Faith and Reason

Some thoughts on the relationship between faith and reason in response to the following video by Veritas48: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSKCfevQbvc .

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• faith
• reason
• atheist
• Christian
• Christianity
• agnostic
• doubt
• Veritas48
• Bible
• Jesus

[BeatMasterPhil]

If anyone is interested in how faith and reason related to each other, a first easy primer is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[ProfMTH]

@BeatMasterPhil If you say so.

[drrobertoboogie97]

@ndrummer99 You don't say?

[ndrummer99]

@drrobertoboogie97 We do not know that Mark was the earliest written gospel. Many of the gospels are thought to have been written much before 70 A.D. Also, 70 A.D. would still place them in the lifetime of Christ. That's 34 yrs. after his death.

It's not circular logic. It's not an argument based upon the Scriptures, but upon the existence and survival of the church.

[drrobertoboogie97]

@ndrummer99 Wrong. The earliest written gospel, Mark, is dated circa 70 CE. You believe your "Jesus" died circa 36 CE.

"the resurrection created the church"

Which could only be the case if the resurrection story is indeed true, which makes your argument circular.

[ndrummer99]

@drrobertoboogie97 True, except the NT dates back to the era when people who had been alive when Jesus had were still alive. Why would they buy into something they new to be fabricated? The church did not create the resurrection stories; instead the resurrection created the church.

[drrobertoboogie97]

@ndrummer99 I'm not denying that it has 40 different authors. What I'm saying is that, the NT authors had access to OT, so they could've just written it so that it seemed to fulfill OT. Your whole argument is "NT is true, thus OT is true because NT fulfills OT, thus NT is true because NT fulfills OT". Can't you see the circularity?

[ndrummer99]

@drrobertoboogie97 The Bible is not one book, but rather many books written by 40 different authors, over many different time periods. As for the prophecies, the Old Testament was completed around 400 B.C. This is a historic fact. There is no one anywhere, of any educational reputation who's studied it, that disagrees with this. So are you claiming that Christ, the fulfillment of the prophecies, is fictitious?

[drrobertoboogie97]

@ndrummer99 Prove it. The only "proof" that your book is true is when you presuppose that it's true. Make an argument that's not a bare assertion and is not circular. The so-called "fulfilled prophecies" are only that if you assume they are fulfilled and the book captures the truth correctly which, again, is a circular argument.

[ndrummer99]

@ProfMTH In regards to Psalm 22, in support of each reading there are both MSS. The Polyglots of Potken, Antwerp, Paris, and London, have caari in the text, and caaru is referred to in the margin. This is the case with the most correct Hebrew Bibles. And besides, even if the correct translation is indeed caari like lions they maul my hands and feet, the passage would still apply indubitably to Christ's crucifixion.

[ProfMTH]

@ndrummer99 I'm aware of the alleged prophecies. As I said, my "Jesus Was Not the Messiah" series addresses them.