What's your role in defending/explaining Christianity? (for Protestants)

[Peter_J]

This may be kind of a rookie question, but I’d be interested to hear from Protestant posters: how do you see your role when it comes to defending/explaining/etc Christianity?

 

[drblank1]

This may be kind of a rookie question, but I’d be interested to hear from Protestant posters: how do you see your role when it comes to defending/explaining/etc Christianity?

In the matters of salvation, if the Holy Spirit calls me to witness to a sinner, I gladly obey.

In the matters of contending for the faith, it is one’s job only if called by the Holy Spirit.

 

[tweedlealice]

This may be kind of a rookie question, but I’d be interested to hear from Protestant posters: how do you see your role when it comes to defending/explaining/etc Christianity?

Salutations,
See movie, CASE FOR CHRIST. It is about an atheist going to prove to his wife, she joined a cult. He, a reporter, thought he could get research done on a weekend. Two years later, he became a Christian and Pastor.
Protestants have the same arguments on Christianity as Catholics. The devision come w believing in the head shop of Peter and the Pope.
They have hangup w calling man, Father.“CALL NO MAN, FATHER”, Jesus said. Some don’t realize the bulk of the Bible is the same as ours. They don’t recognize the Deuterconniacal books. Some denominations include them at the back of the King James as spiritual reading. (Lutherns).
Episcopal and Anglican churches have similar worship services. Others focus on no graven images.
Music may be different. Sermons are free laced w each denomination. Catholics have Divine Liturgy w programmed readings to keep masses across world synchronized.
As you would explain, so would they. Though they do try and evangelize more than Catholics.
The role of a Child of God is to"Go forth and tell the world" the message of the gospel."

Lord, encourage us w Your love to speak, boldy, in our world, the good news of Your Life, Resurrection and Salvation.
in Jesus name
Tweedlealice

 

[MaryT777]

Interested in responses…

 

[undead_rat]

My home is filled with Shroud of Turin photos. The best are the one-half size back-light ones in positive color and black/white negative. These, I think, are very impressive and show the terrible suffering that Jesus endured for us.

Before the Shroud came to the Catholic Church it was held by the Orthodox Church in Constantinople where it was known as the Holy Mandylion.
I have a reproductions of many Mandylion icons here in Perwaukee, WI. It would please me if more people would stop in to witness these things.

 

[GKC]

My home is filled with Shroud of Turin photos. The best are the one-half size back-light ones in positive color and black/white negative. These, I think, are very impressive and show the terrible suffering that Jesus endured for us.

Before the Shroud came to the Catholic Church it was held by the Orthodox Church in Constantinople where it was known as the Holy Mandylion.
I have a reproductions of many Mandylion icons here in Perwaukee, WI. It would please me if more people would stop in to witness these things.

I don’t think the Mandylion (if you are thinking of the Image of Edessa) is the same item as the Shroud.

 

[Vonsalza]

This may be kind of a rookie question, but I’d be interested to hear from Protestant posters: how do you see your role when it comes to defending/explaining/etc Christianity?

As I was a Baptist for a longer period of time than I am now Catholic, I’ll wade in if allowed.

Defending and explaining are two separate activities. The defense of Christianity, apologetics, involves “shooting the legs” off of other folks arguments against you. I took their critiques and found the validity and soundness errors within and then (perhaps a little brashly) enthusiastically let the critic know of these flaws.

I learned very early, perhaps before I was 20, that salvation is not a result of syllogisms. You can’t argue someone to Christ. As such, I was purely playing defense; breaking off their attack. I like to think I was decent at it.

In explaining my faith; well. That’s a bit more complicated. Its easy enough to present a protestant understanding of the gospel. But in explaining why the Baptists were “the greatest and best”, I ultimately failed despite being exposed to a Baptist seminary environment. I couldn’t, with conviction, explain why my Baptist sect was any more authoritative than your Pentecostal/Charismatics or Churches of Christ or others.

It usually boiled down to “you’re interpreting the bible wrong” and they were happy to reply “No, you are”. I noticed a painful lack of real authority we could appeal to for resolve as each of us were invoking the Holy Spirit’s dominion over our interpretations.

I ultimately came to the conclusion that if the Church is real, it must be ancient and extant - else Christ is a liar about hell not prevailing. Thus to me, the Church became either Catholic or Orthodox, as they were the only guys in the room who were Chalcedonian and actually, observably stretched back to the first century. I went Catholic because it appeared that Catholics were less wrong than the Orthodox on the role of Peter. I did spend a year or two in Greek Orthodox services. Anti-papist attitudes drilled into your head from infancy are difficult to overcome.

Ultimately, in trying to explain Christianity to myself and others, I became Catholic.

–

As a tangential matter, I am unimaginably relieved that the burden for determining biblical truth no longer rests upon me. It rests upon the Church. Unambiguously, that’s a better place.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks guys for the replies.

Before responding to any specific posts, I’d like to say a word about where I’m coming from with the question. In the last almost two decades I’ve been in quite a lot of discussions about intra-Christian matters, but not very many discussions with people of other religions (or no religion in the case of atheists/agnostics) until recently, hence why I say that it may be a rookie question.

 

[Wannano]

This may be kind of a rookie question, but I’d be interested to hear from Protestant posters: how do you see your role when it comes to defending/explaining/etc Christianity?

My role is to live a life that exemplifies the fact that I have a relationship with Christ. Walking the talk is not easy.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks guys for the replies.

Before responding to any specific posts, I’d like to say a word about where I’m coming from with the question. In the last almost two decades I’ve been in quite a lot of discussions about intra-Christian matters, but not very many discussions with people of other religions (or no religion in the case of atheists/agnostics) until recently, hence why I say that it may be a rookie question.

Addendum: if others would like to include, in their answers to the OP, a little background about their own experiences of Christian-other religions discussions (e.g. how long you’ve been getting into them, whether they’re online, etc) I would find that helpful for understanding where your coming from.

 

[undead_rat]

I don’t think the Mandylion (if you are thinking of the Image of Edessa) is the same item as the Shroud.

The Image of Edessa was extracted from that city in 944 A.D. It made its formal entry into Constantinople on August 16th, a day which is still celebrated in the Orthodox Church. This image, “Made Without Hands,” became known as the Holy Mandylion and was by far the most important relic possessed in the East. When the Fourth Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204 they knew exactly where and what it was and did not attack that particular church complex. Those men were in that city not to destroy Christian relics, but to confiscate them and take them back to France.
Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that the Mandylion was destroyed, and just as inconceivable that this most sacred of all relics could have disappeared never to be seen again.

As we all now know, the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial linen of our Savior which bears His miraculous Image also “Made Without Hands.” It appeared seemingly out of nowhere in 1357 in a little nondescript Church in France.
Its owners refused to say how they had acquired it or where it had come from.
I submit to you that this is an impossible situation. How could the most sacred relic in our Church’s possession have gone unnoticed and unrecorded for 1300 years? That does not make any sense at all.

The Knights Templar was a rich, secretive, and powerful military organization, and it held an ongoing desire to possess Christian relics.
Sometime after 1204, rumors began to circulate that the Templars had begun worshipping some kind of mysterious sacred image of a human head. But on October 13th, 1307, the King of France had the Templar Order arrested and imprisoned.
He tried vainly to find the “image,” but could not.
Fifty years later, as we know, Geoffrey de Charney, a descendant of the Templar Grand Master, exhibited the Shroud of Turin because he needed money. Since all Templar property had been confiscated by the King, is it any wonder why he could not reveal the Shroud’s history?

Putting the two impossible events together with the Knights Templar in the middle, the conclusion is inescapable: the Image of Edessa is the Shroud of Turin.

Reference:
THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010
THE TEMPLARS AND THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, Frale, 2011

 

[GKC]

The Image of Edessa was extracted from that city in 944 A.D. It made its formal entry into Constantinople on August 16th, a day which is still celebrated in the Orthodox Church. This image, “Made Without Hands,” became known as the Holy Mandylion and was by far the most important relic possessed in the East. When the Fourth Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204 they knew exactly where and what it was and did not attack that particular church complex. Those men were in that city not to destroy Christian relics, but to confiscate them and take them back to France.
Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that the Mandylion was destroyed, and just as inconceivable that this most sacred of all relics could have disappeared never to be seen again.

As we all now know, the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial linen of our Savior which bears His miraculous Image also “Made Without Hands.” It appeared seemingly out of nowhere in 1357 in a little nondescript Church in France.
Its owners refused to say how they had acquired it or where it had come from.
I submit to you that this is an impossible situation. How could the most sacred relic in our Church’s possession have gone unnoticed and unrecorded for 1300 years? That does not make any sense at all.

The Knights Templar was a rich, secretive, and powerful military organization, and it held an ongoing desire to possess Christian relics.
Sometime after 1204, rumors began to circulate that the Templars had begun worshipping some kind of mysterious sacred image of a human head. But on October 13th, 1307, the King of France had the Templar Order arrested and imprisoned.
He tried vainly to find the “image,” but could not.
Fifty years later, as we know, Geoffrey de Charney, a descendant of the Templar Grand Master, exhibited the Shroud of Turin because he needed money. Since all Templar property had been confiscated by the King, is it any wonder why he could not reveal the Shroud’s history?

Putting the two impossible events together with the Knights Templar in the middle, the conclusion is inescapable: the Image of Edessa is the Shroud of Turin.

Reference:
THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010
THE TEMPLARS AND THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, Frale, 2011

I got around 20 books on the subject, myself, including Wilson. No idea where they are and my interest in the topic is nil these days. The Image of Edessa is not the Shroud.

 

[undead_rat]

I got around 20 books on the subject, myself, including Wilson. No idea where they are and my interest in the topic is nil these days. The Image of Edessa is not the Shroud.

With all due respect. sir, you are wrong about this. All of the evidence points to the fact that the Image of Edessa and the Shroud of Turin are one and the same.
The only way that this could not be true is if the Shroud were a 14th Century creation, which it most decidedly is not.

Perhaps your opinion is being mislead by the infamous C-14 dating of 1988 in which those three smug professors misrepresented the Shroud’s C-14 dates as 1260 to 1390.
The true dates obtained from the valid samples were 1195 to 1448.* The British Museum (who was to report the dates) didn’t like this 250 year variance because it was much too great for an object supposedly only about 700 years old.
So they asked the labs to “average in” their outlying dates.
The dates show a linear progression, getting younger as the part of the sample tested becomes closer to the Divine Image. This can only mean that whatever process caused the formation of the Image also caused the C-14 content of the linen cloth to be increased.
The estimate is that. for every inch that a C-14 sample is closer to the Image, its C-14 Date will be found to be younger by about 100 years.

This is called the Historically Consistent Hypothesis because it takes into account the disappearance of our Lord’s corpse from inside of His blocked, sealed, and guarded tomb.
That disappearance is a miracle and is what accounts for the many unexplainable features found on His burial cloth including the strange C-14 dating results.

Sir, I would urge you to reconsider you opinion on this matter. The story is not over yet, not by a long shot.

*TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015, pg. 311

 

[GKC]

With all due respect. sir, you are wrong about this. All of the evidence points to the fact that the Image of Edessa and the Shroud of Turin are one and the same.
The only way that this could not be true is if the Shroud were a 14th Century creation, which it most decidedly is not.

Perhaps your opinion is being mislead by the infamous C-14 dating of 1988 in which those three smug professors misrepresented the Shroud’s C-14 dates as 1260 to 1390.
The true dates obtained from the valid samples were 1195 to 1448.* The British Museum (who was to report the dates) didn’t like this 250 year variance because it was much too great for an object supposedly only about 700 years old.
So they asked the labs to “average in” their outlying dates.
The dates show a linear progression, getting younger as the part of the sample tested becomes closer to the Divine Image. This can only mean that whatever process caused the formation of the Image also caused the C-14 content of the linen cloth to be increased.
The estimate is that. for every inch that a C-14 sample is closer to the Image, its C-14 Date will be found to be younger by about 100 years.

This is called the Historically Consistent Hypothesis because it takes into account the disappearance of our Lord’s corpse from inside of His blocked, sealed, and guarded tomb.
That disappearance is a miracle and is what accounts for the many unexplainable features found on His burial cloth including the strange C-14 dating results.

Sir, I would urge you to reconsider you opinion on this matter. The story is not over yet, not by a long shot.

*TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015, pg. 311

I was intersted in the subject some eyars back. I most recently addressed it on this site around 2 years ago, relative to the carbon dating issue.

I have no further interst in discussing it.Wilson didn;t convince me.

 

[GKC]

I was intersted in the subject some eyars back. I most recently addressed it on this site around 2 years ago, relative to the carbon dating issue.

I have no further interst in discussing it.Wilson didn;t convince me.

Addendum: All and sundry please ignore (or not mention, being polite), the typos and brevity above. I was working on line, making reservations and generally being irritated, while multitasking. Hence…

 

[undead_rat]

I was interested in the subject some years back. I most recently addressed it on this site around 2 years ago, relative to the carbon dating issue.

I have no further interest in discussing it. Wilson didn’t convince me.

Sir, and again with all due respect, it is unfair of you to express such an adamantly negative opinion about the Shroud and then refuse to defend it.
While Wilson does address the historical issues in great depth, he does not offer a really viable explanation for the C-14 results.
That issue is addressed by Mr. Antonacci, and his book is a must read, (in my opinion.)

May I be so privileged as to send you a copy?

 

[reader124]

So we’re down to;

A. They stole it from its rightful owners, the greek orthodox.

B. They faked it.

doesn’t look to good either way, does it now?

 

[GKC]

Sir, and again with all due respect, it is unfair of you to express such an adamantly negative opinion about the Shroud and then refuse to defend it.
While Wilson does address the historical issues in great depth, he does not offer a really viable explanation for the C-14 results.
That issue is addressed by Mr. Antonacci, and his book is a must read, (in my opinion.)

May I be so privileged as to send you a copy?

My opinions re: the Shroud are cautiously affirmative. As I expressed in the last series of posts I made, on a thread which covered a few points, the most interesting being the contributions of the late Raymond Rogers, contra the “late” carbon 14 dating of the Shroud and the reweaving issue, re: the sites from which the relevant samples were taken. I think Rogers has it right.

Cautiously affirmative, after years of reading, collecting 15-20 books on the subject, and moving on.

No reason to think the Edessa Image is the Shroud of Turin.

As to the book offer, I thank you, but for reasons beyond the subject of these posts, no.

As to what posture I take on discussing this, or other topics, that is as up to me as yours is up to you.

 

[undead_rat]

So we’re down to;
A. They stole it from its rightful owners, the Greek Orthodox.
B. They faked it.
doesn’t look to good either way, does it now?

It looks good to me. The Holy Shroud of Turin is real and does contain the blood and miraculous Image of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Of course the sack of Constantinople was a travesty and was condemned by the Vatican.
But our Creator works in mysterious ways. He has managed to present this living miracle to the world in such a way that it may easily be dismissed by Atheists and other skeptics.

 

[drblank1]

PeterJ, how did this thread go wrong? :doh2: LOL