RUmike

Have you actually read the gospels? This statement would lead me to believe you haven't.

hatsoff

From John chapter 19:
As you can see, John tells us that Jesus was crucified the day before the Sabbath. As we know, the Sabbath was Saturday, meaning he was crucified on Friday, a day after Thursday's Passover. What's the problem here?

pharoah

That's complete rubbish based on a dishonest translation from NIV. Compare the 10 translations below - only two of them (Darby and NIV) are dishonest enough to change the plain wording of the text for apologetic purposes.

hatsoff

It's not rubbish at all. And the translation has nothing to do with it.

See, you have to come at this from a Christian perspective. If the infallible Word of God has an apparent contradiction, then we must look beyond what is apparent. If one passage implies man was created before beast, but another flatly states the opposite, then we must dismiss the implication in favor of the plain statement. That is exactly the case here: Since Genesis does not expressly say that beasts were not created before man, we must take it to mean that they were created before and after.

pharoah

That kind of reasoning may play well in evangelical circles but it doesn't fly here at all. Here the Bible is treated just like the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and all other religious texts. If it can withstand critical scrutiny then it can be called infallible and inerrant, but not before.

hatsoff

If the contradiction can be adequately explained from a Christian perspective, what purpose does it serve to challenge Christians in that way?

Popo Sujo

Hey, first post here, and I'm going to jump right in

The reason it won't magically go away based on a Christian "perspective" is that Christian perspectives aren't the only ones out there. That, and Christians can hardly be expected to hold their own most holy text to the level of scrutiny someone non-biased would.

Do you think an error in the Koran could be smoothed over just because a Muslim explained it in a way he or she, but not others, deemed "adequate"? It doesn't work like that.

IRON MAN

I am something of an expert at politely asking difficult questions to evangelists. I can, and have, had smarter people than me going round in circles, losing ground for hours on end.

It's no good trying to memorize specific historical/biblical facts, because they can simply flob off the question as not being relevant to the topic or otherwise redirect the topic of discussion, (and as I say they might know more than you).

It's no good going in there armed with 100 points questioning the existence of Jesus, and then find out he's going to talk about the Old Testament.

Worse yet, you are wasting your time in a room full of people who blindly believe in Jesus in the first place.

If you raise "standard atheist objections", you will simply be condescendingly identified as, "a foolish atheist" who's not "in the know" like everyone else in the room and has put his "faith" in science and evolution and been successfully tricked by Satan and needs saving, (and pity). If you have never been put in this position, trust me, you don't want to be - and nobody else does by publicly agreeing with you either.

The trick is not to be trying to overtly convert anyone yourself. I know you would like to make everyone see this guy is a bullshit artist, embarrass and discredit him in public, and de-covert everyone with your brilliant arguments, but I'm afraid this sort of fantasy only happens in reverse in Chick comics.

The best you can hope for, is to voice the questions that everyone else is thinking but are too afraid to ask, and keep questioning his inadequate answers, sewing the seeds of doubt in people looking on.

You have got to let them work it out for themselves. They will never open their ears to anyone they perceive as attacking them or their messiah.

It's fine to have bible knowledge, (it makes it harder for them to make shit up when they are painted into a corner), but what is most useful is the question, "Why?"

Even 4 years olds learn the effectiveness of this question.

The trick is to act genuinely curious as to the answers. When you are a kid vs an adult this is particularly easy. It also keeps things on topic, in a never ending cat and mouse game, where they think they are the cat but are really the mouse.

You can get away with some really outrageous shit under the guise of trying to learn their point of view as well.

Under this pressure they will resort to the same tactic a parent would with a young child who repeatedly asks 'why'. They make shit up, or they basically say, "'Cause I said so.", (or in this case, "God said so").

So don't try to arm yourself with knowledge, so much as arm yourself with the right attitude. The questions should come pretty naturally.

Example:

Preacher: "God is a trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

You: "So there are three Gods?"

Preacher: "No. He is one God, but three at the same time."

You: "Why would God have to do that?"

Preacher: "The ways of the Lord are mysterious."

You: "How do you know?"

Preacher: "The bible tells us."

You: "Where does it say that in the bible?"

Preacher: "Well it doesn't actually just say it ..."

You: "Then how do you know?"


You'll notice that even in this short example you are asking important questions and getting no satisfactory answers, just unfounded assertions and double talk. The longer you hold the floor, the more other people will start to notice too.

I used to run Jehovah's Witnesses around their own illogic for hours until it was they that couldn't stand it any longer, and made excuses to leave.

Oh, and this is very important. At some stage another adult will see that you've got the guy up against the wall, (it's easier for outside observers to see what is actually going on), and chime in saying your questions are 'rude' or in some other way inappropriate.

Whatever you do ... Don't smoke, whatever you do, just don't smoke ...

... whoops sorry - brain hemorrhage ...

No really ... whatever you do, don't admit to it. Act all innocent, and be absolutely adamant that you are genuinely curious about the answers, and have every right to ask them, and there's nothing rude about doing so.

You might want to throw in some other bait to prolong the discussion too.

"I've always wondered about this ..."

"So you are saying in order for my soul to be saved I have to believe XYZ...?"

"So if Jesus died for all my sins why should he care about ... Going to church on Sunday/Blood transfusions/The sabbath actually being a Saturday/Eating fish on Friday ... etc."


Also the further back to fundamentals you get, the better. It's harder to argue how many nails were used to put Jesus on the cross, once you have already made the assumption that:

• God exists
• Jesus exist(s/ed)
• You are a sinner
• Jesus was crucified for our sins

It is way more fun to argue something fundamental like why a God would put an "Pandora's Box" apple tree in with his new pets, and whether such a thing is just, when he already knew the outcome. You know, shit like that which forms the main supports of their house-of-cards faith.

You will find that "why" questions naturally and ultimately lead back to these fundamentals anyway.

Don't expect to win every point. And don't be disillusioned if they score a point against you. You know their argument is bogus, so just keep gently tapping it until it crumbles under its own weight.

By contrast, if you go in there asserting that Jesus did not exist because of XYZ. They will simply say he did too because of ZYX. Nobody in the room has immediate access to any references to check for themselves, and your objection will be overruled.

Play it cool instead. Bullshit runs and hides from questioning.

unregistered_user_1

Some questions about jesus may be found in the
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org site, or http://www.messiahtruth.com site. Dealing with stuff like messianic prophecy and whatnot. Pick one that's solid and read up on it, so you can know beforehand what a possible response could be, and shoot it down.


With stuff like contradictions, make sure you use one that requires blatent twisting, or adding to the text (a biblical commandment says to not do that) to resolve. Perhaps the two ways that judas killed himself?

JoyJuice

I wouldn't be so quick to do it.

I don't know if this is high school or college, but some Christians are way too easily offended, and I wouldn't take the chance of offending a teacher who I am counting on for a objective grade if they felt I was trying to make a mockery of their faith. Not only that, if this is a Christian college, not a good environment to have to go through the motions after an episode of questioning everyone's faith. Just get your grades and move on.