From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:39:13 GMT

Arnold E. Nordeng (nordenga@tc.fluke.COM) wrote:

: An omission or addition is *not* a contradiction.   The fact that
: we have three separate accounts that share the main details made
: by three authors at three different times gives veracity.  More so the
: fact that we have 40 authors over 1500 years on 3 continents that say
: one message that man is sinful and needs a savior adds veracity.
: 
: If you want to claim the bible is untrustworthy in its facts or details, 
: then how can you as a "christian" support the resurrection as a fact or 
: detail, the cornerstone of our faith?  The common theme of all non-Christian
: religions is to first doubt the bible as the inerrant word of God--something
: that Jesus Christ did not do.
: Just look at JW's, Mormons, Islam, Newage, Christian Science, Moonies & the
: Unitarians, Bahai's etc etc etc......  

First off, let me say "welcome back!" to Arnold.  I haven't seen his posts in
a while, and they always give me pause to think. :)  So, here's what I think...

Arnold, Arnold, Arnold...<sigh>  I'm surprised that you would let such a
glaring error creep into *your* work.  The Essenes sure would be disappointed
with you...

First off, the bible wasn't even written when Jesus was here.  The "scriptures"
that he referred to were (please correct me, Len; it's been a while since I've
seen the inside of a synagogue) the Torah, plus the commentaries written by the
rabbis (Hillel, etc.) which if memory serves is called the Midrash.  Jesus
never made any claims one way or the other as to the "inerrancy" of either
the Torah or of anything else.  He questioned the *interpretation* and the
application of certain passages.

Second, where is it that the resurrection of Christ is claimed as a
"cornerstone" of Christian faith?  Theology or doctrine, perhaps; no more than
that.  The apostles creed was written many years after the fact (at the
Council of Nicea, I believe).

Lastly, I question the assertion that "man needs a savior".  This was inserted
into Christian theology almost immediately after the cruxifiction; Jesus never
claimed that he was a "savior" in the sense that you are referring to.  True,
he *did* say "I am" to "Are you the Messiah?" but that was almost certainly
(to put it delicately) a "political device" to ensure his cruxifiction, since
he was never "The Messiah" in the terms the Jews considered.  To the Jews, the
"Messiah" was to be "the lion of Judah", a poltical, religious, and military
leader who would throw off the yoke of Roman rule (and oppression) - preferably
by force.  Let's rephrase the question and the answer to be more accurate:
"Are you the Messiah, the One who has been fortold to come and liberate us
from the yoke of Roman rule (by force if necessary)?"  "Well, I am the One
fortold, but I am not here to do what you think I am here to do.  I am here
to free you from your mindset, from your legalistic, rigid thinking.  I am here
to free you, yes, but in your hearts and souls, for that is where true freedom
lies."
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG     erc@apple.com                801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"