A Challenge For You Atheist Apologetics

[sinnersavedbygrace]

"The Old Testament writings and all the New Testament writings and any new writings that will be declared canonical by the Catholic Church but excluding any writings that the Church deems to be non-canonical?"

This is a common misunderstanding. No fault of yours of course. But the Catholic Church is not and never was the authority for canonicity. How then do we determine what is inspired and what is not?

The central factor in determining canonicity was apostolic authorship or approval. Since the apostles' authority came from the Lord Jesus Himself. The Old Testament if confirmed in that Jesus recognized it as the Word of God. As well as the apostles and Jewish religious leaders. Christians hold that the Holy Spirit guided the process because He guided the writings. It wouldn't make sense for Him to inspire the writing, then not insure that we properly recognize what writing is His. These are some simple guidelines.

1) Was it actually written by God's prophet or apostle or someone closely related to one?

2) Was the author confirmed by acts of God?

3) Did the books message tell the truth about God?

4) Did the book contain God's power?

5)Was it accepted by God's people? (The Jews, not the catholic church)

Why is it so important that we know this?

1) Heretics began circulating incomplete collections and obviously false writings.

2) Fake books falsely written under and apostles name were appearing in some churches

3) Christianity spread and missionaries needed to know what sacred writings to translate.

4) The edict of Diocletian in A.D. 303 ordered the destruction of Christians' sacred writings and threatened death for those who refused. Christians wanted to know what books were worth dying for.

So what about the Apocrypha?

A collection of 14 books (I believe, or 15) of Jewish history and tradition written from 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D. The argument against the Apocrypha is as follows.

1) The Jews never accepted it as Scripture and did not include it in their Bible

2) What acceptance it did enjoy was temporary and local.

3) It contains errors

4) No major church council included it as Scripture

5) It teaches contrary to other Scripture.

6) Neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers ever quoted it

7) The Christian churches that did eventually accepted it, didn't do so until centuries later.

Greatly influenced by Augustine, the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century included the apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. However, we must add that contrary to the impression given by Catholic apologists, the apocrypha were not officially recognized by the Catholic church as canonical at Hippo and Carthage. The apocrypha were finally added to the Old Testament by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Why the 16th century? Perhaps it had something to do with the Protestant reformation and the Catholic Church wanting to appear as the ONE TRUE church of God as they still claim to be. (I've attended Catholic mass for 4 years, and spoke with Catholic priests)

[Token Atheist]

"The Old Testament writings and all the New Testament writings and any new writings that will be declared canonical by the Catholic Church but excluding any writings that the Church deems to be non-canonical?"

This is a common misunderstanding. No fault of yours of course. But the Catholic Church is not and never was the authority for canonicity.

Then what were people like Pope Damasus I, or the people at the Synod of Carthage, or St. Jerome, if they weren't part of the Catholic church?

I assume that the Bible you use still has Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in it - all books that were in the Catholic canon but were rejected by the Protestant movement when it started...

Contrary to what conspiracy theorists like Jack Chick think, there was never a secret bunch of "true" Protestants keeping the "true" Bible canon alive. The Protestant Bible canon is a direct modification of the Catholic canon.

How then do we determine what is inspired and what is not?

The central factor in determining canonicity was apostolic authorship or approval. Since the apostles' authority came from the Lord Jesus Himself. The Old Testament if confirmed in that Jesus recognized it as the Word of God. As well as the apostles and Jewish religious leaders. Christians hold that the Holy Spirit guided the process because He guided the writings. It wouldn't make sense for Him to inspire the writing, then not insure that we properly recognize what writing is His. These are some simple guidelines.

Which brings us back to 2 Timothy 3:16 - in that you can tell what is "inspired" because it is "useful", rather than having a blanket statement that a named set of books is inspired.

1) Was it actually written by God's prophet or apostle or someone closely related to one?

Most of the current New Testament fails this test, or is of unknown authorship and therefore cannot be tested with this criterion.

2) Was the author confirmed by acts of God?

Again, most of the current New Testament fails this test, or is of unknown authorship and therefore cannot be tested with this criterion.

3) Did the books message tell the truth about God?

And how can you test this? This criterion simply means that any books that agree with your presupposed theology are considered inspired and any that disagree with it aren't. After all, how can you tell whether a book tells the truth about God, when all can you tell about what the truth about God is, is from the books?

4) Did the book contain God's power?

Once again, how can you test this?

5)Was it accepted by God's people? (The Jews, not the catholic church)

Well, that rules out the entire New Testament, then.

Here is a question for you. Do you use those guidelines to decide which religious writings to keep and which not to keep, or do you simply pick up a copy of "the Bible" and assume that everything in there is inspired and everything not in there is not inspired?

Why is it so important that we know this?

1) Heretics began circulating incomplete collections and obviously false writings.

"Heretics"? How can you tell that they were heretics? - I know, it is because the Catholic church declared them as being such.

By the way, many of these "obviously false" writings made it into the New Testament canon...

2) Fake books falsely written under and apostles name were appearing in some churches

For example the Catholic church, and through them the Protestant church when it formed.

So what about the Apocrypha?

What about it? I never mentioned it.

[ecco]

Off the top of my head I can think of several beliefs on the origin of the universe/life. So why is abiogenesis and subsequent evolution the right choice?

My challenge to you in atheists here in the Apologetics Forum is to prove why these other beliefs are incorrect

I

[ted]

If not, I guess we need to rely on the knowledge that science has accumulated over the course of history. Right now that accumulated knowledge provides overwhelming evidence for abiogenesis /evolution.

Well, I guess that's it then.

Everyone pack it up and go home. There is no God. The quote above is all the proof we need, right?

t.

[Fiosh]

Bottom line is still ... regardless of which theory you support..... there MUST be a First Cause.

An Uncaused Cause.

A First Mover.

Whatever you choose to call "it".

I choose to call HIM---Daddy.

[ted]

Amen.

t.

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

Evolution:

1) Life is a set of imperfect replicators

2) The environment is limiting

3) From 1 & 2, natural selection must occur

4) Thus, life changes over time

This definition is way short of explaining common ancestry. One of the serious flaws of Evolutionary Biology is it's lack of mechanism. All one need do in order to show the error of your above definition being applied to macro evolution is to study dog breeds and breeding. Eventually the selective breeding will end up giving you a severely disadvantaged animal. This is called over breeding.

So you actually believe that the bible is as reliable as recently written and peer reviewed journals? This is just absurd.

Actually, yes I do. The scientific community at one time insisted that the Hittite empire or even people ever existed and therefore the Bible was wrong. Until the discovered the evidence which demonstrated the Bible was right. Not just right but super right, because they found a Hittite library. This is also true of the New Testament. It was believed that Luke was wrong in saying that a certain leader was not in power in the time Luke said. They claimed that he was a leader from the recent past(the end of the BC era). This was supposed to disprove the Bible as well. Until a stunning discovery that showed a leader was indeed in power with that same name. These are only two examples, there are far more.

several of them admit they are only theory yet

I'm tired of repeatedly explaining what it is, so I'll let you find out.

The proper definition of a theory would exclude evolution as well. The concept of common ancestor cannot be falsified. We've seen clear evidence of this for 150 years. The construct can be changed to shape any discovery.

~Ock

Edited September 19, 2005 by OckhamsRazor

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

"The Old Testament writings and all the New Testament writings and any new writings that will be declared canonical by the Catholic Church but excluding any writings that the Church deems to be non-canonical?"

This is a common misunderstanding. No fault of yours of course. But the Catholic Church is not and never was the authority for canonicity.

Then what were people like Pope Damasus I, or the people at the Synod of Carthage, or St. Jerome, if they weren't part of the Catholic church?

The Cannon was largely established by the second century. The catholic church as we understand it really didn't exist until the 5th or 6th century. The Pope at the time of Attila the Hun was the Pope that made peace with Attila and when Attila broke that peace and died shortly there after. Many saw this as a supernatural sign of God's preference for leadership.

I assume that the Bible you use still has Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in it - all books that were in the Catholic canon but were rejected by the Protestant movement when it started...

Doesn't matter. By the second century the entire cannon was established if I remember correctly.

Contrary to what conspiracy theorists like Jack Chick think, there was never a secret bunch of "true" Protestants keeping the "true" Bible canon alive. The Protestant Bible canon is a direct modification of the Catholic canon.

The reason we hold to the version of the Cannon we do is because it was what was originally what the founders of the church used. Although the Protestants my not have been aware of this and so had a different reason.

How then do we determine what is inspired and what is not?

The central factor in determining canonicity was apostolic authorship or approval. Since the apostles' authority came from the Lord Jesus Himself. The Old Testament if confirmed in that Jesus recognized it as the Word of God. As well as the apostles and Jewish religious leaders. Christians hold that the Holy Spirit guided the process because He guided the writings. It wouldn't make sense for Him to inspire the writing, then not insure that we properly recognize what writing is His. These are some simple guidelines.

Which brings us back to 2 Timothy 3:16 - in that you can tell what is "inspired" because it is "useful", rather than having a blanket statement that a named set of books is inspired.

That verse says that ALL scripture is good for reproof ect. You missed a vital word there. He was speaking of that wich was already established.

1) Was it actually written by God's prophet or apostle or someone closely related to one?

Most of the current New Testament fails this test, or is of unknown authorship and therefore cannot be tested with this criterion.

It most certainly does not. The Church father Eucebius affirmed the authorship we use as well as earlier church fathers/ or father. If someone was to make up an author the probably would not have used Mark, Luke, or Matthew. Mark was the disciple of Peter and the church fathers affirm that this is where Mark got his informationf. Matthew would be the most hated of the twelve because he was a tax collector for Rome which was seen a being a traitor. John is the only exception to this but his Gosple has considerable historical accuracey and is also backed by all the church fathers involved except one, where there is some confusion about wether the church father was speaking of the same John or two seperate Johns (John the disciple and John the elder). Further, it is generally excepted by supporters and detractors alike that Mark was written in the 60's, Luke, Matthew in the 70's and John in the 90's. This would have been within the lifetime of some of the people who where there, at least theoreticaly. The only reason I hedge the last statement because of the late date proposed for John. The date for the others is easily in a time where actually observers were alive. Further still, in that time no one would want to claim to have written one of the gosples if they didn't have to. You would gain nothing but beatings, being cast out, and killed. It wasn't popular to be a Christian at that time. As a matter of fact it was often an extreemly dangerous to be one untill Constantine made Christianity legal (He didn't make it the official state religion. I think that might have happened under Justinian later). Most of the people at Nicea had every reason to be faithful to the ideas they afirmed given that they were recently being brutalized and killed for it. Many probably had the scars of the persecution they suffered.

Edited September 20, 2005 by OckhamsRazor

[Token Atheist]

The Cannon was largely established by the second century. The catholic church as we understand it really didn't exist until the 5th or 6th century.

I notice that you say "largely established" rather than "established". So did the 2nd century Christians agree on the canon that we use now or not?

The answer, of course, is a resounding "No". There were many competing canons in the 2nd century, all copmpeting - with each group insisting that the books which matched its theology were the true inspired ones...

However, the one we use today was not established until "The Holy Church of Rome" became "The Roman Catholic Church".

Doesn't matter. By the second century the entire cannon was established if I remember correctly. 

The reason we hold to the version of the Cannon we do is because it was what was originally what the founders of the church used. Although the Protestants my not have been aware of this and so had a different reason.

Which specific "founders" in the 2nd century held to the 66 book canon that we use today?

I look forward to your answer - since none of them did.

The canon we use was established at the Synod of Carthage in 397AD and ratified by Pope Damasus I.

Which brings us back to 2 Timothy 3:16 - in that you can tell what is "inspired" because it is "useful", rather than having a blanket statement that a named set of books is inspired.

That verse says that ALL scripture is good for reproof ect. You missed a vital word there. He was speaking of that wich was already established.

If you are right about the meaning of the verse (and we have already established in this thread that this is unlikely to be the case), this would mean that only works written before 2 Timothy are inspired. When 2 Timothy was written, there was no established New Testament canon. That would make 2 Timothy only be referring to the Old Testament canon.

Most of the current New Testament fails this test, or is of unknown authorship and therefore cannot be tested with this criterion.

It most certainly does not. The Church father Eucebius affirmed the authorship we use as well as earlier church fathers/ or father.

Eusebius freely admitted that lying and inventing evidence was acceptable as a means of converting people - so forgive me for not taking his "affirmation" as proof of anything.

Further, it is generally excepted by supporters and detractors alike that Mark was written in the 60's, Luke, Matthew in the 70's and John in the 90's.

No it is not.

Most scholars that I know of place Mark at 60-85, Matthew at 80-100, Luke at 80-130 and John at 90-120. You seem to have got your information from apologists rather than scholars.

Hint: A scholar is someone who says "Here is the evidence. What conclusions can I draw from it." An apologist is someone who says "Here is my conclusion. What evidence can I find to support it."

Edited September 20, 2005 by Token Atheist

[Inti]

Actually Ecco was very misleading with that whole supposed dialogue between an inquisitive person and the early scientist.  Early scientists did have answers, but they were wrong.  At one time they believed the world was flat.  Others believed that everything revolved around the earth, instead of the sun.  Scientist have been wrong in the past, and continue to make mistakes.  There have been numerous errors by scientists when it comes to figuring out the age of fossils using carbon dating methods. 

To put one's faith in scientists to me is absurd.  While we are waiting on scientists to gather more information to prove how we got here, people like Ecco are by faith accepting their current assumptions as factual.  If scientists once believed everything revolved around the earth, and we know that was wrong, who is to say that the level of knowledge they are on today, even 100 years from now, may not seem as absurd to the people then, as we consider the errors of primitive scientists today? 

When it comes to evolution, I believe scientists will be proven wrong.  That day will come when Jesus returns to set up his Kingdom on this earth.  In reality, both Christians and athiests are people of faith.  The difference is in where our faith lies.  The Christian puts his faith in the God of the Bible, and the athiest puts his faith in scientists that continually have to revise their opinions as they learn more facts.  As for me, I will continue to put my faith in the Bible.

Another thing I also find interesting about the athiests that post here is their faith in historians.  If an athiest wants proof the Bible is correct, where is their proof that the things the historians write about the early church is correct?  How do they know for instance the history of the manuscripts used by the early church?  How do they know the history of how the cannon evolved?  How do they know there was disagreement in the early church about what books should be included in the cannon?  To come to such conclusions, they put their faith in historians that they cannot prove are telling the truth.  What kind of sense does it make to take the word of historians, and they readilly do without demanding proof what they said is factual, and yet they criticize us for believing the authors of the Bible?

So the fact that Scientists are open minded, and don't mind admitting when they are wrong, means nothing to you?

Yes current theories will be disproved and new ones developed. That doesn't mean the old theories where worthless. They are often needed for the formation of newer more accurate scientific theories.

I'd rather walk around with my eyes open, questioning things, instead of taking things on blind faith.