Posted on 10/14/2008 9:14:11 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Darwin called him, ‘My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel—i.e. the devil’s gospel.’2
‘Out of his provocations came … the West’s new faith—agnosticism (he coined the word).’3
Huxley, although an unbeliever, was thoroughly familiar with the gospel, and had little time for Christians who compromised their position by supporting the anti-biblical belief of evolutionary naturalism. He wrote:
‘I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?’17
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
ping!
Sorry, I’m not going to let Huxley define Christianity. I’ll do that myself if necessary, and he can continue to rot in Hell eh.
You got anything to post that deals with this century?
How can someone hate something that he does not believe exists?
Thanks for the ping!
1Cr 15:12 - 19 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
The Gospel of Christ is true, our Hope is Secured. The historical accuracy of the Bible continues to be proven at every turn.
==How can someone hate something that he does not believe exists?
The answer can be found at the very bottom of the following profile:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~andrewc/
Actually, there has been some great and extended difficulties in proving the historical accuracy of the Bible. This is not to say it isn’t historically accurate, but it is not quite as cut and dry as it seems. (See the documentary: The Pagan Christ)
Not what I said. My claim is that the Bible continues to be proven accurate. I understand your point, but it is viewed from opposite perspectives. If someone seeks out to prove/disprove the Bible, it may very well take a great deal of time. On the other side, where archeology goes, the Bible precedes.
Are you counting that big boo-boo of the global flood?
Archaeology has disproved that pretty thoroughly.
Archaeology has disproved that pretty thoroughly
You mean the flood that has been proven? The silt layer at Ur in Southern Iraq; An article by AP reporter Richard Ostling in 1999 covered some of the facts. The Ballard expedition to the Black Sea. There is also anecdotal evidence in nearly every Asian culture.
The most difficult aspect, on either side of the issue, is that evidence for such an event is most assuredly obscured by time and subsequent events.
The Ballard expedition found local evidence, most likely of the flood that inspired the Gilgamesh story. This is likely where the biblical story originated.
The anecdotal evidence in Asian cultures proves nothing.
The most difficult aspect, on either side of the issue, is that evidence for such an event is most assuredly obscured by time and subsequent events.
Not so. Many areas of the world preserve a fine record in the soils of 10,000 or more years of deposition. There is no evidence of a global flood in those soils. If there was, archaeologists would have found it 150 years ago, or geologists before that. Its not there. There was no global flood.
Pretty nonsensical, eh?
Actually, no, it is not. The Christian knows there is but one God, accessible only through his Son, Jesus. All else is false and man made at best, or demon inspired. All but Christianity looks to the wrong god, and attempts to reach him through their own efforts. The unbeleiveing Jew worships what they know from their own writings, but refuse to come to God on His terms, rather, they substitute their religion and works.
And, as a result, worships the creation more than the Creator!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.