[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The only change in the last three hundred years in Biblical scholarship is the rise of german rationalism. Its view is that the scriptures are just a book written by men without inspiration from God. The goal of their textual study is to find the most likely explainations for the supernatural events of scriptures that would exclude God in their explaination.

Even the Christian scholars who don't take an inerrant view of scripture have the goal of excluding god eh? All the religious educational institutions that have classes with a historical critical approach in their divinities programs are all trying to remove god... fascinating.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They see fullfilled prophesy as proof that what ever book it was in must have been written after the event. They see all the miracles of Christ as either lies or tricks.

Nope, that's not what they "see". What they "see" is far more deep and nuanced than that.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They assert that any resemblance to another religion is proof of plagiarism. They see any minor conflict in the narrative of the gospels as proof of inaccuracy while ignoring all the work scholars have done in the last 18 hundred years to understand and explain those supposed conflicts. Pretaining to the gospels and epistles; when they see differences they scream error and when they see harmony they scream plagiarism.

Anyone who disagrees is "they"? I can see how it's easy to classify everyone who disagrees as "they" when you lump them all together with such simple (and incorrect) characterization of the scholarship.

In which group would you include Origen I wonder? As a scholar that tried to help understand and explain the supposed conflicts? Or as an atheist who tried to remove god? Because Origen frequently mentions differences among the writings and disputes the Pauline letters' authorship.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In actual fact they see nothing at all because they exclude the most obvious conclusion before they even begin: That God inspired the 66 books that make up the bible and that the Messiah came 2000 years ago; taking on the form of a lowly man and was faithfull unto death; rising again 3 days later having reconciled all who would believe unto God.

All the Christian biblical scholars who work from a historical critical perspective exclude these conclusions eh?

I wouldn't call these conclusions, they're claims. Claims that have little in the way of support.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I can see how an atheist would delight in german rationalism because it gives you all a false confidence that you are right and their is no God. But what I don't get is how you personally accept their half truths as (pardon the pun) gospel. Are you so ingrained in your beliefs that you lack the ability to measure their assertions against orthodox apologists?

"You all".. always a great foundation for discussion.

This is the funny thing, some Christians just can't even conceive that someone could look at things and come to a different conclusion than they do. So instead, accusations of delighting in what must be false evidence to confirm a pre-conceived conclusion. If I don't come to the same conclusion, I clearly must lack the ability to measure the orthodox responses.

First, I've never made any claim to being an atheist.

Second, I didn't start from a position of non-belief and grabbed onto something to defend it, I started from a position of believing exactly as you do. I've read very little that you've ever posted that I could not imagine myself writing not too long ago.

It was when I started to actually read the Bible, to actually research church history, to learn that I was forced to question what many Christian denominations say the Bible says. My position isn't a matter of desire, I didn't WANT to not believe in the Bible, I was forced into it. That's part of why I participate in threads like this, part of me still wants to believe and hopes to find something that will change how I see things.

Now contrast this:

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If you or your atheist buddys want they can flood this thread with questions and half truths and I won't have even the slimmest hope of responding to it all. Perhaps you guys need such volume to keep your faith up; I don't know.

with

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But I would appreciate you backing up some of the claims you have made against Christianity as of late.

This. Usually if someone asks for something starting out with such negative language and accusations will result in conflict rather than discussion...

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Lets start with your latest one. You said above that many of the Apostle Paul's letters weren't written by him. What proof do you have?

The wiki article on this has a decent summary and lots of links to resources and books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...uline_epistles