Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: op@bigfoot.acc.Virginia.EDU (Olaf Pors)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Don't mean to be rude, but.......
Message-ID: <Feb.18.22.18.57.1991.13362@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 19 Feb 91 03:19:00 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 59
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

[lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg), in the course of a
discussion on evidence for Christianity, was told
> >Really get into it and I can assure you
> >that you will return a Christian.
He responds
> I have 'really been into it' for some time and I maintain (more so now than
> ever) that Christianity (and all other religions) are the product of the
> minds of men... nothing more.
> Went for it and found it to be wanting...
--clh]

  Hats off to Jeff Lindborg!  It is unusual to hear of
someone interested enough to put their time and energy
where their mouth is, rather than "throwing tomatoes",
perhaps out of emotional reaction and prejudicial bias.

  Josh McDowell also researched the historical and logical
basis for the Christian faith and wrote some books about
it.  The reason that many controversies continue is that
people look for proof, whereas it is not possible to PROVE
that Jesus is/was the Messiah.  Proof is obtained only by
personal observation.  History is not observable; it's
gone.  Therefore, one can only examine all the evidence
left and come to the most logical conclusion.  The problem
is that many people stop short of finding the facts or
have not looked at them objectively.

  You may want to read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"
(ISBN 0-918956-46-3, Library of Congress No. 78-75041)
and/or "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh
McDowell, before closing out the issue.  I'm glad he did
the kind of research that few people attempt or finish (I
certainly didn't).

  Another relevant thought that I don't remember as being
in the first book above (I've only read the first): the
Bible is often rejected as a factual document because it
doesn't stand up to some intellectual analyses, so it
isn't taken seriously by someone looking into the issue of
Jesus as the Messiah.  The Bible is picked apart for
contradictions, lack of detail, etc.  However, it was
never written for such analysis.  The gospels, for
example, were written as testimonies by uneducated men.
Let me attempt to clarify this thought with an analogy:
Let's say my house is on fire and I am not aware of it.  A
stranger who happens to be uneducated and also happens to
barely know English, passes by the burning house.  He comes
running up to me, and with bad grammar and somewhat
disconnected statements, warns me of the situation.  It
would be unfortunate indeed for me to pick apart his
grammar, and decide that his testimony is invalid.  The
proper action is to see for myself (proof).  In the case
of history, one must look at all the evidence available,
but the need to do this does not invalidate the
Biblical record.

  I hope this is of help.

Olaf Pors