Christianity QA

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Devotional Guide For the week of July 14, 2002 Jesus was no mere man Witnesses were interviewed To Read: Psalms 92-95 To Know: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." (Lk.1:1,2) The Cavalry was the eyes and ears of a 19th century army. When Lee faced Meade at Gettysburg, he was blind. The Confederates did not know the number of Union troops approaching the little Pennsylvania shoe town. Jesus Christ is presently conquering the world. The weapon of our warfare is the gospel message. Our eyes and ears are the apostles. Christ appointed them as his witnesses. They saw him in life, in death, and after he was alive again. They saw him ascend and experienced his return in the person of his Holy Spirit. Christianity is historical. The gospel happened. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus occurred in history. Unlike Lee, we do not fight for the faith blind. To Do: Seeing is critical to Christianity. God made himself visible in Christ. Our faith is believing what the eyewitnesses of Jesus say they saw. In order to write his gospel, Luke interviewed the witnesses. Powerful attacks against Christ have been instigated from within the church. These have taught their flocks that Jesus neither died for sins nor rose from the dead. They consider the apostles deceivers. No one can see a forgiven sin but they can see a living Christ. The resurrection of Jesus is public proof that he died for sin. We cannot see the invisible God but we did see Jesus who for a time visited us. Is it conceivable that Christ would rise from the dead as proof that he paid for sin if in truth he did not?

is it plotinus or i cant remember but i think these whitnesses acounts are somehow even recorded in Roman History. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To Ask: Father, I trust what you did in Christ. I believe that my sins are forgiven. 07172$-07032

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Devotional Guide For the week of July 14, 2002 Jesus was no mere man Witnesses were interviewed To Read: Psalms 92-95 To Know: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." (Lk.1:1,2) The Cavalry was the eyes and ears of a 19th century army. When Lee faced Meade at Gettysburg, he was blind. The Confederates did not know the number of Union troops approaching the little Pennsylvania shoe town. Jesus Christ is presently conquering the world. The weapon of our warfare is the gospel message. Our eyes and ears are the apostles. Christ appointed them as his witnesses. They saw him in life, in death, and after he was alive again. They saw him ascend and experienced his return in the person of his Holy Spirit. Christianity is historical. The gospel happened. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus occurred in history. Unlike Lee, we do not fight for the faith blind. To Do: Seeing is critical to Christianity. God made himself visible in Christ. Our faith is believing what the eyewitnesses of Jesus say they saw. In order to write his gospel, Luke interviewed the witnesses. Powerful attacks against Christ have been instigated from within the church. These have taught their flocks that Jesus neither died for sins nor rose from the dead. They consider the apostles deceivers. No one can see a forgiven sin but they can see a living Christ. The resurrection of Jesus is public proof that he died for sin. We cannot see the invisible God but we did see Jesus who for a time visited us. Is it conceivable that Christ would rise from the dead as proof that he paid for sin if in truth he did not? is it plotinus or i cant remember but i think these whitnesses acounts are somehow even recorded in Roman History.

Recorded by whom?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Devotional Guide For the week of July 14, 2002 Jesus was no mere man Witnesses were interviewed To Read: Psalms 92-95 To Know: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." (Lk.1:1,2) The Cavalry was the eyes and ears of a 19th century army. When Lee faced Meade at Gettysburg, he was blind. The Confederates did not know the number of Union troops approaching the little Pennsylvania shoe town. Jesus Christ is presently conquering the world. The weapon of our warfare is the gospel message. Our eyes and ears are the apostles. Christ appointed them as his witnesses. They saw him in life, in death, and after he was alive again. They saw him ascend and experienced his return in the person of his Holy Spirit. Christianity is historical. The gospel happened. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus occurred in history. Unlike Lee, we do not fight for the faith blind. To Do: Seeing is critical to Christianity. God made himself visible in Christ. Our faith is believing what the eyewitnesses of Jesus say they saw. In order to write his gospel, Luke interviewed the witnesses. Powerful attacks against Christ have been instigated from within the church. These have taught their flocks that Jesus neither died for sins nor rose from the dead. They consider the apostles deceivers. No one can see a forgiven sin but they can see a living Christ. The resurrection of Jesus is public proof that he died for sin. We cannot see the invisible God but we did see Jesus who for a time visited us. Is it conceivable that Christ would rise from the dead as proof that he paid for sin if in truth he did not? is it plotinus or i cant remember but i think these whitnesses acounts are somehow even recorded in Roman History. Recorded by whom?

so long now i cant remember but some secular roman historian – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

so long now i cant remember but some secular roman historian

Who interviewed the witnesses? If you recall the name, please post. I’d be interested.

Response:

so long now i cant remember but some secular roman historian Who interviewed the witnesses? If you recall the name, please post. I’d be interested.

I think it was in this old and lamo attempt at an epistemology of christianity book by Josh McDowell http://www.josh.org/apologetics/ (cRiTiCaL) Comments on "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" In December 1999 someone who had seen this web site asked me to comment on the book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. He kindly sent me a copy. It was the first Christian book I had read since my deconversion and in some ways it was an eerie experience looking at one again and revisiting some of those arguments I’d heard so often. I didn’t go right through all of it, as it seemed rather boring in the second part especially. I do know that this book has been reviewed on the infidels.org web site, however I felt it would be more honest to give my own reactions rather than falling back on that; however I wouldn’t pretend to any of the scholarship of that site, this is more my instant reaction. General Comments Target Audience unclear My initial reaction is the feeling that the author fails to produce evidence "for a verdict". He is presenting the case for the prosecution. In most courts of law I ever heard of, this is followed by the defence case. Now obviously I don’t expect him to argue against Christianity. But if he wants "a verdict", I think he must provide space for counter-arguments, perhaps written by someone else, or several people representing Islam, Hinduism and so forth. If he wants to convert, then that is fine, but I think he should say so. The book isn’t entitled "Evidence that demands a conversion" after all. Debating tactics In a number of places he falls for the below-the-belt debating tactic of attacking his opponent, along the lines of "The evidence is overwhelming. The only reason you aren’t converted is some moral reason or ulterior motive which holds you back.". We see that in the foreword, written by someone else, quite strikingly. In one or two places I felt he was rushing into print with words making almost completely nonsensical statements. The passages about "Saving Faith" and "Leap into the Light" come to mind. Key weakness What seems to me to be the essential weakness of his argument is that his defence of the Bible is very flawed. The whole of the rest of his argument falls to the ground if the Bible is not inspired or fallible, yet his argument in its favour is unconvincing to me – and I have studied the Bible for many years, including NT Greek. He launches straight into a list of quotations from the Bible – hardly likely to impress someone yet to be convinced of its validity. However I jump ahead. Let’s look at what he claims to do, and compare it with what he does do. Objectives fulfilled? On page 2 he says: The basic "apologetic" thesis of these notes is: "There is an infinite, all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving God who has revealed Himself by means natural and supernatural in creation, in the nature of man, in the history of Israel and the Church, in the pages of Holy Scripture, in the incarnation of God in Christ, and in the heart of the believer by the gospel." This all sounds very impressive. One would assume that the things to be established are in no particular order, e.g. Scripture isn’t more important than Christ. However the interesting thing is that nowhere in the book does he first establish that there is indeed "an infinite, all-wise … God". What’s the point of establishing that Jesus is God or claimed to be God unless you have a clear idea of who that God is? Likewise the whole area of Creation, and the claim that God revealed himself in it, isn’t justified. Again, from the point of view of an absolute beginner, bemused by references to the Bible before he has been convinced of its relevance, a whole load of terms are presented undefined. For example (and I’ll return to this later), what’s the point of saying that if God became Man, he’d be without sin, when "sin" hasn’t properly been defined? I find myself wondering if this is really aimed at unbelievers, or at propping up the faith of waverers. Specific points I’ll skip the foreword, although I object to a few statements there, as someone else wrote that. Introduction I don’t like the quotations from the Bible, which fill over a page, before the text begins. If you put yourself in the position of someone knowing nothing about Christianity, you’d wonder why the Bible is exclusively selected here and why it is relevant. Saving faith Early on, on page 4 of the book, he makes the most curious argument about "saving faith". At the beginning of the section he explains that there is a difference between faith as such and "saving faith", in that "saving faith  … establishes a relationship with Christ". He seems to be saying that it is a different kind of faith, and that ordinary faith, even in Christ, wouldn’t be "saving". Later on on the same page though, he refers to discussions with a Moslem and with Buddhists, who point to more faithful adherents to those religions than some Christians, and he seems to be saying that it’s because the faith is in Christ that it is "saving". I just don’t really see what is he arguing here. If you need a special kind of faith for it to be "saving", then his discussions with the people from other religions makes no sense. If you don’t, and it only has to be faith in Christ for it to be "saving", then surely he is saying nothing different from the other religions? Leap into the light Moving on to p10, we read about how he considered the evidence and how it was so overwhelming for him that becoming a Christian wasn’t a "leap in the darkness" but a "leap into the light". I just don’t see what he means when he says: If I had exercised "blind faith" I would have rejected Jesus Christ and turned my back on the evidence. How can not believing something be the exercise of faith, "blind" or otherwise? How does this accord with Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"? Is he saying that faith is going in accordance with the evidence, or going contrary to the evidence? Whether he likes it or not, there are a majority of people, adherents of other religions and none, who take a different view of the evidence. And where does a "de-convert" like me fit in? I had to "turn my back" on what I’d believed for most of my life and face up to people who in many cases became former friends, considering me apostate. This was in response to evidence which to me pointed the other way. Following this passage, he makes his customary few digs at the purported motives of his opponents in not accepting Christ. The Bible The Uniqueness of the Bible This section is all about how unique the Bible is, how it’s the world’s best-seller of all time, how it is completely in harmony despite 40 different authors over 1,000 years etc. I am not particularly impressed by this argument. Lots of books are unique in all sorts of ways. I don’t think that selling well proves anything. I just don’t agree that the Bible speaks with harmony and continuity on hundreds of controversial subjects. Most people would say that the God portrayed in the Old Testament is different in character from that in the New for starters. For example the writer of Exodus has the offences of the violator against the ten commandments visited on subsequent generations whereas later, as in Jeremiah, we have each person responsible for his or her own sin. Even in the duplicated historical passages between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles, such as the temple site, there are petty discrepancies, such as the price paid for the threshing floor, the numbers on the census, and so forth. Some of these can be explained away to some degree, but a book in "harmony" doesn’t need such explanations. Many people (including C.S. Lewis, who is elsewhere quoted freely) would claim, contrary to what he says on p15, to the effect that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that the Creation and Flood stories were borrowed from the mythology of other people, notably the Babylonians. In page 19 we read about the Septuagint version, but not that it has some clear discrepancies from the Hebrew (although this admitted later). In the same section the bit about being unique in its translation is a bit hollow in view of the arguments over versions! I’ll have to skip over some other bits, but I couldn’t believe what I read about "The Table of Nations" in Genesis 10. He says that the genealogies from Noah there are borne out by modern research. Is the guy serious? Reconstructing the Bible? He makes a bald statement that if all copies of the Bible were lost, it could be reconstructed in all its essential parts from other books in libraries. I thought that he was arguing that the whole Bible is inspired? What does he mean about "all its essential parts"? Are the bits which aren’t "essential", and wouldn’t get reconstructed, less inspired than the rest? I should imagine that none of the genealogies would be reconstructed, and little of the Old Testament histories apart from the well-known stories about Saul, David and Elijah. I can’t see most of the prophets except for a few favourite passages in Isaiah being re-assembled and at most only about half of the Psalms and a few of the Proverbs. I would hazard a guess that at best about a third of the Bible, most of the NT, but only a small fraction of the OT, would thus be reconstructed. This would compare unfavourably with the Koran, which many Moslems know by heart. The Canon In this section Mr McDowell explains how various candidate books were selected or … read more »

Response:

Devotional Guide For the week of July 14, 2002 Jesus was no mere man Witnesses were interviewed To Read: Psalms 92-95 To Know: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." (Lk.1:1,2) The Cavalry was the eyes and ears of a 19th century army. When Lee faced Meade at Gettysburg, he was blind. The Confederates did not know the number of Union troops approaching the little Pennsylvania shoe town. Jesus Christ is presently conquering the world. The weapon of our warfare is the gospel message. Our eyes and ears are the apostles. Christ appointed them as his witnesses. They saw him in life, in death, and after he was alive again. They saw him ascend and experienced his return in the person of his Holy Spirit. Christianity is historical. The gospel happened. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus occurred in history. Unlike Lee, we do not fight for the faith blind. To Do: Seeing is critical to Christianity. God made himself visible in Christ. Our faith is believing what the eyewitnesses of Jesus say they saw. In order to write his gospel, Luke interviewed the witnesses. Powerful attacks against Christ have been instigated from within the church. These have taught their flocks that Jesus neither died for sins nor rose from the dead. They consider the apostles deceivers. No one can see a forgiven sin but they can see a living Christ. The resurrection of Jesus is public proof that he died for sin. We cannot see the invisible God but we did see Jesus who for a time visited us. Is it conceivable that Christ would rise from the dead as proof that he paid for sin if in truth he did not? To Ask: Father, I trust what you did in Christ. I believe that my sins are forgiven. 07172$-07032

Response:

Related Posts