What should Christian apologists say?

[Winken]

What's that supposed to mean, 'brother'?
Is it not written that we should seek truth, test and investigate everything?
Should we not have reason to believe?
And to teach others?

The Bible is Truth. The Holy Spirit is the Interpreter. He speaks to the Spiritual Nature residing in each Believer. He does not debate with one's mind, will and emotions. Debates are the result of our failure to recognize that. When we step off of the Spiritual pathway, we are spinning our wheels, we're not listening to our source, the Holy Spirit. No one ........ no one ......... can provide a "better" interpretation and application. It is impossible.

 

[Winken]

It's what I don't dismiss that scares me.
Especially those verses and passages you don't tend to get sermons on.

I assume you have taken note of "passages you don't tend to get sermons on." I submit that it is your failure to rightly divide, to interpret and apply them; that will always be the case for one who remains an atheist.

If one takes the position that one is able to bring critical assessment and judgement to a text asserting super-human levels of truth, so as to correctly choose between rival claims, then an awful lot hangs on the criteria and methodology being employed at the level of the human mind.

And those are the root of the problem for the atheist: "critical assessment, judgment, rival claims, criteria, methodology employed, human mind."

The convicting power of the Holy Spirit, one's confession of Romans 10:8-13, happens "in Faith believing." The authority to continue in that Faith is God-ordained and will never be withdrawn. Yes, Christian Believers wander and drift; He is steadfast.

 

[Chris B]

I assume you have taken note of "passages you don't tend to get sermons on." I submit that it is your failure to rightly divide, to interpret and apply them; that will always be the case for one who remains an atheist.

I submit that I have rightly divided... which is why I am an atheist.
I was a believer when I knew less.

And the doctrine that no biblical passage should be interpreted in such a way that that it contradicts another passage is something only fair in application once the principle is known to be true on some other grounds.
Otherwise it can do nothing but produce (an apparent) harmony) no matter what violence has to be done to the understanding of a text or texts in order to bring that about. This is the
It is then an imposition artificially forcing a desired result.
"Oh look, it is all in harmony" when no other possibility is being admitted.

And those are the root of the problem for the atheist: "critical assessment, judgment, rival claims, criteria, methodology employed, human mind."

The convicting power of the Holy Spirit, one's confession of Romans 10:8-13, happens "in Faith believing." The authority to continue in that Faith is God-ordained and will never be withdrawn. Yes, Christian Believers wander and drift; He is steadfast.

I thought I covered that... either human judgement had to have been present at some point, or the initial step had to be a commitment of faith.
The trouble with the first is that one is landed with human fallibility once again.
The trouble with the second is that faith could (and does) alight on *anything* and after that can only provide confirmation of the object of faith *whatever* it happens to be. Faith will defend and authenticate it. Faith can't do anything else.

 

[muichimotsu]

I know.
But they're not the same either.

I never said they were the same, they can overlap: but so can agnostic and theist, technically speaking

 

[muichimotsu]

I isn't... people?

I was being partly facetious, but also observing the obvious, we can't see in the dark, especially not like cats and dogs

 

[Hieronymus]

The Bible is Truth. The Holy Spirit is the Interpreter. He speaks to the Spiritual Nature residing in each Believer. He does not debate with one's mind, will and emotions. Debates are the result of our failure to recognize that. When we step off of the Spiritual pathway, we are spinning our wheels, we're not listening to our source, the Holy Spirit. No one ........ no one ......... can provide a "better" interpretation and application. It is impossible.

That doesn't justify your comment.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This question is for Christians or non-Christians - but mostly non-Christians. I was watching a debate between a Christian and an atheist over the existence of God (

). The Christian made a philosophical argument for a generalized creator of some kind, and seemed to consider this sufficient justification for belief in the very specific theology of Christianity. This apologetic strategy seems to be very common, and it is very unpersuasive to most non-Christians. Maybe this argument gives Christians a fig leaf to continue in their belief, and maybe that explains its popularity among apologists.

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive? I like hearing personal testimonials about changes in lives, miraculous healings, or whatever. Why aren't these arguments presented by apologists?

We don't really need an argument trying to show that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, disembodied mind exists. And that's a good thing for the apologist, because no argument can be made to show that such an entity must exist and no evidence can be produced to show that such an entity does exist.

It all comes down to the resurrection. Wipe that out and a Christian will suddenly dismiss all the miracles Jesus ever did along with his divinity. Confirm it and the atheist doesn't need a philosophical argument for the existence of God. What we really have is an inconclusive proposition which the Christian confirms as true, which is more or less exactly what it means to be irrational, but hey, that's what faith is for, right? Faith is great... as long as you somehow put it in the right thing, even though by definition you can never actually know if it's in the right thing or not. LOL.

Now, call me narrow-minded but at the moment I refuse to believe aliens have visited this planet and abducted humans. Yet the evidence that this has occurred is far and away better than the evidence for the resurrection. Category by category the evidence is vastly superior and it's not even close. So the resurrection and aliens are a package deal until someone can show me the problem with this reasoning, which means Christianity and aliens are a package deal, which means no thanks.

 

[cloudyday2]

It all comes down to the resurrection. Wipe that out and a Christian will suddenly dismiss all the miracles Jesus ever did along with his divinity. Confirm it and the atheist doesn't need a philosophical argument for the existence of God.

On the other hand, reanimation of Christ's physical body is not actually a necessary condition for Christianity. There is lots of anecdotal evidence of deceased loved ones aiding the living. I have heard several anecdotes among my siblings, parents, grandparents, cousins, etc. The bones of Jesus might exist somewhere, and it would not be a problem as long as the essence of Jesus was resurrected and is somehow able to forgive our sins and so forth. You probably are aware that many historians suspect St. Paul might have been describing a crucifixion and resurrection that happened in a spiritual plane above this carnal plane. If Gnosticism was the original form of Christianity, then the entire gospel might have been a myth to describe spiritual truths necessary for people to return to heaven.

BTW, apparently Eastern Orthodox seminaries sometimes teach priests that Jesus may not have been physically resurrected. (This is secondhand information - a friend of somebody I know - and I don't know the context of the teaching. It might not be as controversial as it sounds.)

I'm not sure what would prove Christianity to me. Hmmm.

 

[Chesterton]

BTW, apparently Eastern Orthodox seminaries sometimes teach priests that Jesus may not have been physically resurrected. (This is secondhand information - a friend of somebody I know - and I don't know the context of the teaching. It might not be as controversial as it sounds.)

No, no Orthodox would teach that. There's been a small problem with a few churches and seminaries in America calling themselves "Eastern Orthodox" when they actually have nothing to do with us. It's possible this other person heard something about one of them.

 

[cloudyday2]

^ @Chesterton , here is the seminary. I believe it is a respected seminary among Orthodox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Vladimir's_Orthodox_Theological_Seminary

It is possible that the student overlooked some subtlety, but apparently he was so upset that he quit. The student was a member of our parish, and his quitting embarrassed people who had helped him go to that seminary. My information is from a family member who was a friend and in fact a God-parent to one of his children. Many people were quite vindictive towards this student - especially the priests in our area. I think he may have had to switch to another denomination, because the Orthodox priests from all the local parishes seemed to be determined to punish him for quitting the seminary. But my information is second hand, and I have such a low opinion of Orthodox priests that I may not be giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure there is a lot more to the story that I do not know. Perhaps the priests were justified in their behavior. Maybe this student was a bit narrow-minded or unreasonable. Who knows.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

On the other hand, reanimation of Christ's physical body is not actually a necessary condition for Christianity. There is lots of anecdotal evidence of deceased loved ones aiding the living. I have heard several anecdotes among my siblings, parents, grandparents, cousins, etc. The bones of Jesus might exist somewhere, and it would not be a problem as long as the essence of Jesus was resurrected and is somehow able to forgive our sins and so forth. You probably are aware that many historians suspect St. Paul might have been describing a crucifixion and resurrection that happened in a spiritual plane above this carnal plane. If Gnosticism was the original form of Christianity, then the entire gospel might have been a myth to describe spiritual truths necessary for people to return to heaven.

BTW, apparently Eastern Orthodox seminaries sometimes teach priests that Jesus may not have been physically resurrected. (This is secondhand information - a friend of somebody I know - and I don't know the context of the teaching. It might not be as controversial as it sounds.)

I'm not sure what would prove Christianity to me. Hmmm.

Until Christians get their version of events straight, I can only comment on the mainstream American form of nondenominational Christianity that I was involuntarily indoctrinated into.

 

[Chesterton]

^ @Chesterton , here is the seminary. I believe it is a respected seminary among Orthodox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Vladimir's_Orthodox_Theological_Seminary

It is possible that the student overlooked some subtlety, but apparently he was so upset that he quit. The student was a member of our parish, and his quitting embarrassed people who had helped him go to that seminary. My information is from a family member who was a friend and in fact a God-parent to one of his children. Many people were quite vindictive towards this student - especially the priests in our area. I think he may have had to switch to another denomination, because the Orthodox priests from all the local parishes seemed to be determined to punish him for quitting the seminary. But my information is second hand, and I have such a low opinion of Orthodox priests that I may not be giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure there is a lot more to the story that I do not know. Perhaps the priests were justified in their behavior. Maybe this student was a bit narrow-minded or unreasonable. Who knows.

The seminary appears to be under OCA, but not without some criticism of its teaching. Regardless, the physical resurrection is a pretty much non-negotiable Orthodox belief shared by all Orthodox, and every mainstream Christianity I can think of.

 

[cloudyday2]

The seminary appears to be under OCA, but not without some criticism of its teaching. Regardless, the physical resurrection is a pretty much non-negotiable Orthodox belief shared by all Orthodox, and every mainstream Christianity I can think of.

Our bodies are constantly losing cells and building new cells to replace them. We don't own the matter that we contain at any moment, so why should it matter if Jesus' original body remained in the grave and his spirit inhabited a new body? The only problem I can see is that the gospels claim the grave was empty, but perhaps this was not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Chesterton]

Our bodies are constantly losing cells and building new cells to replace them. We don't own the matter that we contain at any moment, so why should it matter if Jesus' original body remained in the grave and his spirit inhabited a new body? The only problem I can see is that the gospels claim the grave was empty, but perhaps this was not meant to be taken literally.

I haven't read the whole thread and I don't want to derail, but just off the top of my head there is a lot riding on the question. If Jesus is God in the flesh, where would the new flesh have come from? Created ex nihilo, or from existing substance? So you see the importance of Mary, and also the Christian idea that matter is good, creation is good, and that all creation will be made good someday, not that it will be destroyed and a new creation created. (Although I know the language does express it that way sometimes.) So Jesus conquered death and resurrected that body, he didn't throw it away and get a new one. If the old body had died and stayed dead, he wouldn't have really conquered death.

The question has implications for other wide-ranging things such as the Eucharist, Iconoclasm, Islam (which some of us believe is a Christian heresy rather than a separate religion) to strands of modern Protestantism, and the Orthodox "Theology of the Body".

 

[Hawkins]

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive? I like hearing personal testimonials about changes in lives, miraculous healings, or whatever. Why aren't these arguments presented by apologists?

That's rather simple. The argument is a question that what else can be done if it's true? That is, what else God should do if all is true?

 

[cloudyday2]

That's rather simple. The argument is a question that what else can be done if it's true? That is, what else God should do if all is true?

I don't understand what you are asking above. It may be simply that I haven't had enough sleep.

 

[Hawkins]

I don't understand what you are asking above. It may be simply that I haven't had enough sleep.

By the assumption that Christ (and Christianity) is true, what else can be done (other than what has been done) in your opinion which will make this truth more believable or more persuasive?

For example, take a video about how Christ crucified and raised?

 

[muichimotsu]

Seems to me that proving Christianity to be true would undermine it as much as showing that Jesus wasn't crucified and resurrected, because the nature of Christian virtue is meant to be belief without seeing, from Jesus' own words, particularly in John, since I'm not sure if the doubting Thomas subplot was in the other Gospels.

If you prove something that's meant to be taken on faith, is believing in it on faith even possible anymore? It's like saying God is some great entity, yet you can prove it, meaning it's subject to laws of logic, which many seem to regard God as above

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: Q: "What should "Christian" (Christ-followers) "apologists" (defenders of THE FAITH) "say"?

A: Nothing! LISTEN! Let God the Holy Spirit GUIDE your response and have an annotated study Bible in your lap.

Christ-followers should be spiritually "equipped",
a "workman" ...who correctly handles the "word of truth".

2 Timothy 3: 13-17(NASB)...Paul: “Difficult Times Will Come”
But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
You, (a believer) however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings
which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is inspired (breathed) by God and profitable
for teaching,
for reproof,
for correction,
for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 2: 14-16 (NIV1984)...Paul: “A Workman Approved by God"
Keep reminding them (believers?) of these things.
Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,
a workman who does not need to be ashamed and
who correctly handles the word of truth.
Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Matthew 10:19
But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.