Re: Are the New Testament miracles plausible?

On May 9, 8:08=A0am, Rod <icom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>...
> =A0 =A0Then you will be amazed to know that he in fact did exist. The
talm=
ud
> speaks of him, as do many other early authors. I don't see a problem
> with his existence, only the claims of who people say that he is...

I take slight exception -  the apparent absence of reference to him
apart
from the NT has been one of the reasons why many 19th century critics
claimed that he never existed at all.

In the end, however, I believe modern scholar****p is sufficiently
convincing
to show Jesus existed historically.  Specifically, please see my
previous
post for a wide-ranging discussion of the Jewish historian Josephus.

>...
> =A0 =A0I can understand the feeling of being relieved, but what silly
rule=
s
> are you specifically referring to ? Christianity has some very good
> ideas, albeit none of them are original...
>...

I am coming from a different place than Yowie - I don't feel that
the rules per se of my church are silly.  Instead, it's their
attitudes
I find are confining.  For example, during testimony time during
Wor****p Service I once quoted a quatrain from the Bhagavad Gita
because its description of divinity spoke to my condition.
Subsequently,
I was called to the pastor's office and told I was doing the work of
the devil.

Then again, only today, I was in Bible Study with 3 other men.
We covered John 13 - Last Supper.  The leader interpreted John
13:31-34
as proof of Jesus's divinity.  I myself am much less inclined to put
theology into the text.

For me the bottom line is the practical admonition from Jesus's
wa****ng of the disciples' feet to practise servanthood with others in
a Christian way.

d.c.