Response

Who cares about a fake ‘Ark of the Covenant.’ Stephan Huller has an academic article coming up which proves that this:

http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.com/

is the original Episcopal throne of Alexandria, mentioned in the Acts of Peter the Patriarch, Origen, Clement and other sources and dated to the first century.

I read the book. I loved it but I want to know what everyone else thinks? I think its very important but I am not an expert.

His blog with additional information is

http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.com.

Maybe you can tell me if this for real.

This guy commented on one of my post with the above text. I am not going to try to convince him (if he's still reading my blog) of Christianity. One problem with this kind of post online is that people have already formed their own conclusion before they seek the evidence. He loved the book, ie it means he likes and is convinced of the conclusion.

However, in case he's reading this, I will respond to his challenge by approaching not from a content based approach, but from a methodological approach. If he is really sincere in seeking the answer, he will do what I am about to discuss.

Firstly, when we come to Christianity and reading its critics, especially those who comment about the crossovers in different worldviews and concluded that Christianity is a copycat religion, we need to bear in mind one thing, the credentials of the critics. In this case, we have a 'academia' with an 'academic article'. Of course, although I have not read and will not bother to read the article, I can easily conclude that it will be heavily referenced and footnoted. If not, then it won't even qualify as one, and I believe that my friend would have been deceived or allowed himself to be deceived. The credentials to criticise the bible dun come with a lot of footnotes, but a lot of groundwork. I will first see if he is well equipped with knowledge of ancient hebrew and semantic culture. This is one trap that people who read articles from Jesus Seminar fall into. Being well equipped in Greek culture dun necessarily give you a license to freely critic the NT. A good critic of the NT cannot do with an examination of the OT which will require additional study in Semantic culture.

Another thing to bear in mind: context!!! When we look into the bible, and compare it with other worldviews, do we examine them in their respective context? My experience and my readings have proven that a lot of such 'so-called' critics critiqued the bible passages without studying the context. If context is so important when we study documents and stuffs in historical events, then all the more the same should be applied when studying the bible.

Credential and context. Another one is motive. What is the motive of the author or critic? People like Richard Dawkin would make it very clear that they want to free people from the shackle of religion. So what is Stephen Huller's motive?

And how about evidence? People often make a joke out of themselves by using dubious evidence. If you are quoting from documents that were written hundreds of years after the event, what makes you think that the quotes are more credible than people who uses documents that were written tens of years after the event? The key point is to examine all evidences and test them, like what Brian Farrell would always say. Test the evidences for their internal and external consistency. And we will realise that the bible is one document that passes the test with flying colours.

Lastly, it boils down to perspective. You can look at suffering and conclude that Christianity is not real, or you can look at one passage and conclude that God is not compassionate. But we need to see things in perspective. For example, to grab a story from JP Moreland, if he sees his wife with another man holding hands, he would be tempted to conclude that his wife is having an affair. But what about the possibility that this man is just a close friend from before? Have he examined all the available evidences before he comes to the conclusion? Likewise, just because you dun agree with certain theories, it does not mean that Christianity is fake. Just because it sounds far fetched doesn't mean that it is not real.

So friend, you ask me if this is for real? I can tell you that I can easily break down the arguments listed in the blog, even if I am not a scholar. But it will not help if you are not opened to exploring the evidences.

PS: I dun know the guy who posted me this comment.