James, Brother of Jesus?

[elvisman]

There is no such thing as a consecrated “virgin of the Temple” in Judaism. It corresponds to something that never existed.

The Protoevangelium of James was written in and around A.D. 150. Don’t you think that the readers back then would have known if a woman could or could not have consecrated herself to the temple? Where are the ancient texts refuting this?

One biblical example is Anna, who was 84 years old and had been at the temple upon being widowed after only 7 years of marriage? (Luke 2:36-37). Verse 37 says, "She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer".

---

**Mary had no other children before or after she gave birth to Jesus. We have the weight and testimony of the Early Church Fathers on that matter. The great believers of early Christendom like Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Leporius, Cyril of Alexandria and even Origen who later went into heresy.

---

All Protestants have (those who don’t believe in her perpetual virginity) is pride and arrogance. It doesn’t fit your idea of what her purpose was and it insults your “intelligence” to think that you might be wrong.

Spiritual pride is the real tradegy of Protestantism and is what has led so many away from the truth.

 

[elvisman]

I think you are right about this.

Michael

Don’t think or assume that something is right - PROVE IT.

 

[BrianH]

The Protoevangelium of James was written in and around A.D. 150. Don’t you think that the readers back then would have known if a woman could or could not have consecrated herself to the temple? Where are the ancient texts refuting this?

One biblical example is Anna, who was 84 years old and had been at the temple upon being widowed after only 7 years of marriage? (Luke 2:36-37). Verse 37 says, "She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer".

---

Mary had no other children before or after she gave birth to Jesus. We have the weight and testimony of the Early Church Fathers on that matter. The great believers of early Christendom like Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Didymus the Blind, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine, Leporius, Cyril of Alexandria and even Origen who later went into heresy.

---

All Protestants have (those who don’t believe in her perpetual virginity) is pride and arrogance. It doesn’t fit your idea of what her purpose was and it insults your “intelligence” to think that you might be wrong.

Spiritual pride is the real tradegy of Protestantism and is what has led so many away from the truth.

The Temple had been destroyed for 80 years.
The writer was not a Jew.
They were conflating common pagan practices with Judaism.
You want me to prove something did not happen?
Prove a negative?
Sure, I guess I can find some things.
As far as Ana…I will resist the most obvious joke

 

[Tanner9188]

I was actually trying to add to my post but my time to edit ran out. Anyway, here’s my additional comments:

Obviously there’s also the problem of Luke, who was a gentile convert to Christianity, who allegedly authored both Luke and Acts. Luke obviously would of had minimal if any exposure to the Old Testament (whether the Septuagint or Mosaic text). Luke was also said to be a physician so assumably he was well educated. In passages such as Luke 8:20 he uses the Koine Greek word for “brother” NOT cousin (and of course there was a commonly used word for cousin in Koine Greek).

Moreover, in Col. 4:10 Paul uses the Greek word for cousin, so obviously he didn’t take his cues from the Septuagint writing style 100% of the time. So the better view is probably that Jesus indeed had siblings – but on the other hand the RC view probably isn’t as implausible as you think either. Now whether or not these siblings were step siblings or blood siblings is another matter entirely. It does seem important from a typological standpoint that Jesus be rejected by his siblings – just as David was.

Anyone who has even a rudimentary familiarity with the bible knows David is the most important Old Testament “type” who prefigures Jesus. At 1 Sam. 17 David is rejected by his brothers; and as we see at John 7:5 Jesus was initially rejected by his own brothers (of course the bible also avers that the risen Jesus appeared to his brother James, and subsequently James played a pivotal role in building and administering the early church).

I guess the idea is that although the rejection of David does prefigure the rejection of Christ (by his own brothers) – the resurrection of Christ (and his appearance to his brother James) reverses this (keeping with the theme of reversal i.e. Jesus as the new Adam reverses the harm done to mankind by Adam & rebuilds our bridge to god; just as Jesus, once risen, reverses the shame of rejection to the royal Davidic line … or something to that effect).

Excellent thoughts!

 

[Tanner9188]

First the idea of predestination is just as hotly debated within Christianity as Mary’s virginity – or whatever. Moreover, the bible does teach faith based justification – so it would seem overwhelming biblical evidence supports the notion that all true believers will be saved (and we might assume there’s also some tangible temporal witness to faith; but I suppose that’s a separate issue). Now, if you’re going to try and say only those who hold your view of the bible belong to this “elect” remnant (or whatever) – while all others who profess belief must be deluding themselves (since, under your view, if they did truly believe they would hold your view regarding scripture) … then you truly are deluded my friend.

I am only reiterating what Scripture already teaches…do a simple word study of predestined or click here: searchgodsword.org/desk/?l=en&query=predestined&section=2&translation=nas&sr=1&Enter=Perform+Search

Also, do a word search on the word remnant; click for the NT seach or you can expand it to the OT as well, but you should notice key phrases such as “according to His purpose” or “according to His choice” searchgodsword.org/desk/?language=en&query=remnant&section=2&translation=nas&oq=remnant&new=1&sr=1

There is no debate on the topic from God’s perspective; only from the sin filled goggles of man’s perspective.

With regard to the idea that since the universe exists there must be a god, or since as far as we can tell the universe had a beginning (so something not governed by the laws of causation must have created it) … that’s purely philosophical conjecture.

Frankly even if there is some grand architect of the universe … that does nothing to support the view that it was the god described by the Old and New Testaments. Indeed I have a hard time believing the universe created itself – but I also know the overwhelming weight of evidence (albeit circumstantial) debunks contemporary theism (whether Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or whatever). Christianity is probably no more true than Zeus, Odin, or Mithra.

The reason you have this confusion is because God stated that He made known to all people revelation of Himself through His creation and written on the heart of every man/woman, which is why in the judgment all will be without excuse. - (Romans 1) Where do you think you get your natural built-in conscience that helps all humans determine right from wrong?
Here are a couple of formulas to consider: Darwinian view “Something” plus “nothing” = “everything” or “God” plus “nothing” = “everything”

As far as whether the Bible is the “living Word” or not; to make that determination I can only assume that you have thoroughly read and studied the Bible in order to reach such a conclusion.

As far as this “overwhelming” evidence you speak of; I will assume you are speaking of scientific evidence; such as the age of the earth, which cannot be determined in a scientific sense because it cannot be observed or recreated; therefore it is mere speculation; whereas God simple built “age/time” into the universe as He created; for example, Adam and Eve were not born as infants, but as adults, the plants and animals were built with age into them as they were created into maturity at birth.

As it is with man’s wisdom; it is follishness to God.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The reason you have this confusion is because God stated that He made known to all people revelation of Himself through His creation and written on the heart of every man/woman, which is why in the judgment all will be without excuse. - (Romans 1) Where do you think you get your natural built-in conscience that helps all humans determine right from wrong?
Here are a couple of formulas to consider: Darwinian view “Something” plus “nothing” = “everything” or “God” plus “nothing” = “everything”

I have no confusion … after all you’re the one who believes in flying angels & talking snakes

As far as whether the Bible is the “living Word” or not; to make that determination I can only assume that you have thoroughly read and studied the Bible in order to reach such a conclusion.

dude it’s all ancient mythology … nothing more nothing less. Answer me this. Where is god today? Why is it that he allegedly appeared before our ancient predecessors in profound ways. Splitting oceans, turning rivers into blood, destroying cities, flooding the earth, raising men from death, etc. etc. yet there has not been a single objectively verifiable manifestation of divine power in history? Has god left the stage of human history just as, coincidentally, mankind started looking at the natural world through the prism of science?

Hmmm … I have a bridge for sale – you interested?

 

[elvisman]

The Temple had been destroyed for 80 years.
The writer was not a Jew.
They were conflating common pagan practices with Judaism.
You want me to prove something did not happen?
Prove a negative?
Sure, I guess I can find some things.
As far as Ana…I will resist the most obvious joke

The writer was not a Jew? This has never been established, however, there are historians who believe this.

What do conflating common pagan practices with Judaism have to do with Mary? You’re all over the board here - grabbing at straws.

 

[BrianH]

=elvisman;5348848]The writer was not a Jew? This has never been established, however, there are historians who believe this.

Do you believe that James wrote it as it contends? To clarify.
Anyway, let me clarify. I believe that the writer of the Infancy Gospel is engaging in mythmaking. I do not think Christ was born in a cave. I do not think that Mary was fed from Angels in the Temple. I do not think that Salome gave her a physical examination. I find the whole thing fanciful. I think there is a good reason that the Catholic Church included it in this document:
tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
But as to the issue of common pagan practices. It was a common pagan practice at temples to have virgins. Not so in Judaism from anything I have read…and I am open to hearing proof of it. I have never ever read in any history book anything of the sort.
I cannot prove the writer was not a Jew.

 

[elvisman]

Do you believe that James wrote it as it contends? To clarify.
Anyway, let me clarify. I believe that the writer of the Infancy Gospel is engaging in mythmaking. I do not think Christ was born in a cave. I do not think that Mary was fed from Angels in the Temple. I do not think that Salome gave her a physical examination. I find the whole thing fanciful. I think there is a good reason that the Catholic Church included it in this document:
tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
But as to the issue of common pagan practices. It was a common pagan practice at temples to have virgins. Not so in Judaism from anything I have read…and I am open to hearing proof of it. I have never ever read in any history book anything of the sort.
I cannot prove the writer was not a Jew.

**No offense but why would I take what you think as fact? **These are your opinions. Do you believe what the Church Fathers said about Mary? The Real Presence in the Eucharist? Baptismal Regeneration? Or do you only accept the things they wrote which are easy to twist to sound like Protestant doctrines?

Secondly - Jesus was born in a cave that was used to house animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Nativity
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/bethlehem-church-of-the-nativity.htm
If you’re wrong about this - what makes you think you’re right about the rest?

Lastly - it is a common pagan practice do do a LOT of things (priests, temples, rituals) but it doesn’t mean that these things can’t be done for the Glory of God - otherwise He wouldn’t have established them.

 

[BrianH]

Secondly - Jesus was born in a cave that was used to house animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Nativity
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/bethlehem-church-of-the-nativity.htm
If you’re wrong about this - what makes you think you’re right about the rest?

Lastly - it is a common pagan practice do do a LOT of things (priests, temples, rituals) but it doesn’t mean that these things can’t be done for the Glory of God - otherwise He wouldn’t have established them.

The cave legend is not biblically based. Which is fine but that would be the earliest historical account to determine its veracity. It does exist in some early forms, around the same time as the Infancy Gospel of James. I do not think I am wrong about it at all.
They needed a site. I think the nature of the layout made it highly improbable. The amount of skepticism about the historicity of the actual site is pretty common among the locals. Perhaps it is true; perhaps not. So much of the legends seem to originate from this era.
Back to Second Temple Judaism, do you have access, maybe from your extensive but older library about Temple virgins. No fair holding back evidence

 

[Tanner9188]

I have no confusion … after all you’re the one who believes in flying angels & talking snakes

So you say!

Yes I have thoroughly read & studied the bible. I’ve also studied theology extensively.
dude it’s all ancient mythology … nothing more nothing less. Answer me this. Where is god today? Why is it that he allegedly appeared before our ancient predecessors in profound ways. Splitting oceans, turning rivers into blood, destroying cities, flooding the earth, raising men from death, etc. etc. yet there has not been a single objectively verifiable manifestation of divine power in history? Has god left the stage of human history just as, coincidentally, mankind started looking at the natural world through the prism of science?

Hmmm … I have a bridge for sale – you interested?

For someone who has read and studied the Bible; I wonder why you would need to ask such a question as to “where is God now” Ever hear of Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was an English philosopher, prominent classical liberal political theorist, and sociological theorist of the Victorian era.? He was renowned for quantifying all existing things into 5 categories: Time, Force, Action, Space and Matter

Open you bible to the very first verse. In the beginning (Time), God (Force) created (Action) the heavens (Space) and the Earth (Matter) - Genesis 1:1

How about the person/scientist who discovered the water cycle or hydrological cycle; evaporation, condensation, then precipitation.

Listen to Isaiah 55:10. “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there without watering the earth.” Now wait a minute. It says, “They do not return there.” There’s the cycle, isn’t it? They don’t return there until they’ve done their job. God deposits the rain. It saturates the earth. It’s recollected, evaporated, and brought up from the seas and from the dry land and cycled back to the clouds again. So he says, “As the rain and the snow come down from heaven and they don’t return without watering the earth and making it bear and sprout and furnish seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall My Word be which goes forth from My mouth: It shall not return to Me void, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” Scientifically accurate.

Ecclesiastes 1 verse 6, “The wind goes toward the south, turns about unto the north; it whirls continually, and the wind returns again according to its circuits; and all the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full.” Isn’t that amazing? You know why all the rivers keep running into the sea, and the sea isn’t full? 'Cause it’s the same water, just keeps going around and around and around. It’s the same water. There’s really no loss, ultimately, of the mass or the energy. The same cycle is going on. Ecclesiastes, Solomon said it. Nobody picked up on Solomon for a long time. In Job, the first book ever written in Scripture, Job 36:27-28 says this. “For He draws up the drops of water; they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, and the drip upon man abundantly.” The oldest book in the Bible described the process of evaporation and precipitation, precipitation.

I could go on and on like the Sun drags the solar system in a curcuit, which Science now knows is true, the Earth is suspended on nothing and turns as the clay to the seal, in other words it spins on an axis…many other things.

What about what other religions say:
Continued on next post:

 

[Tanner9188]

continued from above

Professor Monier Williams, the former Boden professor of Sanskrit, spent 42 years studying Eastern books, and this is what he said. “Pile them, if you will, on the left side of your study table, but place your own Holy Bible on the right side, all by itself, all alone, and with a wide gap between them. For there is a gulf between it and the so-called sacred books of the East which severs the one from the other utterly, hopelessly and forever.” He said after 42 years of studying Eastern sacred books they don’t belong in the same place with the Bible.

For example, just take the Hindu Bible. In the sacred writings of the Hindus, you find such fantastic nonsense as this. “The moon is 50,000 leagues higher than the sun, and shines by its own light. Night is caused by the sun setting behind a huge mountain several thousand feet high located in the center of the earth. This world is flat and triangular and is composed of seven stages, one of honey, another of sugar, a third of butter and another of wine. And the whole mass is borne on the heads of countless elephants which, in shaking, produce earthquakes.” That’s the sacred writing of the Hindus.

You read the Koran and you’ll find out that the stars are nothing but torches in the lower heavens and that men are made out of baked clay. The most gross kind of errors abound. Errors regarding the material world are common in…mostly common in Homer, in Greek and Roman mythology, in the wild, disordered books of the Hindus, the traditions of the Buddhists and the Muslims. The greatest geniuses even of ancient philosophy, such as Aristotle, Plato, Pliny, Plutarch, Lucretius and others, wrote such absurdities that, if one such absurdity was found in the Bible, it would totally and forever discredit its inspiration. But there’s not one of them in the Bible. Not one.

James Orr, speaking of the Moslem, Zoroastrian and Buddhist Scriptures, said this, and I quote, “It is the simple fact that there is nothing that can be properly called history in these other sacred books of the world. They are, as every student of them knows, for the most part, jumbles of heterogeneous material loosely placed together without order, continuity or unity of any kind.”

The Bible is unique. It has been read by more people, published in more languages, at least 1,280-plus languages, studied, criticized more than any other book. God wants it circulated, and it’s getting circulated. The first major book ever published was the Bible, wasn’t it? On Gutenberg’s press. By 1932, the London Bible Society says there were one and a half billion Bibles in print…1932. And nobody knows how many billion there are now.

It’s the only book that gives the account of special creation. It’s the only book that gives a continuous historical record from the first man to the present era to the future. It’s the only book of ancient history that gives history a purpose. It is by far the purest religious literature, with the highest moral standards. It is the only book of antiquity containing detailed prophecies of events with 100% accuracy and future events yet to take place. And it is the only book which has proven to convict men of sin and lead them to salvation. There is no book in the world like the Bible, its uniqueness.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You read the Koran and you’ll find out that the stars are nothing but torches in the lower heavens and that men are made out of baked clay. The most gross kind of errors abound. Errors regarding the material world are common in…mostly common in Homer, in Greek and Roman mythology, in the wild, disordered books of the Hindus, the traditions of the Buddhists and the Muslims. The greatest geniuses even of ancient philosophy, such as Aristotle, Plato, Pliny, Plutarch, Lucretius and others, wrote such absurdities that, if one such absurdity was found in the Bible, it would totally and forever discredit its inspiration. But there’s not one of them in the Bible. Not one.

huh? Doesn’t the bible posit a 6,000 year old earth, evolution never happened (and we’re all descended from a single couple), there are flying angels, talking snakes, etc. etc. Sounds pretty absurd to me …

 

[humble_in_doubt]

For someone who has read and studied the Bible; I wonder why you would need to ask such a question as to “where is God now” Ever hear of Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was an English philosopher, prominent classical liberal political theorist, and sociological theorist of the Victorian era.? He was renowned for quantifying all existing things into 5 categories: Time, Force, Action, Space and Matter

Open you bible to the very first verse. In the beginning (Time), God (Force) created (Action) the heavens (Space) and the Earth (Matter) - Genesis 1:1

ridiculous … that’s all I have to say

 

[Hesychios]

… Back to Second Temple Judaism, do you have access, maybe from your extensive but older library about Temple virgins…

I cannot find anything in writing that suggests there was a custom of allowing young women to live in the temple complex.

Even the priests and levites lived in the town and left the temple at end of day.

There were watchmen overnight. Edersheim states that if a watchman was found asleep he could wake up to find his clothes were set on fire.

Any living quarters would have had to be somewhere else in the temple mount, not in the compartments jacketing the main spaces of the temple. The temple mount has a lot of cavities but nothing that suggests living quarters which I am aware of. Mostly they consist of channels and cisterns for water, plus the necessary channels for bloody waste of the sacrifices and the mess live animals contributed to the environment.

When Mary of Nazareth was a child (she could only have been 13 to 18 years older than Jesus) construction was more than likely in it’s final phases, the whole place was a redo courtesy of old king Herod “the builder”, who had huge ashlars transported to the site and expanded the mount and all of the associated structures, like the porticos.

The story would actually be more plausible if it stated she lived in Qumron, which we know was fitted out for permanent residences and practiced universal celibacy of it’s members. It is considered by some to have been founded by a party of temple priests who lost their station to politics and refused to associate with the old temple. Just a speculation on my part, but if Joachim and Anna were of advanced age she could have been turned over as an orphan to a group like that. The parents may have been affiliated with Essenes, or respected them sufficiently.

An Essene connection is not out of the question, they were present in many places around Palestine, including Jerusalem itself, participating in the local community. During the great Jewish revolt the Qumron community was completely destroyed, there does not seem to be a single survivor, and many if not most of the local Jews were exiled, executed or enslaved. Memory of the community seems to have been lost as Hellenes moved in to repopulate the region.
*
Michael*

 

[Tanner9188]

huh? Doesn’t the bible posit a 6,000 year old earth, evolution never happened (and we’re all descended from a single couple), there are flying angels, talking snakes, etc. etc. Sounds pretty absurd to me …

Which evolution? Most theologians would not dispute the "microevolution, but there is no such thing as Macroevolution where new species evolve over time; such as men from apes. If it were true, it would be easily observable because there would be different species evolving over long periods and varying periods of time; therefore at any given time a new species would be observable in the natural world. Likewise if survival of the fittest existed and improved all species as the result, then we should be out killing all the weak and helpless humans; after all isn’t that how we got there in the first place…it’s laughable at best. God said He created all species after their own “kind”. i choose to believe the wisdom of God and reject the foolishness of men.

At this point, you do not have the capacity to believe even though you claim to read and studied extensively the Bible; with all of its fulfilled prophesies, miracles that were never denied even by the Jews of Jesus days and have been mentioned in secular history; yet no one can believe unless God drawls that mans heart to Himself; which is a supernatural event, that I have personally experienced and know many others that have as well and can be verified by the change in the way they live out their lives.

As far as the Earth being 6,000 years old; i believe based on the genealogies presented in the bible that we can safely say it is between 6K-9K years old and dying as is the rest of the universe is as shown by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and God has a word to say about it; He said that the entire creation groans; meaning it is disintegrating.

I am realistic and know that I can show you point after point of how the Bible is truly the very word of God, but it would not make any difference unless the God gives you a heart of belief. As it is you are in a state of unbelief; yet you have no viable explanation of creation nor do you have the ability to explain how you are here with a conscience; why you got the parents you got or why they got you, why you were born in the US as opposed to anywhere else or at all. A Christian has the privelege of knowing the past, present and the future.

Anyway, I have taken us both way off topic. In light of the context of Scripture, Jesus definitely had blood brothers and sisters and Mary was a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus. Any other explanation is an invention of religion added to God’s word.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Which evolution? Most theologians would not dispute the "microevolution, but there is no such thing as Macroevolution where new species evolve over time; such as men from apes.

you don’t have a clue … macroevolution is just as much of a fact as microevolution.

If it were true, it would be easily observable because there would be different species evolving over long periods and varying periods of time; therefore at any given time a new species would be observable in the natural world. Likewise if survival of the fittest existed and improved all species as the result, then we should be out killing all the weak and helpless humans; after all isn’t that how we got there in the first place…it’s laughable at best. God said He created all species after their own “kind”. i choose to believe the wisdom of God and reject the foolishness of men.

after all your hyperbole … you still haven’t proven that the bible reveals a Mary who had other children besides Jesus … because no conclusive case can be made either way (although I would argue protestants have a slightly better case). Of course this is because your bible is a confusing collection of myths with inadequate attention given to consistency by its authors (who were all human & weren’t inspired by anything accept their imagination).

 

[JJ59]

huh? Doesn’t the bible posit a 6,000 year old earth, evolution never happened (and we’re all descended from a single couple), there are flying angels, talking snakes, etc. etc. Sounds pretty absurd to me …

Hi, humble_in_doubt.

Sorry, but the Bible does not posit a 6,000 year old Earth, or any denial of evolution. If you look in those texts with 21st century literalistic eyes, you become nothing but a fundamentalist, ignoring the social context. It’s poetry, not directly history. Before you knock something, please research it a little more thoroughly.

Angels I don’t have a problem with. I have not ever personally seen an angel, but I take the Bible’s word on it. As for the “talking snakes”, the snake (singular) in Genesis was Satan, who obviously possessed the snake or came in the form of a snake.

But to the real matter: In the Gospel accounts, they’re translated from Armaic, and in Armaic there is no word for “cousin”, so the word for “brother” was used. Therefore, this carries over into the Greek.

In the letters of Paul, I just assumed that the James they talk about was Jesus’ spiritual brother, just like in Acts 1:15: “In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said…” Brothers refers to spiritual brothers.

God Bless,

 

[JJ59]

you don’t have a clue … macroevolution is just as much of a fact as microevolution.

oh gosh … wanna be theologians playing scientist.

yeah yeah yeah …

after all your hyperbole … you still haven’t proven that the bible reveals a Mary who had other children besides Jesus … because no conclusive case can be made either way (although I would argue protestants have a slightly better case). Of course this is because your bible is a confusing collection of myths with inadequate attention given to consistency by its authors (who were all human & weren’t inspired by anything accept their imagination).

Sooo… You come to a thread to discuss a point you don’t pair about and apparently can’t be proven either way, all to make a vague rant about the Bible? (Rants like these are popular among skeptics like yourself, who take more of an arrogant position than arguing with actual facts and scholars when debating about the Bible.)

God bless you,

 

[Tanner9188]

you don’t have a clue … macroevolution is just as much of a fact as microevolution.

oh gosh … wanna be theologians playing scientist.

yeah yeah yeah …

after all your hyperbole … you still haven’t proven that the bible reveals a Mary who had other children besides Jesus … because no conclusive case can be made either way (although I would argue protestants have a slightly better case). Of course this is because your bible is a confusing collection of myths with inadequate attention given to consistency by its authors (who were all human & weren’t inspired by anything accept their imagination).

The reason you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that the Bible is the very word of God is you love your sin; if I had to guess without knowing you, I would say you live in such sin that you know is contrary to the word of God; that the idea of giving it up seems impossible and undesirable. One day you will see the truth, for in your heart you know there must be something beyond the grave, it is built into every mans conscience, and there is, but you will be condemned unless you repent and turn to God.

I’m wonder why you are even here; curiosity and the love for debate?

May God open your eyes and heart!

Mark

PS Most everyone that is a true believer was once in your shoes. If you really want proof that the Bible is for real…one word “Israel” - it should not exist and should have gone by the wayside like all the other cultures and societies have, but God promised to preserve her.