Was at least the first life form created?

[rjh4 is back]

I am not going to call you an idiot, just because you have come to a different conclusion than I have.

Thank you. I appreciate that and all your other comments.

I find it quite hard to believe that the bible would make an entry on such a big deal and no other person from that time would have written that same thing down in another source like "Get this, there was this guy that got crucified by the Romans, and a couple of days later I see him walking down the street. Its amazing! He was dead for 3 days and he just got out of that cave and walked around the city. Best trick evah!"

My question to you would be how many sources do you need? The Bible contains several eye witness accounts. Considering the times in which Christianity began do you think it is reasonable that you would get a Roman or a Jewish (I'm talking about the "official" Jewish religious leaders of the time) version of the events? The Jews wanted to keep the peace with Rome and wanted to keep control over the Jewish citizens. Why would they really write about something that would lend credibility to the new believers? And what motivation would the Romans have for writing about the resurrection? The Roman leaders wanted to be the only king and be worshiped as a god. If a Roman citizen wrote about the resurrection, would they not be risking their life? So there was a great incentive not to write about it. Also, there was a great incentive at the time not to believe. Yet so many did anyway because of the eye witness accounts of the events. Even at the time of Paul writing I Corinthians (see chapter 15:1-8) he says that the risen Jesus appeared to more than 500 at one time, the majority of which were still alive at that time. I submit to you that the only reason why Christianity grew was because of the witness evidence and the lack of a body. To me, all this witness evidence convinces me that it was a real historical event because there was such a great incentive for the people not to witness of this event if it were not true. Paul was stoned several time for his belief in the resurrection. So Paul was willing to subject himself to such treatment knowing that it was all a lie? Doesn't seem reasonable to me. Remember, Paul originally persecuted Christians and then had the risen Jesus reveal Himself to Paul. Paul's outlook changed radically and he was willing to subject himself to horrible treatment because of his witness. To me, that is a credible witness...one that can be believed.

---

Without even getting into the specific contradictions of the Bible, the fact that apologists have to work so hard to write a book and clear up apparent contradictions seems to only testify to it's lack of cohesiveness.

I disagree (big shock there, huh? ) I think it is more a result of the fact that we are dealing with ancient documents and it is sometimes difficult to determine what was meant by what was said if you do not know the times and culture of those to whom the documents were written or do not look for what was meant within that culture. Furthermore, clearly there are people who want to discredit Chrisianity and will, therefore, do things such as point out apparent inconsistencies when, in fact, there are reasonable explanations. (I am not meaning you here, so please do not take that last sentence personally.) (Please also do not take this as me saying that Christians always do that which is honest and true and are better than those who discredit Christianity. I do not think that.) I am merely suggesting that there are other explanations for the volumes written for and against apparent inconsistencies in the Bible than concluding that this is evidence that the Bible is incohesive.