Originally posted by SwissGambitFirst off, Benny Hinn, if he is convicted, wouldn't be going to jail for performing miracles or because of his witness concerning Christ. He would be going to jail for misuse of funds. But the apostles were never convicted of wrong-doing. Their persecution arose specifically due to their witness concerning the risen Christ.
I recognize this bad bit of reasoning from Josh McDowell books.
Take Benny Hinn. He's an obvious phony. He probably knowingly lied about healing people to get rich. He's been making $$ for years.
Now let's imagine that the current Congressional investigation of Hinn and the other phonies results in Hinn going to jail. Benny pleads innocent througho ...[text shortened]... people, on grounds that no one would willingly go to jail for something they knew was a lie?
Second, Benny Hinn has the ulterior motive of maintaining a "name brand" ministry, which means his motives would conceivably be bound up in the lust for money and pride. The same could not be said of the apostles, who supported themselves as laborers; who ministered to others and preached the Gospel knowing full well that it would cost them their lives.
Third, I don't understand the link between Benny Hinn pleading innocent concerning the misuse of funds, and his followers claiming that he really healed people.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot so. As pointed out by others more learned than me, it was normal (or at least not uncommon) at the time for writers to make their stories fit prophesy etc.
Not so. As pointed out by others more learned than me, it was normal (or at least not uncommon) at the time for writers to make their stories fit prophesy etc. That does not constitute lying if the writer believes his reader will know it is made up.
[b]How do you account for the writers of the New Testament teaching about truth, love, honesty, giving, ked error, but it is not.
I will let those more learned than me deal with that one.[/b]
Since you haven't rooted this opinion in fact, I can only assume that you adopted this opinion because it already fits your presuppositions about the New Testament. But the truth is, there isn't a shred of historical evidence backing up your claim. If the N.T. writers fabricated Jesus Christ's ministry to Israel, then there would have been a historical account of such a fabrication. The majority of the N.T. was written within a single generation of Christ's resurrection and yet no such charges have ever been recorded.
That does not constitute lying if the writer believes his reader will know it is made up.
So your contention is that the N.T. is on par with Stephen King's, The Stand? Fair enough, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is. You will not, however, be able to find any historical evidence that Christ's ministry was an elaborate hoax (I do not envy your having to maintain such an untenable position).
When did I say that? Surely you are not implying that the teachings on truth, love, honesty, giving, etc.are reliant on the place and circumstances of Jesus' birth?
To put it another way, have you ever lied? Should I disregard any teaching of yours on truth, love, honesty, giving, etc? Are you incapable of teaching on truth, love, honesty, giving, etc. because of your past lies? That is the implication you are making.
I gather you believe the apostles lied about Christ's resurrection, and kept on lying about it, while simultaneously championing the virtues of honesty? The resurrection is central to the teachings of the apostles, so they would have had to be perpetual liars. Have you ever read the New Testament? Does it really strike you as having been written by such heinous hypocrites? If so, then I think it would be rather futile for me to continue trying to convince you of the N.T.'s veracity.
Ahem, the shipwreck was because of what again? And which of those gospel writers suffered such hardships? Where do you get this information?
Is this further evidence that you have not read the New Testament?
Well show it logically then. So far you have failed miserably, and my explanation remains the more logical one.
Your explanation is that the Holy Bible was written by the most reprehensible hypocrites conceivable. I do not see how such an explanation is more logical than what I contend.
Obviously your presupposition that miracles are impossible makes it extremely difficult for you to consider the possibility that the N.T. is genuine. And if that is your presupposition, then it is pointless for us to argue any further concerning the evidence.
On what basis do you presuppose that miracles are impossible?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSee if you can prove me wrong: try to explain how in your world view the existence for logical absolutes are 'accounted for' and lets see if you can do it without invoking either circular reasoning or obfustication.
No it doesn't. As with almost all questions it claims to answer (but doesn't) it simply hides it behind 'God did it'.
See if you can prove me wrong: try to explain how in your world view the existence for logical absolutes are 'accounted for' and lets see if you can do it without invoking either circular reasoning or obfustication.
I don't appreciate the ad hominem suggestion that I am purposefully obscuring my position. Such charges are unnecessary for our discussion and only serve to weaken your position.
***
That which exists has attributes and a nature. For example, a dog has fur, bright eyes, a wagging tail, a carnivorous appetite, a playful and aggressive nature, etc. A dog cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time, i.e., it would not be true to state that a dog is not a dog. This is a logical absolute.
Also, a dog could not have brought itself into existence. That is, in order for something to bring itself into existence it must have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it already has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions, therefore something cannot bring itself into existence. This is a logical absolute.
Further, truth is not self-contradictory. It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this. This is a logical absolute.
These logical absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false depending on preference, or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.
Logical absolutes aren't dependent on time or space; they are true at any location in space and any period of time, past, present or future. Further, they are not dependent on people; that is, logical absolutes are not a product of human thinking.
Logical absolutes are not dependent on the material world; they cannot be found in atoms, under rocks, cannot be photographed, weighed, measured, etc.
Even if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true, i.e. if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence, that anything that did exist would have an identity, and that whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, i.e. logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, logical absolutes are conceptual by nature. If they are conceptual by nature, then they aren't dependent on the material universe for their existence.
A. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
B. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
C. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
D. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind, God.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhether it is an assertion with real support or not, the fact remains, the Christian world-view can account for logical absolutes.
[b]I'm simply stating that this is the Christian explanation for the existence of logical absolutes.
And my counterpoint remains that this 'explanation' is no explanation at all. It is a mere assertion without any real support.[/b]
How does the atheistic world-view account for logical absolutes?
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesUpon further reflection, Benny Hinn wasn't a very good example. Let me try to tackle the apostles' motivations directly.
First off, Benny Hinn, if he is convicted, wouldn't be going to jail for performing miracles or because of his witness concerning Christ. He would be going to jail for misuse of funds. But the apostles were never convicted of wrong-doing. Their persecution arose specifically due to their witness concerning the risen Christ.
Second, Benny Hinn has ...[text shortened]... ent concerning the misuse of funds, and his followers claiming that he really healed people.
The apostles were the leaders of a new and growing religion. They had power and influence over their followers. They had quit their day jobs back when Jesus was alive and committed themselves to the faith.
Isn't it possible, even when faced with persecution, that they would risk holding to their beliefs, rather than renounce them and be disgraced? Would they really be content going back to being anonymous fisherman, with no followers to command?
After all, they might reason, even if we are stretching the truth a bit, it is for a good cause.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesLogical absolutes flow from the roundhouse kicks of Chuck Norris.
Whether it is an assertion with real support or not, the fact remains, the Christian world-view can account for logical absolutes.
How does the atheistic world-view account for logical absolutes?
Since support for such claims is optional, I have now accounted for logical absolutes. Woohoo.
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe point about absolutes is that they can't be explained. As soon as you explain something you are referencing something else that is more absolute than the thing you are trying to explain. This process then goes on ad infinitum with no end in sight.
[b]I'm simply stating that this is the Christian explanation for the existence of logical absolutes.
And my counterpoint remains that this 'explanation' is no explanation at all. It is a mere assertion without any real support.[/b]
For example , if existence popped into existence out of diddly squat then how can we explain it? No reasoning is possible . Similarly if existence has always been around then there can be no explanation either because no mechansim has caused existence to exist , it just is.
There's little point in asking why is existence (I don't mean the universe) the way it is because at some point we must face the fact that explanations just stop.
The question "why or how does God exist ?" is meaningless because to imply a "why" or "How" is to imply that something caused God to exist , which if true would mean God would stop being God and something else would then be God.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf you remember, though, the apostles firmly believed that Christ was going to rule as King of the Jews the moment He arrived in Jerusalem. They didn't understand the prophecies concerning Christ, that He was to be crucified and raised from the dead. The moment Jesus was arrested they fled. Even Peter, Christ's most fervent follower, denied Christ three times when accused of being His follower. Their faith rested in His being the conquering Messiah who arrived on earth to rule forever and ever. When Christ allowed Himself to be arrested and nailed to a cross, those hopes were utterly extinguished. When asked about why they were so sad as they spoke together, Christ's disciples replied,
Upon further reflection, Benny Hinn wasn't a very good example. Let me try to tackle the apostles' motivations directly.
The apostles were the leaders of a new and growing religion. They had power and influence over their followers. They had quit their day jobs back when Jesus was alive and committed themselves to the faith.
Isn't it possible, even ...[text shortened]... er all, they might reason, even if we are stretching the truth a bit, it is for a good cause.
"Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?' And He said to them, “What things?”Even after they met the risen Jesus they were hard pressed to believe it was He. It wasn't until after they met Him several times and were taught by Him concerning the necessity of crucifixion did they finally understand. Even so, they returned to their fishing nets and did not begin the ministry we find recorded in the rest of the N.T. until after they had received the infilling of the Holy Spirit which Christ had promised them. In the gospel account we find ordinary men with minuscule faith being prepared by Jesus for the gargantuan task of spreading the Good News of God's reconciliation of the world to Him in the crucified Jesus. Furthermore, they were not the only people who met the risen Jesus in person, as Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:
So they said to Him, 'The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel'" (Luke 24:18-21).
"He was seen by Cephas (Peter), then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles."***
All of Israel, even the enemies of Jesus, recognized that Jesus performed miracles and that He was, at the very least, a mighty Prophet of God. Further, when Christ was raised from the dead, many people witnessed Him walking, talking and eating among them, not just the apostles. As I pointed out to the other gentleman, twhitehead, the accounts of the apostles concerning the divinity of Christ were already orthodox in the early church, and there is no historical record of anyone contesting their claims. For a testimony written within one generation of the events it would have been impossible to pull one over on the people, since many of the witnesses would have still been alive at the time. Of course, you are free to speculate and believe as you wish, but if you are concerned about staying true to the historical data, then you might want to seriously reconsider your position.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesOf course, you are free to speculate and believe as you wish, but if you are concerned about staying true to the historical data, then you might want to seriously reconsider your position.
If you remember, though, the apostles firmly believed that Christ was going to rule as King of the Jews the moment He arrived in Jerusalem. They didn't understand the prophecies concerning Christ, that He was to be crucified and raised from the dead. The moment Jesus was arrested they fled. Even Peter, Christ's most fervent follower, denied Christ th ...[text shortened]... e to the historical data, then you might want to seriously reconsider your position.
Arrogance and hubris! Let me remind you what we were discussing.
We were examining the idea that the apostles would not endure persecution for something they knew was a lie. This requires us to examine the possibility that some core tenet of the faith, like the resurrection, was a lie invented by the apostles.
Perhaps you'd have more fun talking to yourself.
Originally posted by knightmeisterMaybe you'll have better luck explaining this to Jorge than I have!
The point about absolutes is that they can't be explained. As soon as you explain something you are referencing something else that is more absolute than the thing you are trying to explain. This process then goes on ad infinitum with no end in sight.
For example , if existence popped into existence out of diddly squat then how can we explain it? ...[text shortened]... which if true would mean God would stop being God and something else would then be God.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI find it amazing to hear such insight from you. When we have discussed the origin of the universe etc in the past you have always stuck with the "we Need God to explain it" obfustication argument.
The point about absolutes is that they can't be explained. As soon as you explain something you are referencing something else that is more absolute than the thing you are trying to explain. This process then goes on ad infinitum with no end in sight.
For example , if existence popped into existence out of diddly squat then how can we explain it? ...[text shortened]... which if true would mean God would stop being God and something else would then be God.
Originally posted by SwissGambitForgive me if I've offended you, SwissGambit, as it was not my intent to do so.
[b]Of course, you are free to speculate and believe as you wish, but if you are concerned about staying true to the historical data, then you might want to seriously reconsider your position.
Arrogance and hubris! Let me remind you what we were discussing.
We were examining the idea that the apostles would not endure persecution for something t ...[text shortened]... ection, was a lie invented by the apostles.
Perhaps you'd have more fun talking to yourself.[/b]
I understand the doubts which you are attempting to raise. In my response I was intending to show that your speculations aren't compliant with the data -- nothing more. Your case would indeed be bolstered by an incontrovertible historical document suggesting that the core tenet of the Christian faith was simply made up. Since no such documents have yet been found, I see no logical reason to assume that the apostles, along with the five-hundred other witnesses to Christ's resurrection, communally agreed to lie (not just once, but lie continually throughout their ministry) about the risen Christ -- all while preaching honesty, integrity, charity, love, etc. I highly doubt such a deplorable organization could ever get off the ground, much less keep one person from letting the cat out of the bag. Keep in mind, not one person in the early church is on record saying that it was all a hoax.
***
Do you believe that miracles are possible? If not, may I ask why? How about the resurrection of the dead? Do you believe Christ's resurrection is possible?
2 edits
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesYou are clearly setting up a massive strawman. Why do you and other Christians always seem to think it is necessary to prove certain points even to the extent of using strawmen or other devious tactics?
Since no such documents have yet been found, I see no logical reason to assume that the apostles, along with the five-hundred other witnesses to Christ's resurrection, communally agreed to lie (not just once, but lie continually throughout their ministry) about the risen Christ -- all while preaching honesty, integrity, charity, love, etc.
What on earth makes you think that if there was a lie involved that the lie was agreed by 500 witnesses to something that didn't even happen. Surely you can see the contradiction there?
And as has been pointed out repeatedly to you, the fact that they may have been preaching honesty, integrity, charity, love, etc. (not proven) is quite irrelevant.
I highly doubt such a deplorable organization could ever get off the ground, much less keep one person from letting the cat out of the bag.
There are numerous examples of similarly deplorable organizations that have not only got off the ground but have proved remarkably successful.
Keep in mind, not one person in the early church is on record saying that it was all a hoax.
But there are plenty who are on record saying things which most definitely contradict some of the key claims of modern Christians. As many similar wittings are known to have been suppressed and destroyed we cant really rule it out so easily. In fact it is quite possible that in the Vatican archives .....
Please explain how your arguments cannot be used to essentially support Islam - which is in my opinion better documented and more consistent.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesI'm with David Hume on this one.
Do you believe that miracles are possible? If not, may I ask why? How about the resurrection of the dead? Do you believe Christ's resurrection is possible?
See, for example, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html
The basic argument being, in almost any case of a reported miracle, it is more likely that the testimony is suspect (which we know happens all the time) than the miracle occurred (which is, by definition, an unlikely occurrence).
This doesn't rule out the possibility of miracles happening. It just means we have no reason to believe in them.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are clearly setting up a massive strawman.
You are clearly setting up a massive strawman. Why do you and other Christians always seem to think it is necessary to prove certain points even to the extent of using strawmen or other devious tactics?
What on earth makes you think that if there was a lie involved that the lie was agreed by 500 witnesses to something that didn't even happen. Surely yo ...[text shortened]... ed to essentially support Islam - which is in my opinion better documented and more consistent.
I'm not setting up a strawman. My post pointed out specific hurdles which your hypothesis must overcome, and raised legitimate questions about whether your speculations are tenable or not. If you refuse to acknowledge them, that is not my problem.
Why do you and other Christians always seem to think it is necessary to prove certain points even to the extent of using strawmen or other devious tactics?
Whenever somebody starts interjecting ad hominem into the discussion, as you have here and elsewhere, it usually means that person doesn't have much of substance left to offer. Ad hominem, though it may be personally satisfying, does nothing but weaken your argumentation. Refrain from it in the future if you wish to be taken more seriously.
***
I don't think there is any point in discussing this topic further with you, twhitehead. Instead we should start by addressing your presuppositions. If you already have the presupposition that miracles are impossible, that God doesn't exist, etc., then no amount of evidence is going to be sufficient to change your mind, since you will judge everything according to your presuppositions.
What kind of evidence would you accept for God's existence? Do you believe miracles are possible? Do you believe Christ's resurrection is possible?