C
Church_Militant
Guest
Agreed!Your dialogue is charitable and respectful. There is no reason for you to be booted. Congrats!
- Status
D
David_Brent
Guest
Here’s an apologetics website from Christianity Today. I don’t know if there is a forum there, but there is some info. I do not frequent it.
christianitytoday.com/bible/frame2.html?http://www.apologeticsindex.org/
J
jimmy
Guest
David, I could doubt your existence, or you could doubt mine since you can not be 100% sure that I exist. You have to trust what you see and what you can read or else you have nothing. Imagine it, no past at all. I debate sometimes with atheists about Christianity. One guy I have argued with argues that the Christian documents are all false because they are old and what they say can not be proved.
D
David_Brent
Guest
I’m asking around about a “protestant” apologetics forum. I’ll let you know what I find out. I typically just ask one of my pastors about questions or go looking at a bookstore for some information.
D
David_Brent
Guest
Not sure your example about me and you works. I know you exist because you just wrote an email. But I don’t know that your name is actually “Jimmy” anymore than you know whether my name is really David.
As for your atheist friend, does he doubt that Livy’s Roman History is “true” or Thucydides or Caesar’s Gallic Wars just because they’re old? I doubt it. But there exist only 8 copies of Thucydides, only 9-10 copies of the Gallic Wars, and only 20 copies of Livy’s Roman History. More importantly, the copies that exist were discovered 900 to 1300 years after the time they purport to chronicle.
On the other hand, there are over 5,000 copies of the New Testament in Greek, about 10,000 copies in Latin and another 9,300 on other languages. Plus, they were written in 40-100 A.D. with the earliest copies dating to 130 A.D. and earliest full manuscripts from 350 A.D.
For those who work in the science of textual criticism, the dates surrounding the NT writings establish their authenticity and general integrity.
(Info from *Questions of Life *by Nicky Gumbel.)
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
David,
On a scale of 1 - 5 how would you rate this deuterocanonical book’s passage:
Remeber these are Jew writing this who didnt know about Jesus and wrote it before Jesus came. Passages like this are rare in the OT, but here is one amazing one, and why it was thrown out by Prots is beyond me.
What is your take on this passage?
On a scale of 1 - 5 how would you rate this deuterocanonical book’s passage:
Book of Wisdom Ch2 said:
Remeber these are Jew writing this who didnt know about Jesus and wrote it before Jesus came. Passages like this are rare in the OT, but here is one amazing one, and why it was thrown out by Prots is beyond me.
What is your take on this passage?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Michael,
Watershed has a forum that seems pretty decent and not too bad. I haven’t had any propbelms there, but I don’t post that much on n-C fora just because I catch enough here and don’t care for gettin’ denied access or booted just for stating the Catholic position without heat.
watershedmovement.com/forum/index.php
I pretty much figure that if any n-Cs wanna discuss Catholicism with someone that actually has a remote clue what they are talking about they will do like David here and come here to CA.
Pax tecum,
Watershed has a forum that seems pretty decent and not too bad. I haven’t had any propbelms there, but I don’t post that much on n-C fora just because I catch enough here and don’t care for gettin’ denied access or booted just for stating the Catholic position without heat.
watershedmovement.com/forum/index.php
I pretty much figure that if any n-Cs wanna discuss Catholicism with someone that actually has a remote clue what they are talking about they will do like David here and come here to CA.
Pax tecum,
J
jimmy
Guest
David Brent:
My post could be a figment of your imagination. Your whole surroundings could be a figment of your imagination. There are some people that put forth an arguement that says that I could not prove to you that I exist. My point is, you have to trust what has been written and you have to trust the past because without the past you have no base of knowledge for what the present holds.
He was basically saying that the resurection was just hearsay. I don’t know what he would say about the Gallic Wars. I did start getting into more modern historical events with him like WWII and George Washington. If the ressurection was just hearsay, it is equally valid to say that George Washington was hearsay.
D
David_Brent
Guest
Catholic Dude:
Sounds like a great passage. What do you want me to say? Prophetic? Could be.
I don’t know why it was left out, but I think given the fact that I own a book that the publisher (not me) referred to as the “Apochrypha”, it is fairly clear that I am open to the possibility that some book(s) may exist that should be “in” that aren’t.
The presence or absence of that book or the entire deuterocanonical (can we please try to shorten these freaking words?!) set is not going to affect my decision to follow Christ. I know what happened. I know that He sacrificed Himself for me. I acknowledge that and accept it with everything in me.
Is this American Bandstand? I’ll give it a 3 but I couldn’t dance to it what with all the King’s English.
Sounds like a great passage. What do you want me to say? Prophetic? Could be.
I don’t know why it was left out, but I think given the fact that I own a book that the publisher (not me) referred to as the “Apochrypha”, it is fairly clear that I am open to the possibility that some book(s) may exist that should be “in” that aren’t.
The presence or absence of that book or the entire deuterocanonical (can we please try to shorten these freaking words?!) set is not going to affect my decision to follow Christ. I know what happened. I know that He sacrificed Himself for me. I acknowledge that and accept it with everything in me.
M
Mickey
Guest
Catholic Dude:
That is an inspiring passage indeed.
**p.s.–**many protestants are offended by the abbreviation “prots”. In fact the forum rules ask us not to use this word. I know that many here use it because it’s fast to type out. But I’d hate to see you face any disciplinary action.
Hey CD,
That is an inspiring passage indeed.
**p.s.–**many protestants are offended by the abbreviation “prots”. In fact the forum rules ask us not to use this word. I know that many here use it because it’s fast to type out. But I’d hate to see you face any disciplinary action.
M
michaelgazin
Guest
David Brent:
And thanks to you
Peace,
Michael
Thanks David
Church Militant said:
And thanks to you
Peace,
Michael
M
michaelgazin
Guest
David Brent:
Therefore one can know if Christ gave His Church infallibility, however one can not “know” the Bible is inspired separate from an authoritative source.
How are you able to determine that the Bible is a great book that was *only *written infallibly, though not inspired? Would there be a difference in the “positive” affect people have from it if it were only an infallible depiction of Christ’s life and message, though not written by God himself? I would argue there would be no difference. It would still change people’s lives, there may still be “people uttering verses from it and people being healed or freed from demonic forces” without it being written by God, though containing His infallible message. But we believe it not only is infallible, but God-breathed, which can not be reasoned or evidenced from anything aside from Christ’s one true Church.
Peace,
Michael
The difference between knowing of the infallibility of the Magisterium and the inspiration of the Bible, is that to “know” the Bible is inspired (aside from a separate authoritative source) is purely spiritual hope. To “know” the Magisterium is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit (different than being "guided by the infallible Holy Spirit) is a matter of history. One can determine if indeed the Catholic Church is the Church that was left by Jesus by studying His historical word (not necessarily inspired), and studying the early Church and the teachings. It can be determined whether or not Christ gave His Church the gift of infallibility through studying concrete evidences. However, one can not determine God wrote the Bible through a single evidence or earthly reason. There is no proof outside the proof of an infallible Church.You don’t “know” that. The “Magisterium” has a great name, but let’s face it. They were a group of men. Sinful. Fallible. Imperfect. You hope that they were guided by the infallible Holy Spirit, but you don’t “know” that. You’ve been taught that. You believe that. But you don’t know it. I’m not asking you to abandon it. I’m just suggesting a little objectivity about the circumstances. I am as certain as anyone can be about the inspiration of the Bible. I don’t doubt that the Bible is inspired. It is a powerful tool. The Lord has spoken to me through the verses in it. I know of people uttering verses from it and people being healed or freed from demonic forces. I don’t need more evidence of its origins or its nature. It is undoubtedly a Sword and a Shield!
Therefore one can know if Christ gave His Church infallibility, however one can not “know” the Bible is inspired separate from an authoritative source.
How are you able to determine that the Bible is a great book that was *only *written infallibly, though not inspired? Would there be a difference in the “positive” affect people have from it if it were only an infallible depiction of Christ’s life and message, though not written by God himself? I would argue there would be no difference. It would still change people’s lives, there may still be “people uttering verses from it and people being healed or freed from demonic forces” without it being written by God, though containing His infallible message. But we believe it not only is infallible, but God-breathed, which can not be reasoned or evidenced from anything aside from Christ’s one true Church.
Peace,
Michael
S
Shinobu
Guest
Micheal, this is not a forum, however it is a website where you may find the answers you are looking for. I used to use it quite a bit (I still like to use them for their movie reviews). christiananswers.net/home.html
M
michaelgazin
Guest
Thanks for the site, it provides some of the most common “evidences,” but none are sufficient to prove the Bible is inspired.
One reason they provide is:
An inaccurate Bible contradicts God’s character quality of absolute truthfulness.
This obviously presupposes that it is already inspired, and does nothing to prove it.
They then provide 5 of the most common of evidences:
Fulfilled Prophecies
Unique Historical Accuracy
Scientific Accuracy
Unique Structure
Bible’s Unique Effect
Now just looking at these, do they really prove God authored the Bible? The fulfilled prophecies only prove that the men who prohesied, received God’s inspired word, however this in no way proves God authored their writings, and even if it did, this would only apply to the Old Testament alone, and only the prophets writings of the OT alone.
Unique historical accuracy? If this were true, then my old history book from school fulfilled one of the requirements to by inspired! In actuality, this proves nothing other than the authors wrote accurately what was happening at that time.
Scientific Accuracy? The author writes “Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally.” Is this really that striking? They author proceeds to show the Bible claimed the Earth was round, there was a vast amount of stars, there was a gravitational force etc…therefore God wrote it? Could it be that the authors were smart, good scientists, lucky…it could mean anything, however meaning that God wrote it is the farthest stretch of the scientific reasoning.
Unique Structure? Apparently because the Bible was written by so many authors over time, and all of them have a type of unity with each other, God wrote it. Is that really logical? Back to my history book…it was written by many contributing authors, and even comparing it to other history books they have a type of union with the information that is conveyed. This unity boils down to evidence #2, it is historically accurate. The author comments by saying “The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole.” Apparenly the author thinks the Bible’s books dropped from the sky together, or somehow ended up all together with no one knowing it. Could the unity actually be because the Catholic Church left out the ones that were not in union? This seems a bit more logical.
And last, the Bible’s Unique Effect? When it comes down to it, according to the author, it is “the all-time best seller, appealing both to hearts and minds, beloved by at least some in every race or nation or tribe to which it has gone, rich or poor, scholar or simple, king or commoner, men of literally every background and walk of life. No other book has ever held such universal appeal nor produced such lasting effects.” I addressed this in a previous post: “Would there be a difference in the “positive” affect people have from it if it were only an infallible depiction of Christ’s life and message, though not written by God himself? I would argue there would be no difference. It would still change people’s lives, there may still be “people uttering verses from it and people being healed or freed from demonic forces” without it being written by God, though containing His infallible message. But we believe it not only is infallible, but God-breathed, which can not be reasoned or evidenced from anything aside from Christ’s one true Church.”
continued below
M
michaelgazin
Guest
When it is all said and done, these evidences only work if it is presupposed that the Bible is inspired, and unfortunately many open up the Bible for the first time already thinking that, but not knowing why. You can scour the Earth for every historical, scientific, logical, and even biblical evidence for Biblical inspiration, but until you look to Christ’s true Church…one can never truly know.
I started this post to show there is no evidence outside the Catholic Church that lets us know of the Bible’s inspiration. No one will ever be able to determine it through evidences and reasoning. If James White can’t do it, what protestant can?
I love the Bible and thank God for inspiring it, but ultimately I know this because of my love for God’s true Church, who without it, we would all be lost.
Peace,
Michael
p.s. I just noticed I am a regular member too!
I started this post to show there is no evidence outside the Catholic Church that lets us know of the Bible’s inspiration. No one will ever be able to determine it through evidences and reasoning. If James White can’t do it, what protestant can?
I love the Bible and thank God for inspiring it, but ultimately I know this because of my love for God’s true Church, who without it, we would all be lost.
Peace,
Michael
p.s. I just noticed I am a regular member too!
D
David_Brent
Guest
Here are a couple of web sites that I found in a search. I am not advocating them in any way. I’ve spent no time there, so I couldn’t even if I wanted to. Cannot say whether there is any anti-Catholic sentiment floating around in there either, but given human nature and man’s penchant to staunchly defend his territory, it’s possible you may experience some. My apologies in advance!
- christianboard.com/cboard/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=dbc36c2b85343879d8d4225465b2f38f
- apologetics.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi
M
michaelgazin
Guest
T
TNT
Guest
Don’t hold your breath waiting!
If one goes step by step through the 2-4th century documents, the development of the canon is clear. Even the JW’s are honest enough to admit that the Cath Church locked in the 27NT writings. That’s why there are NOT 26, 28, 29, 30 books of the NT.
If a protestant accepted actual documented history, then all hell breaks lose against them unless they become restorationists wherein God abandoned the Catholic Church after He guided them to the proper canon.
Not real complicated. It’s one’s MOTIVE that denies the Cath Church’s authority as the pillar of Truth.
I have no doubt that IF that verse had said:
“The Scriptures are the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth”
it would be on the biggest flag you ever saw on every protestant church property!
The final blow is that no reasonable person would claim that fallible (aka error prone or possible) interpretation of any infallible writing is worth a hoot.
Protestants will nonetheless embrace this contradiction out of MOTIVE.
T
TNT
Guest
How about if we just refer to these books as DC. Simple, non–offensive, hard to misspell?
You could even set it apart like DC or DC or DC
R
RonWI
Guest
- Status