It's annoying how most atheists take Stein's approach of avoiding the issues and making such condescending comments. But thank God for people like Bahnsen who catches these faulty tactics and sticks with the context of the debate.
Didn't Bahnsen avoid the issue by failing to demonstrate the impossibility of the non existance of the Christian God? All of his arguments seem to just be arguing for a creational force of some kind.
Although Bahnsen's arguments are flawed Stein did not pick Bahnsen up on them. A lack of preparation seemed apparent as well as not really seeming to have a strategy from the moment Stein started speaking imho.
I notice that you keep repeating yourself in your comments to others: "Which religion? Which god? What religion are you talking about? etc..." But you need to understand that this debate was not to prove other gods wrong and the Christian God to be true. It was to prove that there is evidence for the existence of God and the unbelieving worldview is flawed. Bahnsen demonstrated that very well and Stein failed to prove his position correct.
"But you need to understand that this debate was not to prove other gods wrong and
the Christian God to be true."
Bahnsen explicitly stated that he would demonstrate this by proving the impossibilty of a non Christian God which he failed to do. Also, in those comments I was responding to Christians who were trying to use creator arguments as Christian arguments.
"...he would demonstrate this by proving the impossibilty of a non Christian God which he failed to do."
Bahnsen explicitly said that this debate is "whether atheism or Christian theism are objectively true." Does he ever say that his goal is to prove all other religions or gods wrong? No. In fact, he addresses this issue in his introduction and at the end in the Q&A. In this debate, he demonstrated how the God and the laws of logic are compatible. He even said that the laws of
*Bahnsen explicitly said that this debate is "whether atheism or Christian theism are objectively true." *
Christianity is monotheistic and therefore to prove it is objectively true requires proving that nothing else can be providing the effects which are claimed as it's evidence.
Yeah, you pretty much disregarded everything I said. I thought after two weeks of you not responding that you would at least give a good response... I guess that's not the case with you. Take care now.
There are no personal attacks, but simply an honest observation of mine. I sincerely thought that you would come back and not disregard what I said about you confusing the laws of logic nor did I think you would disregard my reply to your already-answered question about Bahnsen not proving every other religion false. You instead respond with one lousy sentence. It's clear that you are not trying to understand what you oppose; it seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
"disregard what I said about you confusing the laws of logic"
Not disregared, merely rebutted.
"nor did I think you would disregard my reply to your already-answered question about Bahnsen not proving every other religion false."
Not disregared merely rebutted. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, to prove it to be true requires showing how the evidence could not be attributed to other means.
Now, if you want to assume that I have "nothing further to bring on the table" then go ahead and stick with that assumption if it makes you happy. Anyone can look at this thread and see who brought what to the table.
I'm not about wasting time, so I apologize if I seem unwilling to talk to you now, but you left me no choice but to assume that you're not considering anything I say. But I wish you the best! Take care.
logic are part of God's nature. Also, creator arguments can be used for Christian arguments. What you've done is completely miss the point of this debate. You think Bahnsen failed because he didn't thoroughly prove the Biblical God to be the only deity in the universe. If you wanted to hear a debate about which religion is true then you are on the wrong channel.
@JanJiska "All of his arguments seem to just be arguing for a creational force of some kind."
These atheist vs. theist debates are just that, proving whether or not God exists. The atheist's position is that there is no higher being or deity, whereas the Christian's position is that there is a God. As long as the theist proves that there is evidence pointing to a deity then the atheist loses. So, Bahnsen didn't "fail" to demonstrate the existence of the biblical God; that wasn't his assignment.
"As long as the theist proves that there is evidence pointing to a deity then the atheist loses. "
But he fails to do this and his position is logically flawed when he tries, if there was an all powerful God the laws of logic would be worthless.
The laws of logic are simply observations in nature from repeated experimentation. We might find out they are wrong tomorrow and will correct our science accordingly. The morality of the bible is far from objective.
"laws of logic....We might find out they are wrong tomorrow and will correct our science accordingly"
You're confusing the Laws of Logic with Science itself. We use the laws of logic in Science, but that does not mean that the laws of logic is Science. You're essentially saying that the law of contradiction, identity, excluded middle, and sufficient reason may be changed. So, contradictions may be illogical today, but not tomorrow? You need to correct your view on a few things.
"You're essentially saying that the law of contradiction, identity, excluded middle, and sufficient reason may be changed"
No, that is what you are saying by claiming the existance of an all powerful creature.
My point was we might somehow have taken a special case or something and in the fullness of time realise our logical laws are incomplete but I doubt it. Until then I think they can be relied upon.
Atheism is so fallacious. This is how Bahnsen able to destroy Stein's arguments. Stein has been trying to deny his need to account for the laws of logic. This is because he simple can't, and won't admit it.
Doesn't Bahnsen fails to explain why it is his God who must be the one who created the laws of logic?
Also, how can you possibly use the laws of logic if your all powerful God can change them at any moment for reasons beyond your understanding? Surely to use the laws of logic one must assume there is no 3rd party that can change them?
@JanJiska The laws of logic are the very nature of God. God cannot change His nature. If He could, then He wouldn't God. This is a contradiction. It is logically consistent that God cannot change His nature, and logically inconsistent if God could. "All powerful" does not include the power to be inconsistent with a God whose very nature is consistency. If it did, then nothing would be possible because God could be God one moment, and not God the next.
What is it that stops him from changing his nature? Surely whatever it is that is powerful enough to be putting limits on God's power is what we should worship?
I’ll clarify- I want a rational explanation. The one you provided would be an irrational assumption with comparison to what I proposed. This conversation seems to be going in circles. I cherish what little free time I have, and therefore will be abstaining from most comments here on. Faith in Jesus is the logically consistent conclusion one of honest inquiry will reach. It is my hope and prayer that you will look into the evidence I provided, and that the Lord may convict your heart and mind.
A different God from a different religion is the real one. The devil of that religion wrote the bible, appeared as Jesus etc in order to divert people from the true god and into the one he made up for them (Christianity). All of the science and history in the bible is correct as this devil has super natural powers. He pretends to be TGD, answers prayers etc.
@JanJiska Pliny, Epistles, 97- …they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.
@JanJiska Jewish Talmud, Sanhedrin, Section 43a- On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!
@JanJiska Africanus, Chronography, Section 18- On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the 263 third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.
"Africanus, Chronography, Section 18" This is the interesting one. I have come across this before. Are there impartial scientific journals that discuss this?
@JanJiska Secular sources affirm that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, which is held on a full moon. They also affirm that there was an eclipse of sorts directly after. This is scientifically impossible; it was a supernatural work of God. Luke 23:45 “And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.”
John 8:44 - "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Likewise, I would recommend the works of Harvard mathematician Ivan Panin. He shows that there is an underlying mathematical structure to the Bible that no man could possibly put forth- many have tried to replicate such, failing to come even remotely close. To assume it occurred by pure chance is mathematically absurd, and takes far more faith than to assume it was by God.
Wiztum, Doron, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg, “Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 151:1 (1988), pp.177-178. This is a journal that is peer reviewed by world renowned mathematicians. There are numerous codes riddled in the Bible, and I can direct you toward additional resources if you are interested.
The point I was making with regards to the Obed story is this. There is an embedded message in the text, of extraordinary probability, that shows the bloodline of five individuals, written hundreds of years before they are born, found in an area where the message of the text is of relevant meaning to the embedded message found within.
As I cited earlier, the works of Josephus and Tacitus, as well as Celsus, Suetonius, Phlegan, and others verify various prophecies (the crucifixion and his healing miracles most notably) about Jesus. These aren’t impartial, however- many of these secular sources were in fact anti-Christian. Though I will admit, there are no secular sources that verify Jesus’ birth location, only the testimonies of those who knew Jesus as contained in the Bible.
@JanJiska Book 1, Section 28- [Jesus] invented his birth from a virgin… born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country… who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.
I was searching for the truth, yet didn’t want the Bible to be true as I understood that would mean I'd have to change certain aspects of my life that I wanted to cling to. At the time, I put the Koran under the same scrutiny, and could not reconcile its inconsistencies- same with Buddhist, Hindu, and Mormon beliefs. No, I haven’t gone through every ‘holy text’, nor could anybody, due to how one defines a ‘holy text’. Until I see a worldview more veracious than the Bible, here I will stand.
@JanJiska: Simple. The nature of prophecy. No other religious doctrine, be it the Mormon Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc, contains that. A prediction about the future is metaphysical in nature.
I would highly recommend you watch the following video for more information. It starts a bit slow, but it heads in an intriguing direction that you might not have considered before.
@JanJiska I would argue the gospels do line up with each other quite nicely, and that seeming contradictions arise from mistranslations of the Greek/Hebrew, elementary interpretations of the scripture, etc. Every time I personally have found a seeming inconsistency in the Bible (and I admit, there are many), after doing further research into scholarly works, praying on it, and so on, I often find that my thoughts were misguided, and there was a deeper meaning to be found in the scriptures.
@Hoffman3727 But if we agree that there are translation errors in the bible (like what were Jesus's last words, who was in the tomb etc) then how do we know there are not other errors in there? Surely God would protect his holy bible!
Although, am I correct in thinking that the approach you took to your research was that the bible is right and you researched until you were satisfied with it. Rather than researching with an open mind?
@JanJiska I would argue there are ways we can verify that we have the exact scriptures as they were meant to get to us- look into Ivan Panin, Greek Numeric New Testament, etc. Again, you call them translation errors, I call them misinterpretations.
@Hoffman3727 Yes, I do now look at other religious texts as though they are incorrect, but I'm willing to consider the possibility that this isn't the case as individuals provide their evidence for such. Have you kept an open mind and watched that video yet?
Call them what you like they are still errors. How do we know that these scriptures as are they were meant to get to us and there are not more errors up the line?
Sorry, I am not sure what discussing textual errors is going to prove. At the moment we have yet to establish what the bible, even if the historical and scientific facts are 100% accurate, proves to us. All it would show was that something with advanced knowledge wrote some parts of it. It does not prove that everything else in it is correct nor does it prove that Jesus was telling the truth about the source of his supernatural powers.
@JanJiska First you would have to show that there is a different religion that is true that asserts this to be the case; otherwise, it’s merely fanciful speculation. Past that, again, it is logically inconsistent that He openly states He is the One True God, yet does so in a deceptive manner. Matthew 24:5 “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.”
"you would have to show that there is a different religion"
Why should any religion be right? We may not even have discovered it yet!!
"it is logically inconsistent that He openly states He is the One True God, yet does so in a deceptive manner"
If you are the Devil (or some equivilant) then the purpose is to direct you away from the a different God then it makes perfect logical sense to do this.
@JanJiska It is impossible to disprove your explanation, in the same way that it is impossible to disprove solipsism. One can only show the logical flaws of empirical skepticism. Regardless, your idea doesn’t seem to have an iota of supportive evidence, either.
So you admit that it might be true. This was my point.
"your idea doesn’t seem to have an iota of supportive evidence, either."
It has as much as Christianity does. All of your evidence is based on the leap of faith that TCD and Jesus were telling the truth. This has never been confirmed.
@JanJiska “Antiquities, Book 13, Section 3 does not state anything about Jesus having supernatural powers.”
It does seem to suggest that He was crucified, which is prophesied numerous times in the Bible, which seems to give further validation therein. There are other secular sources that affirm the crucifixion, such as Lucian, Celsus, etc. Look them up for yourself if you are genuinely curious.
@JanJiska “"Book 1, Section 28" - does Jesus actual claim to be a God in the bible? I mean literally What book is this actually from? I am not sure what order the replies are in.”
Yes, Jesus claims to be God numerous times as recorded in The Bible. It is also affirmed by secular sources. That’s why the Jews had Him crucified- they refused to accept Him as the Messiah and thusly had Him crucified because they believed He was committing blasphemy. Also, Origen’s Contra Celsus.
@JanJiska “Are there impartial scientific journals that discuss this?”
Supernatural defies science; what you’re asking for is absurd. The Bible makes claims that are supernatural (Jesus’ resurrection, miracles, etc)- if they could be tested by science they wouldn’t be supernatural, and wouldn’t be attributable to a force outside the four dimensions we experience.
@JanJiska “Not sure what point you are making here?”
John 8:44 makes an outright claim that Satan is the father of lies. From a Biblical presupposition, it states that any other ‘god’ we can think up of outside the God as revealed in the Bible is essentially of Satan, including the devil of some other religion you have in mind.
@JanJiska “"It is impossible to disprove your explanation" So you admit that it might be true. This was my point.”
I’d like to retract the statement, or I at least don’t hold to it now. For all intents and purposes, yes, I can disprove your explanation; The Bible is true. I have provided evidence for the statement, though I don’t have to prove this to you- Biblically, I have no need of which.
"For all intents and purposes, yes, I can disprove your explanation"
Then please do. Note that claiming that they are difficult to understand, improbable or that other theories are equally valid does not count as disproof.
@JanJiska In the same way that we use the laws of logic to prove the laws of logic, or use the power of the eye to examine the eye, yes, I will use the Bible to prove the Bible. It is my ultimate authority, and therefore I hold that it proves itself. Disprove my core presupposition, or present yours for discussion.
In that case I can use my theory that Jesus was lying to prove that Jesus was lying - stalelmate. You insist that that everything spoken by Jesus was true but cannot back this up.
The laws of logic do not prove the laws of logic, they prove internal consistancy not completenes or correctness. They make no claims that they cannot 'prove', unlike the bible.
The eye makes no claims that cannot be independantly scientifically verified, unlike the bible.
@JanJiska They weren't meant to be taken as perfect analogies, rather examples to help show a point. Regardless, keen clarifications, though I would hold that the Bible is in fact internally consistent. Does this prove it true? No, but showing it to be internally inconsistent would prove it false.
Stalemate it is. If you have any questions regarding the Bible or like would to pursue this conversation, please do so. Otherwise, take care JanJiska!
@JanJiska Luke 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
@Hoffman3727 In Luke, 'thus' comes from the Greek 'tauta', meaning hereafter (at some point after this). It is a plausible interpretation that between saying 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit' and giving up the ghost, He said 'It is finished'. Considering 'It is finished' sounds like a closing statement, and He bows His head directly afterward, it seems safe to assume that these were His last words on the cross.
Another assumption? Doesn't he also say "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" or something similar? Depsite the fact that he and his God are one.
I also thought he did not drink the drink that was offered to him?
How did his cross even get up there? Did he carry it or did Simon?
Did he actually answer Pilate's charges?
Have you carried out this much research into every holy text?
@JanJiska The only alternatives are that either the passage in Luke were His last words, or that His last words on the cross weren't written in the Bible so we have no way of knowing. Both seem like less logical assumptions to make.
Yes, Jesus does say that. There is Jesus, God the Son, in the form of a man, and God the Father, as in the Creator. These are two aspects of the Trinity, along with the Holy Spirit. The Son answers to The Father, as is seen here.
"Both seem like less logical assumptions to make."
As long as we have plenty of assumptions then I guess we know we must be right.
So Jesus is God (has magic powers, knows the future etc) but also has to ask God why he has forsaken him? So he is asking "Me, me why have I forsaken me?"
@JanJiska The statement He makes echoes the first line of Psalm 22, which gives a clear prophecy of the crucifixion. That's the primary reason I see for Him saying it- He was, in a sense, fulfilling the scriptures written about Himself.
This is speculation, but I suppose it could be a rhetorical question expressing His own agony over the situation that had to occur.
@JanJiska Yes, I assume the Bible to be true, and will draw logical assumptions from it. I hold that there is not any inconsistency that cannot be reconciled through logical inquiry.
"I hold that there is not any inconsistency that cannot be reconciled through logical inquiry."
Indeed, I am sure that you can find an answer for any challenge if you work hard enough, look through translations etc. I think that the same could be said of many other holy texts if you had spent as long studying them though.
@JanJiska The drink that is offered to Him prior to the crucifixion is denied, but toward the end of the crucifixion another is offered which He accepts.
Simon carried the cross up to Golgotha, the gospels are in agreement on this matter. Any other media outlets that portray otherwise aren't being true to the Biblical account.
He affirmed the charges when it was claimed that He is the Son of God, yes.
@JanJiska Primarily, the Mahayana Sutras, as prior to Christianity, I identified myself as Buddhist as I enjoyed their moral and spiritual teachings As well, I've studied (to varying degrees) the Vedas, the Koran, the Mormon doctrines, the Talmud, and various Luciferian and Masonic doctrines. Again, none anywhere near what I've devoted to the Bible, and none near the time any scholar has devoted. I still have a lot to learn.
@JanJiska Yes, you're correct, and I was wrong on a previous point. It would seem that Jesus did initially carry the cross as you said, in John 19:17, and it was later passed onto Simon as stated in Luke 23:26 (and affirmed in Matthew and Mark), presumably due to the Centurion's command. I'm embarrassed I overlooked that, but I thank you for giving discernment on the matter.
@JanJiska Rather, He doesn't respond to their accusations, as they are claiming falsehoods upon Him which He won't acknowledge. When they ask Him questions regarding His character, or make a statement that is true about Himself, He responds. Matthew 27:11-12 shows this.
Ah right, I got confused over whether he answered charges or not as one book says he did and one says he did not. I guess with a bit of imagination and work they can match up.
@JanJiska While I've done the most research on the Bible, I've done research on quite a few others as well. Are there any particular ones you'd like to defend?
I can cite scripture in any cases when necessary. Take care!
@JanJiska Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
Rather, prove to me a religion with more supportable evidence than The Bible. Or, disprove the claims made in The Bible. I will happily answer any questions you have, but otherwise, the burden of proof is now on you.
The burden of proof is on you and not me as you are claiming the bible proves TCD. Please show how you know that the bibe's supernatural inspiration was not lying. The question is not whether Jesus is recorded to have existed, although 3rd party sources confirming his miracles have been requested.
Please note - quoting the bible to prove the bible is not acceptable.
@JanJiska Josephus, Antiquities, Book 13, Section 3- Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ.
@JanJiska And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
@JanJiska Tacitus, Annals, Book 15, Section 44- Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea…
@JanJiska Celsus, Origen’s Contra Celsus, Book 2, Section 33- And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place…
@JanJiska Quite the opposite. As I was getting drawn toward the Lord, I was looking for every direction to doubt the Bible, as at the time, I didn't want it to be true. If you keep an open mind, you'll find that the evidence is overwhelming. Even now, I hold that if one could show me how all the reasons I hold the Bible to be true are in fact false, lies, etc, I would reevaluate my views. I personally find that impossible, but I am still open to the possibility and any who want to show me so.
@Hoffman3727, Hmm - I find that hard to believe. I do not think a person would so intensly study the bible unless they were trying to prove it were true. If you were trying to disprove it, did you do the same with all of the other holy texts? Every one of them? Did you speak to 'true believers' of those faiths?
@JanJiska There are many prophecies that came true, however, that would have been out of their control to create. Herod slaughtering the infants in Bethlehem in an attempt to kill Jesus as an infant, for example- an event also recorded in secular sources. Jesus' bloodline, birth location, etc. There were prophecies about His crucifixion written hundreds of years before we have any historical documentation of such an act. There are even prophecies for the rise and fall of nations.
@Hoffman3727, could you supply me with these secular sources, please? Isn't there dispute over Jesus's bloodline and do we have impartial 3rd party sources giving the location of his birth?
@JanJiska In the Hebrew, there is an encrypted message that emerges in said chapter. When you count every 49th (7 times 7) letter in this section, it spells out the names 'Boaz, Ruth, Obed, Jesse, David'. These are the names, in chronological order, of the bloodline leading to Jesus. Keep in mind this piece of text was written hundreds of years before these individuals were born. I can't see how this in anyway cab be explained as a fluke. I can provide more examples, or cite sources if need be.
@Hoffman3727, please cite sources of this 49th letter code. I have never heard of this before! Although, of course, it does not prove that the bible is true. Merely that the creator of the bible was able to embed a code which showed a bloodline.
@JanJiska@Hoffman3727 If all the evidence is pointing in one direction about Jesus, why would it be logical to assume the exact opposite? This is irrational skepticism, and in my humble opinion, a statement showing the lengths you would go to deny the Truth of our Lord and Savior.
@Hoffman3727, You seem to be stating that because there are verifiable truths in the bible all of Christianity (the way you interpret it and not anyone else) is true. That conclusion does not follow from that premise as we have no way of verifying what Jesus (and God) has said as being true. You might well take a leap of faith and assume that it is but that is all that is - an assumed leap of faith. You asked for an alternative explaination and I gave you one - Jesus lied.
@JanJiska Many of the prophecies contained in the Bible that come true are confirmed even by secular sources. Again, I'd highly recommend watching that video, I think there is much more to prophecy than you may currently be aware of.
@JanJiska You are correct, I suppose I cannot make such an empirical statement. Regardless, if you can find me any other religious text that contains anything close to the staggering amount of verifiable prophecies as contained in the Bible, I'd like to see it. I personally have yet to come across such.
@JanJiska You're right, I suppose this wouldn't give 100% proof, but if there are literally hundreds of prophecies that came true about this individual, this would lead me to rationally believe that what He said could be accepted as truth. I would hardly call this a leap of faith- in fact, I think it takes more far more faith to deny that conclusion than to accept it.
@Hoffman3727 Considering NT writers had access to the OT prophecies (and so did Jesus) I do not find them impressive. Like when Jesus sent his disciples to fetch a donkey so he could satisfy the prophecy by arriving on one.
Although the prophecies being true in no way confirms that Jesus was telling the truth about anything else. He might have been directing us away from the real God!
@JanJiska Yes, I do now look at other religious texts as though they are incorrect, but I'm willing to consider the possibility that this isn't the case as individuals provide their evidence for such. Have you kept an open mind and watched that video yet?
@JanJiska There are numerous embedded prophecies in the text. In Genesis, chapter 38 is a strange chapter in that it more or less interrupts the current story being told with a temporary side story regarding Judah and his daughter in law. The importance of the tale, however, ...is that it lays the background for the book of Ruth, which details the tale of Boaz and Ruth, whom give birth to Obed.
Bahnsen is bitter, and should avoid ad homimen terms such as "weak" and "trying", etc. Gordon Stein is my hero! Check out Christopher Hitchens "The Portable Atheist". Bahnsen without stating so, is claiming non-overlapping magisteria, which Dawkins has so cleanly dealt with.
Since they are debating about the christian god, more or less citing the bible as a source, I wonder why stein hasn't made any reference to the fact that nothing was written by jesus or by anyone during jesus' time. I will admit though, it is pretty striking how the bible has an answer for damn near every argument brought to it. But then again, christians have had 3500 years to make their argument, modern science has had maybe 200-500.
@leviksu You're right. My 3500 years statement was not true. I actually was referring to the old testament and people who believe in that, which is roughly, 3500 years old. But you are correct, christianity has 2000 years. Thank you for correcting my statement.
@kikrlbs- Actually, all of the New Testament (with the exception of Revelation) was written within one generation of Jesus' death. Furthermore, we have manuscripts that as well date back to the first century. The Bible is the most historically verified set of writings there is- even the honest unbelievers will tell you this.
@Hoffman3727 That is not true by any means, but, you actually confirm my statement that nothing was written about Jesus while he was on this planet. Even if it was within a generation, (in which there is much evidence that it was not), it still proves my point that nothing was written about him by anyone while he was supposedly alive. That is true.
@kikrlbs Show me the evidence for your statement, as I will for mine. The earliest extant manuscript we have of Plato dates to about 900AD (the Oxford B), where Plato wrote in approximately 350BC, yet based on textual criticism, we rarely doubt the reliability of these writings to be attributed to Plato, let alone the very existence of a man named Plato.
@kikrlbs Likewise, the earliest papyrus of the New Testament (to my knowledge) is one containing verses of Matthew found at Qumran dates to 58AD (via Dr. Carsten Thiede). P64, which dates to 65AD, also contains verses from Matthew. In the Chester Beatty Papyrus, P46 contains many of Paul's epistles dating to the late 1st century. These are copies written within the lifespans of people who claim to be eyewitness testimonies to Jesus.
@kikrlbs The Jewish historian Josephus, in his 'Antiquities', book 20, section 9, refers to James, the brother of Jesus, who is called 'the Christ'. The Roman historian Tacitus, in his 'Annals', book 15, section 44, he refers to a man named Christus. He says this man suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of one of their procurators, Pontius Pilate.
@kikrlbs Whether or not you accept Jesus as your savior, if you are to doubt the existence of Jesus, you might as well doubt Caesar, and the existence of the entire Roman empire itself.
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." - C. S. Lewis
@Hoffman3727 I will not engage in debate on youtube, it is pointless. This is the last you will hear from me. But like I said, nothing, nothing was written about jesus while he existed. You can deter from that point and commit the logical fallacy known as "missing the point", which is further reasoning on which I will not engage in debate with 1: Somebody who is illogical and 2: someone who is not willing to change their mind. I'm done.
@kikrlbs To my knowledge, we don't have proof that there was anything written during the lifespan of any ancient historical figure. Are you denying the existence of all those individuals as well?
Regardless, I see your point, as my above statement shows. Furthermore, debate is not pointless, as this is how we can test the validity of our views, and search for the absolute truth in a matter.
"Someone who is not willing to change their mind." I hope you will introspect on that statement =)
@kikrlbs I simply say, yes, it is arguable that the apostles would lie in their writings, even though this would not benefit them in anyway, and furthermore get them killed. But why would Jewish and Roman historians- the groups of people who had Jesus crucified- bother to lie and make things up?
What motive would all these people have to make up 'Jesus'?
If I am wrong here, I would hope somebody as enlightened as you will show me the errors of my logic, and offer an alternative explanation. =)
@JanJiska It seems logically inconsistent that He would preach a message about of Truth, being honest with one another, (9th Commandment), and so forth, in such a deceitful manner.
But I'll run with it. What other sources would there be if not God? We could go with what the Pharisees asserted- using the power of the devils- though that theory as well seems absurd, and primarily rooted in Luciferian doctrines (which we can discuss if you so wish).
"But I'll run with it. What other sources would there be if not God?"
Any of the thousands of gods that have been worshipped throughout history or one which currently unknown. Perhaps it was Loki having a laugh. Perhaps God still wants us to follow the OT and Jesus was actually the Devil leading us away from it?
I would be interested in how you know for a cast iron fact Jesus was telling the truth.
@JanJiska Simple. The nature of prophecy. No other religious doctrine, be it the Mormon Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc, contains that. A prediction about the future is metaphysical in nature.
I would highly recommend you watch the following video for more information. It starts a bit slow, but it heads in an intriguing direction that you might not have considered before.
@JanJiska Perhaps Jesus was an alien? Again, it would seem far more logical for Him to simply make His true nature known to us, rather than to deceive us. Practically speaking, what evidence do we currently have for aliens? Cattle mutilations, strange signs in the skies and crop circles, and thousands of horrific testimonies that corroborate one another. It seems to me if these creatures were here to help us, they would simply make themselves known- perhaps like the God of the Bible has.
"It seems to me if these creatures were here to help us"
Who says they actually care (if they are real). Perhaps there are reasons they cannot reveal themselves (prime directive etc).
Please bear in mind that it is not only your god who has made himself known. Plenty of other religions exists with just as much proof (according to their believers).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If laws of logic, uniformity, etc. were universal and subject to the creation of "God" and God created the universe, would they not also apply to the entire universe as well?
The "laws" governing planet earth are not governing the entire universe, hence making such laws relative and not objective as Bahnsen claims. I have yet to hear this argument purposed by Stein throughout the entire debate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If, as Bahnsen claims, laws of logic, uniformity, etc. are universal and subject to the creation of "God" and God created the universe, would they not also apply to the entire universe as well?
The "laws" governing earth are not governing the entire universe, hence making such laws relative and not universally objective, as Bahnsen claims.
The fact that such laws are inconsistent throughout the universe seems to make his claim that God is the arbiter of such universal laws, false.
That depends on how you parse Raychell's comment. If Raychell was evaluating Stein's reply in the context of Bahnsen's original comment that "atheists [were] involved in the French Revolution," then his reply makes sense.
Yes, Raychell could have been more precise. By the same token, you could have been more generous in acknowledging the context of Raychell's criticism.
It's not blind faith that is Bahnsen's position. That would be Stien's. Listen again to the debate, maybe frequently pausing with dictionary in hand. I am afraid you missed the point.
Bahnsen did not say that atheists *caused* the French Revolution. He referred to "atheists involved in the French Revolution."
I suppose that Raychell was reacting to Bahnsen's original statement. But if you want to jump to conclusion, then by all means jump, jump, jump away.
Follow your own. The claim that he is a moron because of something he said, when he clearly never said that something, is false. Thats was my point to begin with and you havent bothered to address it. Next.
I was referring to Racychell29 saying that Stein didnt know there was atheists involved in the revolution. This user then went on to conclude that Stein was therefore a "moron".
Since Stein never espoused any beleif that atheists were NOT involved in the revolution the users comment is wrong and hence the conclusion the user came to was also wrong.
But if you want to say that saying they didnt CAUSE the revolution is the same as saying they were not INVOLVED in it "the by all means jump, jump, jump away"
All I want to say is that you should listen to context before being so snippy. Stein misrepresented Bahnsen's comment & Raychell had every right to call him on it.
Stein's response was a Strawman, like most of his ramblings. Even as an atheist, you have to admit that Stein was in way over his head.
Take your own advice and listen to the context. Stein clearly says here that atheists didnt start the revolution. He did NOT say anywhere that they were not involved.
Raychell then made the claim "Stein didn't know there were atheists involved in the French Revolution".
This is clearly a false claim.
This point I am making is independant of Bahnsen, his statement, or steins representation of it. I am merely saying that the statement "Stein didn't know..." is false. No more. No less.
At the very beginning of this clip, Stein says that he wants to address "a false staement" made by Bahnsen, namely Bahsen's claim that "atheists caused the French Revolution." The problem is that Bahnsen did not make that claim.
Stein is clearly making a false claim.
Perhaps Raychell could have been more precise in his criticism of Stein, but you could have been more generous & more balanced in your reply. Raychell was, after all, right to point out Stein's error.
Your point may be correct here. I would have to relisten to the whole clip. However I must reiterate that this is superfluous to the claim Im making and the words rachell actually said.
All you do here is change what she wrote into what she didnt write in order to defend it better. She DID write that Stein didnt know there were atheists involved. This IS a false claim. Maybe YOU are right to point out an error in Stein but the error Rachell pointed out was not an error. Its false.
Put it this way. I can only reply to a comment a person DID make. I can not reply to a comment that wishful thinking says they SHOULD have made or they PROBABLY meant by what the said "Stein didn't know there were atheists involved in the French Revolution".
Stein CLEARLY knows there was.
Therefore the claim she made is false.
If you have another interpretation of an error Stein has made then by all means state it! But do not ascribe it to Rachell also.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dr. Bahnsen might as well have just stood up there and said, "because I said so," like a mother does a child, when she has no logically answer for his/her question. To say the world "is" because God made it, IS NOT an answer. And it's not just not an answer for Dr. Stein, but to any retional thinking person.
Question is completely circular in reasoning.. and easily refuted.
Now tell me how "It's just your way" in the same mannor as most scientists do. Yet you accept any gibberish they throw at you with out question.
It's like looking at a magician and the magician says.. "I can pull a rabbit out of a hat" and you say "prove it" he continues by carrying out his trick. You say "Wow I believe you now the evidence is in front of me and seen it with my own eyes".
"...(Dr. Stein does not tell us) how an atheist world view can account for laws: laws of science, laws of logic, laws of morality - and yet he does tell us that without them science would be impossible."
Do these "laws" exist? How were they made? Is the world "rational" without them? Will science ultimately uncover these laws?
If it is permissible for science to reveal things, is it equally permissible for God to do the same?
I've listened to all of it so far, and continuing to the end.
VCMethod is right. Bahnsen is irrational to the point of being laughable.
C'mon... "We can prove the existence of God by the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without him, it is impossible to prove anything."????
It's annoying how most atheists take Stein's approach of avoiding the issues and making such condescending comments. But thank God for people like Bahnsen who catches these faulty tactics and sticks with the context of the debate.
SaintsEdified 1 month ago
@SaintsEdified,
Didn't Bahnsen avoid the issue by failing to demonstrate the impossibility of the non existance of the Christian God? All of his arguments seem to just be arguing for a creational force of some kind.
Although Bahnsen's arguments are flawed Stein did not pick Bahnsen up on them. A lack of preparation seemed apparent as well as not really seeming to have a strategy from the moment Stein started speaking imho.
JanJiska 1 month ago
Comment removed
SaintsEdified 1 month ago
@JanJiska
I notice that you keep repeating yourself in your comments to others: "Which religion? Which god? What religion are you talking about? etc..." But you need to understand that this debate was not to prove other gods wrong and the Christian God to be true. It was to prove that there is evidence for the existence of God and the unbelieving worldview is flawed. Bahnsen demonstrated that very well and Stein failed to prove his position correct.
SaintsEdified 1 month ago 4
@SaintsEdified,
"Bahnsen demonstrated that very well"
I am afraid he did not, Stein was just poor.
"But you need to understand that this debate was not to prove other gods wrong and
the Christian God to be true."
Bahnsen explicitly stated that he would demonstrate this by proving the impossibilty of a non Christian God which he failed to do. Also, in those comments I was responding to Christians who were trying to use creator arguments as Christian arguments.
JanJiska 1 month ago
@JanJiska (1)
"...he would demonstrate this by proving the impossibilty of a non Christian God which he failed to do."
Bahnsen explicitly said that this debate is "whether atheism or Christian theism are objectively true." Does he ever say that his goal is to prove all other religions or gods wrong? No. In fact, he addresses this issue in his introduction and at the end in the Q&A. In this debate, he demonstrated how the God and the laws of logic are compatible. He even said that the laws of
SaintsEdified 1 month ago
@SaintsEdified,
*Bahnsen explicitly said that this debate is "whether atheism or Christian theism are objectively true." *
Christianity is monotheistic and therefore to prove it is objectively true requires proving that nothing else can be providing the effects which are claimed as it's evidence.
JanJiska 4 weeks ago
@JanJiska
Yeah, you pretty much disregarded everything I said. I thought after two weeks of you not responding that you would at least give a good response... I guess that's not the case with you. Take care now.
SaintsEdified 4 weeks ago
@SaintsEdified,
I did not so much disregarded what you said as rebutted it.
Sorry about the two week delay, I only use YouTube when I am at work and I was off work for Christmas.
Anyway, should I assume by you resorting to personal attacks that you have nothing further the bring to the table?
JanJiska 3 weeks ago
@JanJiska (1)
There are no personal attacks, but simply an honest observation of mine. I sincerely thought that you would come back and not disregard what I said about you confusing the laws of logic nor did I think you would disregard my reply to your already-answered question about Bahnsen not proving every other religion false. You instead respond with one lousy sentence. It's clear that you are not trying to understand what you oppose; it seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
SaintsEdified 3 weeks ago
@SaintsEdified,
"disregard what I said about you confusing the laws of logic"
Not disregared, merely rebutted.
"nor did I think you would disregard my reply to your already-answered question about Bahnsen not proving every other religion false."
Not disregared merely rebutted. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, to prove it to be true requires showing how the evidence could not be attributed to other means.
You appear to have no answer to this?
JanJiska 3 weeks ago
@JanJiska (2)
Now, if you want to assume that I have "nothing further to bring on the table" then go ahead and stick with that assumption if it makes you happy. Anyone can look at this thread and see who brought what to the table.
I'm not about wasting time, so I apologize if I seem unwilling to talk to you now, but you left me no choice but to assume that you're not considering anything I say. But I wish you the best! Take care.
SaintsEdified 3 weeks ago
@JanJiska (2)
logic are part of God's nature. Also, creator arguments can be used for Christian arguments. What you've done is completely miss the point of this debate. You think Bahnsen failed because he didn't thoroughly prove the Biblical God to be the only deity in the universe. If you wanted to hear a debate about which religion is true then you are on the wrong channel.
SaintsEdified 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "All of his arguments seem to just be arguing for a creational force of some kind."
These atheist vs. theist debates are just that, proving whether or not God exists. The atheist's position is that there is no higher being or deity, whereas the Christian's position is that there is a God. As long as the theist proves that there is evidence pointing to a deity then the atheist loses. So, Bahnsen didn't "fail" to demonstrate the existence of the biblical God; that wasn't his assignment.
SaintsEdified 1 month ago
@SaintsEdified,
"As long as the theist proves that there is evidence pointing to a deity then the atheist loses. "
But he fails to do this and his position is logically flawed when he tries, if there was an all powerful God the laws of logic would be worthless.
The laws of logic are simply observations in nature from repeated experimentation. We might find out they are wrong tomorrow and will correct our science accordingly. The morality of the bible is far from objective.
JanJiska 1 month ago
Comment removed
SaintsEdified 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska (3)
"laws of logic....We might find out they are wrong tomorrow and will correct our science accordingly"
You're confusing the Laws of Logic with Science itself. We use the laws of logic in Science, but that does not mean that the laws of logic is Science. You're essentially saying that the law of contradiction, identity, excluded middle, and sufficient reason may be changed. So, contradictions may be illogical today, but not tomorrow? You need to correct your view on a few things.
SaintsEdified 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SaintsEdified,
"You're essentially saying that the law of contradiction, identity, excluded middle, and sufficient reason may be changed"
No, that is what you are saying by claiming the existance of an all powerful creature.
My point was we might somehow have taken a special case or something and in the fullness of time realise our logical laws are incomplete but I doubt it. Until then I think they can be relied upon.
JanJiska 4 weeks ago
Atheism is so fallacious. This is how Bahnsen able to destroy Stein's arguments. Stein has been trying to deny his need to account for the laws of logic. This is because he simple can't, and won't admit it.
YHWHisSovereign 9 months ago
@YHWHisSov,
Doesn't Bahnsen fails to explain why it is his God who must be the one who created the laws of logic?
Also, how can you possibly use the laws of logic if your all powerful God can change them at any moment for reasons beyond your understanding? Surely to use the laws of logic one must assume there is no 3rd party that can change them?
JanJiska 9 months ago
@JanJiska The laws of logic are the very nature of God. God cannot change His nature. If He could, then He wouldn't God. This is a contradiction. It is logically consistent that God cannot change His nature, and logically inconsistent if God could. "All powerful" does not include the power to be inconsistent with a God whose very nature is consistency. If it did, then nothing would be possible because God could be God one moment, and not God the next.
YHWHisSovereign 9 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign,
What is it that stops him from changing his nature? Surely whatever it is that is powerful enough to be putting limits on God's power is what we should worship?
JanJiska 9 months ago
Bahnsen is destroying Stein!
RbnHd123456 1 year ago 6
Philosophically ignorant physiologist vs. highly educated professional philosopher equals one butthurt PhD. graduate.
1noen1 1 year ago
I’ll clarify- I want a rational explanation. The one you provided would be an irrational assumption with comparison to what I proposed. This conversation seems to be going in circles. I cherish what little free time I have, and therefore will be abstaining from most comments here on. Faith in Jesus is the logically consistent conclusion one of honest inquiry will reach. It is my hope and prayer that you will look into the evidence I provided, and that the Lord may convict your heart and mind.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"I’ll clarify- I want a rational explanation"
A different God from a different religion is the real one. The devil of that religion wrote the bible, appeared as Jesus etc in order to divert people from the true god and into the one he made up for them (Christianity). All of the science and history in the bible is correct as this devil has super natural powers. He pretends to be TGD, answers prayers etc.
If you can disprove this then I am all ears.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Pliny, Epistles, 97- …they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"Pliny, Epistles, 97" What do you feel this proves? It just seems to be taking about people meeting up?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Jewish Talmud, Sanhedrin, Section 43a- On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"Jewish Talmud, Sanhedrin, Section 43a" Nothing about Jesus having supernatural powers mentioned here. Mererly that he was killed.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Africanus, Chronography, Section 18- On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the 263 third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"Africanus, Chronography, Section 18" This is the interesting one. I have come across this before. Are there impartial scientific journals that discuss this?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Secular sources affirm that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, which is held on a full moon. They also affirm that there was an eclipse of sorts directly after. This is scientifically impossible; it was a supernatural work of God. Luke 23:45 “And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.”
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
John 8:44 - "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do"
Not sure what point you are making here?
Do you feel that this proves that the supernatural power behind the bible was the Christian God and not a different one?
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727,
"Secular sources affirm that Jesus was crucified on the Passover" But not that he had supernatual powers?
"They also affirm that there was an eclipse of sorts directly after. This is scientifically impossible"
Could you point me towards the peer reviewed scientific journals that confirm this please?
"it was a supernatural work of God"
Or some of supernatural power, how do you know it was God?
JanJiska 1 year ago
Likewise, I would recommend the works of Harvard mathematician Ivan Panin. He shows that there is an underlying mathematical structure to the Bible that no man could possibly put forth- many have tried to replicate such, failing to come even remotely close. To assume it occurred by pure chance is mathematically absurd, and takes far more faith than to assume it was by God.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727,
"To assume it occurred by pure chance is mathematically absurd, and takes far more faith than to assume it was by God."
Well by something of super human intelligence. It is quite a leap to assume it was the Christian God rather than anything else!
JanJiska 1 year ago
Wiztum, Doron, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg, “Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 151:1 (1988), pp.177-178. This is a journal that is peer reviewed by world renowned mathematicians. There are numerous codes riddled in the Bible, and I can direct you toward additional resources if you are interested.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
The point I was making with regards to the Obed story is this. There is an embedded message in the text, of extraordinary probability, that shows the bloodline of five individuals, written hundreds of years before they are born, found in an area where the message of the text is of relevant meaning to the embedded message found within.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
As I cited earlier, the works of Josephus and Tacitus, as well as Celsus, Suetonius, Phlegan, and others verify various prophecies (the crucifixion and his healing miracles most notably) about Jesus. These aren’t impartial, however- many of these secular sources were in fact anti-Christian. Though I will admit, there are no secular sources that verify Jesus’ birth location, only the testimonies of those who knew Jesus as contained in the Bible.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"As I cited earlier, the works of Josephus and Tacitus, as well as Celsus, Suetonius, Phlegan"
More details please, these gentlement wrote a lot.
I would also like to read any third party sources that confirm Jesus's miracles as I am sure many people wrote and spoke about these amazing feats.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Book 1, Section 28- [Jesus] invented his birth from a virgin… born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country… who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"Book 1, Section 28" - does Jesus actual claim to be a God in the bible? I mean literally.
What book is this actually from? I am not sure what order the replies are in.
JanJiska 1 year ago
I was searching for the truth, yet didn’t want the Bible to be true as I understood that would mean I'd have to change certain aspects of my life that I wanted to cling to. At the time, I put the Koran under the same scrutiny, and could not reconcile its inconsistencies- same with Buddhist, Hindu, and Mormon beliefs. No, I haven’t gone through every ‘holy text’, nor could anybody, due to how one defines a ‘holy text’. Until I see a worldview more veracious than the Bible, here I will stand.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
YouTube is being strange, I'll repost.
@JanJiska: Simple. The nature of prophecy. No other religious doctrine, be it the Mormon Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc, contains that. A prediction about the future is metaphysical in nature.
I would highly recommend you watch the following video for more information. It starts a bit slow, but it heads in an intriguing direction that you might not have considered before.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2973245218311329847#
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
The nature of prophecy? Even the gospels do not agree with each other, the prophecies are less reliable than those.
No other religious text contains prophecies? Not one ever? Thoughout history? Throughout the world?
Even if the prophecies were all bang on they do not prove Jesus was telling the truth about the source of his powers.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska I would argue the gospels do line up with each other quite nicely, and that seeming contradictions arise from mistranslations of the Greek/Hebrew, elementary interpretations of the scripture, etc. Every time I personally have found a seeming inconsistency in the Bible (and I admit, there are many), after doing further research into scholarly works, praying on it, and so on, I often find that my thoughts were misguided, and there was a deeper meaning to be found in the scriptures.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727 But if we agree that there are translation errors in the bible (like what were Jesus's last words, who was in the tomb etc) then how do we know there are not other errors in there? Surely God would protect his holy bible!
Although, am I correct in thinking that the approach you took to your research was that the bible is right and you researched until you were satisfied with it. Rather than researching with an open mind?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska I would argue there are ways we can verify that we have the exact scriptures as they were meant to get to us- look into Ivan Panin, Greek Numeric New Testament, etc. Again, you call them translation errors, I call them misinterpretations.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727 Yes, I do now look at other religious texts as though they are incorrect, but I'm willing to consider the possibility that this isn't the case as individuals provide their evidence for such. Have you kept an open mind and watched that video yet?
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2973245218311329847#
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727.
Call them what you like they are still errors. How do we know that these scriptures as are they were meant to get to us and there are not more errors up the line?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Present the most convincing scriptural error (inconsistency) you can find within The Bible and I’ll give you my thoughts.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
Sorry, I am not sure what discussing textual errors is going to prove. At the moment we have yet to establish what the bible, even if the historical and scientific facts are 100% accurate, proves to us. All it would show was that something with advanced knowledge wrote some parts of it. It does not prove that everything else in it is correct nor does it prove that Jesus was telling the truth about the source of his supernatural powers.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska First you would have to show that there is a different religion that is true that asserts this to be the case; otherwise, it’s merely fanciful speculation. Past that, again, it is logically inconsistent that He openly states He is the One True God, yet does so in a deceptive manner. Matthew 24:5 “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.”
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727,
"you would have to show that there is a different religion"
Why should any religion be right? We may not even have discovered it yet!!
"it is logically inconsistent that He openly states He is the One True God, yet does so in a deceptive manner"
If you are the Devil (or some equivilant) then the purpose is to direct you away from the a different God then it makes perfect logical sense to do this.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska It is impossible to disprove your explanation, in the same way that it is impossible to disprove solipsism. One can only show the logical flaws of empirical skepticism. Regardless, your idea doesn’t seem to have an iota of supportive evidence, either.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"It is impossible to disprove your explanation"
So you admit that it might be true. This was my point.
"your idea doesn’t seem to have an iota of supportive evidence, either."
It has as much as Christianity does. All of your evidence is based on the leap of faith that TCD and Jesus were telling the truth. This has never been confirmed.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “Antiquities, Book 13, Section 3 does not state anything about Jesus having supernatural powers.”
It does seem to suggest that He was crucified, which is prophesied numerous times in the Bible, which seems to give further validation therein. There are other secular sources that affirm the crucifixion, such as Lucian, Celsus, etc. Look them up for yourself if you are genuinely curious.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@JanJiska “"Book 1, Section 28" - does Jesus actual claim to be a God in the bible? I mean literally What book is this actually from? I am not sure what order the replies are in.”
Yes, Jesus claims to be God numerous times as recorded in The Bible. It is also affirmed by secular sources. That’s why the Jews had Him crucified- they refused to accept Him as the Messiah and thusly had Him crucified because they believed He was committing blasphemy. Also, Origen’s Contra Celsus.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@JanJiska “Are there impartial scientific journals that discuss this?”
Supernatural defies science; what you’re asking for is absurd. The Bible makes claims that are supernatural (Jesus’ resurrection, miracles, etc)- if they could be tested by science they wouldn’t be supernatural, and wouldn’t be attributable to a force outside the four dimensions we experience.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727,
"if they could be tested by science they wouldn’t be supernatural"
Only a scientific test can confirm whether they are possible within the laws of science as they stand.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “Not sure what point you are making here?”
John 8:44 makes an outright claim that Satan is the father of lies. From a Biblical presupposition, it states that any other ‘god’ we can think up of outside the God as revealed in the Bible is essentially of Satan, including the devil of some other religion you have in mind.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@JanJiska “"It is impossible to disprove your explanation" So you admit that it might be true. This was my point.”
I’d like to retract the statement, or I at least don’t hold to it now. For all intents and purposes, yes, I can disprove your explanation; The Bible is true. I have provided evidence for the statement, though I don’t have to prove this to you- Biblically, I have no need of which.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"For all intents and purposes, yes, I can disprove your explanation"
Then please do. Note that claiming that they are difficult to understand, improbable or that other theories are equally valid does not count as disproof.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska In the same way that we use the laws of logic to prove the laws of logic, or use the power of the eye to examine the eye, yes, I will use the Bible to prove the Bible. It is my ultimate authority, and therefore I hold that it proves itself. Disprove my core presupposition, or present yours for discussion.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
In that case I can use my theory that Jesus was lying to prove that Jesus was lying - stalelmate. You insist that that everything spoken by Jesus was true but cannot back this up.
The laws of logic do not prove the laws of logic, they prove internal consistancy not completenes or correctness. They make no claims that they cannot 'prove', unlike the bible.
The eye makes no claims that cannot be independantly scientifically verified, unlike the bible.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska They weren't meant to be taken as perfect analogies, rather examples to help show a point. Regardless, keen clarifications, though I would hold that the Bible is in fact internally consistent. Does this prove it true? No, but showing it to be internally inconsistent would prove it false.
Stalemate it is. If you have any questions regarding the Bible or like would to pursue this conversation, please do so. Otherwise, take care JanJiska!
2 Corinthians 5:10
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
Well you asked for another explaination of the bible and I supplied it. Mission achieved.
However, as for questions - what were Jesus's last words on the cross?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Luke 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727 In Luke, 'thus' comes from the Greek 'tauta', meaning hereafter (at some point after this). It is a plausible interpretation that between saying 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit' and giving up the ghost, He said 'It is finished'. Considering 'It is finished' sounds like a closing statement, and He bows His head directly afterward, it seems safe to assume that these were His last words on the cross.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
Another assumption? Doesn't he also say "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" or something similar? Depsite the fact that he and his God are one.
I also thought he did not drink the drink that was offered to him?
How did his cross even get up there? Did he carry it or did Simon?
Did he actually answer Pilate's charges?
Have you carried out this much research into every holy text?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska The only alternatives are that either the passage in Luke were His last words, or that His last words on the cross weren't written in the Bible so we have no way of knowing. Both seem like less logical assumptions to make.
Yes, Jesus does say that. There is Jesus, God the Son, in the form of a man, and God the Father, as in the Creator. These are two aspects of the Trinity, along with the Holy Spirit. The Son answers to The Father, as is seen here.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"Both seem like less logical assumptions to make."
As long as we have plenty of assumptions then I guess we know we must be right.
So Jesus is God (has magic powers, knows the future etc) but also has to ask God why he has forsaken him? So he is asking "Me, me why have I forsaken me?"
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska The statement He makes echoes the first line of Psalm 22, which gives a clear prophecy of the crucifixion. That's the primary reason I see for Him saying it- He was, in a sense, fulfilling the scriptures written about Himself.
This is speculation, but I suppose it could be a rhetorical question expressing His own agony over the situation that had to occur.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727,
"He was, in a sense, fulfilling the scriptures written about Himself."
Yeah, I would call this cheating. Like when he sent his servants to get him a donkey so he could ride in on one.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Yes, I assume the Bible to be true, and will draw logical assumptions from it. I hold that there is not any inconsistency that cannot be reconciled through logical inquiry.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727,
"I hold that there is not any inconsistency that cannot be reconciled through logical inquiry."
Indeed, I am sure that you can find an answer for any challenge if you work hard enough, look through translations etc. I think that the same could be said of many other holy texts if you had spent as long studying them though.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska The drink that is offered to Him prior to the crucifixion is denied, but toward the end of the crucifixion another is offered which He accepts.
Simon carried the cross up to Golgotha, the gospels are in agreement on this matter. Any other media outlets that portray otherwise aren't being true to the Biblical account.
He affirmed the charges when it was claimed that He is the Son of God, yes.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
Obviously this is nothing but a thought experiment as we have no way of knowing whether Jesus was lying the entire time, however:
Doesn't Jonh state that Jesus carried the cross?
I thought that Matthew stated that Jesus refused to answer any charges?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Primarily, the Mahayana Sutras, as prior to Christianity, I identified myself as Buddhist as I enjoyed their moral and spiritual teachings As well, I've studied (to varying degrees) the Vedas, the Koran, the Mormon doctrines, the Talmud, and various Luciferian and Masonic doctrines. Again, none anywhere near what I've devoted to the Bible, and none near the time any scholar has devoted. I still have a lot to learn.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727,
"none anywhere near what I've devoted to the Bible,"
I thought not.
" I still have a lot to learn"
No argument there!
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Yes, you're correct, and I was wrong on a previous point. It would seem that Jesus did initially carry the cross as you said, in John 19:17, and it was later passed onto Simon as stated in Luke 23:26 (and affirmed in Matthew and Mark), presumably due to the Centurion's command. I'm embarrassed I overlooked that, but I thank you for giving discernment on the matter.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"I'm embarrassed I overlooked that, but I thank you for giving discernment on the matter."
No worries. Although it makes me wonder what else you have got wrong in the bible without realising.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Rather, He doesn't respond to their accusations, as they are claiming falsehoods upon Him which He won't acknowledge. When they ask Him questions regarding His character, or make a statement that is true about Himself, He responds. Matthew 27:11-12 shows this.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
Ah right, I got confused over whether he answered charges or not as one book says he did and one says he did not. I guess with a bit of imagination and work they can match up.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska While I've done the most research on the Bible, I've done research on quite a few others as well. Are there any particular ones you'd like to defend?
I can cite scripture in any cases when necessary. Take care!
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
Which ones have you studied (and presumably dismissed)?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
Rather, prove to me a religion with more supportable evidence than The Bible. Or, disprove the claims made in The Bible. I will happily answer any questions you have, but otherwise, the burden of proof is now on you.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@JanJiska P.S. For the sake of order of posts, this one should be read last. =)
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
Sorry for the delay in replying - been very busy.
The burden of proof is on you and not me as you are claiming the bible proves TCD. Please show how you know that the bibe's supernatural inspiration was not lying. The question is not whether Jesus is recorded to have existed, although 3rd party sources confirming his miracles have been requested.
Please note - quoting the bible to prove the bible is not acceptable.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Josephus, Antiquities, Book 13, Section 3- Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
Antiquities, Book 13, Section 3 does not state anything about Jesus having supernatural powers.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727,
"And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, "
Interesting - what is the source of this, please?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Tacitus, Annals, Book 15, Section 44- Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea…
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hoffman3727,
Annals, Book 15, Section 44 does not state anything about Jesus having supernatural powers.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Celsus, Origen’s Contra Celsus, Book 2, Section 33- And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place…
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
" Origen’s Contra Celsus, Book 2, Section 33"
I have heard of this before but it seems vague on the timing of the natural disasters,
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Quite the opposite. As I was getting drawn toward the Lord, I was looking for every direction to doubt the Bible, as at the time, I didn't want it to be true. If you keep an open mind, you'll find that the evidence is overwhelming. Even now, I hold that if one could show me how all the reasons I hold the Bible to be true are in fact false, lies, etc, I would reevaluate my views. I personally find that impossible, but I am still open to the possibility and any who want to show me so.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727, Hmm - I find that hard to believe. I do not think a person would so intensly study the bible unless they were trying to prove it were true. If you were trying to disprove it, did you do the same with all of the other holy texts? Every one of them? Did you speak to 'true believers' of those faiths?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska There are many prophecies that came true, however, that would have been out of their control to create. Herod slaughtering the infants in Bethlehem in an attempt to kill Jesus as an infant, for example- an event also recorded in secular sources. Jesus' bloodline, birth location, etc. There were prophecies about His crucifixion written hundreds of years before we have any historical documentation of such an act. There are even prophecies for the rise and fall of nations.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727, could you supply me with these secular sources, please? Isn't there dispute over Jesus's bloodline and do we have impartial 3rd party sources giving the location of his birth?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska In the Hebrew, there is an encrypted message that emerges in said chapter. When you count every 49th (7 times 7) letter in this section, it spells out the names 'Boaz, Ruth, Obed, Jesse, David'. These are the names, in chronological order, of the bloodline leading to Jesus. Keep in mind this piece of text was written hundreds of years before these individuals were born. I can't see how this in anyway cab be explained as a fluke. I can provide more examples, or cite sources if need be.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727, please cite sources of this 49th letter code. I have never heard of this before! Although, of course, it does not prove that the bible is true. Merely that the creator of the bible was able to embed a code which showed a bloodline.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska @Hoffman3727 If all the evidence is pointing in one direction about Jesus, why would it be logical to assume the exact opposite? This is irrational skepticism, and in my humble opinion, a statement showing the lengths you would go to deny the Truth of our Lord and Savior.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727, You seem to be stating that because there are verifiable truths in the bible all of Christianity (the way you interpret it and not anyone else) is true. That conclusion does not follow from that premise as we have no way of verifying what Jesus (and God) has said as being true. You might well take a leap of faith and assume that it is but that is all that is - an assumed leap of faith. You asked for an alternative explaination and I gave you one - Jesus lied.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Many of the prophecies contained in the Bible that come true are confirmed even by secular sources. Again, I'd highly recommend watching that video, I think there is much more to prophecy than you may currently be aware of.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@JanJiska You are correct, I suppose I cannot make such an empirical statement. Regardless, if you can find me any other religious text that contains anything close to the staggering amount of verifiable prophecies as contained in the Bible, I'd like to see it. I personally have yet to come across such.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727 But would you conceed that you look at other religious text with the assumption that they are incorrect?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska You're right, I suppose this wouldn't give 100% proof, but if there are literally hundreds of prophecies that came true about this individual, this would lead me to rationally believe that what He said could be accepted as truth. I would hardly call this a leap of faith- in fact, I think it takes more far more faith to deny that conclusion than to accept it.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727 Considering NT writers had access to the OT prophecies (and so did Jesus) I do not find them impressive. Like when Jesus sent his disciples to fetch a donkey so he could satisfy the prophecy by arriving on one.
Although the prophecies being true in no way confirms that Jesus was telling the truth about anything else. He might have been directing us away from the real God!
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska Yes, I do now look at other religious texts as though they are incorrect, but I'm willing to consider the possibility that this isn't the case as individuals provide their evidence for such. Have you kept an open mind and watched that video yet?
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2973245218311329847#
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@JanJiska There are numerous embedded prophecies in the text. In Genesis, chapter 38 is a strange chapter in that it more or less interrupts the current story being told with a temporary side story regarding Judah and his daughter in law. The importance of the tale, however, ...is that it lays the background for the book of Ruth, which details the tale of Boaz and Ruth, whom give birth to Obed.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727, not sure what point you are making with the Obed story?
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bahnsen is bitter, and should avoid ad homimen terms such as "weak" and "trying", etc. Gordon Stein is my hero! Check out Christopher Hitchens "The Portable Atheist". Bahnsen without stating so, is claiming non-overlapping magisteria, which Dawkins has so cleanly dealt with.
iTroglobite 1 year ago
Since they are debating about the christian god, more or less citing the bible as a source, I wonder why stein hasn't made any reference to the fact that nothing was written by jesus or by anyone during jesus' time. I will admit though, it is pretty striking how the bible has an answer for damn near every argument brought to it. But then again, christians have had 3500 years to make their argument, modern science has had maybe 200-500.
kikrlbs 2 years ago 4
Christianity has only been around for roughly 2000 years. Not all Christians look to the Bible as the complete source of truth.
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu You're right. My 3500 years statement was not true. I actually was referring to the old testament and people who believe in that, which is roughly, 3500 years old. But you are correct, christianity has 2000 years. Thank you for correcting my statement.
kikrlbs 1 year ago
@kikrlbs- Actually, all of the New Testament (with the exception of Revelation) was written within one generation of Jesus' death. Furthermore, we have manuscripts that as well date back to the first century. The Bible is the most historically verified set of writings there is- even the honest unbelievers will tell you this.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727 That is not true by any means, but, you actually confirm my statement that nothing was written about Jesus while he was on this planet. Even if it was within a generation, (in which there is much evidence that it was not), it still proves my point that nothing was written about him by anyone while he was supposedly alive. That is true.
kikrlbs 1 year ago
@kikrlbs Show me the evidence for your statement, as I will for mine. The earliest extant manuscript we have of Plato dates to about 900AD (the Oxford B), where Plato wrote in approximately 350BC, yet based on textual criticism, we rarely doubt the reliability of these writings to be attributed to Plato, let alone the very existence of a man named Plato.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@kikrlbs Likewise, the earliest papyrus of the New Testament (to my knowledge) is one containing verses of Matthew found at Qumran dates to 58AD (via Dr. Carsten Thiede). P64, which dates to 65AD, also contains verses from Matthew. In the Chester Beatty Papyrus, P46 contains many of Paul's epistles dating to the late 1st century. These are copies written within the lifespans of people who claim to be eyewitness testimonies to Jesus.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@kikrlbs The Jewish historian Josephus, in his 'Antiquities', book 20, section 9, refers to James, the brother of Jesus, who is called 'the Christ'. The Roman historian Tacitus, in his 'Annals', book 15, section 44, he refers to a man named Christus. He says this man suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of one of their procurators, Pontius Pilate.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@kikrlbs Whether or not you accept Jesus as your savior, if you are to doubt the existence of Jesus, you might as well doubt Caesar, and the existence of the entire Roman empire itself.
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." - C. S. Lewis
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727 I will not engage in debate on youtube, it is pointless. This is the last you will hear from me. But like I said, nothing, nothing was written about jesus while he existed. You can deter from that point and commit the logical fallacy known as "missing the point", which is further reasoning on which I will not engage in debate with 1: Somebody who is illogical and 2: someone who is not willing to change their mind. I'm done.
kikrlbs 1 year ago
@kikrlbs To my knowledge, we don't have proof that there was anything written during the lifespan of any ancient historical figure. Are you denying the existence of all those individuals as well?
Regardless, I see your point, as my above statement shows. Furthermore, debate is not pointless, as this is how we can test the validity of our views, and search for the absolute truth in a matter.
"Someone who is not willing to change their mind." I hope you will introspect on that statement =)
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@kikrlbs I simply say, yes, it is arguable that the apostles would lie in their writings, even though this would not benefit them in anyway, and furthermore get them killed. But why would Jewish and Roman historians- the groups of people who had Jesus crucified- bother to lie and make things up?
What motive would all these people have to make up 'Jesus'?
If I am wrong here, I would hope somebody as enlightened as you will show me the errors of my logic, and offer an alternative explanation. =)
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727
"... offer an alternative explanation. =)"
Certainly, everything they wrote is factually correct but Jesus lied about the source of his super natural powers.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska It seems logically inconsistent that He would preach a message about of Truth, being honest with one another, (9th Commandment), and so forth, in such a deceitful manner.
But I'll run with it. What other sources would there be if not God? We could go with what the Pharisees asserted- using the power of the devils- though that theory as well seems absurd, and primarily rooted in Luciferian doctrines (which we can discuss if you so wish).
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727,
"But I'll run with it. What other sources would there be if not God?"
Any of the thousands of gods that have been worshipped throughout history or one which currently unknown. Perhaps it was Loki having a laugh. Perhaps God still wants us to follow the OT and Jesus was actually the Devil leading us away from it?
I would be interested in how you know for a cast iron fact Jesus was telling the truth.
JanJiska 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska Simple. The nature of prophecy. No other religious doctrine, be it the Mormon Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc, contains that. A prediction about the future is metaphysical in nature.
I would highly recommend you watch the following video for more information. It starts a bit slow, but it heads in an intriguing direction that you might not have considered before.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2973245218311329847#
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@JanJiska Perhaps Jesus was an alien? Again, it would seem far more logical for Him to simply make His true nature known to us, rather than to deceive us. Practically speaking, what evidence do we currently have for aliens? Cattle mutilations, strange signs in the skies and crop circles, and thousands of horrific testimonies that corroborate one another. It seems to me if these creatures were here to help us, they would simply make themselves known- perhaps like the God of the Bible has.
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
@Hoffman3727
"It seems to me if these creatures were here to help us"
Who says they actually care (if they are real). Perhaps there are reasons they cannot reveal themselves (prime directive etc).
Please bear in mind that it is not only your god who has made himself known. Plenty of other religions exists with just as much proof (according to their believers).
JanJiska 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hoffman3727 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If laws of logic, uniformity, etc. were universal and subject to the creation of "God" and God created the universe, would they not also apply to the entire universe as well?
The "laws" governing planet earth are not governing the entire universe, hence making such laws relative and not objective as Bahnsen claims. I have yet to hear this argument purposed by Stein throughout the entire debate.
punkash78 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If, as Bahnsen claims, laws of logic, uniformity, etc. are universal and subject to the creation of "God" and God created the universe, would they not also apply to the entire universe as well?
The "laws" governing earth are not governing the entire universe, hence making such laws relative and not universally objective, as Bahnsen claims.
The fact that such laws are inconsistent throughout the universe seems to make his claim that God is the arbiter of such universal laws, false.
punkash78 3 years ago
"The 'laws' governing planet earth are not governing the entire universe..."
Yes, they are.
"I have yet to hear this argument purposed [sic] by Stein throughout the entire debate."
Most likely because it is fallacious.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 3 years ago 6
Wow. Bahnsen just crushes Stein in this segment.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago 5
That depends on how you parse Raychell's comment. If Raychell was evaluating Stein's reply in the context of Bahnsen's original comment that "atheists [were] involved in the French Revolution," then his reply makes sense.
Yes, Raychell could have been more precise. By the same token, you could have been more generous in acknowledging the context of Raychell's criticism.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago 2
I'm GOD because I saved a snail today. Take that Christian biblemutts.
SliferDemon 3 years ago
I'm mike tyson because I punched you in the nuts today. Take that atheist bumblemutts. If humor was your goal, the goalie blocked it with both hands.
kisstheclowns 3 years ago
lol, blind faith is anything but rational...
SliferDemon 3 years ago
It's not blind faith that is Bahnsen's position. That would be Stien's. Listen again to the debate, maybe frequently pausing with dictionary in hand. I am afraid you missed the point.
kisstheclowns 3 years ago
Stein didn't know there were atheists involved in the French Revolution and Reign of Terror. LOL. What an ignorant moron.
raychell29 3 years ago
"atheists involved in the French "
Are you deaf or are you lying because this isnt what he said and Ive no way to tell if you were lying or just mistaken.
He said no atheists CAUSED the French revolution. He did not say no atheists were "INVOLVED"
So my honest question again is did you mishear him or did you just outright lie?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Do you think Stein was deaf? Or just plain lying?
Bahnsen did not say that atheists *caused* the French Revolution. He referred to "atheists involved in the French Revolution."
I suppose that Raychell was reacting to Bahnsen's original statement. But if you want to jump to conclusion, then by all means jump, jump, jump away.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Why are they the only two options you can think of offering, deaf or lying. He could just be MISTAKEN.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Just following your lead.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Follow your own. The claim that he is a moron because of something he said, when he clearly never said that something, is false. Thats was my point to begin with and you havent bothered to address it. Next.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I was referring to Racychell29 saying that Stein didnt know there was atheists involved in the revolution. This user then went on to conclude that Stein was therefore a "moron".
Since Stein never espoused any beleif that atheists were NOT involved in the revolution the users comment is wrong and hence the conclusion the user came to was also wrong.
Simple as that really.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
But if you want to say that saying they didnt CAUSE the revolution is the same as saying they were not INVOLVED in it "the by all means jump, jump, jump away"
irishmauddib 3 years ago
All I want to say is that you should listen to context before being so snippy. Stein misrepresented Bahnsen's comment & Raychell had every right to call him on it.
Stein's response was a Strawman, like most of his ramblings. Even as an atheist, you have to admit that Stein was in way over his head.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Take your own advice and listen to the context. Stein clearly says here that atheists didnt start the revolution. He did NOT say anywhere that they were not involved.
Raychell then made the claim "Stein didn't know there were atheists involved in the French Revolution".
This is clearly a false claim.
This point I am making is independant of Bahnsen, his statement, or steins representation of it. I am merely saying that the statement "Stein didn't know..." is false. No more. No less.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
At the very beginning of this clip, Stein says that he wants to address "a false staement" made by Bahnsen, namely Bahsen's claim that "atheists caused the French Revolution." The problem is that Bahnsen did not make that claim.
Stein is clearly making a false claim.
Perhaps Raychell could have been more precise in his criticism of Stein, but you could have been more generous & more balanced in your reply. Raychell was, after all, right to point out Stein's error.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Your point may be correct here. I would have to relisten to the whole clip. However I must reiterate that this is superfluous to the claim Im making and the words rachell actually said.
All you do here is change what she wrote into what she didnt write in order to defend it better. She DID write that Stein didnt know there were atheists involved. This IS a false claim. Maybe YOU are right to point out an error in Stein but the error Rachell pointed out was not an error. Its false.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Put it this way. I can only reply to a comment a person DID make. I can not reply to a comment that wishful thinking says they SHOULD have made or they PROBABLY meant by what the said "Stein didn't know there were atheists involved in the French Revolution".
Stein CLEARLY knows there was.
Therefore the claim she made is false.
If you have another interpretation of an error Stein has made then by all means state it! But do not ascribe it to Rachell also.
She CLEARLY said "
irishmauddib 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dr. Bahnsen might as well have just stood up there and said, "because I said so," like a mother does a child, when she has no logically answer for his/her question. To say the world "is" because God made it, IS NOT an answer. And it's not just not an answer for Dr. Stein, but to any retional thinking person.
faqfaqfaqfaqfaqfaq76 4 years ago
Terrible question begging faq.
a5dr3 4 years ago
Question is completely circular in reasoning.. and easily refuted.
Now tell me how "It's just your way" in the same mannor as most scientists do. Yet you accept any gibberish they throw at you with out question.
It's like looking at a magician and the magician says.. "I can pull a rabbit out of a hat" and you say "prove it" he continues by carrying out his trick. You say "Wow I believe you now the evidence is in front of me and seen it with my own eyes".
You want to be fooled as well.
MRKetter81 4 years ago
"...(Dr. Stein does not tell us) how an atheist world view can account for laws: laws of science, laws of logic, laws of morality - and yet he does tell us that without them science would be impossible."
Do these "laws" exist? How were they made? Is the world "rational" without them? Will science ultimately uncover these laws?
If it is permissible for science to reveal things, is it equally permissible for God to do the same?
Kmonman 4 years ago
Greg Bahnsen is just another religious moron who teaches the youth to be irrational and not follow the laws of logic.
VCMethod 4 years ago
Did you listen to the debate at all you?
How can universal, invariant, abstract entities such as laws of logic exist in an atheist worldview?
Answer that question before you post something that makes you look stupid.
theweakarefree 4 years ago
"Did you listen to the debate at all you?"
I've listened to all of it so far, and continuing to the end.
VCMethod is right. Bahnsen is irrational to the point of being laughable.
C'mon... "We can prove the existence of God by the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without him, it is impossible to prove anything."????
Pathetic.
ThatOneQuestion 4 years ago