What Jesus Said About Who He Is

[Guest]

What I believe is that the truth will make itself known, whether I believe in it are not. Once the truth is revealed everyone will have to accept it for what it is. That is what I have faith in.

In the mean time I will try to honestly examine my ignorance and work to increase my knowledge/understanding by whatever manner makes itself available to me.

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

Eat

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms119:11

Trust

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. John 6:37

Jesus

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

Faith is always based in knowledge from a biblical use of the term. God does not ask us believe in Him from a standpoint of ignorance. He does not ask for blind faith. He always provides evidence. Biblical faith is never blind and never operates from a standpoing of ignorance.

Knowledge of what? Personal experience? I'm all for personal experience. What is the source of your knowledge?

The knowledge gained from Scripture, AND God's own faithfulness to me in my own life. You have to remember, this is a relationship and we know God through both His own self-disclosure in the Scriptures and His working in our lives.

Quote

Knowledge does not replace faith. Proof replaces faith. We have faith in the promises relating to the 2nd coming of Chrsit. It is rooted in our knowledge of His resurrection and ascension.

Proof, something you experience from yourself. Proof provides knowledge doesn't it?

Proof is the antithesis of faith. If someone promised you that they would swing by the bank and deposit $100,000 into your account, and you knew they had the financial ability to do it and they were a honest person who was known for keeping their word, you would have a basis for faith in their promise. Once the $100,000 is posted to your account and available for you to spend, the proof would be there, and faith would no longer be needed.

God has made us promises and He is has the ability to make good on those promises. He has always shown Himself faithful to those who have trusted Him, so we have a basis for faith. We have a reason trust that those promises and we live with hopeful expectation for those promises to be fulfilled just as He said.

Quote

Neither of those words will do. "Conviction" refers to one's opinion. Veneration refers to worship, not faith. So no, faith is faith. Faith is the assurance of what we hope for.

Checking the Thayer’s lexicon "pistis" means “conviction of the truth of anything.” Besides aren't you referring to your opinion here? Why would you have faith in something you have no opinion ion?

Faith is more than an opinion. What I mean is that faith in action is far greater than a mere conviction. You could refer to it as a "conviction" in a purely secular sense. But the word is used in Scripture to communicate far, far more than "conviction.' It is a confident assurance and it is by nature evidentiary. In a secular sense, I could say, "it is my 'conviction' that chocolate is better than vanilla," or "it is my 'conviction' that Democrats are better than Republicans," but that is not how the Bible uses the word. You have to remember too, that you are using a lexicon which on its own is not a very good exegetical tool. Word usage in a particular context is far more effective at getting to what a text means and what the author intended than just looking things up in a lexicon or dictionary.

Quote

The problem is that we are not simply trusting in their claims, but the historical evidence that supports their claims. If they should not be trusted, the onus is on the skeptic to demonstrate evidentiarily that the apostles have a lack of credibility that demands their claims be treated as suspect.

So do you usually trust the claims of people you don't know? I'm not saying you should distrust them but why trust the claims of someone you've never met?

Because the claims of the apostles are accompanied by ample historical evidence and there are plenty of intellectually satisfying reasons to believe their claims.

I mean I have no reason to trust you or you I, true? Just I don't really know you. You maybe a great person maybe on something unimportant I'll give you some benefit of the doubt. However if you make some claim about truth, I'm going to check it out, no offense. I'd expect you to do the same.

Everything I have said is open to investigation. You don't have to trust me.

Quote

Faith is the substance (the basis or foundation) of what we hope for. The objects of our faith are related to the blessings of our own resurrection and future with God in eternity. It is the confident assurance of what we cannot see. We have confident assurance in the promises of God and that confidence is rooted in the demonstration of God's faithfulnes to those who trusted him as is seen in the remainder of the chapter.

Confident because of proof or because of what someone else claims? If you got proof, you got proof. I just see don't a need for faith for something you have proof of.

See, the thing is, I didn't say anything about proof. I am not as free and loose with the word "proof" as other people are. When you claim to be able to prove something or claim to have "proof" you set up a high level of expectation in others. So I simply argue for the standard I can claim to possess. I claim to have evidence and thus just cause to have faith. God has never given us proof of Himself. But He has given us ample evidence for faith. I would also point out that even having proof is no indication that someone will accept what I say. No proof would ever be enough for the person who is unwilling to be convinced in the first place. I said we have a confident assurance based on God's past demonstration of faithfulness.

Or they believe they were telling the truth. Memory is not that reliable. I am often very certain one thing or another happen a certain way only to find later it didn't. People can be talked into seeing something they didn't and convince they didn't see something they did. Why should these Apostles be any different?

That is completely absurd, and I think you know it. To say that I could spend 40 days with someone but then 10 days later, be completely mistaken about it, simply pushes the limits of credulity. To say your argument is weak, doesn't really cover it. The problem is that Gospel accounts don't leave you with the option to believe they were mistaken. Beisdes to say that they were ALL mistaken about the same thing also doesn't pan out. There is no intelligent approach to claiming that all 11 men were conned to thinking they had an experience they never really had. That is nonsense.

People die for what they believe is true all the time. It doesn't make it true, it only means they believe in the truth of it. That's what conviction does.

but they were not dying for what they believed in. They were dying for what they said they experienced. They were claiming to be witnesses to Jesus having been alve from the dead. They did claim to believe anything. Sorry, but your argument misses the mark.

[Nakosis]

The knowledge gained from Scripture, AND God's own faithfulness to me in my own life. You have to remember, this is a relationship and we know God through both His own self-disclosure in the Scriptures and His working in our lives.

So, God working in your life would result in.... personal experience?

Proof is the antithesis of faith. If someone promised you that they would swing by the bank and deposit $100,000 into your account, and you knew they had the financial ability to do it and they were a honest person who was known for keeping their word, you would have a basis for faith in their promise. Once the $100,000 is posted to your account and available for you to spend, the proof would be there, and faith would no longer be needed.

God has made us promises and He is has the ability to make good on those promises. He has always shown Himself faithful to those who have trusted Him, so we have a basis for faith. We have a reason trust that those promises and we live with hopeful expectation for those promises to be fulfilled just as He said.

Proof is not my word. I used it at the preference of another poster.

However, yes God showing himself to be faithful would be.... personal experience?

Faith is more than an opinion. What I mean is that faith in action is far greater than a mere conviction. You could refer to it as a "conviction" in a purely secular sense. But the word is used in Scripture to communicate far, far more than "conviction.' It is a confident assurance and it is by nature evidentiary. In a secular sense, I could say, "it is my 'conviction' that chocolate is better than vanilla," or "it is my 'conviction' that Democrats are better than Republicans," but that is not how the Bible uses the word. You have to remember too, that you are using a lexicon which on its own is not a very good exegetical tool. Word usage in a particular context is far more effective at getting to what a text means and what the author intended than just looking things up in a lexicon or dictionary.

So we shouldn't rely on the experts? We should rely on what you take it to mean... because?

Because the claims of the apostles are accompanied by ample historical evidence and there are plenty of intellectually satisfying reasons to believe their claims.

Such as, and what do you think this evidence satisfies, intellectually?

Everything I have said is open to investigation. You don't have to trust me.

Indeed that is true, my questioning of these claims shouldn't be a problem. Either they can be validated or not. So there is no reason to trust something written if it can't be validated.

Faith is the substance (the basis or foundation) of what we hope for. The objects of our faith are related to the blessings of our own resurrection and future with God in eternity. It is the confident assurance of what we cannot see. We have confident assurance in the promises of God and that confidence is rooted in the demonstration of God's faithfulnes to those who trusted him as is seen in the remainder of the chapter.

Which seems to have come as a result of, in your case, personal experience.

See, the thing is, I didn't say anything about proof. I am not as free and loose with the word "proof" as other people are. When you claim to be able to prove something or claim to have "proof" you set up a high level of expectation in others. So I simply argue for the standard I can claim to possess. I claim to have evidence and thus just cause to have faith. God has never given us proof of Himself. But He has given us ample evidence for faith. I would also point out that even having proof is no indication that someone will accept what I say. No proof would ever be enough for the person who is unwilling to be convinced in the first place. I said we have a confident assurance based on God's past demonstration of faithfulness.

Again, not my word. You prefer to call it evidence. Something you've had personal experience with that support you faith/conviction/trust. If all Christians held the same meanings/used the same verbiage I'd be happy to go along. I'm not picky. However so many Christians, I sometimes get confused over who's preference is what.

That is completely absurd, and I think you know it. To say that I could spend 40 days with someone but then 10 days later, be completely mistaken about it, simply pushes the limits of credulity. To say your argument is weak, doesn't really cover it. The problem is that Gospel accounts don't leave you with the option to believe they were mistaken. Beisdes to say that they were ALL mistaken about the same thing also doesn't pan out. There is no intelligent approach to claiming that all 11 men were conned to thinking they had an experience they never really had. That is nonsense.

So you know for a fact that the gospels were written ten days later?

but they were not dying for what they believed in. They were dying for what they said they experienced. They were claiming to be witnesses to Jesus having been alve from the dead. They did claim to believe anything. Sorry, but your argument misses the mark.

So you know for a fact that they weren't killed for their belief but because they claimed to have seen Jesus come back to life?

If you have some resource, beyond someone's opinion, to support these things, I'll listen.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Nakosis

[Nakosis]

I think this is true.

However, although a faith is more convincing when influenced by experience and knowledge, it is only made possible by God's intervening grace.

Faith is a supernatural gift.

This gift is given to those who seek it. They desire to seek this gift can be spurred by personal experience and knowledge, or by learning about the experiences of others.

If a gift then one has to wait for it to be given.

Many prominent Christian apologists are former atheists who found Christ by pursuing Truth.

Then my deference to truth, really above my own or anyone else's opinion shouldn't be an issue.

I like to question things and express my ideas. Seems the best why to get feedback. Best way to examine what people believe and why.

[Nakosis]

What Jesus Said About Who He Is

Travel with Mart De Haan to the northern region of Israel. Hear from scholars and authorities in the field of New Testament studies as they consider the evidence for and against what Jesus said about Himself. Gain insights from the historical and rational perspectives that distinguish Jesus from other founders of world religions. Explore Jesus’ claim, test what He said, and decide for yourself whether or not you have reason to believe.

Click here to watch video

Dear nebula,

I'm sorry I made a mess of your thread. I was curious about what people thought of faith.

To make amends, I promise to watch the video. That is what the thread is about after all.

I suspect it'll be more useful to comment on the video here if I have any questions or concerns.

Otherwise I thank the other posters for indulging me.

[nChrist]

Humanity has committed a death penalty offense and is sitting on death row. It's actually millions of times worse than the death penalty because the penalty is the eternal fires of hell. There's GOOD NEWS because someone has PAID the full price for a pardon for ALL. More GOOD NEWS - the pardon is FREE and you must simply accept it as a GIFT. Why, nobody is worthy of receiving the PARDON and nobody can ever earn or deserve the PARDON. You are the CONDEMNED, waiting for the eternal fires of hell. The question is have you thought about accepting the PARDON as a GIFT?

Titus 2:11-15 KJV For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Isaiah 52:6-7 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I. 7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Romans 10:14-15 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 02 August 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

The knowledge gained from Scripture, AND God's own faithfulness to me in my own life. You have to remember, this is a relationship and we know God through both His own self-disclosure in the Scriptures and His working in our lives.

So, God working in your life would result in.... personal experience?

Yes, fo course it is. But it is personal experience rooted in the claims of Scripture, which is itself rooted in historical and geographic fact. All of the claims of Scriture are rooted in historical and geographic fact.

Quote

Proof is the antithesis of faith. If someone promised you that they would swing by the bank and deposit $100,000 into your account, and you knew they had the financial ability to do it and they were a honest person who was known for keeping their word, you would have a basis for faith in their promise. Once the $100,000 is posted to your account and available for you to spend, the proof would be there, and faith would no longer be needed.

God has made us promises and He is has the ability to make good on those promises. He has always shown Himself faithful to those who have trusted Him, so we have a basis for faith. We have a reason trust that those promises and we live with hopeful expectation for those promises to be fulfilled just as He said.

Proof is not my word. I used it at the preference of another poster.

However, yes God showing himself to be faithful would be.... personal experience?

Again, that is part of it. It has to be. But that experience is again rooted in the integrity of Scripture, which heretofore, you have not really provided any evidence that would challenge its integrity.

Quote

Faith is more than an opinion. What I mean is that faith in action is far greater than a mere conviction. You could refer to it as a "conviction" in a purely secular sense. But the word is used in Scripture to communicate far, far more than "conviction.' It is a confident assurance and it is by nature evidentiary. In a secular sense, I could say, "it is my 'conviction' that chocolate is better than vanilla," or "it is my 'conviction' that Democrats are better than Republicans," but that is not how the Bible uses the word. You have to remember too, that you are using a lexicon which on its own is not a very good exegetical tool. Word usage in a particular context is far more effective at getting to what a text means and what the author intended than just looking things up in a lexicon or dictionary.

So we shouldn't rely on the experts? We should rely on what you take it to mean... because?

I didn't say anything against the experts. Rather, the problem exists in your selective use of information gleaned from experts. You act like quoting Thayer is the final word on the issue. Lexicons can only take you so far. Language is more than just looking up a definition. Words used and applied in various ways, and competent hermeneutics is about understanding the author's intentions in a given text. Word meainings are only a very small part of that process. Faith, in the whole of Scripture, is presented as far more than mere "conviction." In any given text, you simply cannot plug in a paticular defintion. You will find in Scripture, and this is especially true with Hebrew, words play double duty and there is no one single definition that will work in every context. Even in Greek, the word for salvation carries 5 different connotations and it is up to reader to know which connotation is being employed in a given context.

And guess what? I learned all of that from "the experts."

Quote

Because the claims of the apostles are accompanied by ample historical evidence and there are plenty of intellectually satisfying reasons to believe their claims.

Such as, and what do you think this evidence satisfies, intellectually?

Evidence stemming from historical, cultural, lingquistic, geogrpahic, geneaological, and archeological sources. Those are the fields of evidence that are available to us and they cover an immense amount of information. An immense number of volumes of books, journals and articles have been written that deal with those types of evidence.

Quote

Everything I have said is open to investigation. You don't have to trust me.

Indeed that is true, my questioning of these claims shouldn't be a problem. Either they can be validated or not. So there is no reason to trust something written if it can't be validated.

And Scriptures have been validated over and over again. Evidence continues to mount in support of claims that Scripture has made. Whether you are convinced by the evidence is another matter. All I can do is present the evidence. I am not accountable before God for what you do with it. I am only responsible for sharing the truth. I am not responsible for the results. If you reject the evidence and choose to live in continued rejection of Christ, that is your choice and you will one day have to give an account to Him for that choice.

Quote

Faith is the substance (the basis or foundation) of what we hope for. The objects of our faith are related to the blessings of our own resurrection and future with God in eternity. It is the confident assurance of what we cannot see. We have confident assurance in the promises of God and that confidence is rooted in the demonstration of God's faithfulnes to those who trusted him as is seen in the remainder of the chapter.

Which seems to have come as a result of, in your case, personal experience

My person experience came as a result of me trusting the testimony of Scripture and allowing God to make Himself peronsally real to me. That is the experience of everyone. See, as I stated before, this is not merely a "belief" but it is a relationship. Until you are willing to trust God, you will have no point of reference for that. You can sit here all day and toss out your pitiful objections to it, but It doesn't really matter.

The truth can be staring you in the face and you reject it anyway. People do it all of the time. Most of the time, people reject the truth of Scripture because there is siin in their lives they don't want to surrender. Their rejection of Scritpure is an attempt to justify remaining in sin. The issue is usally not a lack of evidence at all.

Quote

That is completely absurd, and I think you know it. To say that I could spend 40 days with someone but then 10 days later, be completely mistaken about it, simply pushes the limits of credulity. To say your argument is weak, doesn't really cover it. The problem is that Gospel accounts don't leave you with the option to believe they were mistaken. Beisdes to say that they were ALL mistaken about the same thing also doesn't pan out. There is no intelligent approach to claiming that all 11 men were conned to thinking they had an experience they never really had. That is nonsense.

So you know for a fact that the gospels were written ten days later?

I didn't say the gospels were written ten days later. The apostles began preaching about Jesus wiithin 10 days of having been with him. You would have to argue that all 11 men were somehow conned into believing they all had the exact same experience. That is a stupid argument. Furthermore, the gospels cover 3 1/2 years and it would be very difficult to argue (again) that the disciples could all be conned into believing they all had the exact same 3 1/2 years worth of experiences. Honestly, it is not a very intelligent argument to make.

Quote

but they were not dying for what they believed in. They were dying for what they said they experienced. They were claiming to be witnesses to Jesus having been alve from the dead. They did claim to believe anything. Sorry, but your argument misses the mark.

So you know for a fact that they weren't killed for their belief but because they claimed to have seen Jesus come back to life?

Their martyrdom is of the public and historical record and is undisputed. Their claims are recorded in Scripture. They did not claim to "believe" Jesus was alive. Their specific recorded claims are that they were eyewitnesses that Jesus was alive and that they had spent time with Him for 40 days after His resurrection. The historical evidence is that they claimed to have been with Jesus personally, and that their enemies sought to kill them, not only in Jerusalem, but in other parts of the world. All of that is part of the hsitorical record and is not merely an opinion.

[nebula]

What Jesus Said About Who He Is

Travel with Mart De Haan to the northern region of Israel. Hear from scholars and authorities in the field of New Testament studies as they consider the evidence for and against what Jesus said about Himself. Gain insights from the historical and rational perspectives that distinguish Jesus from other founders of world religions. Explore Jesus’ claim, test what He said, and decide for yourself whether or not you have reason to believe.

Click here to watch video

Dear nebula,

I'm sorry I made a mess of your thread. I was curious about what people thought of faith.

To make amends, I promise to watch the video. That is what the thread is about after all.

I suspect it'll be more useful to comment on the video here if I have any questions or concerns.

Otherwise I thank the other posters for indulging me.

Thank-you!

[Nakosis]

Yes, fo course it is. But it is personal experience rooted in the claims of Scripture, which is itself rooted in historical and geographic fact. All of the claims of Scriture are rooted in historical and geographic fact.

I find historical "fact" to contain a lot of opinion. So to me it's not as reliable as personal experience and basically it's better determine the truth of something for yourself.

Again, that is part of it. It has to be. But that experience is again rooted in the integrity of Scripture, which heretofore, you have not really provided any evidence that would challenge its integrity.

Any challenge to its integrity would be what you find for yourself to be true. What would you rely on more, something you experience for yourself or something you've read about?

I didn't say anything against the experts. Rather, the problem exists in your selective use of information gleaned from experts. You act like quoting Thayer is the final word on the issue. Lexicons can only take you so far. Language is more than just looking up a definition. Words used and applied in various ways, and competent hermeneutics is about understanding the author's intentions in a given text. Word meainings are only a very small part of that process. Faith, in the whole of Scripture, is presented as far more than mere "conviction." In any given text, you simply cannot plug in a paticular defintion. You will find in Scripture, and this is especially true with Hebrew, words play double duty and there is no one single definition that will work in every context. Even in Greek, the word for salvation carries 5 different connotations and it is up to reader to know which connotation is being employed in a given context.

And guess what? I learned all of that from "the experts."

Ok, fair enough. However this leaves you pick the meaning that is appropriate for you while someone else can pick a different meaning, appropriate for them. It kind of fits with my observations. You use of the word faith is not universal among all people or even all Christians. However you say this is what the word means to you in the context that you use it, I'll accept that.

Evidence stemming from historical, cultural, lingquistic, geogrpahic, geneaological, and archeological sources. Those are the fields of evidence that are available to us and they cover an immense amount of information. An immense number of volumes of books, journals and articles have been written that deal with those types of evidence.

Again historical references are filled with opinion and bias. You still pick who you choose to listen to for your own reasons and there's no guarantees you choose correctly. History is a crap-shoot where you have to hope your resources are reliable. For me that is why I prefer what I know and what I've experienced for myself. One really has no idea how much historical documents have been altered, purposely or not from the original intent of the author. Also as you point out words are used and applied in different ways. There's no guarantees the mental context of any author is appropriately understood. We fit the words to our own context. Our context is always going to be biased towards our own experiences and what we were taught.

And Scriptures have been validated over and over again. Evidence continues to mount in support of claims that Scripture has made. Whether you are convinced by the evidence is another matter. All I can do is present the evidence. I am not accountable before God for what you do with it. I am only responsible for sharing the truth. I am not responsible for the results. If you reject the evidence and choose to live in continued rejection of Christ, that is your choice and you will one day have to give an account to Him for that choice.

What of you? If you are found to have relied on wrong information. A wrong interpretation. Wrong teachings from a particular church. Would you not also be accountable? I am perfectly fine with being accountable for me. I did the best I could to determine what was true. If that is not good enough then so be it. However why should I listen to your claims or anyone else's that don't match with my experience and what I've found out for myself?

My person experience came as a result of me trusting the testimony of Scripture and allowing God to make Himself peronsally real to me. That is the experience of everyone. See, as I stated before, this is not merely a "belief" but it is a relationship. Until you are willing to trust God, you will have no point of reference for that. You can sit here all day and toss out your pitiful objections to it, but It doesn't really matter.

Yes faith his a starting point. A small amount of faith is necessary in any teacher. However at some point that faith has to be validated. My objection is to faith that never gets validated. With history there is only so much that can be validated. One has to take care with what they place their faith in. Too many people these days are way too trusting. They hear what they want to and too easily accept the truth of it.

The truth can be staring you in the face and you reject it anyway. People do it all of the time. Most of the time, people reject the truth of Scripture because there is siin in their lives they don't want to surrender. Their rejection of Scritpure is an attempt to justify remaining in sin. The issue is usally not a lack of evidence at all.

Sure it goes both ways. Sometimes people reject the truth regardless of any validation because it's something they don't want to hear. That is why I think it best to take the validation of truth into one's own hands, as much as possible.

I didn't say the gospels were written ten days later. The apostles began preaching about Jesus wiithin 10 days of having been with him. You would have to argue that all 11 men were somehow conned into believing they all had the exact same experience. That is a stupid argument. Furthermore, the gospels cover 3 1/2 years and it would be very difficult to argue (again) that the disciples could all be conned into believing they all had the exact same 3 1/2 years worth of experiences. Honestly, it is not a very intelligent argument to make.

It's not the argument I'm making. We have to rely on what was written since the person is not here to speak for themselves. We have to rely on the accuracy of translation. We have to rely that none of the test was altered since we have no original copies. We have to rely on our understanding of the context intended by the author. The human factor is involved in all of this. Humans are not always reliable. So my "advice" is what you do choose to have faith in, you do so with a grain of salt until you've done everything possible to validate to truth for yourself.

Their martyrdom is of the public and historical record and is undisputed. Their claims are recorded in Scripture. They did not claim to "believe" Jesus was alive. Their specific recorded claims are that they were eyewitnesses that Jesus was alive and that they had spent time with Him for 40 days after His resurrection. The historical evidence is that they claimed to have been with Jesus personally, and that their enemies sought to kill them, not only in Jerusalem, but in other parts of the world. All of that is part of the hsitorical record and is not merely an opinion.

Sorry, it doesn't match with what I've read and doesn't really even make sense. Why would they be a threat because they claimed to know Jesus or even claimed to have see someone come back to life. Seems little justification to go around killing people. More likely they were killed because they believe Jesus was the Son of God and they believe his teachings had the authority of God.

I don't care if you are right are wrong, however you should, for your own knowledge, verify your claims. I don't think you are going to be able to do that here.

[nChrist]

Some have confirmed that they don't care about the truth, so why are they involved in this discussion? This is fairly typical for the militant types among the lost. They aren't seeking the truth - they have another agenda. So, this Scripture comes to mind:

Matthew 7:6 KJV Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.