Christian Forums - Christian Apologetics http://www.christianforums.com A forum to discuss the systematic defense of the Christian belief system with other Christians. en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:52:36 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.christianforums.com/style/misc/rss.jpg Christian Forums - Christian Apologetics http://www.christianforums.com <![CDATA["The God Delusion"]]> http://www.christianforums.com/t7419125/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:06:49 GMT Has anyone else read this book? I thought it was a fun read. it was the most convincing attack on religion I have heard yet, and that is why I choose to read it. I wanted to hear the best of the arguments the other side has. As a result I tossed some of my old arguments that proved weak ( like,... Has anyone else read this book? I thought it was a fun read. it was the most convincing attack on religion I have heard yet, and that is why I choose to read it. I wanted to hear the best of the arguments the other side has.

As a result I tossed some of my old arguments that proved weak ( like, "the universe had to have a beginning and I call the causer of the beginning God") and I grew some new ones that are a bit tougher. I also found the weak spots in the atheistic argument and I plan to capitalize o these in future debates.

Sadly after checking the Richard Dawkins website, there are 720 deconverted people! those are only the ones that found the web site and bothered to post a comment in the "convert corner". ]]> Christian Apologetics bibleblevr http://www.christianforums.com/t7419125/ Was Jesus a Pharisee? http://www.christianforums.com/t7419053/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:01:44 GMT This thread commences where another left off discussing the merits of whether Jesus was himself a Pharisee.

I lean towards the fresh approach taken to the way Jesus has been 'historically' portrayed by the Church - that Jesus was not anti Scribe and Pharisees. Certainly the repetitious use of the many negative connotations to describing the relationship between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees creates the impression that they were in direct opposition. But such connotations may have more to do with 'how' we read the past from our present understanding. Therefore to suggest that Jesus may well have been in fact a Pharisee will come as something of a shock to those steeped in Church traditions.

The Pharisees established their authority during the exile in Babylon. Without a Temple to serve as the focus of Jewish worship meant a new approach was established - that of paying strict obedience to the Law. It also well to remember that the Mosaic Law served in a similar way as our concept of civil, or secular law - it was all pervading throughout Jewish culture. Law has to be administered and the Pharisees became that focal point making rulings on such matters - the collection of such rulings become the Mishnah - (containing traditional oral interpretations of scriptural ordinances 'halakhot') - which acted the same as Common Law serves our judicial system today.

This collection interpretations were subject to lively debate - similar to what happens across the discussion boards of CF. Points of view inevitably became points of contest and what a particular Rabbi had to say of the matter was the source of reference. Thus what Rabbi A had to say on a particular point was cause for someone else to reference Rabbi B's ruling while someone else will point out how it is Rabbi C, in the view of the debater, who has a better response.

It was expected that Pharisees debate - it was part of what being a Pharisee was all about. So, when some lay person wanted to know whether he could give water to his mule of the Sabbot without breaking the commandments it was to a Rabbi he turned to seek some resolution.

The Rabbis themselves challenged each other with question regarding the Law of Moses. It was an expected pattern of behaviour. It could also be expected that many of these questions turned into vigorous debates.

In the same Jesus is often confronted. Such question may well start off with a challenge - 'You say that a man can heal someone on the Sabbot. What is your reference to support this claim of your?' Something like this is the normal opening gambit in debate.

This OP also demonstrates that same process.

"So, Wayseer, you claim Jesus was a Pharisee. On what grounds do you base this assertion?"

Here are some references which I utilized elsewhere -

Gospel scholars have recently come to the shocking conclusion that not all Pharisees were hypocrites. In fact, the majority of them seemed to be pretty decent fellows! ... The simple point is that Yeshua (not to mention His brother James and His apostle Paul) was, for all practical purposes, a Pharisee. His theology, His hermeneutic, His parables, His argumentation, His conclusions and even His dinner invitations were Pharisaic in origin. While we cannot be overly dogmatic that Yeshua was a Pharisee, there is no other sect or form of faith in all of human history with which He shared a closer affinity. He conducted Himself as if He were one. ('King of the Jews', D. Thomas Lancaster).

Another one ...

In my earlier book on Jesus, Revolution in Judaea, I showed how, in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks and acts a Pharisee, though the Gospel editors have attempted to conceal this by representing him as opposing Pharisaism... (pgs.4&5). ('The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity', Hyam Maccoby).

another ...

Like the Pharisees, Jesus held himself apart from non-Jews, referring to them variously as swine or dogs. His manner of dress was consistent with that of the Pharisees, as was his way of calling disciples

But such references are also contained in the Gospels - as in Luke 4:16-20. The very truncated narrative does not do justice to the events as they unfolded.

No wander poverty stricken peasant claiming to be the promised Messiah would have been invited to 'read from the scrolls'. To read required knowledge of language (to be able to read and probably to write) and scripture because the reader was expected to make some commentary on the portion of that reading. And such required a greater knowledge than that the ordinary lay peasant or carpenter. Clearly Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth was accepted as having that 'greater' knowledge.

And Jesus well knew the scriptures which meant that he had to be in almost daily contact with them - either by reading them or debating the merits of particular passages with others - his peers (and NOT his disciples). In other words, he demonstrated the skills of debating his points in public. Certainly Jesus adequately displays those skills when confronted with the more vexing questions put to him. He was an accomplished debater.

Jesus was also asked to make rulings on the matter of the Commandments indicating that his judgement was valued and if his judgement was valued he also certainly was a Pharisee. What Peter or John thought of the Law was of no real consequence - it was to the recognised 'teacher', the Pharisee, Rabbi Jesus, that the questioner turned.

That my opening gambit. I look forward to the discussion. ]]> Christian Apologetics wayseer http://www.christianforums.com/t7419053/ Christian Apologetics References http://www.christianforums.com/t7418997/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:36:50 GMT I'd like your recommendation for the best Christian Apologetics book you have read, along with a very brief justification for your recommendation. I plan to purchase a few of these, and want good advice from my Christian Brothers and Sisters. Please include title and author.

God bless,

Jeff ]]> Christian Apologetics Jeffwhosoever http://www.christianforums.com/t7418997/ troubled http://www.christianforums.com/t7418334/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:42:12 GMT question. I was a church going christian before, and since left.what does the bible say about turning away from it?the reason i left is because i have come to fully accept the age of the earth being longer than 6 thousand years old and that has ruled out any adam or eve. yes that means i accept... question. I was a church going christian before, and since left.what does the bible say about turning away from it?the reason i left is because i have come to fully accept the age of the earth being longer than 6 thousand years old and that has ruled out any adam or eve. yes that means i accept evolution and the earth being billions of years old.i do not want to be an atheist. i want to get back to my blissful ignorance of science but i do not know how.
feeling about god are of no use to me. it is as though christianity is not for anyone who thinks.if it sounds like i am bitter, it because i am.i have found no ligitamet answers to my questions. ]]> Christian Apologetics dennis1097 http://www.christianforums.com/t7418334/ Defending Doctrine Basics http://www.christianforums.com/t7418164/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:53:56 GMT After reading some of the posts in this forum I'm afraid my questions might seem rather insignificant. I have some very basic questions about certain Christian beliefs because I need to answer what others have said to me about these things. Basically, I guess I just need simple answers to turn away "doubting Thomases"! I'll start it up and see how it goes...if I get bombarded I'll refrain. Again, just looking for support!

Regarding the Trinity, how can you explain this kind of a mystery to someone who flat out scoffs at the idea? What are some good Bible verses to use to support this and why? I might be able to provide some more specific "objections" that have been presented to me, but I'll just start out with these questions.

I'm looking for ways to convince my friend of the reality of the Trinity and I need to use really good Bible verses and simple reasoning. Your help will be GREATLY appreciated. ]]> Christian Apologetics JerrySmall http://www.christianforums.com/t7418164/ Is Jesus our Whipping Boy? http://www.christianforums.com/t7418106/ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:20:58 GMT Penal Substitution comes up in talking with philosophers, agnostics, atheists and Muslims, but is rarely discussed in sermons. I could use some help developing my ideas. What is at issue? 1. Is there some overriding “Law” that would prevent God from forgiving sins without the shedding of... Penal Substitution comes up in talking with philosophers, agnostics, atheists and Muslims, but is rarely discussed in sermons. I could use some help developing my ideas.
What is at issue?
1. Is there some overriding “Law” that would prevent God from forgiving sins without the shedding of blood?
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']2. [/font]There are benefits to punishment of the wicked:[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] Punishment is part of discipline and has lots of benefits that God would be fully aware of: [/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']a. Deterrent to crime[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']b. Measures the offence (the greater the offence the greater the punishment)[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']c. Shows you are truly a child because parents see to it that their children are punished for their crimes.[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']d. It is fair and just, there needs to be consistency.[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']e. There is closure with punishment (You do the time for the crime and you can move on).[/font]
3. The idea of punishing the innocent instead of punishing the guilty, even if the innocent is OK with it, is not just and fair.
4. I have offended God so it is just and fair for God to see to it that I am punished me, so if Christ is taking my place is God punishing Christ?
5. If Christ is replacing me, then is Christ not also replacing everyone else, so does that not mean universal salvation for everyone?
6. What is the relationship between forgiveness of sin and punishment for sin?
If there are other issues please help me understand them.
The solution I have come up is the result of trying to address these issues and considering the impact on me if Christ had not gone to the cross.
In thinking about God;
1. Did God suffer while Christ was on the cross? Why?
2. Could we say that God suffered more than Christ?
3. Could God not have prevented Christ from ever going to the cross?
In thinking about me;
1. When I/you realized and understood some things about Christ going cross did I/you suffer?
2. Why , when and how much did I/you suffer?
3. Could I (personally) have kept Christ from going to the cross?
4. If I had not sinned then there would have been another way for man to fulfill his objective without Christ having to go to the cross, so can I feel some personal responsibility?
5. Could I handle the physical punishment required for the offence of sin?


Response to the issues:
1. God can forgive without punishment of the guilty, but since there is benefit to punishment and a Loving parent would make sure His children were punished than God will have to make a way for His Children to be punished.
2. A. We are the offender and do not want to sin again, which is throwing salt on the wounds of Christ and others, see the severity of sin by see what Christ went though.
B. The punishment to us which is felt with Christ’s physical and mental suffering, should/could be in proportion to our sins?
C. God as our Parent is seeing to it that we are punished, by allowing a willing Christ to be tortured.
D. It is just to us since we as the guilty are being punished, it is not “just” or fair to Christ, but God is not punishing Christ. God is allowing wicked children of satan to torture Christ, but that is the way God works all the time. God allows satan’s children to do terrible things that provide opportunities for those that are willing or will become willing through their mistakes to repent and accept His Love in the form of forgiveness. The murder of Christ did become a real piercing part of Peter’s message in Acts 2:38.
E. We do not feel the need to be further punished for our sins. We can look back on the cross with mixed emotions since great sorrow and great Love are both there.

3. Christ going to the cross provide another way for us to be punished without physically taking the punishment for our sins, but we were still punished so He is not taking our punishment away, but allowing for a different form of punishment. Christ being physically punished meant that we did not have to be physically punished.
4. God is not punishing Christ instead of us, but allowing Christ to be tortured and die, so we do not have to experience the physical punishment of our sins.
5. The nonbeliever is not punished by Christ going to the cross, so his punishment still awaits him.
6. Since we have received the benefits from being punished than God can mercifully forgive us. If forgiveness came before the punishment it would not be fair to punish us.





]]> Christian Apologetics bling http://www.christianforums.com/t7418106/ Morality evolved? http://www.christianforums.com/t7416960/ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:54:21 GMT I felt this was more a question of apologetics than of origins so I put it in this forum.

This is an explanation of how scientists believe that morality is rooted in our physical makeup, and it not an objective truth ordained by God. Your thoughts?

YouTube - 'From the Heavens or From Nature: The Origins of Morality' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009 ]]> Christian Apologetics philadiddle http://www.christianforums.com/t7416960/ <![CDATA[How to argue "Billions of Years" when measuring light vs 6 day creation]]> http://www.christianforums.com/t7416786/ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:57:21 GMT Okay I believe in a literal 6 day 24 hour creation and that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. My question however, is when measuring stars that are giving off light that are billions of light years away which therefore "proves" that the universe is billions of years old or the light would not be yet visible from earth, how does this fit in with the 6 day 24 hour creation? ]]> Christian Apologetics faceofbear http://www.christianforums.com/t7416786/ Proof of Absolute Morality? http://www.christianforums.com/t7416622/ Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:01:43 GMT Hi, I know there are Bible verses (I Believe in Hebrews) that discuss how God wrote His law on our hearts. My question is, are there any examples that these absolutes do exist for arguments sake? Hi,

I know there are Bible verses (I Believe in Hebrews) that discuss how God wrote His law on our hearts. My question is, are there any examples that these absolutes do exist for arguments sake? ]]> Christian Apologetics faceofbear http://www.christianforums.com/t7416622/ The Septuagint http://www.christianforums.com/t7416471/ Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:03:45 GMT I read the below information from wikipedia:

“Rabbis first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC[5]. According to the record in the Talmud,

'King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: 'Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.' God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did'[6]

Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[7] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".[8]

As the work of translation progressed gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection (out of which the Nevi'im were selected) changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[9] Some of the later books (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, and others) apparently were composed in Greek.”


I’m not well informed of the origin of the Septuagint but I find it a little disturbing that “"the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities"

Can someone please clarify or explain this?

God bless, ]]> Christian Apologetics CarlosTheJackal http://www.christianforums.com/t7416471/ <![CDATA[Do Muslims & Christians worship the same God?]]> http://www.christianforums.com/t7415718/ Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:38:30 GMT I'll let the title of the thread be my question. ]]> Christian Apologetics lenpettis74 http://www.christianforums.com/t7415718/ Genetics and the Bible http://www.christianforums.com/t7414827/ Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:10:00 GMT According to this guy, it's impossible that the Noah story could have ever occurred because if it did, every male would have the same Y chromosome that Noah did, while Y chromosomes actually have great variation in males. You can read about it further if you search this:

USS Clueless-Noah's Y chromosome


Also, one argument I've heard supporting atheism does so because of the belief that morals are encoded in our DNA to allow us a better chance at survival (giving us the resistance to kill one another.) Klinefelter's syndrome is given to support this evidence, since it it a genetic chromosomal mutation in which a pretty good amount of people that possess it turn out to be criminals.


Can anyone provide an apologetic explanation for either of these? ]]> Christian Apologetics Alwaysseeking http://www.christianforums.com/t7414827/ The 365 Messianic Prophecies of Jesus Christ http://www.christianforums.com/t7414652/ Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:12:59 GMT Is it time we, speaking mainly to evangelical christians, re-visit the ever popular list of messianic prophecies that Jesus is said to have fulfilled? There is a popular list among christians going around about there being as many as 365 prophecies Jesus fulfilled! But I am concerned that maybe we... Is it time we, speaking mainly to evangelical christians, re-visit the ever popular list of messianic prophecies that Jesus is said to have fulfilled? There is a popular list among christians going around about there being as many as 365 prophecies Jesus fulfilled! But I am concerned that maybe we are looking at the puzzle wrongly. The first thing that would concern me would be the very expectation of what we mean by "prophecy". Are we talking about a one-to-one correspondence in the model of prediction-fulfillment? Or are we talking about something else? I get the feeling, especially with the messianic prophecies, that we in general are thinking of a prediction being made sometime in the past (the prophecy) and then at some point in the future there is a fulfillment when the prediction becomes true. But it doesn't always seem to work out that smoothly and certainly things are ususally never as simple as they first appear. I am going to focus here on two examples of what I'm talking about.

Usually on the 365 messianic prophecy list is 2 Sam 7:14 where we see God promising David a descendent:

Quote:
2 Sam 7:8 “So now, say this to my servant David: ‘This is what the Lord of hosts says:.......... 7:12 When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. 7:13 He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. 7:14 I will become his father and he will become my son.
And here immediately we see the importance of God promising to become the Father of one of David's sons and we will often jump foward to saying that this is a prophecy of Jesus. God promised David that one of his sons would have his kingdom established and that he would also be God's Son. So we jump to John and say, "there He is". But the astute reader will probably raise the question as to why God is saying that He "will become" his Father. Is this future king NOT His son then in the time of David? If this is talking about Jesus, is Jesus not the eternal Son? And what happens when we finish reading the rest of the passage?

7:14 I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings. 7:15 But my loyal love will not be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 7:16 Your house and your kingdom will stand before me permanently; your dynasty will be permanent.’” 7:17 Nathan told David all these words that were revealed to him

Now what? Are we going to say that Jesus sinned? Are we going to say that Jesus was corrected for His sin? Or is this passage more likely talking about David's immediate son, Solomon? In fact, the Chronicler thinks it is talking about, first and foremost, Solomon:

1 Chr 22:9 Look, you will have a son, who will be a peaceful man. I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. Indeed, Solomon will be his name; I will give Israel peace and quiet during his reign. 22:10 He will build a temple to honor me; he will become my son, and I will become his father. I will grant to his dynasty permanent rule over Israel.’

1 Chr 28:5 From all the many sons the Lord has given me, he chose Solomon my son to rule on his behalf over Israel. 28:6 He said to me, ‘Solomon your son is the one who will build my temple and my courts, for I have chosen him to become my son and I will become his father. 28:7 I will establish his kingdom permanently, if he remains committed to obeying my commands and regulations, as you are doing this day.

Well, now what? Are we to say, along with Samuel and the Chronicles that Solomon was the son of God?!?!

This is one reason I think a simple list of 365 messianic prophecies is way too oversimplistic.

One more passage I want to look at is Isaiah 53. I won't post the entire passage here but you can read it here: NETBible: Isaiah 53 . In this passage, we have the very famous, and mysterious, suffering servant who suffers in a manner that has striking parallels to Jesus' suffering.

Isaiah 53:11 Having suffered, he will reflect on his work,
he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done.
“My servant will acquit many,
for he carried their sins.

It is very tempting to immediately jump to the New Testament and identify the suffering servant here as Jesus, after all, Jesus was a servant and he suffered almost in the exact same manner described in Isaiah 53. But in doing this, we forget to see who Isaiah himself says the suffering servant is, and in failing to do so, we fail to read in context and get the actual meaning of Isaiah from Isaiah. That would be like me writing a book and you asking everyone but me what I meant in it. So, who does Isaiah say the servant is?

Isaiah 41:8 “You, my servant Israel, Jacob whom I have chosen
44:1 “Now, listen, Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!”
44:21 Remember these things, O Jacob, O Israel, for you are my servant. I formed you to be my servant;
45:4 For the sake of my servant Jacob, Israel, my chosen one,
49:3 He said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, through whom I will reveal my splendor."

Isaiah seems to be rather explicit leading up to chapter 53 that the servant here in view is Israel. I'm not sure how many more times he would have to repeat it before it's clear to us. So what are we as Christians, especially evangelics (of which I consider myself to be) to do with this passage? Should we toss it? Do we try to ignore identifying the servant as Israel? Is there a solution? ]]> Christian Apologetics Yekcidmij http://www.christianforums.com/t7414652/ Christian Books? http://www.christianforums.com/t7414583/ Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:54:24 GMT Hi there do you guys know of any good solid Christian books? could be on apoligetics, or theology or anything but i would like it to be a good book :D that is very strong and preferably in lots of stores so i can get it :) ty for answering Hi there
do you guys know of any good solid Christian books?
could be on apoligetics, or theology or anything

but i would like it to be a good book :D that is very strong
and preferably in lots of stores so i can get it :)

ty for answering ]]> Christian Apologetics EveryTongueConfess http://www.christianforums.com/t7414583/ Why design a system that requires faith for salvation? http://www.christianforums.com/t7414347/ Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:17 GMT If there is a God why does he not make Himself obvious? Would it be fair if a brilliant scientist could proof logically there had to be a God from scientific evidence? Does there always have to be some doubt to the existence of God or doubt in the promises of God? There would have to be some... If there is a God why does he not make Himself obvious?

Would it be fair if a brilliant scientist could proof logically there had to be a God from scientific evidence?
Does there always have to be some doubt to the existence of God or doubt in the promises of God?
There would have to be some benefit for humans to have faith that would help them fulfill their objective, over not needing faith, so what is the benefit:
1. We either have faith in self or we put our trust in God. Self reliance has to do with our money, country, insurance, family, friends, achievements and pride, while reliance on God is just the opposite and requires putting self aside; going from being percieved independent to being dependent on God.
2. Faith in God is a humbling experience, because it is something that the lowliest person can do and actually maybe more likely to do. You are no better than the lowliest believing person when it comes to faith.
3. Believing God/trusting God comes out of an admitted need for help. We all need help all the time, but might not feel or admit that need strongly until in a tragedy and if we live long enough we will all experience tragedies. Turning to God is an easy act of humility (made easy by tragedies), and we need humility to accept charity. God’s forgiveness of our sins is an act of charity (grace/mercy/Love). “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” and thus fulfill our earthly objective by just accepting charity.
4. Faith can produce humility, and humility allows one to accept charity, and forgiveness is Charity and forgiveness produces Love.
Did Adam and Eve have faith? Did the Jews that crossed the Red Sea have faith? Is faith needed in heaven? Is our faith the determining factor to our salvation? ]]> Christian Apologetics bling http://www.christianforums.com/t7414347/