A challenage for you Apologetics

[Pipit]

hey Ian... not much time to reply...

just one thing:

Hey, without QM, radioactivity wouldnt work, electron tunelling microscopes wouldnt work, and a whole load of other things. QM is a very well established theory.

I know you probably didn't intend it to sound this way, but you make it sound as if without the theory of QM that such things wouldn't exist. It is like saying gravity did not exist until Newton developed a theory about it. But remember that radioactivity and electron tunelling microscopes don't require the theory of QM to exist or work. In fact, radioactivity existed long before the theory was developed and still holds to the same laws that it did before. Theories are developed to attempt to explain how things work or to try to make sense of them, and even when demonstratable, unless they prove highly reliable, highly consistent, and repeatable (with the same results) they remain theories.

I am not saying that theories cannot give us a deeper understanding or provide possible explanations, but we should be cautioned against applying theory as fact, even if well established (though I would say, sometimes dabbling in the possiblility of certain theories being true can lead to some interesting thoughts that are worth discussing... such as we have here)

As for your understanding of these things such as QM, it is most likely greater then mine. I be just a lowly history and english graduate... hense why I am asking mostly questions....

[Pipit]

just a quote:

An athiest seeks proof of God just as a criminal seeks a police station.

It sometimes happens, but not that often.

[IslandRose]

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

2Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Sounds like eyewitness acounts to me....

[Ovedya]

Also, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life." (1 John 1:1)

To say that the eyewitness accounts recorded in the Bible are invalid because they are in the Bible is just plain ridiculous.

As far as The Testimony of the Evangelists is concerned, here is a link to Greanleaf's essay: http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html

[Guest skyla]

It's very easy to prove that Christianity is the one true religion. That was the whole point of Jesus' existence. He proved it true by the miracles he did. His existence is validated by various historians and by other religious books. His miracles have been written about by historians and are mentioned in other religious books as well. Now, if Jesus did do these works (which are testified to outside the bible (if you want to go and say the bible isn't true), then he had to be divine, because, you see, no one who has written about Him/miracles said they never happened. And, no human is capable of such works. So, Jesus was divine. If Jesus was divine, then Christianity is true.

Also, apart from miracles...modern psychological profiling testifies that Jesus did not suffer from a psychological illness. He is also classified as humble, genuine, true, good, etc. If these are the descriptions of a liar, then everyone had their impressions of Him all wrong. Also, His teachings are qualified by historians, philosophers, psychologists, etc. as some of the greatest (if not the greatest) moral teachings of all human history. Jesus Himself claimed to be God. So, to call Him a liar and then to state He was a great moral teacher, or true and good makes no sense.

Therefore, based on these evidences and various other historical evidence validating the bible (NT and OT) we can deduce that Jesus was real, what He said was true, and that Christianity and Christianity alone is the truth.

[Token Atheist]

Luke 1:1  Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3  It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4  That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. Do you really think I didn't know about this passage when I said there were no statements in the Gospels claiming them to be eyewitness accounts...

So where does Luke claim to be an eyewitness account? It claims to be based on stories that were handed down from unidentified eyewitnesses - but that makes it hearsay at best, rumour at worst.

Nope. The Gospel of "Luke" does not claim to be an eyewitness account.

2Peter 1:16  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17  For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

If you notice, I asked for statements in the actual Gospels that tell the story - not statements written in a piece of mid 2nd century Christian pseudographia that claims to be written by an apostle but was clearly not.

Sounds like eyewitness acounts to me....

Not to me. One of them is clearly not claiming to be an eyewitness account, the other was written in the wrong place and time for it to possibly either by the person who it claims to be by or to be an eyewitness account.

Edited September 14, 2005 by Token Atheist

[Token Atheist]

Also, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life."  (1 John 1:1)

This is not saying that the following text is an eyewitness report of specific events.

It is saying "This is what we have seen and heard..." and then reporting the set of beliefs that the author (and his group) have seen and heard.

To say that the eyewitness accounts recorded in the Bible are invalid because they are in the Bible is just plain ridiculous.

I agree. It is a good job I have never said that.

As far as The Testimony of the Evangelists is concerned, here is a link to Greanleaf's essay: http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html

Thank you. Now people can see for themselves that he does as I said he does.

[WayneB]

Not to me. One of them is clearly not claiming to be an eyewitness account, the other was written in the wrong place and time for it to possibly either by the person who it claims to be by or to be an eyewitness account.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Token, you ain't by chance an associate of Michael Moore?

You should know better friend. Just cause YOU reject the authenticity of the Epistles doesn't mean they aren't authentic? You're playing a game here when you dispel one positional statement with a hollow statement. What concrete irrefutable evidence do you have? It may be best for you to place the word "allegedly" between your words, "was" and "written" because many respected scholars accept that Peter was the author of his letters. Ya' know, you aren't the first skeptic so there are many who would support your "theory" just as there are many who accept the authorship and authenticity of the Epistles.

You say Saul/Paul did not see Jesus? Huh? Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin and would have most likely been at least a hearsay witness of the miracles of Jesus Christ. He would have been there for the trial & death of Jesus and was there for the stoning of Stephen. Until the crossroads to Damascus, he just had a hard time letting go of what he understand to be of the greater value...the Law. Regardless, something happened to him on the road to Damascus, but of coarse you would say he just had a brain hemorage or stroke or something.

You say Luke was not an eye witness? Who says? You? Luke was a gentile believer who travelled with Paul on his second missionary journey and on his journey to Rome. Luke was assigned the task to write down all he saw and witnessed, which is where the Book of Acts comes from. Why Luke? Because he was an educated man and knew Greek well. His accounts are the most detailed.

You don't wanna give credit to brother John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, for writing the unique eye-witness account known as the Gospel of John? The Gospel account, once again, is widely accepted by scholars as coming from his hand and in it, the divinity of Jesus Christ is "clear"... as you say.

Bottom line Token is that you are ringing hollow here. You say that you have studied the Bible from cover to cover and give the impression that you are familiar with the earliest writings BUT I believe that your responses reflect someone who is making claims but has nothing credible to back them up.

How about 1 Corinthians 15:1-8? Don't you think Paul spoke directly to some of those 500 or James or the other Apostles? Paul may have been a late comer but he was an eye witness and his testimony would be accepted in any court of law.

Stick with the facts OR indicate that your statements are your opinion BUT don't pretend to be a well studied scholar when you are not.

May the Lord Bless you with HIS truth,

Wayne

[Token Atheist]

Hmmm....Well now, it appears that your national anthem has no less than 10 recitations of the Word "God" in it!

Yeah - but no-one knows the words...

(I prefer the Sex Pistols' version myself, anyway!)

Also, I've found that the U.K. has recently been requiring immigrants to recite a pledge of allegiance before they are granted citizenship.  One part f that allegiance reads as follows, "Being a Catholic/Hindu/atheist/Methodist/agnostic/Baptist/Muslim/other I recognise the supremacy of the Church of England in all spiritual matters and its right to a privileged place in the government of my new country. Furthermore I freely acknowledge my obligation to give financial support to that Church and recognise the right of its archbishops to sit in the legislature for as long as they hold office in the Church of England and without benefit of election. I acknowledge that the separation of church and state has no place in the traditions of this nation and is therefore of no merit."

I don't know where you got that text from, but it is so completely wrong that it sounds like you have taken a piece of satire at face value...

I looked up the actual text with both the Home Office and the Parliamentary Publications Office, and it is nothing like what you have written.

The entire text of the "Oath of Allegiance" is your choice of either...

I (name) swear by Almighty God that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

...or...

I (name) do solemnly and sincerely affirm that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

...followed in either case by...

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.

Here is the website of the British Government Home Office that contains the text.

Edited September 14, 2005 by Token Atheist

[Token Atheist]

Token, you ain't by chance an associate of Michael Moore?

No - but I saw one of his films. It changed my attitude towards Gun Control...

You should know better friend. Just cause YOU reject the authenticity of the Epistles doesn't mean they aren't authentic?

Equally, just because YOU accept the authenticity of the Epistles doesn't mean they are authentic.

You're playing a game here when you dispel one positional statement with a hollow statement. What concrete irrefutable evidence do you have?

"Concrete and irrefutable"? None - the nature of the topic is that there is never such a thing. "Acceptable beyond reasonable doubt"? Far too much to put into a post. Perhaps we could discuss it in a new thread (I seem to be saying that a lot these days...)

It may be best for you to place the word "allegedly" between your words, "was" and "written" because many respected scholars accept that Peter was the author of his letters.

I can think of many respected scholars who conclude that the letters are pseudographia. I can think of no respected scholars who accept their authenticity - only literalist apologeticians.

You say Saul/Paul did not see Jesus? Huh? Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin and would have most likely been at least a hearsay witness of the miracles of Jesus Christ.

You yourself have just downgraded him from "eyewitness" to "hearsay witness".

He would have been there for the trail & death of Jesus and was there for the stoning of Stephen.

"Would have been there"? "Would have been there"??? Does he say he was there in any of his letters? No. He doesn't. Does anyone else say he was there? No. They don't. Is there any indication at all that he was there? No. There isn't.

So why should I believe that he "would have been there"?

You say Luke was not an eye witness? Who says? You?

No. "Luke" says. He says he is reciting a story handed down to him from the original witnesses. If he was a witness he would have said that what he was telling what what he had personally seen.

Luke was a gentile believer who travelled with Paul on his second missionary journey and on his journey to Rome. Luke was assigned the task to write down all he saw and witnessed, which is where the Book of Acts comes from. Why Luke? Because he was an educated man and knew Greek well. His accounts are the most detailed.

They are also historically inaccurate. Besides, the Gospel is anonymous. Assuming that its author was the "Luke" is merely following Catholic tradition.

You don't wanna give credit to brother John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, for writing the unique eye-witness account known as the Gospel of John?

Once again, the Gospel never claims to be an eyewitness account and never claims to have been written by John. You are merely following Catholic tradition.

Bottom line Token is that you are ringing hollow here. You say that you have studied the Bible from cover to cover and give the impression that you are familiar with the earliest writings BUT I believe that your responses reflect someone who is making claims but has nothing credible to back them up.

Then you believe wrong.

You are the one who is making up claims with no evidence (Paul "would have" witnessed the crucifixion, for example).

You are the one asserting that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts written by the apostles - when the Gospels themselves say no such thing.

All my claims are backed with evidence. I have invited you to open a new thread to discuss the claims. I have nothing to fear - no "making claims with nothing credible to back them up" here...

Care to go mano-a-mano in some kind of formal debate? It's been a while since I did one of those, but I am sure I have not lost my touch.

How about 1 Corinthians 15:1-8? Don't you think Paul spoke directly to some of those 500 or James or the other Apostles?

No, I don't.

Paul may have been a late comer but he was an eye witness and his testimony would be accepted in any court of law.

On the contrary. At least in my country, if a judge asks for a witness, and someone appears and says "There were 500 witnesses to the event - and I had a vision about it afterwards" then that person would be laughed out of court.

Of course, if we actually had the testimony of these alleged 500 witnesses then that would be something to work with... but alas we don't.

Stick with the facts OR indicate that your statements are your opinion BUT don't pretend to be a well studied scholar when you are not.

I choose to stick with the facts, as I have done so far.

Edited September 14, 2005 by Token Atheist