called the dark ages. Scholars have discovered and indeed are still uncovering vast advances in many fields of study.

Rodney Stark university professor of social-sciences at Baylor university penned the book "The Victory of Reason" How Christianity led to Freedom, Capitalism, and western success. He writes:

"...Capitalism was not invented but evolved beginning early in the ninth century by catholic monks who where seeking economic security for the monastic estates. Because of the immense increase in agricultural productivity from the invention of the moldboard plow, and the three-field system during these times the estates began to specialize in particular crops and allowed them to move from simple subsistence farming. These specialized crops where then sold for a profit which led to intitating a cash economy. These profits where reinvested to increase productivity and to hire a labor force, which the monks found to be more productive that tenement labor. This also lead many monastery's in to becoming banks, lending to nobility. As a result of hiring a labor force this freed the monks to become executives and foremen and thus the operation soon resembled a modern firm- well administered and quick to adopt the latest technological advances.
As Randal Collins notes this was not a proto-capitalist system but a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself.

Augustine taught that wickedness was not inherent in commerce but that, as with any occupation, it was up to the individual to live righteously.

-Along with capitalism rose the belief in the virtue of work. The notion of the dignity and virtue of labor was unthinkable to the Romans and in most other precapitalist societies.
The preferred approach to work in the Roman era was to have someone else do it and failing that do as little as possible.
In China for instance the Mandarins grew there fingernails as long as they could in order to make it evident that they did no labor.
Max Weber called this virtue of work ethic the "Protestant ethic. However it existed long before Martin Luther. It was first made evident in the sixth century by Saint Benedict, who wrote his famous rule:
"idleness is the enemy of the soul. Therefore the brothers should have specified periods for manual labor of their hands, as our father and the apostles did, then they are really monks."
In contrast with eastern Holy men, who specialized in meditation and lived by charities, the medieval Christian monastic lived by their own labor, sustaining highly productive estates. This ethic prevented an "ascetic zeal becoming petrified in world flight"( Friedrich Prinz) and sustained a healthy concern for economic affairs.

Individualism-
Look at the Shakespearian tragedies and compare them to those of the ancient Greeks.
For instance: "Odeipus's personal character is irrelevant to his misfortune, which was decreed by fate irrespective of his own desires" (Colin Morris)
In contrast Othello, Brutus, and Macbeth where not captives of blind fate. As Cassius points out to brutus " The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in our selves..."

...From the beginning, Christianity taught that sin is a personal matter- that it does not inhere primarily in the group, but each individual must be concerned with there own salvation. The doctrine of free will is central to the idea of individualism...
...Unlike the Greek and Roman gods who where not so concerned with Virtue other than the failure to propitiate them in an appropriate manor. The Christian God is a judge who rewards virtue and punishes sin. This concept of God is incompatible with fatalism
The admonition "Go and sin no more" would be absurd if we where captives of our fate.
One of the basic tenants of Christianity is the doctrine that humans have the capacity and responsibility to determine their own actions.
St Augustine wrote
"we posses a will" and that "from this it follows that whomever desires to live righteously and honorably, can accomplish this"
He also asserted "But that all things come from fate, we do not say; nay we affirm that nothing comes to pass by fate."
While God knows what we will do, he doesn't interfere! And so it is up to us to chose virtue or sin...

...Augustine fully anticipated Descarte's " I think therefore I am"
by saying "But, without any delusive representation of images or phantasm, I am most certain that I am, and that I know and delight in this. In respects to these truths, I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the academician, who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am. For he who is not cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this same token I am... And, consequently neither I am deceived in knowing that I know. For as I know that I am, so I know this also, that I know...

...Though free will did not originate with Christians (Cicero for one) It was not simply an abstract philosophical matter. Rather was a central core of their beliefs.
While the Greeks and Romans embraced fatalism. Jesus thought that each individual must atone for moral lapses precisely because they are wrong CHOICES...

the culture of collectivity and suppressing the sense of self was in the majority at this time. Whatever rights or priviledges that an individual had was granted by the society not inherent in the person...
...When Plato wrote The Republic, his focus was on the polis or the city, not on the citizens. He even denounced private property. In contrast the individual citizen was the focus of Christian political thought...
...There isn't even a word for freedom in many non-European languages."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see there where great advances during this time. Not to mention advances in production of steel, eyeglasses, medicine, exploration etc etc.
Not only did these advances occur alongside the rise of Christianity but indeed they where because of the inherent theology within the doctrines of Christianity.

That's all I have time for today. I will continue tomorrow with the link between lack of historical knowledge and the environmentalists and socialist.

Luken

Jan 9 2006 Resolutions

"The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul and a new nose; new feet, a new backbone, new ears, and new eyes. Unless a particular man made New Year resolutions, he would make no resolutions. Unless a man starts afresh about things, he will certainly do nothing effective. Unless a man starts on the strange assumption that he has never existed before, it is quite certain that he will never exist afterwards. Unless a man be born again, he shall by no means enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." --G.K.Chesterton


Its a little late to be pontificating on new years resolutions (8 days to late)but I figured what the heck better late than never :)
Anyways,

I have always had trouble with New Year's resolutions. I mean, why should I resolve to do something better only once a year. After the New Year, people are always asking others "what's your N.Y'S. resolution?" Its usually some trite thing like; "I'm going to lose weight." or something vague and general like; " I'm going to be more understanding." or something equally as ambiguous. Who remembers these things when we are a couple of weeks or so into the year? I certainly don't. After being resubmerged into the day to day struggles of life after the relative escapism of the Holidays those "resolutions" seem to fall by the wayside. I think that instead of a yearly resolution we should all endeavor to improve day to day.
May be the news papers across the country should all have a reminder atop their front page that says "what's your New Day resolution?" I should reaffirm on a daily basis my commitment to living as God intended.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it
"The characteristic of a genuine heroism is its persistency. All men have
wandering impulses, fits and starts of generosity. But when you have resolved
to be great, abide by yourself, and do not weakly try to reconcile yourself
with the world. The heroic cannot be the common, nor the common the heroic."


As a Christians I have an obligation to God to live by his Commands. As the Christian "faith" is a client-patron relationship (God being our patron) I have a duty as clients, who have receive grace from our God, to follow his law.
What this takes is a bearing of my cross daily.
We are all temporal creatures, we live in the present. Being Honorable is about what I am going to do NOW. The past is the past, and if you are a Christian, in God's eyes your past sins are gone and when you resolve to live honorable what you will do or say now is of the utmost importance. This is not to say that the past does not affect the present, for certainly it does. What I am saying is that your personal honor is contingent on what you do now.

My New Day resolution:
Live Honorably and so fullfill my obligation.

Jan 8 2006 Atheistic Communism

I see a direct correlation between the rapid fall of communism
and the level of intensity with which that gov't sought to eliminate religion from the public sector, but not just religion in general, specifically the Judeo-Christian God. This Nation could also slip down that same path if we are not careful.
as G.K. Chesterton said
"When a man ceases to believe in God he does not believe in nothing, he believe almost anything."

I firmly believe that the same principle applies to a government.

When a nation ceases to have a foundation in an absolute, human impulse is to fill that gap with anything. As is clearly shown in an Atheist regime like communist Russia where God was replaced by an all powerfull dictatorial centralized power.

The Neo-Coms in the U.S. have that same defect. They seek to set up a deistic central authority with a cosmic vision. Like any "religion" (which is exactly what the Lefts vision is) that is not grounded in realism, logic and absolutes, but which is still adhered to fanatically despite evidence to the contrary, all manner of wrong headedness and ridiculous notions can occur on such a slippery slope.

Atheism/Marxism/secular socialism minimizes man to nothing but a collection of parts suitable to function inside the cog of Socialism. In addition to being an atheist Marx had strong beliefs in Organicism, and in fact considered himself a materialistic organicist. Organicism basically says that the whole is more important than the parts, and the organic units and parts depend completely on the whole. This was a basis for his communistic viewpoints. Atheism itself strips man of any kind of importance or worth outside his own sphere of influence. Marxism was heavily influenced by Darwinian thought at the time, which was eroding the cosmic significance of Man in the larger sense. Which was a direct cause of the Kremlin placing little value on human life outside of its immediate usefulness.

(side note)
The Idea that all varying religions/beliefs in a God are generally the same is a little hard to swallow. Truth by its nature is non-contradictory it either is or it isn't it cannot be both.
So far as the transcendental truth claims of religion are concerned the question of objective truth remains.
Thus divine reality cannot be both personal and impersonal. Also it cannot be validly interpreted both in a theist and monistic terms. To look at it from the human side, our final bliss cannot consist both in the attainment of nirvana and in eternal fellowship with a personal God.
One must have a belief or faith I totally agree with that. However if I have ten dollars in my pocket and have complete and total faith that it will turn into one thousand dollars doesn't make it happen.
Faith/belief must be based in fact.

As Brian Maiden said
"It is not enough to worship God; we must worship the God who really is. Otherwise we are not really worshipping God at all."


Back To communism
In addition to the above religious overtones I think something just as fundamental was at the root of the fall of communism. That would be the "sin" of illogic.
consider this for a moment
In the Kremlin it was considered a embarrassment to be called anything but a Atheist and could be dangerous. In fact in an attempt to undermine Stalin's control Lenin and a few other began the rumors that secretly Stalin was a praying theist in order to make him appear weak.
Vladimir Lenin actually said: "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism"
So atheism was central to the communists and as I will show in a moment atheism is illogical in nature.
For a moment though I will explain why Illogic can cause ruination
Logic is a system by which the world is ordered and arranged hence the reason Scientific pursuits are profitable. If any ideology or worldview conflicts with the logical workings of the universe it will fail. Think of it as blocks stacked atop on another to form a structure of some kind. If the foundation is not set in an orderly fashion (I.E. logically) The entire structure will collapse even if some of the mid points between top and bottom are structured logically, without a logical foundation it matters little.
Now to why atheism was that weak foundation.
Atheism is rationally impossible and without evidence
The basic creed of atheism
1.Matter is eternal
2.Matter without life created life(the uncaused effect)
3.Matter without mind created mind.
4.matter without intelligence created intelligence.
5.Matter without moral created morals.
6.matter without conscience created conscience
7.Matter without purpose created purpose and order.

Atheists posit a negative proposition which by that nature is impossible to prove.
It would require infinite knowledge that there is no being with infinite knowledge.

As one cynic declared "God is dead, Marx is dead, and I'm not feeling to well my self.

All belief or lack there of has its consequences.
all of our actions in this life stem directly or indirectly from what our worldview is. It is what motivates us and effects our decision making process.


To conclude: a quote from Nobel prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn to students at Harvard University:
"If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God;that is why all this has happened."

Jan 8th 2006 Tolerance

Durbin's dubious definition
http://http://joedurbin.com/life/

Tolerance


"Creeds must disagree: it is the whole fun of the thing. If I think the universe is triangular, and you think it is square, there cannot be room for two universes. We may argue politely, we may argue humanely, we may argue with great mutual benefit; but, obviously, we must argue. Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent's faith is to say I must not discuss it… It is absurd to have a discussion on comparative Religion if you don't compare them."
-G. K. Chesterton

There are many words and phrases that the modern secularists have adopted as catch phrases. ("access," "stigma," "progressive," "diversity", "crisis" "tolerance" etc.) These words or phrases as they where commonly understood and defined where often accepted as appropriate modes of thought to adopt. Seizing on this fact, the Secularists took these words and applied and defined them to suit there own agenda's because these words make good sound bites and those word could be used in a rather ambiguous and vague way which preempt any evidence or logic. The use of these "buzz words" is simple a way of side stepping or preempting rather than debating the argument and instead put a label on those the secularists deem "intolerant" "anti-progressive" "racist " etc etc…
For Instance:
Tolerance (which is the main term which I am examining)
Is one of the important concepts that this country was founded on. However the definition used then and now differ considerable.
The idea of tolerance then was applied as freedom from legal persecution for many varied ideologies, religions and worldviews which I would agree with.
The modern view Joe summed up nicely

"What I would like, is for people to learn TOLERANCE. Not as in "I KNOW they are wrong, but I'll let them carry on", Rather to "I'm not sure I'm right, so I'll respect their thoughts". CERTAINTY in things UNCERTAIN is very dangerous"


This is incredibly ridiculous. For several reasons:
1.) It is totally contingent on the person with the opposing view to define what Ideology is acceptable to be certain of. This is illogical in that in a debate it is simple begging the question.
2.) "I'm not sure I'm right, so I'll respect their thoughts" This is equally absurd to demand as it commits another logical fallacy. It assumes on the outset that the person with the opposing view is not certain of the truthfulness of there claims.
3.) Finally it shows any lack of conviction as regards to what one holds to be true.
4.) It is an obvious attempt at side stepping any contentious issue so that the ultimate outcome is that nothing is debatable because the one with the opposing view is the one who decides what is certain. Since every debate has at least two sides to an issue both people according to Joe would be unable to debate because nobody should be sure of there stance. Ridiculous!
5.) The entire premise presupposes that there are no absolutes.
6.) Joe continues throughout his entire website to contradict what he claims as tolerance.


This "couldn't we all just get along" mentality is attempting to sacrifice truth on the altar of relativistic tolerance.
Truth by definition IS exclusive. Someone can disagree with my view of what is truth but don't tell me I can't hold on to something that I see as truth simply because you disagree with it. That is true intolerance.
In virtually every area the Atheist is on slippery slope. And what does anyone do when they are sliding downhill? They squirm, struggle, and grasp for the slightest purchase. The problem is that they have systematically scrubbed down their hill over the years so that they have nothing solid to grab onto, no anchor to which they can cling because a relativistic worldview is like a foot print on a windy sand dune.

As I said Truth is exclusive. Meaning: It either is or it isn't, it can not be both, it's an; either or proposition not a; both and.
This is a necessary and proper view of reality as it conforms to reality. The Bible is very clear about this. Christianity is a very exclusive religion as it makes some very absolute claims as to the nature of the world and the nature of man.

Tolerance is a good ethic to have and employ, but it needs to be grounded in truth, otherwise we are left with a vague and fuzzy line between right and wrong which can be disastrous. It all would come down to "feelings" and "emotions", instead of a logical reasoning of our environment based in the solid rock of absolutes.

Jan 8 2006 What is Honor

Honor is founded on six basic tenets:

Obligation/Duty
Obligation/Duty is the root of honor
Fulfill all obligations to God and man; give as you have been given
Do not obligate
Yourself to the dishonorable
Prioritize your obligations
God-Personal honor-Family-Friends-Neighbors-Nation
Obligations/Duty should never conflicts with this order

Justice
Look for the right and wrong in every situation
Justice lies at the heart of honor-
Defend the weak
Uphold virtue
Nothing is more loathsome than underhanded dealings
And crooked undertakings
These harm the soul and the flesh

Courage
Have the courage to fulfill obligations and seek justice
To see what is right and then not do it
That is cowardice

Truthfulness
The essence on honor
We are obliged to be truthful not agreeable
A lie told to protect someone from pain will inevitably cut deeper than
The fleeting pain of the truth
Injustices can occur when one is not honest
Lies stem from the fear of consequences
And this is cowardice.

Restraint
The power man has been given by God is great and so must
An honorable mans restraint be great
It is dishonorable to use this power in anything
other than the pursuit of justice and to fulfill our obligations
Remember; if you harm some one without cause, you will have to answer for it-
And live with what you have done

Loyalty
Be loyal to God.
Be obedient to your parents.
Be faithful to your friends.
Loyalty is an essential part of obligation
The breakdown of loyalty to God and family
Is the central factor in the erosion of society

Jan 8th 2006 And we force our faith??

Here's an "interesting" article I recently read.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10712047/

Luigi Cascioli, author of "The Fable of Christ" and one-time seminary student turned atheist is actually suing over the existence of Christ. Cascioli is saying that the Church is breaking two Italian laws

1.)"Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief)
2.)"Sostituzione di Persona," (impersonation.)

He claims that the church based Christ off of a 1st century Jew named John of Gamala
and that a real Jesus never existed.

This is the depths of insanity we are dealing with folks.
Not to mention poor research skills.

The John of Gamala is nothing more than another run of the mill alleged basis for the "story" of Christ.
Sorry nothing new here folks. This is just another in a long line of frantic attempts by the atheists to justify their beliefs. The atheists are fighting an uphill battle on these Christ-myth conspiracies as one of the most widely accepted fact on Jesus by all respected Scholars across the board is that indeed Jesus did exist.

Let's look at the non-biblical sources for confirmation of Jesus having lived.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) a Jewish historian and a Jewish priest at the time of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66.) mentions John the Baptist and Herod, Jesus, James the brother of Jesus, Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2

As we are particularly examining Jesus, here is Josephus's mention of Christ in his book "Antiquities" which was a history of the Jews:

"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 amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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."

There is some dispute as to whether this is a latter insertion by later Christians. However, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made, and this Testimony is found in every copy of Josephus in existence. But for arguments sake lets say this is a forgery by later Christians shall we. Is this all we have or are there more extra-biblical accounts that speak of Jesus?
Absolutely!!!

Tacitus a Roman historian around AD c.55-A.D. c.117, speaks of "christus" in his historic account called the "Annals"

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Is this all???
No way

The Talmud

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one, who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

(Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.")


Lucian (circa 120-after 180) Greek writer and rhetorician.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."


Thallus (Circa AD 52)

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down."

Julius Africanus (AD 221) mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.

"This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."

(Luke 23:44-45)
(44. And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. )


These are the non-biblical accounts of Jesus Christ. But is there any reason why we shouldn't trust the accounts of him in the New Testament?

Ah... NO

To me, the most obvious reason why we can trust the NT is simply this- They had no reason to lie!!!!
They had nothing to gain. The Gospel authors where condemned for Christ. They where ostracized from there communities in some instances. Not to mention the shame that would be attached to any follower of a man who was crucified like a common criminal.
In short they suffered and where imprisoned for their testimonies in regards to Christ. In fact it would have been much easier to have changed the story in order to make it more acceptable to the culture. Instead we have what we can all read. An account of a man (Jesus) condemned as a criminal, rejected by his home town, laughed at and scorned by his fellow country men. In Man's eye he was a failure.

Secondly:
All of the writing of the Gospel accounts and can be reasonable dated to before 70AD and perhaps 80 to 90AD for the gospel of John. (side note: the earliest writings pertaining to Siddhartha Gautama, the historical founder of Buddhism was over 300 years after his death)
So at the time that these where written and distributed there where many people who where eye witnesses of the events that where portrayed in the NT. Yet the authors openly asked people to look into the facts themselves and not to just take there word for it.

-Acts 26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.-

Now, if the authors where trying to cover up the true story would they have mentioned well know historical figure and information which could easily be verified and debunked if it where not true?

Finally, if they wanted to pass a made up story along as truth then they would never had claimed that women where the first to find the empty tomb. In 1st century Palestine women where considered to be unreliable as witnesses and very little credence was given to there testimonies. According to Josephus..."[women] are unacceptable because of the 'levity and temerity of their sex." Greek and Roman courts did not even allow women to be witnesses in a trial. Yet the disciples wrote that women found the empty tomb.
Now, If it where a fabricated story would it not have made more sense to say that Peter or James saw the tomb empty to lend more respectability to their claims.
However they wrote that women found the tomb empty because THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENED.


Perhaps, if atheist like this Luigi Cascioli spent more time learning and less time trying to force their absurd beliefs on others then perhaps we would not have our time and money wasted with frivolous lawsuits such as this one in Italy.

For more info on the reliability of the NT check out J.P. Holdins site

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#eleven

January 7th 2006- My "faith"

There are two separate aspects to my belief.
1.) What I have deduced from the evidence.
2.) Conformation of those evidences from the Holy Spirit.
Now before you jump all over the Holy Spirit part :) let me explain further. First of all I would never use the independent confirmation by the Spirit as evidence in any sort of apologetics dialog. That is simply a matter for believers and thus irrelevant to an outsider to the faith. Also that conformation to me is worthless without a basis in evidence and reality.

My Faith is the same as what is ment by faith in the New Testament which is the word Pistis:
An obligation of loyalty or fidelity based on past performance. Pistis is also ment as belief based on the evidence or a technical retorical term for forensic proof. Yes you heard right PROOF.
The Christian Faith is not as Mark Twain put it:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so"

The Christian "Faith" has its basis in a historical event or events. It was not conceived in any sort of metaphysical sense but was based on the actions and teachings of a historical person. Now we can debate whether these events actually occurred and were faithfully written down etc etc. but for the intent of this post I won't go into that as I am explaining why I believe what I believe. Obviously I believe that these thing which are written in the NT are factual, accurate and worthy of placing trust in for a variety of reasons and based on a variety of substantial evidences. To put it succinctly I do not simply believe these things (existence of God, Jesus as savior, truthfulness of the bible etc. etc.) out of blind "faith" (the "faith" I am using here is the one as defined by Mark Twain) I believe them from a reasoned deduction of the evidence that I have seen and studied. And so, based on my interpretation of that evidence, I am compelled to follow a path that is based on the reality that is presented in those evidences. Thus it would be foolish of me to choose any other path. I am not simply choosing a "religion" that conforms to what I want and desire but instead I am led to conform my self to a belief that resides in truth. (For instance: Say that it was raining outside my house. I may or may not want it to rain but it matters little as the fact still remains that it is indeed raining, so when I go out into the rain I wear a rain coat. I.E. I conform my self to reality in a sensible manner) Truth by its very nature is exclusive. So, by default all other beliefs that are contrary to the truth are therefore false. Truth can not contradict itself.