robtex
Veteran Member
If I could make an arguement for some of the religions here:
If I were catholic I would say in response to my articulation of Corth's 1 15 vs that the catholic church has never claimed that the bible is witout error or is the inerrant word of God. By contrast the canon is the continuing education on man's relationship with God and my standard of validity ( Biblical historical accuracy) is not the Catholic standard of validity.
If I were LDS I would say the same thing about Acts chapter 9. j Smith had a vision in the forest which has become the cornerstone of the LDS faith. This vision deemed as valid by the LDS is no different in proposition than Paul seeing Jesus in a vision in Acts 1 chps 1-10. Again the issue of what is valid is in question.
For the pleothra of debators who are trying ot distinguish between the historical JC and the biblical Jesus if the biblical Jesus is the son of God and the historical is anything other than the son of God I would ask who cares if the historical Jesus exists? If the definition of the "historical Jesus (which buy the way is a loaded way of presented the term), is the son of God than you are asserting that the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus are one and the same.
If I were catholic I would say in response to my articulation of Corth's 1 15 vs that the catholic church has never claimed that the bible is witout error or is the inerrant word of God. By contrast the canon is the continuing education on man's relationship with God and my standard of validity ( Biblical historical accuracy) is not the Catholic standard of validity.
If I were LDS I would say the same thing about Acts chapter 9. j Smith had a vision in the forest which has become the cornerstone of the LDS faith. This vision deemed as valid by the LDS is no different in proposition than Paul seeing Jesus in a vision in Acts 1 chps 1-10. Again the issue of what is valid is in question.
For the pleothra of debators who are trying ot distinguish between the historical JC and the biblical Jesus if the biblical Jesus is the son of God and the historical is anything other than the son of God I would ask who cares if the historical Jesus exists? If the definition of the "historical Jesus (which buy the way is a loaded way of presented the term), is the son of God than you are asserting that the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus are one and the same.