You have misstated it, so let me try again.

Both you and <playground player> have affirmed the opinion that the Bible is the absolute truth and that this contention is provable. "To the exclusion of a reasonable doubt" is obviously not a proof. Any Muslim would tell me that the Qur'an is true to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.

<Could you give an example of how the Bible record of the resurrection is unreliable compared to the historical record of the Pelopponnesian War?>

The fact is that the Crusades were provoked. How do you think Muslims got into the Holy Land in the first place? Not to mention places like Egypt, North Africa, Spain, parts of France and Italy, Sicily, Iran, etc? As peaceful pilgrims?

The fact is that the Crusades were provoked.>

So what? I could just as well posit any competing view of science to a position you hold and affirm there's "no way" for you to know your position is right. Surely you'd affirm there is a reason you hold to what you do. Merely naming competing positions doesn't imply your position is wrong, nor does it imply your position can't be proven to be correct to some significant degree. If I did that to you 50 times, I think you'd begin to question how serious I was about the discussion.

<The Pelopponnesian War was documented by one of the best known historians of the era (Thucydides). He is in fact famous for his strict standards of gathering evidence. Not knowing that much about the Pelopponnesian War, I'm not sure whether there is also archeological evidence. I suspect there would be, e.g., remnants of city walls, etc.>

Isn't Luke the physician considered a first class historian? Don't we have more contemporaneous information about Luke than Thucydides? I really don't know what would be the physical evidence we could expect per the resurrection compared to whatever small remnants we might have of a long war.

Its accurate historical record. Its accurate record of prophecies. Its unity among thousands of years and many different writers. Its accurate record of geographical locations. The scientific foreknowledge.

Exactly, and I would agree with you. There is no such thing as a provable truth.

The idea of science is to test ideas to improve their certainty, but no idea can *ever* be considered proven.

By contrast, the religious accept evidence of dubious quality as 100% true.

<If I did that to you 50 times, I think you'd begin to question how serious I was about the discussion.>

No, it would actually show you'd been listening.

<Isn't Luke the physician considered a first class historian?>

Outside of the Christian community, I doubt it. None of the gospels are even written as histories. They are very clearly scriptures, and very clearly biased accounts.

<I really don't know what would be the physical evidence we could expect per the resurrection compared to whatever small remnants we might have of a long war.>

Any contemporary physical evidence that even confirms the existence of Jesus would be something, but there's nothing. There's not even a mention of him in contemporary writings. Is it fair to expect something? Maybe not, but if we're trying to prove the veracity of the recorded events, that's irrelevant. We can't just weaken our filter because the event is old. So all we actually have is a few guys who claim to be part of his newly formed cult, and who widely copy each other's texts. If the events witnessed were so extraordinary, why did not a single other person record them? A contemporary document that made equivalent claims without any corroborating evidence would be ridiculed.

<Per the Pelopponnesian War, I had a friend in college who developed an obsession about it. No idea why. He talked about it the way most people talk about the weather. It has sort of become a meme for me when bringing up random historical events.>

Its accurate historical record. Its accurate record of prophecies. Its unity among thousands of years and many different writers. Its accurate record of geographical locations. The scientific foreknowledge. >

Heh, you do exactly the same.

<<<<<playground player>>>> Yes, God defines sexual morality and restricts behavior, utterly banning certain activities>

Do you believe that witches and homosexuals should be put to death? What about the enemies of God? It's in the scripture.

<<<<<playground player>>>> I didn't put those verses in there, and even if I wanted to, I couldn't take them out. Which I do not want to do!>

It's being done for you.

<<<<<playground player>>>> <TCE>, you would not have felt "miserable," before adopting Dan Brown/Anne Rice theology, if you had understood the Gospel of God's grace.>

I've never heard of them. Back then I understood the scripture the way that you do thanks to the Christian schools that I went to.

<<<<<playground player>>>> Obeying God leads to blessings and peace. Rebelling against His laws, as modernists have taken upon themselves to do, inevitably leads to statist tyranny. Don't take my word for it--check out the history of the 20th century.>

That's because the church went to war with those who were against them. It had nothing to do with God. "God's" laws as given within certain passages of the Bible have lead to the tyranny of the church for much of the past 2,000 years. The church used to kill people who did not support them.

<<Luke 19:27> But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.>

I suspect that God's moral laws are in many ways the opposite of what man's moral laws are. The scripture was given to us by men who according to you were sinners. So why do you trust them? Do you have children? If they one day reject you will you burn them to death?

I repented plenty of times. I was saved plenty of times. I was reborn plenty of times. It didn't matter. I hated God because I feared God just as John says. It was only when I lay that fear aside and accepted the God of perfect love that I started to get closer to God.

As far as what God's law is according to the Bible it depends on what passages you accept and what passages you throw away. Such is the contradictory nature of the scripture as given us by men. The fact that you reject some translations while accepting others is proof of that. No book will ever explain God. If God could be defined with words it wouldn't be God.

<<<<<Is.55:8-9>>>> For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.>

As for reincarnation I don't know if it is true or not. It's simply a possibility that much of the world including some Christians accept. Personally, I never want to reincarnate at all. Like I said as far as I'm concerned the physical universe passes for hell. But if we are to believe the scripture

<<<<<Psalm 106:1>>>> PRAISE YE the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth forever.

<Heb 13:5> Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.>

For the benefit of those people, let's see if we can simplify the issues.

<TCE> believes in universal salvation. I don't. We are both sure that the Bible justifies our positions. For the record, I believe salvation is available only through and by belief in Jesus Christ. (We'll save the issue of predestination for another time!)

I believe the Bible to be the authoritative and inerrant word of God. That there are a few textual errors, I grant--but nothing that would change the message.

<TCE> believes the Bible to be seriously flawed by human error and the passage of time, and therefor not to be taken as authoritative or inerrant. <TCE>, if I have misrepresented your position, please correct me: I won't have done it on purpose.

These differences lead the two of us to occupy irreconcileable positions. Rather than be led by either of us, I urge anyone wishing to find out more about the Christian faith to read the Scriptures for himself, and let the Bible speak for itself. We commentators all have axes to grind, so beware of us.

In the meantime, it's my fault this discussion got a tad acrimonious. All I can say is what I've said all along--my evangelical/witnessing skills are not among the world's best.