[net.religion] Can a thinking man accept the bible?

rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (Ray) (05/30/84)

*******


	One of the greatest thinkers of all time was Saul of Tarsus. His
conversion on the ancient Damascus Highway has spawned faith in thousands
of hearts through the centuries. He is often remembered for his intellectual
talent. Although Paul stressed the spiritual and did not exalt the power
of human intellect, he was without equal. He could face the boastful man
with questions that could not be answered and answers which could not be
questioned. He astonished them with the greatest equation of all ages - 
God's plan of salvation.

	Paul wrote these words in I Co 1:1 - "The preaching of the cross
is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the
power of God...hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"
However, we must realize that not every person has had the experience
of Paul. Many of our teenagers and college students are wrestling with
scientific concepts calculated to totter their spiritual heritage.

	What do we answer to those of you who have been struggling with
these problems? Are we going to merely dismiss the aarguments of the critics
with a wave of a hand? Or, can we furnish you real reason for accepting the
Bible as the word of God? Emphatically, *YES*! There is enough proof to
convince even the most skeptical, if he will open his mind.

		( to be continued )

					Ray Jender
					ihnp4!ihuxi!rcj1

rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (Ray) (05/31/84)

*******

	Let's start with this. One of the great misconceptions which
has haunted the human race teaches that the Bible cannot be reconciled with
the discoveries of science. This kind of proof is given: We are told
that the Bible teaches that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Then we are told that geological discovery with the atomic age tool
of radioactive carbon dating has proved that the earth is actually
millions of years old. Thus we are told that the Bible is wrong!

But the fact is, the Bible DOES NOT say the earth is only a
few thousand years old. It doesn't say how old the earth is.
Genesis 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the 
earth, and the earth was without form and void".
Most scholars agree that there was a great time lapse between verses
1 and 2. God did not originally create the earth "without form and void".
He created it a thing of beauty, a prolific planet. But it is evident
that there were some extensive geological overthrows which took place,
causing it to become "without form and void".
Science bears this out, and has given us names for these various ages
prior to the creation of man--Genozoic, Mesozoic, Jurasic, Cambrian,
etc. The Bible is in total harmony with true Science!

	There was a time when some scientists challenged the Bible 
story of a major, world-wide flood. But now geology is uncovering
much evidence that present continents were at one time submerged.
We have discovered ancient writtings from every continent and
virtually every civilization. All tell of a great flood which
destroyed man off the face of the earth. Many bear striking
resemblance to the story in the Bible.

The amazing thing about the Bible it that it is as up to date
today as it was one thousand years ago. In 1861 the French Academy
of Science published a book stating fifty-one "scientific" facts
that seemed to contradict the Word of God. It was very impressive
when published. Yet today, every one of these fifty-one "facts" has
been found to be unscientific! There isn't a scientist alive who
believes them. And the Bible stands!

	The Bible has proven to be history written in advance.
Could you imagine a newspaper publishing next years additions today
with uncanny accuracy? Here's just one example...there are hundreds!

The Prophet Ezekiel lived 600 years before Christ. One of his
unbelievable prophecies was against Egypt. He said the land would
lie utterly waste and desolate for forty years. Then, they would return 
to their land. But, they would never exalt themselves as a truly great
nation again. Ezekiel 30:13 said God would take the family of Pharaoh off
the throne. From then on, Egypt would be ruled by foreigners.

	Babylon the Great arose. King Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. For
years the land lay desolate. Later, the Egyptians returned, but true to
prophecy, never became a great nation again.

And what about Ezekiel's prophecy that, "There shall be no more a prince
of the land of Egypt"? Since the Persians conquered Egypt, there has never
again been a native Egyptian King! First the Greeks ruled. Later, the Romans.
Then the Mohammedans, then the Turks, then the French, then the British.
Today, the rulers of Egypt are not native Egyptians, but ARABS. God
said a prince of Egypt would never sit on the throne again. And for 2,500
years the prophecy has held true!



		( to be continued )


					Ray Jender
					ihnp4!ihuxi!rcj1

rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (Ray) (05/31/84)

*******

	Until late in the 19th century there was no proof outside
the Bible, that an ancient Hittite civilization ever existed. 
Naturally, some of the so called "experts" said it was just another
Biblical fable. But in 1906, Hugo Winckler discovered and excavated
the ancient Hittite capitol and recovered several thousand Hittite
scrolls! Amazing thing about it, at least to them, is that the
discoveries bore out the accuracy of the Bible. They learned
that according to Hittite law and business practice, every sale
of property was to list the trees included in the sale. 
Genesis 23:17 tells us that when Abraham purchased the cave of 
Machpelah, the sale included "all the trees which were on the field".

Chapters 37 through 50 of Genesis are now considered some of the
most valuable historical material in existence. Archeological
discoveries in recent years have shown that these chapters
reveal an intimate knowledge of Egypt. They include Egyptian loan
words, names, titles and customs.

	The more we search and dig, the more we discover the Bible
to be true. A recent report carried in the Los Angeles Examiner was
captioned "Paydirt Hit in Noah's Ark Hunt". It said that in 1915 a
Russian pilot spotted an ark frozen in the ice on the exact mountain
specified in the Scriptures. After World War I, a team of Russian
soldiers struggled through Arctic weather conditions to examine it.
They found it to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high,
corresponding with the Bible description. Photographs were made. However,
much of this information was lost during the Communist takeover of Russia.

	The Scripture says that Jesus entered Jericho and there encounterred
Zacchaeus in a Sycamore tree. The "experts" said this was impossible.
Wellhausen, Bultmann, Gilmour, and others said there were no trees in Jerico.
Luke was wrong.

But since then, we have discovered the ruins of Jericho. We have found
that it had streets and public places were shade trees could flourish.
In fact, a piece of ancient wood found in the excavation has been identified.
You guessed it-Sycamore! You just can't win! The Bible stands true again!

	The coming of Jesus Christ to earth was no unannounced happenstance.
Throughout the Old Testament His coming had been foretold. Micah said He
would be born in Bethlehem. Isaiah said he would be born of a virgin,
rejected by the Jews and crucified. Zechariah forsaw His triumphal entry.
The Psalmist David revealed He would be betrayed by a friend, given
gall and vinegar, pierced in His hands and feet and that men would
gamble for His garments. The Bible foretold that He would be sold
for thirty pieces of silver. Within thirty-three years He had come and
gone. But no man ever left such a mark upon the world. Libraries of
books have been written about Him. It would be impossible to estimate
the millions of songs which have been sung, prayers which have been
prayed, and lives which have been changed...in Jesus' Name!

The earth has recieved the blood of thousands of martyrs who gave
their last full measure of devotion.

	The New Testament is filled with prophecies of our own day.
Jesus said that in the last days there would be wars and rumors of wars.
He prophecied earthquakes and tidal waves. He prophecied a state of
political turbulance and emotional upheaval. He said mens hearts
would be failing them for fear. The Bible says that evil men and seducers
will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. Israel was to
become a nation again and recapture Old Jerusalem. How true all these 
have proven!
	Can the thinking man accept the Bible? Oh I think he can.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". When you stand and gaze
in awe of a skyscraper, you know there was an architect; you know there
were those who constructed it. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and
the firmament showeth His handiwork." He spake the galaxies into existence.
He kindled the atomic fires of a billion stars. He jarred the mountains 
upward and carved out the valleys. He designed the symmetrical snowflake
and cemented the atom. He covered the fields with flowers and trees of
a thousand varieties. He created animal living ranging from invisible
insects to thundering herds.

He placed the zenith of His creation upon the earth and called him man.
He placed His never dying soul in a body equipped with camera,
microphone, amplifiers, computers, thermostats, and chemical factories.
God gave man a will of his own and a mind of his own. God offers to shape
man's destiny as He shaped him physically, but He leaves the choice
to each of us.

	"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." "The heavens
declare the glory of God." "Come now, let us reason together saith the
Lord." What will an intelligent man do about the Bible? Will he accept it?
Will he obey it? Will he be born again in the way it explains? As man
begins to walk in the light of the Gospels, only then will he receive
it's benefit. Then and only then will he realize altogether why this
is the only intelligent thing for man to do!

THE END


			Ray Jender
			ihnp4!ihuxi!rcj1

PS: Comments, questions, or critisisms welcome.

tims@mako.UUCP (06/04/84)

> The New Testament is filled with prophecies of our own day.
> Jesus said that in the last days there would be wars and rumors of wars.
> He prophecied earthquakes and tidal waves. He prophecied a state of
> political turbulance and emotional upheaval. He said mens hearts
> would be failing them for fear. The Bible says that evil men and seducers
> will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

When were there no wars and no rumors of war?  When have there been no
earthquakes and tidal waves?  When has there not been political turbulence
and emotional upheaval?  Since when haven't evil men been getting worse and
worse?  You call this prophecy, I call it tautology.
Why DOESN'T this great bible predict or say anything real about our own
times, something that might substantiate christianity.  Insted, the only
possible things in the bible that could substantiate christianity are
unexaminable because they are either too far in the past, or supposedly
coming the the future (2nd coming), or after death, none of this stuff
can be examined.  I submit this a large reason for christianity's, and
several other religion's survival.

CAN ANYONE GIVE SOME EXAMINABLE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE
CHRISTIANITY?

heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (06/04/84)

   I am responding to the article titled "Can a thinking man accept the Bible?
Parts 1 through 3" because, as a thinking man and an ex-christian, I can not
accept the premise that a thinking man with a truly open mind can accept the
Bible as fact. It is not. It may well be an excellent system of myths that has
comforted millions in times of trouble by providing them with a better
understanding of themselvs and of their universe, but a compedium of absolute
fact it is not. Anyone with a through knowledge of the peoples, cultures,
belief systems, and history of the world will accept the bible for what it is;
a complex system of partly if not wholly barrowed myths with just enough
histroy thrown in to fool the ignorant. (I am not saying that all christians
are ignorant, just the ones that believe the bible word for word).

   I will also divide my article into at least three parts because it would
otherwise get quickly out of hand. Also I would give those who are
uninterested in this discussion a chance to skip any or all parts that they
wish. In this first part I will reply to Mr. Jender's opening article.
This first part will consist mostly of my own opinions as Mr. Jender's seemed
to do the same.

> One of the greatest thinkers of all time was Saul of Tarsus.

    According to who? I don't belive that an objective Who's Who of 
philosophers, thinkers, and intellectuals would place him very high on the 
list, if it would even list him at all. In all my years of sunday school,
youth group bible study, and church services I never once heard Paul praised
for his intellectual prowess. A great *christian* thinker he may have been,
and prolific he certainly was, even if only half of the alleged Pauline
letters are apocryphal as most biblical historions agree that they are (see
The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul by Wayne A.
Meeks, published by Yale University Press 1983).

> He could face the boastful man with questions that could not be answered and 
  answers which could not be questioned. 

   How do we know that Paul was such a great debator? After all only the
debates he won are recorded in the bible. And these were recorded by him or by
his desiples, people with a vested interest in showing Paul to be a great man.
Paul was a fanatic, and a fanatic's words are not to be taken at face value.

> Many of our teenagers and college students are wrestling with
> scientific concepts calculated to totter their spiritual heritage.

   I doubt very seriously the concepts of science are calculated  to totter
their spiritual heritage. The concepts of science are merely conlusions drawn
by intelligent curious people from their own observations and those of others
of the world around them. Many scientists are themselves devoute christians
and are certainly not out to prove there own beliefs wrong. Nor are they
trying to justify their beliefs through science. As a collegue of mine said
while discussing Mr. Jender's article: "Anyone who trys to prove the bible
with science is missing the point of the bible."

> What do we answer to those of you who have been struggling with
> these problems? Are we going to merely dismiss the aarguments of the critics
> with a wave of a hand? Or, can we furnish you real reason for accepting the
> Bible as the word of God? Emphatically, *YES*! There is enough proof to
> convince even the most skeptical, if he will open his mind.

  I am no where near the most skeptical (a friend of mine holds that title),
but if there is real reason for accepting the bible as the word of God then I
haven't seen it. My mind is as open as your's is Mr. Jender (probably more
so), if there is enough proof to convince even the most skeptical, then trot
it out. Parts 2 and 3 of your article certainly did not provide it. In the
following parts of my article I will try to refute the proofs offered point by
point.
		( to be continued )
-- 


                        Yrs. in Fear and Loathing,
                             The Blue Buffalo
                              Haunted by the -

                               /\      /\
                              / /~~~~~~\ \
                             ( (  \  /  ) )
                              \ [~]  [~] /  
                               \ / || \ / 
                                \ /||\ / ~~~           
                           G     \(^^)/ )    o
                            h     `--'\ (   z
                             o         \)  n
                              s           o
                               t   of    G    
                                        
...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd         

heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (06/04/84)

>   Let's start with this. One of the great misconceptions which
> has haunted the human race teaches that the Bible cannot be reconciled with
> the discoveries of science. This kind of proof is given: We are told
> that the Bible teaches that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
> Then we are told that geological discovery with the atomic age tool
> of radioactive carbon dating has proved that the earth is actually
> millions of years old. Thus we are told that the Bible is wrong!

   We are told that Bishop Usher calculated that the earth was created
in 4004 B.C. by adding up the ages of the patriarchs given in Genesis, not that
this is what the bible teaches. The church used the Bishop's calculations as 
an argument against the new science of geology and the theory of evaloution 
(note I said *theory*, not fact). Not until science had proven that the earth is
certainly more than a few thousand years old did the idea that Genesis is al-
legorical become accepted by the church. Thus, the "great misconception" Mr. 
Jender sites was created and preserved by the church, not by science.

>   But the fact is, the Bible DOES NOT say the earth is only a
> few thousand years old. It doesn't say how old the earth is.
> Genesis 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the 
> earth, and the earth was without form and void".
> Most scholars agree that there was a great time lapse between verses
> 1 and 2. God did not originally create the earth "without form and void".
> He created it a thing of beauty, a prolific planet. But it is evident
> that there were some extensive geological overthrows which took place,
> causing it to become "without form and void".
> Science bears this out, and has given us names for these various ages
> prior to the creation of man--Genozoic, Mesozoic, Jurasic, Cambrian,
> etc. The Bible is in total harmony with true Science!

   Not hardly. For one thing, science says that after the earth had coalesced
from the cosmic dust cloud that it was a ball of molten rock; about as void
and without form as you can get this deep into the sun's gravity well. The
earth did not become a thing of beauty (unless you're into volcanos) until
millions and millions of years later. And once life appeared on earth (through
a series of chemical accidents, according to science, not through divine
intervention as claimed by the bible), it stayed.

>   There was a time when some scientists challenged the Bible 
> story of a major, world-wide flood. But now geology is uncovering
> much evidence that present continents were at one time submerged.
> We have discovered ancient writtings from every continent and
> virtually every civilization. All tell of a great flood which
> destroyed man off the face of the earth. Many bear striking
> resemblance to the story in the Bible.

  How sad that Mr. Jender has presented what seems to be an important argument
to him without doing his homework properly. Geology has uncovered evidence
for a flood in coastal areas of Mesopotamia, not that the present continents
were submerged. If Mr. Jender had studied world mythology instead of
rejecting it out of hand as pagan and therefore untrue, he would know that the
Mesopotamien myths concerning the flood predate anything recorded in the bible.
Saying that the story in the bible bears striking resemblance to the earlier
myths is closer to the truth.


>  The amazing thing about the Bible it that it is as up to date
> today as it was one thousand years ago. In 1861 the French Academy
> of Science published a book stating fifty-one "scientific" facts
> that seemed to contradict the Word of God. It was very impressive
> when published. Yet today, every one of these fifty-one "facts" has
> been found to be unscientific! There isn't a scientist alive who
> believes them. And the Bible stands!

   The instance sited by Mr. Jender is what makes science more palatable then
religion to the thinking man: as new facts come to light science eventually
changes its doctrine. Disproving a set of 100-year old facts does not prove
the bible.

>   The Bible has proven to be history written in advance.
> Could you imagine a newspaper publishing next years additions today
> with uncanny accuracy? Here's just one example...there are hundreds!

>   The Prophet Ezekiel lived 600 years before Christ. One of his
> unbelievable prophecies was against Egypt. He said the land would
> lie utterly waste and desolate for forty years. Then, they would return 
> to their land. But, they would never exalt themselves as a truly great
> nation again. Ezekiel 30:13 said God would take the family of Pharaoh off
> the throne. From then on, Egypt would be ruled by foreigners.
 
>   Babylon the Great arose. King Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. For
> years the land lay desolate. Later, the Egyptians returned, but true to
> prophecy, never became a great nation again.

>   And what about Ezekiel's prophecy that, "There shall be no more a prince
> of the land of Egypt"? Since the Persians conquered Egypt, there has never
> again been a native Egyptian King! First the Greeks ruled. Later, the Romans.
> Then the Mohammedans, then the Turks, then the French, then the British.
> Today, the rulers of Egypt are not native Egyptians, but ARABS. God
> said a prince of Egypt would never sit on the throne again. And for 2,500
> years the prophecy has held true!

   I've seen no evidence that any thing in the bible was recorded before the 
events it relates. I maintain that the bible is merely recording what happened, 
not predicting it. As for this particular prophecy, it can be seen as true
only if you do not count a native as some one born in a country. If that is
the case, then there are very few native americans in this country (USA). And
seeing as I was born here, I'm damned if I know what I might be a native of.
I'm certainly not a native of Europe, I've never even been there. The only
place I qualify as a native is the land I was born in. If being born in a
country makes you a native of that country then Egypt is now ruled by a native
Egyptian.
-- 


                        Yrs. in Fear and Loathing,
                             The Blue Buffalo
                              Haunted by the -

                               /\      /\
                              / /~~~~~~\ \
                             ( (  \  /  ) )
                              \ [~]  [~] /  
                               \ / || \ / 
                                \ /||\ / ~~~           
                           G     \(^^)/ )    o
                            h     `--'\ (   z
                             o         \)  n
                              s           o
                               t   of    G    
                                        
...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd         

stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (06/06/84)

> CAN ANYONE GIVE SOME EXAMINABLE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE
> CHRISTIANITY?

There have been any number of challenges for evidence for Christianity
recently.  I'd like to speak from my own perspective:  Lutheran (LCA --
for those who understand such detail), intellectual, and egalitarian.

No, I can't give you any examinable, verifiable evidence to substantiate
christianity, any more than you can give me examinable, verifiable
evidence refuting christianity.  To answer another question, I don't
believe the objective evidence for christianity is obviously better than
that for most of the other major religions of the world, or (as is implicit
in the last sentence) no religion.

This is not a concession.  I simply think that you are asking the
wrong questions.  Science and theology are orthogonal.  Using one
in an attempt to analyze the other is misguided.  Thus, I believe
attempted "scientific" proofs and disproofs of the existence of God
are as relevant to theology as the creation myth of Genesis is to
explaining the origin of species.

In the final analysis, you either believe or don't.  The evidence in
my life which leads me to my faith is neither examinable nor verifiable
by a third party.  I simply find my own life's experiences take meaning
in the existence of God.  The fact that I am Lutheran and not Jewish
or Hindu is in all probability a historical accident; but I do find
the teachings of Christ immediately relevant to *me*.  I find the
Christian theology intellectually exciting -- and to the extent I
understand other religions, no other theology satisfies *me* so well.

I scarcely expect that this will be the final word on the subject, but
I would like to add my own plea for rationality.  None of us are going
to win any converts (to God/Humanism/Reason) over this net.  This whole
exercise in Christian/Atheist baiting does nothing but polish our
ability to offend one another.

I find discussions which explore the logical consequences of various
beliefs more interesting than attacking those beliefs.  For example:
"Assuming Christ is raised, is his resurrection bodily or spiritual?"
or even "Is the representation of Kalmari (sp?) in 'Indiana Jones
and the Temple of Doom' accurate to Hindu beliefs?"

----------------------------------------

Stuart Kurtz		:	Department of Computer Science
ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart	:	The University of Chicago

heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (06/06/84)

>   Until late in the 19th century there was no proof outside
> the Bible, that an ancient Hittite civilization ever existed. 
> Naturally, some of the so called "experts" said it was just another
> Biblical fable. But in 1906, Hugo Winckler discovered and excavated
> the ancient Hittite capitol and recovered several thousand Hittite
> scrolls! Amazing thing about it, at least to them, is that the
> discoveries bore out the accuracy of the Bible. 

>  Chapters 37 through 50 of Genesis are now considered some of the
> most valuable historical material in existence. Archeological
> discoveries in recent years have shown that these chapters
> reveal an intimate knowledge of Egypt. They include Egyptian loan
> words, names, titles and customs.
 
   Ok, so the bible contains some verifiable history. This hardly proves that
it is the word of God. If this were the case, then my high school history text
is a sacred book. It's not surprising that the bible is an important source of
Egyptian history, after all the Hebrews spent a lot of time in Egypt.

>   The more we search and dig, the more we discover the Bible
> to be true. A recent report carried in the Los Angeles Examiner was
> captioned "Paydirt Hit in Noah's Ark Hunt". It said that in 1915 a
> Russian pilot spotted an ark frozen in the ice on the exact mountain
> specified in the Scriptures. After World War I, a team of Russian
> soldiers struggled through Arctic weather conditions to examine it.
> They found it to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high,
> corresponding with the Bible description. Photographs were made. However,
> much of this information was lost during the Communist takeover of Russia.

   Mt Ararat is 16,946 feet high (a little over 3 miles) I'm not sure, but I
don't think that any airplanes around in 1915 could fly that high. The
communists had already taken over Russia by the end of WWI. Why would one of
the most notoriously atheistic governments in history send soldiers to verify
a biblical story? Also, since the communist revolution was virtually over at
the time of this alleged expedition, how could any evidence it might have
collected have been destroyed by an event that had already taken place? Even
assuming that there was a boat of some sort on the mountain, the surviving
timbers could hardly have been in good enough shape to take precise
measurements. 

>   The Scripture says that Jesus entered Jericho and there encounterred
> Zacchaeus in a Sycamore tree. The "experts" said this was impossible.
> Wellhausen, Bultmann, Gilmour, and others said there were no trees in Jerico.
> Luke was wrong.

>   But since then, we have discovered the ruins of Jericho. We have found
> that it had streets and public places were shade trees could flourish.
> In fact, a piece of ancient wood found in the excavation has been identified.
> You guessed it-Sycamore! You just can't win! The Bible stands true again!
 
   I almost tire of picking apart these flimsy arguments. But a job worth
starting is worth finishing. 

   The piece of wood found in the ruins of Jericho proves only the sycamore
trees grew there. It doesn't provide one shred of evidence that a short man
once perched there to view an itinerant preacher from Galilee.

>   The coming of Jesus Christ to earth was no unannounced happenstance.
> Throughout the Old Testament His coming had been foretold. Micah said He
> would be born in Bethlehem. Isaiah said he would be born of a virgin,
> rejected by the Jews and crucified. Zechariah forsaw His triumphal entry.
> The Psalmist David revealed He would be betrayed by a friend, given
> gall and vinegar, pierced in His hands and feet and that men would
> gamble for His garments. The Bible foretold that He would be sold
> for thirty pieces of silver. Within thirty-three years He had come and
> gone. But no man ever left such a mark upon the world. Libraries of
> books have been written about Him. It would be impossible to estimate
> the millions of songs which have been sung, prayers which have been
> prayed, and lives which have been changed...in Jesus' Name!

   I've seen no evidence that any of the events described in the Gospels (save
for the Roman census) actually took place. The earliest date I've seen for an
actual written version of any of the gospels is c. 70 A.D. (source: The Concise
Columbia Encyclopedia) for Mark. This leaves better than 30 years for legends
about Jesus to spring up to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. In other
words it is very easy to fulfill prophecies centurys after the prophecies were
made and decades after their alleged fulfillment. In fact, the source sited
above (The CCE) states that  Matthew was written specifically to convince
Jewish christians that Jesus was the messiah. This makes it more rhetoric than
history.

  It would be impossible to estimate the millions of people that have been
removed from their homeland, dragged from their houses and tortured, and the
lives that have been taken...in Jesus' Name!

>   The earth has recieved the blood of thousands of martyrs who gave
> their last full measure of devotion.

    Other men have given their lives in devotion to other causes. How about
the founders of this country who plegged "...our lives, our fortunes, and our
scared honor..." for a cause they believed in?  Did the lives given at
Jonestown make Jim Jones a messiah? Just because some people are willing to
give their lives doesn't make their cause a holy one.

>   The New Testament is filled with prophecies of our own day.
> Jesus said that in the last days there would be wars and rumors of wars.
> He prophecied earthquakes and tidal waves. He prophecied a state of
> political turbulance and emotional upheaval. He said mens hearts
> would be failing them for fear. The Bible says that evil men and seducers
> will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. Israel was to
> become a nation again and recapture Old Jerusalem. How true all these 
> have proven!

   As has been pointed out already, these prophecies sound like just about any
time in human history. The people of Europe in 1000 A.D. must surely have felt
that the world was about to end and expected to hear the final trumpet any
minute. After all, the millennium was upon them, and Vikings were raiding and
burning from Ireland to Kiev. They must have felt that the armys of Gog and
Magog were upon them.  It's very easy to apply vague prophicies to virtually
any period in history.  Actually, the prophecies listed above match the time
of WWII better than they do our own time. 

                              (to be continued)
-- 


                        Yrs. in Fear and Loathing,
                             The Blue Buffalo
                              Haunted by the -

                               /\      /\
                              / /~~~~~~\ \
                             ( (  \  /  ) )
                              \ [~]  [~] /  
                               \ / || \ / 
                                \ /||\ / ~~~           
                           G     \(^^)/ )    o
                            h     `--'\ (   z
                             o         \)  n
                              s           o
                               t   of    G    
                                        
...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd