A challenage for you Apologetics

[WayneB]

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

I wasn't the one making definitive statements. I accept the Epistles as authentic. You don't. Your choice. Just present it as such...your opinion.

"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...)

I wouldn't waste my time Token because the source material you would use would probably not be accepted by us anymore than your acceptance of the authenticity of the Scriptures.

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.

Once again, just saying it doesn't make it so. So literalist apologists cannot be respected scholars? Says who? You?

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

No, actually I did not. I used the phrase "most likely" and specifically as it relates to the "miracles" of Jesus.

"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"?

Because as a member of the Sanhedrin, his place would have been in Jerusalem for the Passover celebration.

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.

I was referring to the eye witness account Luke wrote of in regards to the missionary journeys. You forget that Jesus rose and when HE ascended, the Holy Spirit moved and many came to KNOW Jesus Christ through the Spirit. Luke was a witness, which he made clear in the Book of Acts.

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

Once again, for you to say they are historically inaccurate does not make them so.

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.

So who was the disciple that Jesus loved?

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

Was Paul a member of the Sanhedrin or not? Was Jesus crucified during Passover? The preponderance of the evidence (Passover, Jewish Tradition and Saul's position) suggests that Saul was there.

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

Yes, I am making that assertion but I take it one step further when I stated that John's Gospel is an eye witness account by virtue of including himself in the account.

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...

Why do we need a new thread? Let us all stick to this one here. What is YOUR evidence???? Present it.

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.

Mano-a-mano? Like arm-wrestling? Maybe Ovedya would like to but not me friend. I do not debate but rather I share my understanding and why I believe what I believe. I do not need to prove myself right.

My issue with you is that you make definitive statements and violate the very thing you say Christians violate. The truth of the matter is that nothing we say can be "proved" one way or the other but rather must be proved to ourselves. I am satisfied with my proof because God has revealed Himself to me. We call it FAITH. I believe God. You choose not to. Your choice. HIS voice.

No, I don't.

Why don't you? He said that many of them were still alive. Don't you think a prudent person would have pursued the TRUTH and all the witnesses before he so easily gave up his wealth, position and life? Of coarse it is possible that Paul was satisfied with his face to face meeting on the Road to Damascus.

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.

Who said vision? Consider an event that ocurred 60 years ago. Who testified at the Nuremberg trials? Was it only those who saw the bodies placed in the ovens or did it include those who heard the screams, saw their friends disappear or saw the "results" of the event, such as the troops who first saw the camps? Regarding a historical record, many books have been written about the event, which are accepted as authoritative because the "source material" is accepted as reliable. Regardless, I guess at some point in the future (as there already are), there will be many folks who refuse to believe that the event ever occurred and say, "there are no witnesses."

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.

You say we don't but I say James was a witness and he himself stated, "My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ." Funny thing about James, the half brother of Christ, is that even he did not believe until after Jesus rose from the tomb.

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

Your "facts" as YOU accept them.

By the way, let's start fresh if we are to continue. Somehow the quote function got messed up and I could not fix it. It really was a bit confusing trying to respond (so I just used a different color for the font).

[Token Atheist]

John wrote the book of john.  Don't be ridiculous.

The book of "John" is anonymous. The first Christians who started using it and quoting from it treated it as being anonymous and did not connect it to any particular author.

What is your evidence to connect it with the apostle John?

Edited September 14, 2005 by Token Atheist

[Ovedya]

John wrote the book of john.

[Token Atheist]

Sorry, but the burden of proof is upon you, not me.

A book is written.

It is anonymous.

You claim it is written by someone called "John" - who is talked about in the third person (and never talked about in the first person) throughout the book.

And you say that the burden is on me to prove that it was anonymous?

If it was not anonymous, show me where the author tells us who he is.

John identifies himself in chapters 21 and 35 respectively.

I have already dealt with chapter 21. The author does not claim to be anyone in particular. He claims that he is telling the story told to him by the "beloved disciple", but does not claim to be John. He does not claim to be anyone in particular.

And there is no John 35!

[Ovedya]

Just testing.

The verses in chapter 21 are evidence enough.

[WayneB]

Just testing. 

The verses in chapter 21 are evidence enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You had even me checking Ovedya. I thought maybe my translation was a condensed version!

Yup, when John said, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." ...we know it was John BUT even if it wasn't, so what? Whoever wrote this was a follower of Jesus Christ and favored by him, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Y'all see what Token is proving here? That Jesus Christ does NOT rely on the testimony of man...period. Pretty much what HE said in John 5:34. It also reflects how HE felt and what HE meant in John 2:25. Well done Token. HIS point exactly!

Maybe you could be a Christian apologist?

[Token Atheist]

Yup, when John said, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." ...we know it was John BUT even if it wasn't, so what?

I just don't see how you can take that passage to mean that John is the author.

The author talks about John in the third person.

He even goes out of his way to say that John testified things and wrote them down, and that we know that his testimony is true (of course, it doesn't say how the author knows that John's testimony is true...)

That specifically excludes John from being the author! The author is explicitly telling us that he is working from what John wrote down.

Anyway, the point of this was that Christians often claim that there are lots of eyewitness reports of Jesus - but when examined, it turns out that these "eyewitness reports" turn out to be hearsay of the same "this happened to a friend of a friend of mine..." quality of most modern day Urban Myths.

[WayneB]

John spoke in the third person out of humility. He wanted the focus to be on Jesus Christ and not himself.

Regardless, what does it matter? It is an eye witness account either way of a person who saw Jesus Christ and the miracles HE performed. Reading the Gospel all the way through, the evidence suggests that disciple to be John, the one whom Jesus favored. The one who was in the inner circle (John, James and Peter). The one who witnessed the transfiguration of Jesus Christ. An eye witness.

Once again, Jesus Christ does NOT need the testimony of man. He said so and I believe HIM.

Now I'll grant you that there are many urban myths BUT so what? There are also many truths that are rejected and covered with lies.

So what and who can we trust?

[Fiosh]

Off the top of my head I can think of three maybe four major world religions, other than Christianity.  So why is Christianity the right choice?

According to Wikipedia, Christianity has the largest number of followers with a total of 2.1 Billion.

That breaks down into 1.1 Billion Catholics, 350 million Protestants, 240 million Eastern Orthodox, and 84 million Anglicans.  All, very respectable figures.

Next is Islam, with a total of 1.3 Billion followers, so Islam is actually more popular than any of the different Christian denominations. It then classes

[Matthitjah]

Amen Sister,

I can't prove it to you beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's impossible.

The knowledge of the essence of God is not in the brain.

It is found in the spirit.

My spirit knows its Creator.

Even when my mind questions and doubts.

My spirit recognizes God, and yearns to be in His Presence....to touch Him.

Your spirit knows Him, too.

If you are honest with yourself you know this.

In the quiet of your room; after all your arguments have been made and you turn out your light.

Your spirit knows He is there with you. Wanting you to call out to Him.

That is your only proof.

We are all Created in His image and with the desire to know our Creator.

Thus mans attempt to define God through the various Religions. Except that in Christianity the Word became Flesh and made His dwelling with man. Thus defining Himself. We can no longer keep Him in the box once the Truth is made known to us. We must then depart Religion and accept by Faith that He is who He says He is. Stopping the molding and shaping of Him into our image and realize that we must allow Him to mold and shape ourselves into His image. Of which we have been Created and subsequently departed in rebellion.

Peace,

Dave