The Bible is not God's Word

Cool round 2 this again I ask that God be uplifted and glorified. In your 2nd paragraph where you are commenting on the common theme in the Bible you state this, ". All of those writers came from the same Judaic culture, so obviously their writings would share similar themes." Do you know who the writers were? You had kings, shepherds, prophets and poor men a simple study of the life and culture of people in the time shows how greatly the culture differences where for these groups. There is a vast difference in the culture of a poor man and King, a King with living the "easy" life when compared to others yet yielding himself to the guidance of God, and a poor man who risks his life at the very thought of going against the grain yet they did. Why? You then type of this line, "All you did is reference me to a book which I don't really have access to. It would be better if you could actually use your own knowledge and logic to respond to the contradictions shown in the videos." I thank you for the laugh, do you not even see the contradiction in your own writing? Here in case you miss it you want me to use my knowledge and logic to respond to a video that is not yours or your logic. Why is ok for you to use the work of others but when I reference the fact that these so called contradictions are all addressed in a book already, all you can do is say why not use my own logic? Really thanks for the laugh, now we can go back and forth on the contradictions you can go to your skeptic web site and copy what they say and I can tell what the rest of the story is using the book I cited for you.. It"s your debate if you want to do this we can. Next, we move to the fact that these differences, not contradictions, are proof that they are not just copies of each other. In fact many historians consider minor variations to be evidence in favor of the truth of an account, and in fact if they all totally agreed then it would be said that they are only copies of one another. There is a major difference in contradictions and not understand what you are reading or misinterpreting the parts you are reading. For example the Bible records the fact of Jesus healing a Centurion"s daughter one gospel records that the Centurion asked Jesus to heal her, another states that a messenger form the Centurion asked some people foolishly point to this and call it a contradiction. Let"s look at a common example that could be show the same facts by today, suppose the press secretary of the President of the United States made a statement today proclaiming in a national sales day. The headline in the news would read what? President declares national sales day. Yet he never said the words and it would be quite possible he was not even in the building, this is a common practice now and before so it would be very easy for writer today or in the past to say either the major person made the comment or the helper. Next I displayed the fact that at times people will die for a lie they believe is the truth, however no one will die for something know is a lie. I thank you for proving my point with this line "Some Muslim terrorist leaders have managed to convince their agents that they will go to Heaven for dying in a suicide bombing" see these terrorist believe that what they have been told is the truth so they do the actions they do, notice though that the leaders are not doing the bombings for the know what they are teaching is a lie. For now lets us stick to the New Testament, this by far is the easiest to prove, the first question is why the apostles would and those close to Jesus write it? Why would they risk their lives for something they knew was not accepted by the local authority? How would these fishermen, tax collectors, a doctor, a Pharisee and just common people get the courage and knowledge to stand before the very people who crucified Christ and speak with authority? So it easy to see something must have happened to them, something changed them. They claim it was Jesus alive and the Holy Spirit that changed them and gave them the courage and ability to speak with authority for they have seen God in the flesh. But how do we know their writing are accurate and reliable accounts? By all even the most liberal standards the gospel of around 70 AD, the gospels of Mathew and Luke in the 80"s and John in the 90"s, these where all written (even with these late dates) within the lifetimes of both friendly and hostile eye witnesses. So if these writings were false they could have easily been challenged and changed, or shown to be totally false, take notice to the total lack of these type of writing anywhere in history. The apostle were teaching that Jesus rose from the grave how easy it would have been for the Sanhedrin to either produce the grave with a body or even the body of Jesus, again neither occur in any historical writings. So then did the early church see these writings as authoritative and authentic? The best way to determine this is to look at the writings of the early church fathers did they recognize the writings as fact? For example Papias, one of the early church fathers (circa 130AD) comments on the Gospel of Mark where he wrote "Mark made no mistakes and did not include any false statements. Papias also commented on Mathew and John however some question his connection to John.(1) We also have the writing of Irenaeus (circa. 180 AD)" Irenaeus of Lyons wrote his Against Heresies c. 175-185 CE. His work is invaluable to modern scholarship in the attempt to recover the content of Gnostic teachings in the second century. Irenaeus also provides the first explicit witness to a four-fold gospel canon."(2) So the early church recognized the gospels as be authentic and authoritative is there other corroborating evidence to support the claims from the Gospel and the beliefs of the time? In fact there are many I will mention just a few: First lets look at Josephus, a Pharisee and 1st century historian in one of his most famous works, The Antiquities (completed 93AD). In this writing he wrote of how Ananias took advantage of the Roman governor to have James killed. He wrote, "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."(3) The Bible speaks of James in Galatians 1:19 and other places. Proving again the level of accuracy in the Bible. Josephus also speaks of Jesus in his book Testimonium Flavianum where he write this; "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one out to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. ... On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."(4) There are those who think that the first line was not from Josephus this is why I italicized it, even without it we see that the followers of Jesus believed him to be the Christ, Jesus was crucified and that Jesus performed many "surprising feats" some would call these miracles. So what have I shown you to prove the New Testament, first the major changes in the Apostles from mile and quite men to men willing to stand up against the authority of the time. Then you have the writings of the early church fathers what they believed about the Gospels and of Jesus. Next I gave you a sources outside of Christendom that show what the Christians believed and the extent they believed, there are more I ran out of room (1)http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... (2)http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... (3)http://clas-pages.uncc.edu...