geisha779

Seems, if you don't want him exposed, for whatever reason, it will be called libel. Doesn't make it true. . . . just an opinion, not based in law or fact. If wishes were horses. . . . as my grandpa used to say. The louder one screams libel--the more it rings hollow--since most have taken the time to find out what libel actually is.. . . . Stomping ones foot with insistence does not always get one what they want. . . . . . just ask my kids. Oh and Rascal--it WAS and IS a perfect analogy for this thread--it painted a great picture of what appears to be going on here. It was pertinent to the discussion and in NO WAY derailed the thread. Got anymore? :)

Yeah, I knew what you were saying. It was such a good point--I just said it again!! :) Also, (The bolded above) good point. Those in a position of authority--abused these terms-- I hear over and again how WE should have known better--(Not you-other posters) and yes, I guess on one level that is true. But, given the whole picture--a really poor way to excuse these men of their sins--IMHO God is not stupid. He sees the whole picture. WW--I was agreeing with your good point--sorry if it looked like I was correcting it--I was just expounding a bit--it was obvious what you meant.

Hi Dot, I don't really have a sure answer for you--I know how TWI used it and where that came from--George Aar is right on that one. But, here is somethings to consider while looking into this. When Paul was addressing the Corinthians he was addressing a church that had serious practical error. It was in their lifestyle as well as worship--he had to ADMONISH and correct them--using disciplinary tones. Just as a father would. In 1st Thessalonians--a model church--He uses the term mother and father to relate himself to them. He also calls himself a brother and fool. It wasn't meant to Lord it over God's heritage, but an example to the flock--one they could relate to and were in need of. With Timothy---We know that Timothy was pretty young and that his biological father wasn't a Christian. Paul seemed to fill that "Father" void in Timothy's life--They had a "Father/Son type relationship. These were people like us. It is easy to forget sometimes that they too were emotional beings with real needs and feelings. Paul was Timothy's father in faith so to speak. Timothy grew under the nuturing care of Paul as a substitute father figure. We are to teach our children-to raise them in the nuture and admonition of the Lord. Given Timothy's youth--it does not seem odd to me--that Paul would raise Timothy and nurture him in the admonition of the Lord--thus becoming his "Father in the Word". It was a unique and specific relationship--which filled a need for both Timothy and Paul. I don't think it was meant to be a term "Coined" to control--or as a honorary title. Or as replacement for Jesus. Just some thoughts--it does give us a lovely example of a Christian "Father-Son" relationship--and how to raise our sons. The other thing I was thinking about--as Wordwolf makes a really good point--- is--when Jesus was talking about calling no man "Father" was he saying---never call anyone father, EVER. What about an earthly father. I think he was using hyperbole to make a point about the pharisees. Titles mean something--or at least they should. When we call someone our "best friend" that means something. Those who set themselves up as a replacment for our true father--like the pharisees. . . . it would be bad to call them father and mean it. The point of this text is not what titles may be legitimately used in addressing those in authority, but that titles are not to be used to confer privilege or status. Jesus used characteristically semitic hyperbolic rhetoric to make His point. In TWI--that is what we did. Our "Father in the Word" was considered teacher-father-and basically Lord. So, . . . . . . a bad use of the term father. Catholics go to a priest to confess their sins and have them forgiven--priests are called "Father". Something to consider-- Just some thoughts

Okay--you never told me--did you EVER learn to drive a stick shift?? Welcome! :) :) :)

Hi cman, I would like to answer you from my heart if I might. I would love to have a dialogue with you. I respect you as a person, and although we don't always see eye to eye, I believe you have a kind heart. Here is my problem, and this is the naked truth. I do not understand your posts or what you are trying to say--enough to converse with you. I am sure it is me--and my lack of understanding--so, it is in NO way a derogatory implication. I cannot follow what you are trying to express. Christianity is a common faith. It is a family united around one person--Jesus. When a faith is so far removed from what I know--it is hard for me to really understand ---When Jesus is unrecognizable to me--from anothers perspective--I cannot relate on a meaningful level in common faith. I actually do not get what you are saying. But, I read it and I think about it--I in no way want to ever be rude to you. Hope you see my dilemma. Geisha

Just one more thing. . . . . Just an imaginary scenario. . . . . I read those laws--see what they actually say. Someone comes along and interprets them "Another" way for me. I am told I don't see what is actually written, it really means thus. . . and if I don't do what is interpeted for me. . . . I am somehow breaking the imaginary law?? Which is somehow now protecting the abusers. Why does that bring out the argumentitive side of me?

BINGO! -Perfect analogy!! And I guess the more people say something the more they hope people will believe it as true. Or at least the louder. Where have I seen this tactic employed? Where? Hmmmmm? Almost got it. . . . . . where? OH YEAH!! TWI Sorry, won't work. . .EX-TWI like to think--it is OBVIOUS from most posters here that they have really taken to the whole--decide for yourself thingy. Good for us!! Just to add: Funny how made up rules and an insistence we all follow them--just rubs some of us the wrong way. Where does that come from??

Okay--by your logic--police who charge one of a crime--book em Dano--and prosecutors who prosecute them are guilty of Libel? Oh, oh, oh and people who press charges are libel too. And if you say someone wronged you in everyday life and stand up for yourself--Libel. Oh and if you know someone is lying--and you call them on it--libel. If you are in an accident and tell the police the other guy hit you from the side--libel. Whose standard is this--certainly not a legal one? By your standard no one could function in society. I am most curious though---did you ever spend time with VP and the gang? You never went wow? Advanced class grad? Twig leader? If not--why are we having this discussion--that is too odd.

Hi WD In sincerity, I worry about your ability to reason. By your own admission you are breaking the "NEW RULE" you have just instituted here. Wouldn't that be "Alleged" Libel as posters of their horrendous stories have not been given "Due Process" and found GUILTY of lying in a court? So, we can't call it factual according to you because VP was never given "Due process" but you can call it libelous despite the fact no one here has been found guilty of libel? What? Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Sure sounds like the need to be right with you--overrides the need to be logical. Sorry Whitedove, under the current statute of libel concerning a limited public figure(Or private citizen). . . . . . nothing here comes close to being libelous, but I think you believe the more you say it--the more it will sound true. We are not in a cult anymore--we have the ability to think for ourselves now--seems most here do a pretty good job of it and have shown you over and again--nothing libelous here. Think what you will-- but, if you are saying something that just isn't true or accurate according to the FACTS of the law--are you not doing exactly what you are accusing others of? No need to answer--it is an obvious yes and just saying it louder--doesn't make it so. :)

No--I do not think that one who is saved can lose their salvation. If it were up to me or any of us---yes we could lose our salvation. I am beyond thankful that God's sovereign will is not undone by man. The God who would allow this is unrecognizable to me. If we could lose it--none would be saved. God is able to keep us in the faith. It all comes down to who you think Jesus is. BTW--NOT an accepted orthodox theology. There ARE warning passages to the visible church. My faith is in Christ-not in me.

Hi WD, Malice in this statute has a paticular meaning -- ". . . the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth." It doesn't mean the way something is presented. What you feel it is dripping with. That is just your opinion. There is no libel here--unless you can prove that all are lying intentionally. Sorry-------VP falls under the umbrella of limited public figure-- No one here is close to being libelous. That is the law as it stands now. If you don't like it--take it up with the law makers. The best defense against a defamation accusation. . . . . the truth.

"Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages. The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures. A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure". CASE CLOSED!! VP FALLS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE BY ANY STRETCH

Hi I knew your mom--I kinda remember you too. Tom and I were talking about you all--not that long ago. He is doing good--still the same sweetie pie he always was. He remembers you fondly. Is your mom well? John Hendricks died. I think Maryanne is in FLA. Not sure. I think John and CeeCee Daly are still in NC.

Either that, or someone wants to pretend this discussion didn't happen. Shame he is not alive to take to court--but then again--there is more than an earthly court he will face.

Rainbowsgirl, I got your point--we are to love-- even our enemies--let God be the judge--although, we are to be wise. We don't set ourselves up a determininer-in-cheif. If someone is lying about something like abuse--and I imagine that is rare--doesn't that itself sound like a cry for help? So, either way, there are Godly responses--and then responses that echo TWI doctrine. Lindyhopper, I have missed you! :) Don't believe me? I thought of you the other day---when I was musing over something I read--my line of thought brought me around to a GS discussion--and then something you had said. I prayed for you. Glad to see you here. I don't think the "Case for Christ" is air tight. I believe it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt--if one looks at it objectively. If you ever get that old itch to look at it yourself---Lee Strobel has a great book called (Drumroll please) The Case for Christ. Also Ravi Zacharias is an awesome guy. Teaches at Oxford--when not traveling the globe--speaking to some of the most influential people in the world. He spoke at the UN this year. I am reading his book called The End of Reason a response to the new atheists. You should take a look at his life and credentials--hardened atheist to begin with. RC Sprouls is a Christian philosopher who is very interesting to read or listen to. So, if you ever get curious again--there are some great Christian brains out there. Just as an aside--I have had the honor of meeting some of the "brains" that go around debating atheists. Wow, Lindy--I have met VP and the crew--the difference is just shocking--shocking. A true Christian mind--a false teacher wannabe--no comparison. These people who truly know the Lord--SHINE. What always gets me are the ones who set out to prove the bible wrong--the ardent skeptics--who come to Christ kicking and screaming--they are some of the most amazing witnesses for Him. Whitedove, If we are to know the scriptures? What is the excuse for your posts here? We are to know them and what. . . . . twist them. . . . . back up our own rationale with them. . . . use them as a weapon to hurt. . . . what? What do they tell us to do--over and over--seems rainbowsgirl has it figured out. I submit to you--we learned a deviant form of scripture--built on the faultiest of premises--taught with the sickest intentions and used to control. So for me, your whole argument is moot and just a perpetuation of the same doggedly "hardline" aberrant Christianity which left so many--the walking wounded. As much as I hurt for the victims--part of me really hurts for you as well. It does, because it appear-seems-looks like--your need to be "Right" overrides your ability to reason and be compassionate. That is what clinging to TWI doctrine and the idols who sold it to us--result in. I could be wrong about you--these posts are just a snap-shot--but, I went back and really looked at yours. Did you ever know VP? Howard--Craig? Is it worth it to one day stand before God and say--yeah, but I thought I was right--that is why I didn't hear the cry from those asking for love, compassion, respect and trust while telling us their story? You do NOT want to be standing with these guys on that day. You said it yourself--"Words are cheap" Students of our craft--Not crafty with words!

Rascal, I am agreeing with you. I still see justification here by some. On very iffy ground IMHO. Even if the choice was really ours (And I could debate that one) the responsibility lies with the one claiming to be stronger--to keep the weaker from stumbling. It then becomes THEIR responsibility. They have the power to cause us to stumble. They are to deny themselves to keep us walking upright. Scripture was ignored---time and time again--I agree--ignored--denied--and twisted--all in God's name. Often to abusive ends. No doubt. When WhiteDove says--yeah, but we had a choice- In my opinion--that is one small snapshot in a much larger picture--when taken as a whole it paints a very bad portrait of and FOR the abuser. It in no way absolves them. It condems them. It reminds me of The Way. So, in my own--and usually unclear way--I was backing you up--because I lived it too. Oakspear, Mark this day on your calendar--we agree!!

Hey Rascal, This is just my humble opinion. Scripture is never really overruled--it is there and people can choose what they do. However, the bible tells us all over the place not to cause a weaker one to stumble. So, it is possible for this to happen and should be front and center in a Christian's thinking. Someone who is vulnerable--or looking to those who claim a place of authority over us as "Leadership" IMHO are weaker. Therefore, those in a position of authority are not to cause them to stumble. Sounds like the onus is on the "Stronger." But then again, Romans 13:10 tells us --- Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. So, seems there was a bit of stumbling being caused by those big strong MOGs--Truly a Christian will love their brother or sister enough to restrict their own freedom. It is obvious to me--this rarely happened. But then again--were they Christian? In fact --we that are strong have an obligation to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and NOT to please ourselves.

Okey doke--if you say so. That is circular reasoning BTW. Listen Whitedove--I gotta tell you--I don't have anything against you--I bet you can be a pretty nice guy IRL. But, I am often confused by your response to those victims of abuse who bravely come forward here? Even if you don't believe all of them--couldn't some of them be telling the truth? Do they all have ulterior motives? Even if you don't give them the benefit of the doubt--don't they deserve compassion and respect? As people made in God's image--don't you long to reach out and comfort them? It would be an appropriate Godly response . I also want to tell you with the sincerest of heart--that SIT thing--it is not proof of salvation. It is not--people here have renounced Christ--I bet they can still do it. I know you won't believe me--I am sure of it--but I hope someday you see all of TWI for what it was. That is my fervent hope for you. Geisha signing off--I have made my point ad nauseum--even to me! LOL

Thanks for your honesty in posting....... and I do agree on the accounts in Acts one does take that on faith or not depending on ones beliefs. personally I do accept it as truth because I believe the Bible is true, is Gods Word, and that God is not a man that He should lie. Former MOG's words are not God breathed while they may be men like those in the Bible their opinions which change day to day, and in no way compare to to scripture in which Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit. . . . . . My standard applies to fallible humans not God or his scripture there is a big difference He does not lie. You also seem to have forgot that these everyday men you speak of wrote as they were moved by the holy spirit something I doubt can be said for posts here, including my own. Oh and third You believe it because it says so. Really??? You know this how??? no I believe it because it has been tried and found documentable, and every day it becomes more so in science archaeology and various other fields. He doesn't lie--and you know this how? Because the bible says so and you believe it why? Because you say--it has been tried and found documentable yada yada yada. . . . Sounds like what I said--only this time I used YOUR words Still your opinion--unless you got some FACTS to back it up. Just because you say it is true--doesn't make it so. People are fickle--you could change your mind tommorow. I am done now.

Really White Dove, Archaeology PROVES the bible is GOD BREATHED?? Really? Wow--HOW? How is it documentable? I bet Lindyhopper could throw you a curve on THAT one. You MIGHT end up saying you believe it on faith and because it SAYS so. Betcha! As for where I heard that from--it was not actually someone even you would refute. But, I don't care enough about your rant to embarass the person. She is a lovely woman with a very nice husband--and they were GOOD to me. You have circular reasoning when it suits you--and when it doesn't well, you pick. I know the definition of hypocritical White dove. Do you? Just because you say it is so--doesn't make it anymore than your opinion. Hardly a factual post from my vantage point, of course, I am using your standard.

Matt 23:31-33 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" You mean like that filthy religion. Talk of hell?

I don't really feel like getting into a defense of the Gospel thing. I just want to know why--people can't tell there story here--as hard as it is--without getting quizzed in a irrational way--being told their experience is opinion and their recollection flawed --Everytime they open their mouths. Seems it is no way to come to the truth of the matter? It seems more a defense of the abusers--who wants to do that? Are all the tellers of their stories--which fit together to create a pattern of abuse, under mass delusion here? That is one of the arguments against the gospel accounts whitedove. All the arguments you present here--they are used AGAINST the bible. Do you even realize that?? Yet, you parrot the same thing against victims. What happens when it is used against something YOU believe to be true--and can't prove it. Do you ceede to the critics or do you know it to be true? By your own standard you cannot believe the bible to be true--it would contradict you standard for what can be deemed factual. (I can believe it because I rely on the evidence) You believe it because it says so. Also Whitedove--do you understand that critics of the bible say the gospel writers were not objective because they had an interest in the outcome of the story. Much like you are saying about posters here. Remember, these were everyday men that wrote the bible. Applying one standard for yourself and another for others on the same matter--well, that is called hypocrisy.

I have a different blood type than both my parents. I am also neg--they are positive. I always figured something wasn't right. I look just like my dad, so .. . . . . But, I just have something that popped up---recessively. It came from both sides. As for life in the blood? I have no idea about all that. However, last year--my husband almost bled to death. I sat there for 18 hours watching him bleed and the doctors trying to stop it. The first little hospital we were at did not give him blood--they gave him a teabag(thank-you very much)--and tried to stop it that way--after he lost a couple of pints they transfered him to a medical center--sent him WITHOUT a transfusion. The bleeding started slow--and then got heavier. By the time we got to the "Real" hospital 30 minutes by ambulance----he had lost 5 pints--by the time they got him type crossed and matched--6 pints. Called the kids to come down and say goodbye to him. I literally watched the life draining from his body. I saw him curl up as his legs went cold. His body taking blood from his extremities to keep his heart pumping. We only have around 8 pints of blood in our bodies. It is not a pleasant way to go. His legs hurt and shook from the lack of blood. I held the pan while he vomited the blood he had swallowed--it was EVERYWHERE--never seen so much blood. After they started pumping it in--as it was still coming out--I watched him turn an ugly color gray. By then he was unconcious and I was using the suction machine to try and clear the blood. After three bloodclotting medicines and factor 8--He stopped bleeding. I remember it so well. It just stopped-I looked at the clock--it was 10:20 am. I cried like a baby. Once the blood was going back into his body and staying--I watched the life come back into him--eventually he woke up--uncurled his body and sat up and even smiled. Seems as the blood slowly drained-the life slowly drained--the faster he bled-the faster he was dying---as the blood came back--the life came back. I was watching his life and all he was bleed away. NEVER want to see anything like it again.

Wow Lindyhopper, Perhaps you would like to join me in a paticular fight I am involved in. That being prisioners ALL OVER THE WORLD--imprisioned on EYEWITNESS testimony that they preach Jesus. Seems it IS accepted as proof. Otherwise many of my friends would now be free. Having been convicted on one eyewitnesses account. Come join me, after-all you say it is not fair--right? A little closer to home. If a person charged with DRUG TRAFFICkING--cooperates with the police--goes in and buys drugs from another dealer---testifies as an eyewitness to the deal--they are sometimes offered consideration. How credible are they? Police us eyewitnesses -- as do DA's. In fact people are offered immunity for eyewitness testimony. We are populated in a world of people! This is unavoidable. This is from an article in Justice Denied: An article AGAINST eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony plays a crucial, daily role in our court system. Many cases are decided either substantially or entirely on the testimony of eyewitnesses. Since this testimony is given by inherently fallible human systems of perception, memory and recall, there is the continuous worry that it may not be quite as accurate as it is purported to be. Basically, the only way to prevent erroneous eyewitness identifications would be to invent a perfect world inhabited by perfect human beings. . . . . . . . . Traditionally, eyewitness identification has been readily accepted in the U.S. -- even though numerous studies back up the inherent problems with it. One U.S. Court said this of the problems with eyewitness identification: "We think it is evident that an identification of an accused made by a witness for the first time in the courtroom may often be of little testimonial force as the witness may have had opportunities to see the accused and to have heard him referred to by a certain name; whereas a prior identification, considered in connection with the circumstances surrounding its making, serves to aid the court in determining the trustworthiness of the identifications made in the courtroom." People are convicted on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony. You can look at the NEw York state of appeals Court ruling on this very issue. I never said it was fair--but it is a reality we deal with in our courtrooms. Now, here at greasespot--the plethora of eyewitnesses recounting specific incidents--such as VP speaking of FONDLING HIS DAUGHTERS--lends real WEIGHT and CREDENCE to these allegations. It takes them from the realm of impossible into the realm of probable!!! An allegation I am willing to entertain as FACT given I heard the very same thing.--Although second-hand--I heard it from a VERY solid and credible source. As for the bible-- greater legal minds than yourself have built an incredible case for the resurection using the testimony of the bible. In fact, DR Frank Morrison, a lawyer---who considered himself a rationalist---set out to refute the resurrection. He ended up--after years of study writing an amazing book called Who Moved the Stone He called it "the book that refused to be written." He was an ardent skeptic--a Lawyer FAMILAR with the law--who was convinced by the testimony presented. C.S Lewis--a bright guy generally--considered a smart fellow--at least in Oxford--was once an ARDENT atheist--he said he had no where to run--once he evaluated the evidence--he was the cynics of cynics--look where he ended up. One of Christianity's greatest minds. However, determining ANYTHING of value requires it be approached with HONESTY--a FAIR VIEW of the history--and the one investigating an issue must not approach it with PRECONCIEVED notions or already dawn CONCLUSIONS. The evidence must speak for itself--even if we don't LIKE where it is going to take us. Josh McDowel-- Professor Thomas Arnold, for fourteen years the headmaster of Rugby, author of the three-volume History of Rome, and holder of the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. " I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Textual critic Brooke Foss Wescott, English scholar, said, "Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ." Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded that, "If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement." Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, has written: "My faith began with and was grounded on what I thought was revealed in the Bible. When, particularly, I came to the New Testament, the Gospels and other writings of the men who had been friends of Jesus Christ seemed to me to make an overwhelming case, merely as a matter of strict evidence, for the fact therein stated ... The same approach to the cardinal test of the claims of Jesus Christ, namely, His resurrection, has led me, as often as I have tried to examine the evidence, to believe it as fact beyond dispute." One man who was highly skilled at dealing with evidence was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. The rise of Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States is to be ascribed to the efforts of these two men. Greenleaf produced his famous three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which still is considered one of the greatest single authorities on this subject in the entire literature of legal procedure. Greenleaf examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. Greenleaf came to the conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history. But then again, these are serious men who were never in a CULT--why listen to what they found on the evidence. They are not trying to rewrite history--or have some great NEW revelation on the unreliability of the bible. Sheesh--my point is White Dove believes it and doesn't even know why--it is eyewitness testimony built on an historical foundation. My point is-HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IT--unless you look at this stuff--sorry anything takes a bit of "FAITH" to believe, but you don't need a whole lot if you really look at the EVIDENCE. That is what makes someone credible--not taking it on "Faith" BTW--The gospel records DO qualify under the "ancient documents rule" and WOULD be admitted as evidence in any Common Law court. They assert that they are firsthand NONhearsay testimony to Jesus Christ. 1John1.1 Or are the product of careful research concerning him. This is why critics ALWAYS try to impugn the gospels authenticity-It always comes down to that. Or to impugn the sanity of the writers--after all it is a metaphysical event we are looking at. However, evidence must be examined as I stated above. Objectively. Little chance of that with someone who has their mind made up. After all how many legs do locust have?

Honestly Twinkie--For practice. :)