>The Illiad and Oddesy are pretty darned reliable, for example,
>predate the NT by 600 years, and we don't believe what they talk about, as
>we have no evidence for a Cyplose.
Actually the Illiad is the second most reliably preserved document
from antiquity. The NT is first. The comparison between the two can be
found in the early chapters of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". Compared
to the NT the Illiad's preservation is frankly pathetic.
>Why am I starting to think we agree?
Because we do. I'm just being my usual nitpicky self.
>>>We can't prove Christianity, if we could, then it would be a
>>>philosophy and not a journey.
Not at all.
>> What exactly do you mean "we can't _prove_ Christianity"?
>> Depending on your standard of proof I may or may not agree.
>If we could all agree on a set first principles in the first place,
>it might be possible, but one must start with postulates somewhere. Why
>should I pick the Christian postulates over the conucopia available?
What I meant by "standard of proof" was, e.g.- scientific proof;
legal-historical proof; modern historical investigatory proof....
What type of proof would you want to consider?
Mike Jaqua
Kalamazoo, MI
pmjaqua@pwinet.upj.com
*********************************
ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT !!!!!!
*********************************