Palm Sunday vs Common Sense

.

Proving some things in the Gospel are true doesn't eo ipso prove that all
things in the Gospel are true. In other words: true by association. For
example:

It's easily proven that Pontius Pilate was a prefect of the Roman province of
Judaea from AD 26/27 to 36/37. However, that fact does not validate the
Gospel's claim that a Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to life
during Pilate's time.

In point of fact, some of the best fiction usually works true-life stuff into its
narrative. For example: nuclear weapons are true-life, and the countries of
Russia and America are true life. The movie Doctor Strangelove has nuclear
weapons in the narrative and it has the countries of Russia and America.
Does that validate everything in Doctor Strangelove? No.
_

Where is all this coming from? Some apostate theological liberal's questions (not meaning you, but whoever you may be quoting).

I understand and hear what you are saying there, but I believe that we would be accountable for believing the Bible is 100% true, even if we could not prove any of it with your 'scientific' proof methods. I believe with my personal experiencial evidence. I also agree that that first baby step out of the boat and into the water needs to be done entirely by faith. Faith is something that is done without your kind of proof.

If you cannot bring yourself to believe anything that you cannot prove with your kind of proof, then, ??????

Exellent question. Any man of God should leap for joy when confronted with those kinds of questions. I know these questions were aimed at someone else. Hope you don't mind if I grab them for myself.

I believe that every man should be ready, willing, and eager to...
1 Peter 3
3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I believe...
2 Timothy 3
3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I believe in Easter; The Son of God came down from Heaven, died on the Cross to make His sin-cleansing blood available to all, rose again on the third day, and now sits with His Father in Heaven interceding and preparing an eternal home for all those who would humbly confess, repent, and accept his precious blood as payment-in-full for the sin they were born into since that dreadful day of Adams fall.

.

All too often, so-called apologetics turn out to be just more clever sophistry;
defined by Webster's as subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation and/or
an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid.

The Bible issues a warning about sophistry in Eph 4:11-14.
_

So my guess is you've never read an apologists work or listened to a video. Nor do you understand what the meaning of the word is. Otherwise you wouldn't use a verse that has nothing to do with the subject.


Ephesians 4:11-14 11So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.

Well, that's a cop-out, since you seem bent on trying to destroy the Christian faith.

I don't think sense is that common

.

Speaking strictly for myself; I think the NLT says it best.

"Then we will no longer be like children, forever changing our minds about
what we believe because someone has told us something different or
because someone has cleverly lied to us and made the lie sound like the
truth."
_

I agree. You were, in essence, giving him the opportunity to give his PERSONAL testimony. Is he implying that he does not have one?

be nice if folks would just say what they mean, and not imply this and make a word salad out of that......

Neither version is speaking about or alluding to apologetics, which are telling the truth about Gods Word and shining light on it. Again, I believe you misunderstand what apologetics is.

Some people just seem to like to pretend they don't understand. Woe unto them.