Please Login to vote!
Explaining why the embarrassing details of myths do not undermine the historicity of Gospels accounts.
The devil's working very hard arming scores of his servants with poor weaponery and unleashing them as sure cannon fodder for the Spirit who takes no prisonner.
If you want to read a book full of embarrassing and ridiculous details then the Bible is it!.
I was talking to an agnostic atheist who mentioned this about embarrassing testimony in other beliefs and I didn't understand what he meant by that. Now I do I understand what he was talking about.
I would surmise that Hercules could actually be true . Mythology actually usually stems from something . Genesis six three kinda shows that maybe what we call mythology could actually be what was going on in the pre-flood world. The bible says there were actual giants back then. Giants are common in mythology like hybrid creatures and things of that nature but the bible states all of that stuff to be true for the most part.. so maybe we are looking too much in a worldly view instead of a biblical one. Also I don’t see “space” as a empty vacuum either… I believe in the firmament as a hard dome like structure. One of the founders of nasa would probably also agree. Werner Von Braun has a very interesting headstone. (Heard they might have changed it recently but can’t confirm that) On it, it only had his name, birth/death dates and “psalms 19:1”
The embarrassing detail is one of many parts of support.
No its not sufficient in and of itself but its a part of the larger picture.
Theres a reason most every scholar (life long expert in history) does not refute Jesus existence.
They may not believe in the ressurection being true but the historical accounts that support Jesus the man existing arent refuted.
Of course there is a faith element to what we believe. Theres a faith element to anything anyone believes.
But the historical veracity of the gospels in so far as they support who Jesus was and what is reported and alleged he did, is hard for any scholar to refute. Thats why almost none of them do.
Its the belief that what is reported happened in terms of miracles where you get divergence.
And when compiling all that we know I do believe there is very strong evidence for Jesus being who he said he was.
I understand the question, what I don't understand is the "logic" behind keying in on a single point of contention and trying to relate two things when one has numerous evidentiary points from different sources along with the singular point, and what you're trying to equate it to doesn't. it would be like in a thousand years looking at say a history book and how its verified accurate based on numerous outside sources and archeological evidence etc, and say the LOTR and trying to equate them simply because they are both books from roughly the same time period.
In the Greek stories, the writers were writing about OTHER people. The Gospel writers were writting about themselves.
A huge embarrassment for atheists is the fact that defining the Creator down in creation can't be done. Only a fool would claim to have enough facts about God to know or believe there is no evidence for God.Abundant massive complex creation is proof of God – far more than not and it is impossible to get to 'not'.
As soon as he asked the question I was thinking, "This kid seems smart why is this his question, doesn't he know that the old and new testament have since their inception, always been presented as truth?" This isnt Donte's inferno.
I love the next guy getting impatient to ask the question, lol. It's funny…..
The criterion of embarrassment supports the trustworthiness of the account. Not the accuracy or historicity. Like if this dude tells his grandchildren one day about this question they'll think he's honest, not he existed.
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Mark 7:20-23 | KJV
An embarrassing story in a myth does not affect the writer/author vs the one in the bible.. were you listening at the presentation brian or brian
I think people miss the point of faith. God gives us a little and expects US to have faith for the rest. I mean for what he has done for us and is offering us its not much to ask. These people just can't seem top make that leap of faith and want to basically have GOD say here I am. And here will, but then it will be to late
Trump's accounts "I like words" , "some say I have the best words"
Silly secularist Greek mythology is for kids.🐰🐇
NT is a biography. Not a novel. If a biography documents that someone has black hair, that can't be argued against just because someone in an Avengers movie has black hair.
what's embarrassing is when the author of Hercules will deny his own story when confronted by soldiers and will KILL him if he will not deny Hercules.
This dude’s style is 🔥
I would have said that Homer wasn’t writing about himself.
At least Mr Secular was well mannered
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Copyrights © 2021 All rights reserved by Nehemiah Reset
This video is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: