U.S. Answers To Higher Law

Persistent aren't you?

How can you define a belief system without making it transcendent? And how can it be transcendent without God?

If you can't think outside of the little box you are in, I probably can't help you.

The Bible is not unverifiable. As I said before, it has more copying integrity than any other book of the ancient world.

This speaks to manuscript support, meaning that multiple copies of an item exist to be sure what we have now is close to the original text unaltered over the years, not whether what the text says is literally true. I'll grant you that there are many extant copies of the New Testiment. I have one myself, somewhere. Without the books of the apocrypha, of course, which were dropped by early church leaders.

The dead sea scrolls were made up most prominently of copies and fragments of the Old Testament. It would therefore make sense that they would have words that predate Jesus. Jesus quoted the Old Testament constantly.

Nice try. According to the Scroll scholar, M.Dupont-Sommer, here are some similarities between Jesus and The Teacher of Righeousness, a figure mentioned and quoted in the Scrolls who lived 100 years or so before Jesus.

Both were martyred prophets subsequently revered by their followers as the Suffering Servant.
Both preached penitence, poverty, humility, love of one's neighbour and chastity.
Both prescribed observance of the Law of Moses.
Both were the Elect of God and the Messiah, the redeemer of the world.
Both were opposed by the priests, the Sadducees; were condemned and murdered.
Both seemed to found a church whose believers thought he would return in glory, whose central rite was a sacred meal presided over by priests and whose members held goods in common and believed in brotherhood.
Both will be the supreme judge at the Last Judgement.
Both apparently predicted the fall of Jerusalem.

I remember when the first Scroll translations appeared in print. I was struck by the almost identical words of the Teacher and those of Jesus. There is a possiblility here that the New Testament might be a rehash of earlier events, with things originally attributed to the earlier Teacher later being attributed to Jesus by Jesus' followers. If this is what happened, it casts legitimate doubt on the New Testament.

By who's standard? Yours alone? That just isn't good enough.

If you don't believe I have a value system that condemns crooks and Bill Clinton, that is your problem, not mine.

No, the Book of Mormon is clearly not a divine book.

Some of the most truly religious, most Christian people I know are Mormons. They certainly wouldn't agree with you. Oh, but I forgot. Only you can see the truth.

I would certainly hope that you would not say that. [to the crook]

OK, I say to the crook what you suggest, "We, as people, demand a transcendent God to find moral sanity in our world. If need be people will live inconsistently from their professed moral construct, as I believe you do. God has given you a conscience and a sense of right and wrong which you clearly still have. I urge you to acknowledge this God, at least give it some serious study."

Think he won't take my money?

This speaks to manuscript support, meaning that multiple copies of an item exist to be sure what we have now is close to the original text unaltered over the years, not whether what the text says is literally true.

Absolutely. However, the fact that the accounts have not been changed or even seriously challenged certainly lends some creedence, does it not? In other words, no one doubts that a man named Jesus walked the earth, that he had disciples, that many people thought he performed miracles, that he was crucified, and countless people believed he was raised from the dead. Lord, liar, or lunatic?

There is a possiblility here that the New Testament might be a rehash of earlier events, with things originally attributed to the earlier Teacher later being attributed to Jesus by Jesus' followers.

I have not heard of this Teacher of Righteusness, but I seriously doubt your analysis here. The New Testament dates itself quite thoroughly. The Gospels were written by Christ's contemporaries. It is possible to pinpoint, almost exactly, the time period that Jesus lived and had his earthly ministry. What he said really cannot logically be attributed to anyone else.

Oh, but I forgot. Only you can see the truth.

Not at all. I am completely blind without God.

Think he won't take my money?

Of course he will! That is my whole point. The thief will take your money because he acknowledges a different moral system than you. I am simply saying that you really can't judge him for it given your ethical construct. I am trying to show you the futility of the secularist worldview. I am trying to show you that it is impossible for you to actually live as if there is no transcendent moral truth. I am trying to show you that the Christian worldview is the only one that makes sense.

You told me in an earlier message that you acknowledge the Judeo-Christian ethic. I am certain that you have been blessed in trying to live this way. However, consider the idea that if it is the best way to live, there may be something to the God who made it. I can promise you that if you are blessed in acknowledging moral truth, you will be infinitely more blessed in acknowledging the true God.

Remember, there is still the problem of sin to deal with. Christ provides freedom.

However, the fact that the accounts have not been changed or even seriously challenged certainly lends some creedence, does it not?

Let me make sure I am clear on this. Obviously people challenge whether Christ actually fed 5000 or was resurrected or turned water into wine. But no historian has turned up contemporary evidence that says it was all a sham. No one has dug up a "Gospel of Bob" that says Jesus really a postal clerk in Gallilee, or whatever. If they challenge the miracles of Christ they do so on what they believe can or cannot be true. The New Testament still stands.

You have made it clear what you think, and I have discussed my position. I don't accept the basis of your arguments, and you don't accept mine. You are not able to change my mind, nor I yours.

Further conversation is pointless. I wish you well.

God bless you.