Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[rewriter]

Yes, love is the key difference, understood as consciousness of God's love, and as moral conscience, understood as God's golden rule.

Now, what about the other question: Understanding that the history of the Bible is comparable to making sausage, why do you think most of the Scriptures were written?

There is no single reason because no single human set out to write the "Bible" and there are enough inconsistencies to rule out God dictating it through various flawed human agents. If you want to discuss a large part of the OT, I would recommend, "Why the Bible began" by Jacob Wright. He provides a logical basis for the histories. The Psalms were part of ancient Israel's worship. The wisdom literature was preserved because it was wisdom, note that some Psalms and some wisdom literature show strong connections to neighboring cultures, sometimes almost perfectly word for word. The prophets were records from actual people who were perceived as receiving messages from God. For the NT, Matthew, Mark and John were written to tell various groups about the life and person of Jesus, following certain established literary patterns, sometimes inventing "proof" of prophesy fulfillment as was considered acceptable at the time (there were many "prophesies" about the coming messiah, not all of which Jesus fulfilled). Luke-Acts was written in an attempt to ensure that the Romans would cease to see the Christians as a problem, again following a set literary pattern. Paul's letters, including the Pastorals were just that those of his letters that were not too dangerous to preserve (some have clearly been lost). Hebrews is a preserved sermon most likely. James, Jude and 1, 2 Peter were written as guidance. 1 John was a cover letter for the revised version of John that we know today, 2 and 3 John were preserved as authentic letters. Revelation was a record of a vision that was had by a recognized prophet of the NT period.

 

[GWH]

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You might be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody

Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

Might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage
You may be a businessman or some high-degree thief
They may call you doctor or they may call you chief
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes, you are
You're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)

You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk
You may be the head of some big TV network
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame
You may be livin' in another country under another name
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes, you are
You're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)

You may be a construction worker workin' on a home
Might be livin' in a mansion, you might live in a dome
You may own guns and you may even own tanks
You may be somebody's landlord, you may even own banks
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Yes, you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it might be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)

You may be a preacher preaching spiritual pride
Maybe a city councilman takin' bribes on the side
May be working in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody's mistress, maybe somebody's heir
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
Yes, you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk
Might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread
May be sleeping on the floor, sleepin' in a king-size bed
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Yes indeed, you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy
You may call me RJ, you may call me Ray
You may call me anything, no matter what you say
You're still gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Yes, you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil and it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

Joshua 24:15

 

[GWH]

There is no single reason because no single human set out to write the "Bible" and there are enough inconsistencies to rule out God dictating it through various flawed human agents. If you want to discuss a large part of the OT, I would recommend, "Why the Bible began" by Jacob Wright. He provides a logical basis for the histories. The Psalms were part of ancient Israel's worship. The wisdom literature was preserved because it was wisdom, note that some Psalms and some wisdom literature show strong connections to neighboring cultures, sometimes almost perfectly word for word. The prophets were records from actual people who were perceived as receiving messages from God. For the NT, Matthew, Mark and John were written to tell various groups about the life and person of Jesus, following certain established literary patterns, sometimes inventing "proof" of prophesy fulfillment as was considered acceptable at the time (there were many "prophesies" about the coming messiah, not all of which Jesus fulfilled). Luke-Acts was written in an attempt to ensure that the Romans would cease to see the Christians as a problem, again following a set literary pattern. Paul's letters, including the Pastorals were just that those of his letters that were not too dangerous to preserve (some have clearly been lost). Hebrews is a preserved sermon most likely. James, Jude and 1, 2 Peter were written as guidance. 1 John was a cover letter for the revised version of John that we know today, 2 and 3 John were preserved as authentic letters. Revelation was a record of a vision that was had by a recognized prophet of the NT period.

I have no disagree with the individual reasons you listed. The overarching reason or theme of recording God's interactions with the humans He created.

Okay, we were discussing rational arguments for believing in the NT God, and you kept wanting proof. How about considering what would disprove the NT God? Acknowledging these makes the arguments even more intellectually reasonable:

1. If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).

2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1Cor. 15:14).

3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).

4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)

5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2Cor. 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation (see Part VI).

6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31).

Do you have other/more suggestions for the list?

 

[rewriter]

I can agree with most, my only exception is number 2, early Christian legends seek to explain away a body in the tomb and resurrection in the 1st century did not involve a physical return to life, it was rather simply recognized proof that the deceased was accepted into heaven. Number 1 is weak because eternal life is known to many religious traditions. On number 5, God does prove His existence, but some choose for either psychological or emotional reasons, not logical ones.

 

[GWH]

I can agree with most, my only exception is number 2, early Christian legends seek to explain away a body in the tomb and resurrection in the 1st century did not involve a physical return to life, it was rather simply recognized proof that the deceased was accepted into heaven. Number 1 is weak because eternal life is known to many religious traditions. On number 5, God does prove His existence, but some choose for either psychological or emotional reasons, not logical ones.

Well, regarding #1: If eternal life were created, it would no longer be a tradition.
Paul cited #2 as most important. Wish the tulipists would agree with #3.
Re #4: I suspect the reason atheists keep looking for ETs is because of hope they would be atheists.
Re #5: God proved His existence to Moses and Paul in order to establish Israel and the Church, but the rest walk by faith.
Re #6: Science indicates a unique universe.

Thus, both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27).

 

[rewriter]

Well, regarding #1: If eternal life were created, it would no longer be a tradition.
Paul cited #2 as most important. Wish the tulipists would agree with #3.
Re #4: I suspect the reason atheists keep looking for ETs is because of hope they would be atheists.
Re #5: God proved His existence to Moses and Paul in order to establish Israel and the Church, but the rest walk by faith.
Re #6: Science indicates a unique universe.

Thus, both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27).

I agree that Paul considered the resurrection to be important, but how did Paul understand the resurrection?

According to the OT, to prove something required 2 or 3 eyewitnesses who could be questioned. Now to consider the reports of the resurrection, neither Matthew nor Mark claim to be eyewitnesses and additionally Mark appears to have been edited, with the earliest manuscripts not mentioning any physical resurrection. Thus, neither Matthew nor Mark provide any usable evidence. Luke admits to using hearsay, that takes out Luke and Acts as support. John claims to have been an eyewitness, but the gospel shows signs of having been edited to add the accounts of the physical resurrection. Since we cannot establish who or when this editing was done, we cannot use John. Paul claims to have seen the risen Christ, but he also does not explain just what he saw and he also suggests that what he saw was what everyone else saw, but we do not know what that was, we have no evidence. We thus arrive at the physical resurrection is claimed but not proven according to biblical standards. But we do have early Christian legends claiming a body, sometimes bodies, in Jesus's tomb, just never Jesus's body. We also have multiple accounts of other resurrections from the same period, none of them physical.

This all leads to an important question; can you read the Greek? If so, I can refer you to a verse that might provide insight, but every English language Bible I have seen changes to simple wording of the Greek with commentaries arguing about why the changes to the simple Greek are justified, claiming reasons that cannot be verified, even by other experts in the proper field. But the simple Greek also carries implications that do not fit with tradition but would fit with problems with Rome.

I might also note that Romans 1:20 says that the evidence for God is already present in creation and visible to all.

 

[GWH]

I agree that Paul considered the resurrection to be important, but how did Paul understand the resurrection?

According to the OT, to prove something required 2 or 3 eyewitnesses who could be questioned. Now to consider the reports of the resurrection, neither Matthew nor Mark claim to be eyewitnesses and additionally Mark appears to have been edited, with the earliest manuscripts not mentioning any physical resurrection. Thus, neither Matthew nor Mark provide any usable evidence. Luke admits to using hearsay, that takes out Luke and Acts as support. John claims to have been an eyewitness, but the gospel shows signs of having been edited to add the accounts of the physical resurrection. Since we cannot establish who or when this editing was done, we cannot use John. Paul claims to have seen the risen Christ, but he also does not explain just what he saw and he also suggests that what he saw was what everyone else saw, but we do not know what that was, we have no evidence. We thus arrive at the physical resurrection is claimed but not proven according to biblical standards. But we do have early Christian legends claiming a body, sometimes bodies, in Jesus's tomb, just never Jesus's body. We also have multiple accounts of other resurrections from the same period, none of them physical.

This all leads to an important question; can you read the Greek? If so, I can refer you to a verse that might provide insight, but every English language Bible I have seen changes to simple wording of the Greek with commentaries arguing about why the changes to the simple Greek are justified, claiming reasons that cannot be verified, even by other experts in the proper field. But the simple Greek also carries implications that do not fit with tradition but would fit with problems with Rome.

I might also note that Romans 1:20 says that the evidence for God is already present in creation and visible to all.

Matt. 28:12-13 heads off speculation that Jesus did not resurrect bodily, but his body was transformed at that point, having superhuman characteristics, so perhaps it should not be called "physical" at that point.

I can follow the Greek in my NT acquired during taking the seminary class 40+ years ago, but I am by no means able to read it very well otherwise, so go ahead and share the verse.

Yes, Romans 1:20 is a main text indicating general revelation.

 

[studier]

This all leads to an important question; can you read the Greek? If so, I can refer you to a verse that might provide insight, but every English language Bible I have seen changes to simple wording of the Greek with commentaries arguing about why the changes to the simple Greek are justified, claiming reasons that cannot be verified, even by other experts in the proper field. But the simple Greek also carries implications that do not fit with tradition but would fit with problems with Rome.

Yes.

 

[tomhillbilly]

Keep sharing the bible, and avoid vain disputations

 

[rewriter]

Yes.

If you were in seminary 40 years ago you must be close to my age. That is just slightly after I left seminary.

And since Matthew was not an eyewitness, at least he does not claim to be, and since we cannot question him to know why he said just what he said, it does not meet the standard for knowing it to be truthful according to the OT standards, which other NT writers acknowledged still held true.

Now translate 1 John 5:8 without assuming some Aramaic idiom (a common way to change what it says if translated simply). It might help to remember Plato's Allegory of the Cave when you do the translating.

 

[studier]

If you were in seminary 40 years ago you must be close to my age. That is just slightly after I left seminary.

And since Matthew was not an eyewitness, at least he does not claim to be, and since we cannot question him to know why he said just what he said, it does not meet the standard for knowing it to be truthful according to the OT standards, which other NT writers acknowledged still held true.

Now translate 1 John 5:8 without assuming some Aramaic idiom (a common way to change what it says if translated simply). It might help to remember Plato's Allegory of the Cave when you do the translating.

Setting aside the manuscripts and theological battles surrounding them, what's the concern? I assume you're speaking of "καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν" and it being used in theological debates to say "are one".

I'm looking at about a dozen English translations and all of them speak in various ways of "the 3" (Spirit and water and blood) being in agreement. Coupled with 1John5:7 context of witness, this makes sense.

Who do you think is looking at shadows?

 

[GWH]

If you were in seminary 40 years ago you must be close to my age. That is just slightly after I left seminary.

And since Matthew was not an eyewitness, at least he does not claim to be, and since we cannot question him to know why he said just what he said, it does not meet the standard for knowing it to be truthful according to the OT standards, which other NT writers acknowledged still held true.

Now translate 1 John 5:8 without assuming some Aramaic idiom (a common way to change what it says if translated simply). It might help to remember Plato's Allegory of the Cave when you do the translating.

I think your post was meant for me, so I will take a shot at 1John 5:8: "the Spirit and the water and the blood agree",
but I will be interpreting it in context rather than translating it from the Greek, but before doing that I will opine that
there is no reason to think Matthew, Mark and Luke and/or their sources were not eyewitnesses.

Now, the immediate context for the phrase you quoted begins in v. 6, which says that JC came by water and blood, which
echoes what was said in John 3:3-6, which was that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the Spirit
or spiritually as well as of the water of physical birth. Not sure how the blood jibes, unless it is also part of the physical outflow
from the womb at birth.

Thus, the water and blood testify to the humanity of Jesus and the Spirit testifies to his divinity.

Over...?

 

[rewriter]

Setting aside the manuscripts and theological battles surrounding them, what's the concern? I assume you're speaking of "καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν" and it being used in theological debates to say "are one".

I'm looking at about a dozen English translations and all of them speak in various ways of "the 3" (Spirit and water and blood) being in agreement. Coupled with 1John5:7 context of witness, this makes sense.

Who do you think is looking at shadows?

You are correct to say that it reads "they are one", which is not a recognized idiom to say "in agreement".

Now in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave", shadows appear to be reality for the viewers, when in fact they are merely inverted images of reality. This could imply that Spirit, as visible in this realm, appears as inverted reality. Do you know enough to place blood, water and shadows into a single item (reference Galatians 3:1)? Remember, John was writing to confirmed believers who knew the truth, but he might also have been writing to keep Romans away from the truth in the aftermath of the 1st Jewish War., a conflict in which Jews and Christians were treated in the exact same fashion, differently than occurred to other rebelling groups just a few years previously.

It also helps if you know your Roman history, especially 1st century BCE through 64 CE as well as Justin Martyr's and Tertullian's comments about Tiberius.

 

[rewriter]

I think your post was meant for me, so I will take a shot at 1John 5:8: "the Spirit and the water and the blood agree",
but I will be interpreting it in context rather than translating it from the Greek, but before doing that I will opine that
there is no reason to think Matthew, Mark and Luke and/or their sources were not eyewitnesses.

Now, the immediate context for the phrase you quoted begins in v. 6, which says that JC came by water and blood, which
echoes what was said in John 3:3-6, which was that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the Spirit
or spiritually as well as of the water of physical birth. Not sure how the blood jibes, unless it is also part of the physical outflow
from the womb at birth.

Thus, the water and blood testify to the humanity of Jesus and the Spirit testifies to his divinity.

Over...?

The standard in the OT is for eyewitness testimony, not reports of what an eyewitness said when seeking truth. Eyewitness themselves, available for questioning, second-hand reports are considered "hear-say" and deemed unreliable as it cannot be ascertained why the eyewitnesses made the reported statements.

As for reading "are one" as "in agreement", I will ask you the same question I have put to teachers of biblical Greek with no good answers from any, what other examples can you provide for interpreting this specific comment in this way? There are other ways in Biblical Greek to express agreement, so why express it in this fashion in this case?

 

[Blue155]

Couldn’t other religions use the same arguments (Cause/Effect, Design, Moral, Reliability of their book, their writings, etc) to say their religion and deity is the right one?

 

[rewriter]

Many do use the same arguments, including citing their scriptures to prove that their version is correct. Pre-Nicaea, Christianity recognized truth in many other religions, but then access to imperial funding entered into the picture and Christians were not sure there was sufficient funding for them and other religions.

 

[rewriter]

I might add, lest you think politics has played a large role in Christian theology that politics were clearly not involved in the Council of Nicaea. The gathered bishops, who were the only church representatives allowed to speak, were not swayed by Constantine summoning the council to his palace in Nicaea, not his providing troops loyal to him to supply security, nor by his providing transportation, and clearly not by his granting a huge contract to the most influential bishop, a contract that required numerous subcontracts to be given to other bishops, for a set of 50 bibles (the first ever such collection of complete bibles). Rather they were persuaded to vote for usage of the term declared improper by two previous councils, by the speaking of Athanasius, a mere presbyter, who later became a bishop by circumventing the election process and getting his supporters to anoint him bishop while the selection process was still underway, and subsequently used thugs to support his bishopric. No politics at all.

 

[GWH]

The standard in the OT is for eyewitness testimony, not reports of what an eyewitness said when seeking truth. Eyewitness themselves, available for questioning, second-hand reports are considered "hear-say" and deemed unreliable as it cannot be ascertained why the eyewitnesses made the reported statements.

As for reading "are one" as "in agreement", I will ask you the same question I have put to teachers of biblical Greek with no good answers from any, what other examples can you provide for interpreting this specific comment in this way? There are other ways in Biblical Greek to express agreement, so why express it in this fashion in this case?

There are other standards than eyewitnesses for obtaining reliable testimony (2Tim. 3:15),
and even eyewitnesses can be wrong or give conflicting testimony, so I have no idea why you perseverate about that.
Do you believe the water, blood and Spirit were eyewitnesses? Does your belief make it true?

As for why agreement was expressed in that fashion, if it were expressed in the other way,
would you be asking why it was expressed in that way rather than in this fashion? And again,
why is this question so important IYO? Is whatever answer you arrive at inerrant?

 

[Blue155]

Many do use the same arguments, including citing their scriptures to prove that their version is correct. Pre-Nicaea, Christianity recognized truth in many other religions, but then access to imperial funding entered into the picture and Christians were not sure there was sufficient funding for them and other religions.

So how would we prove Christianity is correct when they use the same common arguments?

 

[rewriter]

So how would we prove Christianity is correct when they use the same common arguments?

We look to see if there is truth behind all claims. There are commonalities as well as differences. Looking at both without prejudice might uncover truth.