One Christian Thought

Because of reading Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene by Bart Ehrman, and using other knowledge (theology theory and specific considerations for purported evidence), I have come to be able to create what is to me a thorough and powerful case against the internal evidence for the book of Mark being the true Gospel of Peter. But, as suggested in the title, and if you already know about me, it is safe to assume I haven't abandoned belief that there is strong evidence in the Gospel of Mark to prove it as eyewitness material.  If you have read my 6 part blog project titled "The True Lost Gospel of Peter," you've already come across why I believe the miracles in the book of Mark (the conclusion contains the five other links), although the material dealt with here was first recorded in what I call " my primitive post ." Don't bother looking at it now: everything is dealt with here, where we can be more confident of my conclusion because of the cross-examination.

It really makes me sad that the believability of miracles is even a subject in and of itself which Christians have to respond to. The major reason I'm against intellectually dismissing the supernatural is at the end of this post, because first I need to explain why I think doing so is just downright unreasonable. I can do that, so I appreciate this opportunity God has given me to support Him using the material He supplied by working through other people, even though in my opinion philosophical naturalism would be funny if no one believed it.  That's right -- philosophical naturalism. The enemy of religious faith. It's the belief that the world is governed by, and only by , natural law, no matter what. There are two arguments against miracles dealt with in this post. One is that they cannot happen because they are an occurrence which does not accord with the completely absolute laws of nature. Sometimes scientists can view miraculous claims as an insult to their profession b

Is the book ever wrong anywhere? Sir William Ramsay says that chapters 1-5 are prone to error because Luke was getting all his information from others, who are suspect as being liable to report embellished tales of the actual history in Jerusalem right after the ascension(1). This is in contrast with 13-28, where the historian got access to either events he saw himself or heard from Paul, his close traveling companion. It is demonstrable that when handling the fifth book of the New Testament, the conclusion that it cannot all be the historically true word of God is not proven whatsoever. He gives two examples, which I find easy to respond to.  One is the claim that the different accounts of Judas's death in Matthew 27:5-6 and Acts 1:18-19 shows that Luke's material contradicts that from the only record in the Gospels and was clearly formed later, by definition making it a legend. But Matthew never said Judas did not fall, and Luke never said he did not hang himself. Visit the t