<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Witherington:  What Have They Done with Jesus?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://henrysthreads.com/2008/01/witherington-what-have-they-done-with-jesus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2008/01/witherington-what-have-they-done-with-jesus/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Religion in the World from a passionate, moderate, liberal charismatic Christian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:11:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geri Brewster</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2008/01/witherington-what-have-they-done-with-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-101339</link>
		<dc:creator>Geri Brewster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:36:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1130#comment-101339</guid>
		<description>Since the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and some other gospel&#039;s found, much is debated today on historical accuracy.  However, I tend to hold more on to accuracy on the canon from eye witnesses first, and to those who talked to eye witnesses.  When years or centuries pass and scholars try to explain who Jesus was can be a guess at best.  If a spiritual experience has happened and that experience closely resembles the words in the Bibical account, one might have a better understanding of what the historical Jesus stood for.
There will be those who will focus on Jesus on historical premises only and may always wonder about the accuracy of the historical accounts.  There will be those who will disect the words in Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek for plausable historical effects on this historical Jesus.  There will be those who will say, I have read about Jesus and believed in my heart He is the Christ and have had a personal spiritual awakening.  This person may say, I know He lived through personal experience but can&#039;t describe through scholarly education the specifics about his life.  This group may not need to know the specifics but accepts the canon as eye witness testimonies of those who walked with Jesus as the truth of scripture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and some other gospel&#8217;s found, much is debated today on historical accuracy.  However, I tend to hold more on to accuracy on the canon from eye witnesses first, and to those who talked to eye witnesses.  When years or centuries pass and scholars try to explain who Jesus was can be a guess at best.  If a spiritual experience has happened and that experience closely resembles the words in the Bibical account, one might have a better understanding of what the historical Jesus stood for.<br />
There will be those who will focus on Jesus on historical premises only and may always wonder about the accuracy of the historical accounts.  There will be those who will disect the words in Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek for plausable historical effects on this historical Jesus.  There will be those who will say, I have read about Jesus and believed in my heart He is the Christ and have had a personal spiritual awakening.  This person may say, I know He lived through personal experience but can&#8217;t describe through scholarly education the specifics about his life.  This group may not need to know the specifics but accepts the canon as eye witness testimonies of those who walked with Jesus as the truth of scripture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

