林语堂先生关于父神之爱的说辞可能引起了对前基督徒有深重负担的Yuehanmiao的共鸣，于是在“彩虹之约”上贴传播林先生那哗众取宠的说辞，曰：如果上帝有一半像我的母亲这样爱我，他将不会送我去地狱——不是五分钟，不是五天，而是永远的沦落在地狱里—— 这是一种甚至世俗法庭也永不会觉得心安的判决。

林先生可能是出生名门，从来认为：这世界是最美好的，地狱比这个世界差多了！他可能在别的、为自己脸上贴金的本本中，也表达过对在这个世界中生活如同在地狱中生活的人的同情。我说林语堂是愚顽人，因为他根本就没有想过：这个现存的世界就是地狱的前身，这个现存的世界将会被火烧。（彼后3：7）他作为理性人至少想过太阳的能量会用完，即便无全能的真神。

《圣经》中明明白白告诉读者：人是父神以自己的形象造的，起初就是有自由意志、完美的，起初创造的世界也没有死亡，即整个被造世界与父神有美好和谐的关系。由于人祖错误地使用自由意志，制造了“死亡”，从此“死亡”因着父神话的不可改变性而成为受造之人的辖制。人走上了与父神为敌、必死之路。虽然人的死亡方式多种多样，有些死亡方式可能很“恐怖”，但是，各样死亡的本质没有差别：都是归于撒旦--在这个堕落的世界中先是进行着广义的生态循环：--信息-能量-物质-信息--，最后构成撒旦的不可分割的部分--那恐怕就是佛家之空吧。有的人看到大自然的破坏造成了人的死亡而将责任推给父神--大自然因为曾被诅咒而和起初有了本质的差别，是脆弱的；其实这之中还有一个谎言：人从来恋慕死亡或受那恶者辖制，那恶者一面对父神说：“因着您的最初的命令，你已经将人给了我--死亡”；一方面，人又有自由意志，那恶者也不能强求人，如是，只能以谎言欺骗，对人说：你看，如果父神是全能的，又是爱，他可以救你们，他不管你，他死了，或根本就不存在了--尼采、马克思说。

我明确地警告BACH，HEBAI等人：1、现在的宇宙就是地狱的前身，2、不认识真神的人类爱的极限是母爱， 3、人类认识的极限是黑暗。现在的宇宙将成为过去，林语堂生活在富贵人家，又生活在现在的宇宙之中，看不到天国，突破不了黑暗，当然就会说父神之爱不及母爱之类的愚顽之辞。

父神为了拯救人类，从塞特到挪亚，从闪到亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各、摩西、大卫、主基督耶稣（永生神的羔羊）都是暗中进行的，那恶者丝毫也没有把柄--这就体现了父神的智慧是最高的智慧。主耶稣基督又是完全的人，也是完全的神。就是现在，在父神面前认罪悔改与否，信靠主耶稣基督与否，仍然是在人的自由意志的之内的事，好象一切都隐藏的那么完美：信的人喜乐满怀，不信的人也自鸣得意。我说HEBAI是故意不信、故意歪曲，这判断是正与错他心中明白。我确实感谢父神，他让我能懂他的圣言，也激励我在此来传讲他为我们的罪被钉十字架受死、埋葬、复活、升天将来还要来审判死人和活人的福音。

最后说白点：基督是犯罪后的人类的最大杀手，人（老我）被他直接所杀，幸也：他允诺被杀者的灵魂脱离黑暗的辖制，在废墟中创造新生命来承受未来的新天新地；人被他间接所杀，是尊重人的最初选择。神确实是真爱。

我们在天上的父，愿人都尊你的名为圣，愿你的国降临，愿你的旨意行在地上如同行在天上，我们日用的饮食，今日赐给了我们，免我们的债，如同我们免了人的债，不叫我们遇见试探，救我们脱离凶恶，因为国度、权柄、荣耀全是你的，直到永远，阿们！

注：或许林语堂所谓的上帝是中国民间的玉皇大帝。

林语堂 语录

送交者: Yuehanmiao 2006年4月11日12:07:33 于 [彩虹之约] http://www.bbsland.com

如果上帝有一半像我的母亲这样爱我，他将不会送我去地狱——不是五分钟，不是五天，而是永远的沦落在地狱里——这是一种甚至世俗法庭也永不会觉得心安的判决

Is there Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
A debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman
At the College of the Holy Cross
March 28, 2006

Craig
As conservative Christians & anti-Christian historians look at the documents of the first century that are available to them, almost all agree on 4 historical facts:
1. After being crucified, Jesus was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea.
2. On the Sunday following the crucifixion, that tomb was found empty by a group of women followers.
3. Jesus made numerous appearances to His followers after His tomb was discovered to be empty.
4. Despite their predisposition to the contrary, His followers saw enough evidence to convince them to believe in His resurrection.

Working with these 4 facts, various naturalistic theories have been created that attempt to explain the four facts: the swoon theory, the hallucination theory, the wrong tomb theory etc. These are to be contrasted with the supernaturalistic theory that says God raised Jesus from the dead in an immortal body never to die no more. Craig believes that, looking at the facts that are available to us, the most probable explanation is the supernaturalistic one.
Ehrman
Historians cannot know the past with certainty. Unlike scientists, historians do not have the luxury of repeating experiments. Historians try as best they can to collect the best evidence of the past they can and propose the most plausible explanations they can. But when that is all said and done, we can’t really know anything about the past with any degree of certainty.
There is insufficient evidence to declare the resurrection of Jesus to be a historical fact. There are two kinds of stories that come out of the past--stories that really happened and stories that were made up. How would one distinguish between the two and know whether or not something is a historical fact?
1. We would need numerous resources; not just the few that Craig relies upon.
2. We would resources that were independent of each other; not four documents like the Gospels that are all interdependent.
3. We would need to find that the stories are highly consistent with one another; there are numerous inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts of the Bible.
4. We would need disinterested and unbiased authors of the documents; not people who were trying to promote a particular idea.
5. The documents would have to have been written close to the time of the event; not 25 to 60 years later as the Gospels were. After all, stories get changed in the process of transmission.
Miracles may occur but are so rare that they only become plausible after every other explanation has proven implausible. God may exist. He may even be able & willing to do a miracle. But the only way to believe in the resurrection of Jesus is in blind faith, not faith in facts. One might believe for theological reasons; not historical reasons.

Craig
 Ehrman’s standards for proving a historical fact are so high absolutely nothing from the past can attain that standard. Craig claims there is more evidence for the 4 facts about the resurrection that he raised than for the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. All that we thought we knew about the past would have to be questioned & rewritten by Ehrman’s standards.
The differences in the four Gospels are not as irreconcilable as Ehrman would have you believe. He then proceeded to make a long list of things the Gospels shared in common about the resurrection.
Lane went off on an explanation of probability calculus that went over everybody’s head that I talked to. I think the basic idea is that Ehrman is unjustified in saying miracles are improbable.
Ehrman
Ehrman could not believe that probablity calculus was being brought into a serious and scholarly discussion about the historicity of the resurrection.
Lane keeps quoting “NT scholars”as if quoting the majority of NT scholars proves his points. In the first place, the majority of NT scholars are conservative believers. Second, what a majority believes proves nothing about the truthfulness of a claim.
The disciples spoke Aramaic. The writers of the Gospel wrote in Greek. So the Gospels were probably not written by the men that Craig assigns them to. They were written by men 25+years removed from the events, not eyewitnesses. Nothing in the text says who wrote them. The tiles we use today were assigned later.
It was common for people in the first century to see visions that could appear as people. But the appearances were visions; not flesh & bone bodies.
Jesus was not the only alleged miracle worker in ancient literature: Apollonius, Octavian, the “circle drawer,” etc.
Craig
He does not just quote conservative scholars. Conservative and non-conservative agree on the four facts he presented. Ehrman is in a very small minority.
If a historian believes in God, in God’s involvement in the world, in the possibility of miracles, one can consider supernatural explanations as being plausible. But Ehrman sees no possibility of a miracle taking place. There is always a naturalistic explanation that can adequately explain anything.
Misc Notes
I do not understand why Craig did not use “the oral tradition” argument to defend the Gospels being written 25+ years after the event. Maybe that argument that I was taught does not hold up under scrutiny at such a scholarly level
Ehrman used and argument ad homien approach a few times which I thought was hitting below the belt. I also thought he was mean a couple of times e.g. “Bill is an evangelist at heart under the guise of being a historian.” I thought he also tried to bait Craig a few times on issues that were irrelevant to the argument. On the other hand, Craig remained ever the gentleman. He did attack Ehrman’s ideas with ferocity but never attacked Ehrman himself.
In response to my question to Ehrman, there is not one single verifiable miracle in the history of all mankind even though there are alleged eyewitnesses of miracles. It seems to me that Ehrman willfully refuses to believe in the possibility of a miracle.