runner,

<<break one you have broken the lot. Sure you know that. And of course that includes you and me.>>

James 2:10 (ESV) states: 'For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it'.

Please do the exegesis of the grammar of this text and share what it means.

'James 2:10 (ESV) states: 'For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it'.

Please do the exegesis of the grammar of this text and share what it means.'
I will leave that to you Ozspen. Your grammar is much better than mine.

runner,

You stated: <<break one [of God's commandments] you have broken the lot. Sure you know that. And of course that includes you and me.>>

How is it possible to break one of God's commandments and that means breaking them all. Doesn't that sound like strange logic?

I asked you to do the exegesis of the grammar of James 2:10 and tell us what it means.

Now you pass the buck: <<I will leave that to you Ozspen. Your grammar is much better than mine.>>

I urge you not to promote a view that you are not prepared to defend.

Ozspen

'For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.' MKJV

now you go and do he exegesis of the grammar or at least reveal the little game you are trying to play

To Galen.

The your interpation that the reserection is a myth, is not evidance that it is a myth. Nor is the sun moving throughout the seasons and then changing direction is not evidence of anything either.

As for Galgamash, I've found a copy of the tale online and am in the process of reading it, however so far it does not resemble anything like Jesus. Do you want to make your point more clear and say how they are simular or why you think the reserection is plagiarizing from this story? (Or if you want to point to another story, can you include why you think the bible and the life of Jesus are plagiarized off of those stories.

I agree with Peter Sellick that truth need not correspond with the facts of the material world, for truth could only be unchanging and everlasting while this material world is fleeting!

How did this misconception as if truth must correspond with facts, come about?

My hypotheses: when people who have complete faith in the material world, state things that are not factually/historically so, this has to be a dishonest, selfish manipulation for some gain. The need to serve their small-self/ego indicates that they consider themselves small and needy, separate from the totality of God - and that is a falsehood in denial of the truth of their eternal divine nature.

Nevertheless, getting back to the article, what has the finding (later to be found a hoax) of the bones of Jesus' body in a cave to do with his resurrection? Surely if Jesus came back from the dead, then he could obtain a body from anywhere he liked, including even from sunlight or thin space - why would his new body necessarily contain every calcium atom from the old bones he once had?