The backbreaker

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Props for that. Orthodoxy is on my shelf awaiting its turn. Mere Christianity is a good read as is Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed. You will do well in your discussions with Christians if you have books like those under your belt.

Read that in college. C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is among the worst of the books of apologetics I've read. Also, his descriptions of his alleged prior atheism/agnosticism are so bad that it makes me question whether he made it up in order to sell more books to a credulous crowd. It'd be a bit like you reading a guy claiming to be a Christian who said he did it so he could gain glory and power on earth. It just doesn't fit with the actual thinking of a person who is "a seeker after Christ", as you say, and would bring his entire set of claims into question.

I have not read Theology and Sanity, but if I ever get the hankering to delve into such stuff again, I'll pick it up first. I have a library containing everything from Colson to Chesterton to Johnson to Dobson to Strobel... and more. You really should read Chesterton ASAP. He's not only Catholic, but he's a guy who converted from the Anglican church to Catholicism. He's also one of the more thoughtful and respectful of the opposition, among apologists. I have much respect for Chesterton.

Your comment about James is on the mark and important. Some in this forum are fond of saying that none of the NT epistle writers seem to have known much if anything about Jesus' teachings, but James clearly does as you point out. Paul has quite a bit of biographical data about Jesus scattered about in his letters.

There is no question that Paul was in contact with first-generation Christians, and that he absorbed their stories. That, however, does not mean that they (or he) were not a part of a myth-constructing group, akin to the way the Mormon religion was founded and expanded upon in the wake of Joseph Smith's death. As fast as the Mormons seem to be growing, despite the better records we have of the life of Smith, I wouldn't be shocked if in 200 years or so they attain power in the American Empire and expunge most of the mentions of previous/competing faiths, leading to arguments with atheists in the year 4016 about why the angel did not reveal the scriptures to Smith via magic stones.

I'm not blaming you for not understanding...but can I fault you for trying and failing to get right what we can know?  

Seriously, if Jesus praying for the cup to pass him by is a sticking point for you, then do some homework. It doesn't bother those who have delved into it.

No, I've read them. I simply find their answers to be laughable justifications for what is patently obvious to anyone not in the cult. That's why I call it that.

And I was right. But you're no spring chicken yourself!

Yeah, I turn 40 in June. Not looking forward to that. However, what I meant was, "And...so what?"