Posted on 03/26/2002 4:00:55 AM PST by xzins
Do others out there have additional help for the basic post above?
He Is Risen!
xzins
"C. S. Lewis, former Professor of Renaissance Literature at Cambridge and Oxford and a modern myth writer himself stated:
"First, then, whatever these men may be as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading... If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spent on that Gospel... I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this."
(Lewis, Christian Reflections [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967], pp. 154-155)
Cordially,
By the first "every" thus this idiot damns his own argument. We needn't even get into dissecting the words "independent," "reason," "experience," "integrity," and "nature." Not to mention what he means by "faith" and "science."
I suppose I'll try to plow through the rest, but if it has the same quality as this one small, rancid paragraph, I may not make it.
Faith in Jesus is imbecilic if the facts aren't true.
These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life.
Completely untrue. True, these are the canonical Gospels, which are the ones that are said to most accurately tell the story of His life.
However, there are also a host non-canonical gospels, many of which have roots that go back to the times, plus whatever difficulties that caused them to be rejected from the Canon of Scripture in the 300s. For this argument, their importance lies in acknowledgement that Jesus lived.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought.
Yet if one looks at 1 Peter, one can see as much of John in it as one can of Mark, not to mention strong evidence that the fundamental principles of Christian theology and liturgy were already well-established. Whether the author of this letter is Peter or somebody else (concensus leans toward it being a genuine letter of Peter), it was certainly written no later than the AD80s, and probably no later than AD65. The point being, arguments about the adequacy of the Gospels is almost secondary: the evidence of the Epistles shows that knowledge about Jesus was widely disseminated and the basic elements of the Gospels already known. In the case of Paul's letters, we can trace this knowledge to within 20 years after His death.
Interestingly, both Mark and Luke were companions of Paul, and Mark was also a companion of Peter (who is said to have been a primary source for Mark's Gospel). IMHO it is very likely that Paul was instrumental in ensuring that the Gospels were written down.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe.
He's focusing only on written Gospels, and his arguments as to there earlier existence are both unsourced and unconvincing. Again, however, he completely ignores the Epistles, which indicate that the most important facts about Jesus were very well established by the time Paul wrote. (And Paul died in AD62.)
Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.
The man obviously knows nothing of what the Gospels say. Jesus could not have been arrested in public. As Matt. 21:46 puts it, But when they tried to arrest him, they feared the multitudes, because they held him to be a prophet. So, like so many later police actions, they needed to take him at night, and alone. They needed somebody to tell them when and where -- enter Judas. Note also that they tried him at night, which suggests again that they were unwilling to act publicly.
At best, this argument fails miserably.
First, the early Patristic writings solidify the case for the preservation of the NT text and its early composition, as well as the extensive usage of the New Testament, especially that of the four Gospels:
"Of the four gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Ireneaus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s-ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236) and 325 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca. 339...) Earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, 1 Corinthians in 95 to 97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four Gospels, Acts and most of Paul's Epistles. Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, I Corinthians, and other books. Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Papias, companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John. This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive." (Norm Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics [Baker Books, Grand Rapids; 1999], pp. 529-530)
Furthermore, we have MSS portions which push the dates of the NT books right into the the first century.
The John Ryland Papyri:
Manuscript portions of the Gospel of John, located in the John Ryland Library of Manchester, England and believed to be the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, dated AD 130, within 40 years of the original.
Lukan Papyrus:
"The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!"
Magdelene Manuscript:
"The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analyzed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these pap yrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy, which was written while Matthew and the other disciples, and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!"
"What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognized centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism leveled against the gospel accounts (such as the 'Jesus Seminar') that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD)."
(NOTE- The preceding citations can be found at the following web site.
Other, more extensive, copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri, containing major portions of the New Testament and dated early 3rd century, the Bodmer Papyrus, dated late 2nd century, the Codex Sinaiticus, dated AD 350, and the Codex Vaticanus, dated AD 325 - AD 350. Some of the codices contain the entire New Testament. It can be seen that, as far as the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and the earliest extant manuscripts, there is no work from the ancient world which can compare to the New Testament. As Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Curator of the British Museum, says
"The net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text." (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Modern Scholarship [London: John Murray, 1948], 20, as cited in McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 49)
Add to this list the possible discovery of several NT quotations found in Qumran:
"Jose O'Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world on March 18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran... as a piece of the Gospel of Mark. The piece was from Cave 7. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50, hardly within the time frame established for New Testament writings. Using accepted methods of papyrology and paleography, O'Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one Gospel, Acts, and a few Epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early...
Mark 4:28 7Q6 A.D. 50
Mark 6:48 7Q15 A.D?
Mark 6:52, 53 7Q5 A.D. 50
Mark 12:17 7Q7 A.D. 50
Acts 27:38 7Q6 A.D. 60+
Rom. 5:11, 12 7Q9 A.D 70+
1 Tim. 3:16; 4:1-3 7Q4 A.D. 70+
2 Peter 1:15 7Q10 A.D. 70+
James 1:23, 24 7Q8 A.D. 70+
"... Both friends and critics acknowledge that, if valid, O'Callahan's conclusions will revolutionize New Testament theories. If even some of these fragments are from New Testament, the implications for Christian apologetics are enormous. Mark and Acts must have been written within the lifetimes of the apostles and contemporaries of the events. There would be no time for mythological embellishment of the records... They must be accepted as historical... There would hardly be time for a predecessor series of Q manuscripts... And since these manuscripts are not originals but copies, parts of the New Testament would be shown to have been copied and disseminated during the lives of the writers. No first-century date allows time for myths or legends to creep into the stories about Jesus." (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 530)
...Hence, if further research confirms O'Callahan's theories this would establish beyond any reasonable doubt the reliability of the New Testament. Even without these discoveries, the evidence from the Patristic writings and MSS overwhelmingly supports the authenticity and reliability of the biblical text.
Archaeology has also solidified the case for the eyewitness nature and accuracy of the Holy Bible. It should be first mentioned that most attacks on the Bible stem from arguments from silence, i.e. the fact that no independent archaeological research has been discovered in support of certain recorded biblical events. Yet, such arguments only prove that as of yet archaeology has failed to furnish evidence in regards to an event related in the Bible.
This is far different from archaeology providing evidence to show that certain events did not occur in the same manner in which the Bible says it did. In fact, not one archaeological discovery has ever proven the Bible wrong; discovery after discovery has demonstrated the amazing historical accuracy of scripture. The following quotations from the world's leading archaeologists affirms this fact:
"Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history." (John Elder, Prophets Idols and Diggers [New York; Bobs Merrill, 1960], p. 16)
"Near Eastern archeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archaeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere." (E. M. Blalklock, editor's preface, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Regency Reference Library/ Zondervan, 1983], pp. vii-viii)
Nelson Glueck, world-renowned Jewish archeologist, concurs:
..."As a matter of fact, however, it maybe clearly stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." (Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask; A Handbook on Christian Evidences [Wheaton, IL; Victor, 1990], p. 179)
Internal Evidence for Early Dating
The following info is taken from my article, The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection, and highlights the evidence that points to the early composition of the NT books:
Mark
Mark mentions the high priest without naming him. (cf. Mark 14:60-63) According to the other writers, the high priest at the time of Jesus' public ministry was Caiaphas. (cf. Matthew 26:57) Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18-37. This presumes that Mark's audience would have automatically known to which high priest he was alluding to, affirming that the tradition underlying this gospel is very early possibly no later than A.D. 40.
Luke
The consensus of NT scholarship agrees that Luke-Acts was authored by the same person. A great portion of the book of Acts centers on Jerusalem, the Temple, Paul's conversion and his missionary activities. The author also mentions the deaths of Stephen (Acts 7:51-8:1) and James, the brother of John (Acts 12:2).
Interestingly, the author does not mention the deaths of James the brother of the Lord (A.D. 62), Peter (A.D. 65-68), and Paul (A.D. 67-68). He also does not mention the burning of Rome and the persecution of Christians there (A.D. 64) or the destruction of the Temple (A.D. 70) but ends at Paul's imprisonment at Rome (A.D. 63).
It seems rather strange that the author would choose to omit such information had he in fact been writing after these events had already taken place. This seems to strongly support the fact that the book must have been written no later than A.D. 63. In fact, the apostle Paul actually quotes from the Gospel of Luke:
"For the SCRIPTURE says, 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages.'" 1 Timothy 5:18
Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. The second quote is from Luke 10:7:
"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for THE WORKER DESERVES HIS WAGES. Do not move around from house to house."
Paul quotes Luke and places it on the same level of authority as that of Moses' writings! The consensus of scholars agree that Luke was the last of the synoptic gospels to be written, implying that all three were in circulation at the time of Paul's writing, which some scholars date at approximately 61-65 AD. This argues the fact that Luke must have been written between 55-60 A.D. with Acts following shortly.
John
The Gospel of John provides several lines of evidence supporting its early dating. The first is John 5:2
"Now there IS in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades."
John doesn't say that there "was" a pool, but that there still "is." This suggests that John's Gospel was written before the destruction of the Temple, and hence the destruction of the pool itself.
John also records an incident, which seemingly has no historical value other than a recollection, which only an eyewitness would know:
"So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed." John 20:3-8
How would the author have known these pieces of incidental information had he not been an eyewitness or at least have been recording the testimony of an eyewitness?
The NIV Study Bible furnishes additional evidence for the early dating of the Gospel of John:
"The author is the apostle John...'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20, 24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel- which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. The author knew Jewish life well, as seen from references to popular Messianic speculations (e.g., 1:20-21; 7:40-42), to the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9), and to Jewish customs, such as the duty of circumcision on the eighth day taking precedence over the prohibition of working on the Sabbath... He knew the geography of Palestine, locating Bethany about 15 stadia (about two miles) from Jerusalem (11:18) and Cana, a village not referred to in any earlier writing known to us (2:1; 21:2). The gospel of John has many touches that were obviously based on the recollections of an eyewitness- such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (12:3). Early writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian say that John wrote this Gospel, and all the evidence agrees..."
The Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie continues to say in relation to the evidence furnished by the Dead Sea Scrolls and its effect on the dating of John:
The question is now affected by the relations of Jn with Qumran* documents; these have more affinities with Jn than any other NT book, and this seriously questions the authorship of Jn. Many critics have questioned the authorship of Jn because they thought the Gospel was the product of Hellenistic thought rather than Jewish thought; specifically, elements of Hellenistic-Oriental mysticism or mystery* religion, or Syrian or Iranian Gnosticism were proposed. Even before the discovery of the Qumran documents many studies had shown that the roots of the thought of Jn are satisfactorily shown in the OT; cf separate articles on theological topics. The affinities of Jn with Qumran go far to exclude anything but a Palestinian origin of the Gospel. If this be accepted, the question of the date becomes urgent once more.
If Jn is the most Jewish rather than the least Jewish of the Gospels, it becomes doubtful that it is the latest. If it is to be dated at the latest before 70. It is probably earlier than both Lk and Gk Mt, and possibly early as Mk..." (McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible [Touchstone Book; New York, NY 1995], p. 449) (see this article for more information).
Author Paul Barnett claims in relation to John's knowledge of the buildings and landscapes of ancient Palestine that, "the archaeological evidence is that the author had minute local knowledge which, however, he discloses in quite inconspicuous ways." (Barnett, Is The New Testament History? [Ann Arbor, MI; Servant 1986], p. 64)
Noted NT Scholar F. F. Bruce continues:
"The evangelist [John] was evidently a Palestinian. Although he may have been far from his native land when he wrote his Gospel, his accurate knowledge of places and distances in Palestine, a knowledge which appears spontaneously and naturally, strongly suggests one who was born and brought up in that land, not one whose knowledge of the country was derived from pilgrim-visits. He knows Jerusalem well; he fixes the location of certain places in the city with the accuracy of one who must have been acquainted with it before its destruction in AD 70.
"The author was also a Jew; he is thoroughly conversant with Jewish customs; he refers to their purification rites (ii. 6) and their manner of burial (xix. 40). Of their feasts, he mentions the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Feast of Dedication, held in winter, together with the unnamed feast of v. 1 which was probably the Feast of the New Year. He shows himself intimately acquainted with the Old Testament passages which the Palestinian Jewish lectionary prescribed for reading in the synagogue at the festivals and other periods of the year.1 He knows the Jewish law of evidence (viii. 17). He is familiar with the superior attitude of those who had received a rabbinical training towards those who had not enjoyed this advantage- 'These people who do not know the law are accursed' (vii.49)-an attitude expressed even by the liberal Rabbi Hillel: 'No ignorant person is pious.'2...
"John's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, beliefs, and methods of arguments led a great rabbinical scholar, the late Israel Abrahams, to say: 'My own general impression, without asserting an early date for the Fourth Gospel, is that the Gospel enshrines a genuine tradition of an aspect of Jesus' teaching which has not found a place n the Synoptics.'3 Abrahams also emphasized 'the cumulative strength of the arguments adduced by Jewish writers favourable to the authenticity of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, especially in relation to the circumstances under which they are reported to have been spoken.4"
"The internal evidence supports the claim that the author not only witnessed but understood the great events he records. The external evidence for the Gospel is as strong as for the Synoptics..." (Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove Ill 60515; Fifth ed. rpt. 1992], pp. 49-50)
All these preceding factors sufficiently debunk the belief that the Gospels were simply different strands of traditions laced together at a later period. Seeing that the Gospels were already in circulation during the first generation of eyewitnesses, it would have been highly improbable if not impossible for individuals to simply concoct traditions about Jesus and the Apostles that had no basis in fact and get away with it.
F. F. Bruce states:
"At any rate, the time elapsing between the evangelic events and the writing of most of the New Testament books was, from the standpoint of historical research, satisfactorily short." (Bruce, p. 14)
He continued to say:
"The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels are not later than c. AD 60; some of them have even been traced back to notes taken out of our Lord's teaching while His words were actually being uttered. The oral sources go back to the very beginning of Christian history. We are, in fact, practically all the way through in touch with evidence of eyewitnesses. The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of this first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. 'We are witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. Indeed, the evidence is that the early Christians were careful to distinguish between sayings of Jesus and their own inferences and judgments. Paul, for example, when discussing the vexed question of marriage and divorce in I Corinthians vii, is careful to make a distinction between his own advice on the subject and the Lord's decisive ruling: 'I, not the Lord,' and again, 'Not I, but the Lord.'" (Bruce, pp. 45-46)"
What a thunderously stupid argument. The symbolism of Jesus as the Lamb of God is apparently lost on the man. This discussion of early Christian symbolism is completely without merit.
Is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind?
Yes it is indeed amazing -- and yet humanity has shown itself remarkably willing to act in precisely the manner that he claims is so unlikely. Just the 20th century is filled with examples of good people being murdered because they threatened the power of some ruthless group. This argument is destroyed by the weight of human history.
From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that we certainly know to be false.
James Burnham had a "law:" Who says A must say B. In this case, A is that miracles are impossible. To say this requires us to say B: that there is no God. The eminently scientific and practical Mr. Gauvin merely assumes this without proof. Not that he could prove it, mind you -- he simply expects us to accept without question the Gauvin version of "nature" and "reality."
Given that up to this point just about everything Gauvin has said is at best inconclusive, and more likely to be demonstrably false, his charge that there is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, is more than a little ironic.
Ditto. Well said.
I might add that I had to wonder how Mr. Gauvin, presumably a materialist, could speak of, " contradictions, ...the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous, or, of "a kind and loving man who went about doing good", when materialism provides no coherent basis for either rationality or morality. What could possibly be 'monstrous' about mere physical and chemical reactions?
Cordially,
Well, he certainly knows better now!
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. - I Corinthians 15:1-8
If one of Paul's contemporaries wanted to challenge him, they could easily disprove his statement that there was a large number of living eyewitnesses. One of the best validations of the historicity of the life, death and resurrection of Christ is the impact these events had on the lives of those who witnessed them. They went to their deaths rather than renounce the Truth they had witnessed.
"Were it not for the existence of sin in the world, says Calvin, human beings would believe in God to the same degree and with the same natural spontaneity displayed in our belief in the existence of other persons, or an external world, or the past. This is the natural human condition; it is because of our presently unnatural sinful condition that many of us find belief in God difficult or absurd. The fact is, Calvin thinks, one who does not believe in God is in an epistemically defective position-rather like someone who does not believe that his wife exists, or thinks that she is a... cleverly constructed robot--that has no thoughts, feelings, or consciousness"...
Evolution only mophing animals-matter-science/laws--reality atheist--brain-soul dead zombies are pathetic!
Be right back/more--better!
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.