Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 01-03-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

First of all, it is not encumbent upon skeptics to reasonably prove that a contradiction exists.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Earlier, you said that the one making the assertion has the burden of proof. We start with the Biblical account. Skeptics assert a contradiction. The burden is on them to, at least, explain the contradiction.

Here is what you said again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Earlier, you said that the one making the assertion has the burden of proof. We start with the Biblical account. Skeptics assert a contradiction. The burden is on them to, at least, explain the contradiction.

Are you not aware that the Biblical accounts are assertions, and that inerrancy is an assertion? Using your own arguments as a basis, the burden is on you to, at least, to explain why the Biblical accounts and inerrancy are true. Fundamentalist Christians are notorious for being evasive, and trying to put the burden of proof on skeptics.

I seldom debate Bible contradictions because 1) it is not emcumbent upon skeptics to reasonably disprove PRIOR assertions that are in the Bible, and because 2) there are many ways to adequately dispute the Bible without discussing contradictions.

At the very least, the Bible is needlessly confusing.

punk77 · 01-03-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk77

No - he is saying that they can never be forgiven: '...whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.'

This is where we disagree.

You take '......it shall not be forgiven him,...' to mean it not only shall not be forgiven but cannot be forgiven under no circumstances whatsoever.

Wrong. I take:
KJV
Mark 3:29 'But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness,...'
and
Matt 12:32 '... but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.'

to mean it not only shall not be forgiven but cannot be forgiven under no circumstances whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

We might use Saul/Paul as an example. Saul went around persecuting the church. We can say that he "spoke against the Son of man" according to Matthew 12:32.

Using Saul/Paul as an example is totally useless. You are just switching the focus away from blaspheming the Holy Ghost (for which you do not give any proof that Saul/Paul did so) to he "...spoke against the Son of man..." for which we already know that you can be forgiven:
Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme.
and
Matt 12:32 'And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him:...'

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

However, I do not see that a rejection by Saul on the road to Damascus would prevent God from providing a second Damascus Road experience if He chose to do so.

Thus negating:
Mark 3:29 ''....hath never forgiveness,...'
Matt 12:32 '...it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Saul, who claimed that according to the strictest sect of the Jewish religion he lived a Pharisee, might well have attributed the miracles of Jesus to Satan.

Emphasis mine

Any proof for this or are you just guessing? Where in the bible does Saul/Paul admit to blasphemy of the Holy Ghost?

ben052483 · 01-03-2008, 11:25 AM

This is an exercise in futility. The bible is inerrant and infallible as long as you can invent scenarios and excuse away obvious contradictions or redefine words and rearrange sentences to mean other things.

Then yes I guess it is the inerrant and infallible word of god, but then so is Green Eggs and Ham.

Roland · 01-03-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben052483

This is an exercise in futility. The bible is inerrant and infallible as long as you can invent scenarios and excuse away obvious contradictions or redefine words and rearrange sentences to mean other things.

Then yes I guess it is the inerrant and infallible word of god, but then so is Green Eggs and Ham.

I couldn't have said it better myself. It truly is like beating one's head against a wall. Hence: :banghead:

makerowner · 01-03-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So now we have the Bible which God is claimed to have inspired men to write and the Koran which Allah is claimed to have inspired Mohammed to write. I guess we get to choose between the two which one to believe, God or Allah. I will go with God as he has provided a means for my sins to be forgiven. From what the Muslims tell me, Allah has not done this.

Wrong again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surah 5:39

But whoso repenteth after his wrongdoing and amendeth, lo! Allah will relent toward him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surah 16:119

Then lo! thy Lord--for those who do evil in ignorance and afterward repent and amend--lo! (for them) thy Lord is afterward indeed Forgiving, Merciful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surah 4:64

We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah's leave. And if, when they had wronged themselves, they had but come before thee and asked forgiveness of Allah, and asked forgiveness of his messenger, they would have found Allah Forgiving, Merciful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surah 4:106

And seek forgiveness of Allah. Lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surah 4:110

Yet whoso doeth evil or wrongeth his own soul, then seeketh pardon of Allah, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.

Next excuse?
Anyway, you've demonstrated that internal claims of divine inspiration are not sufficient for you to believe in a text, so what is your real reason for believing that the Bible is inspired by God?
Also, I didn't get a verse reference from you saying that the NT is inspired by God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Also, where exactly in the Bible do you find a listing of canonical books and an explanation that they are all the word of God? And don't use that one about 'all scripture is from God', because there was no defined canon at the time.

Let's limit the canon to those books written be recognized prophets of God, the apostles of Christ who were taught by Christ and those who were closely associated with the apostles of Christ and recorded the apostles' activities.

As someone else pointed out, there are hundreds of books attributed to various prophets and apostles; how do you know which ones are real? Conversely, many of the books included in the Protestant canon are generally considered not to have been written by "apostles of Christ": several of the Pauline letters, Revelation, Matthew, Mark, 2nd Peter, etc. Are you chucking them out too?

rhutchin · 01-03-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So now we have the Bible which God is claimed to have inspired men to write and the Koran which Allah is claimed to have inspired Mohammed to write. I guess we get to choose between the two which one to believe, God or Allah. I will go with God as he has provided a means for my sins to be forgiven. From what the Muslims tell me, Allah has not done this.

Wrong again:

Next excuse?

You need to tell the Muslims. The ones I have heard about seem to think that they need to be as good as possible and obey all the laws and, if they are fortunate, they will see paradise. Alternatively, blowing oneself up and killing infidels in the process is a gimme.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Anyway, you've demonstrated that internal claims of divine inspiration are not sufficient for you to believe in a text, so what is your real reason for believing that the Bible is inspired by God?

Because Paul and Peter said so. The real issue is, Who is God? Is it Christ or is it Allah? The true and living God is the one who has provided the real inspired texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Let's limit the canon to those books written be recognized prophets of God, the apostles of Christ who were taught by Christ and those who were closely associated with the apostles of Christ and recorded the apostles' activities.

As someone else pointed out, there are hundreds of books attributed to various prophets and apostles; how do you know which ones are real? Conversely, many of the books included in the Protestant canon are generally considered not to have been written by "apostles of Christ": several of the Pauline letters, Revelation, Matthew, Mark, 2nd Peter, etc. Are you chucking them out too?

I think the current lineup is as good as it gets.

rhutchin · 01-03-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk77

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

This is where we disagree.

You take '......it shall not be forgiven him,...' to mean it not only shall not be forgiven but cannot be forgiven under no circumstances whatsoever.

Wrong. I take:
KJV
Mark 3:29 'But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness,...'
and
Matt 12:32 '... but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.'

to mean it not only shall not be forgiven but cannot be forgiven under no circumstances whatsoever.

It is true that ...he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness,... but it is not true that speaking blasphemy is a permanent condition that cannot be changed.

A person speaking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot receive forgiveness so long as they continue to do so. It is impossible to be forgiven blasphemy while one is blaspheming. This is the point that Jesus makes to the Pharisees. All their piousness and good works (which are good to do) mean nothing if they deny the obvious, that Christ is God. They must be consistent in ALL that they do.

Jesus first says--

30 “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

He then states explicitly that a person blaspheming the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. That person is against Christ

Jesus concludes,

33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit."

The message to the Pharisee that he cannot serve God and deny Christ. Denial of Christ cannot be forgiven no matter what good works the Pharisee claims to do. He must make the the tree good (by acknowledging who Christ is) and then the fruit will be good (through service to Christ) or make the tree corrupt through denial of Christ (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) and the fruit will be corrupt and worthless.

The bottom line is that forgiveness begins by first acknowledging that Christ is God. The person who fails to do that can never be forgiven.

rhutchin · 01-03-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Are you not aware that the Biblical accounts are assertions,...

Basically you are saying that everything is assertion and there is nothing that exists that is not an assertion.

rhutchin · 01-03-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Jesus appears to two disciples on the road to Emaus.

- After that, [Jesus] appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. (Mark 16:12)

- Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day [when Christ was risen] to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. (Luke 24:13)

The two go back to the “eleven” and tell them what happened.
- So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together,
- saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”
- And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread. (Luke 24:33-35)

- And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either [as they did not believe the women earlier]. (Mark 16:13)

Jesus appears to the”ten” as Thomas is not present.
- Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” (John 20:19)

- Now as [the two from Emaus] said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.”
- But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit.
- And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? (Luke 24:36-38)

- When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. (John 20:20)

- “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
- When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. (Luke 24:39-40)

- So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”
- And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
- “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)

Thomas’ absence noted.
- Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. (John 20:24)

Jesus eats with the “ten.”
- But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?”
- So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.
- And He took it and ate in their presence. (Luke 24:41-43)

The “ten” tell Thomas what has happened.
- [Later,] The other disciples therefore said to [Thomas], “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25)

Jesus appears to the “eleven" at a later date (eight days?).
- Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. (Mark 16:14)

- And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”
- Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
- And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
- Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
- And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;
- but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:26-31)

Jesus meets the “eleven” at Galilee.
- And [Later in Galilee] He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature….(Mark 16:15)

- Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them.
- When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
- And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
- “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,… (Matthew 28:16-19)

Your claim is, "It can't be Jesus' 2nd appearance to them some time later (as recorded by John) since in that incident Thomas is the only one still doubting and thus the only one receiving Jesus' rebuke for unbelief. "

The issue is what Mark means in v16 when he writes, "Later,..." How much time elapses between v15 and v16. The context in Mark does not tell us. From John we learn that Thomas was absent when Jesus first appeared and that Jesus did not confront him until eight days had passed. Given the information that John provides us, Mark would have to mean eight days later when he writes, "Later,..." John is an eyewitness to the events since he is one of the "eleven" and there is no reason for us not to believe him. Given the specificity in John's account and the ambiguity in Mark's account, we should understand the ambiguous Mark in light of the specific John.

I'm sorry, but your conflated scenario, though elaborate, is patently unworkable. How could Mark be referring to the SECOND appearance of Jesus when Mark says Jesus rebuked THEM (the eleven) for their hardness of heart in not believing others when they said they had seen Jesus? That could ONLY be referring to Jesus' FIRST appearance, since only Thomas is still a doubter by the second one.

And why do you say that Jesus ate with the "ten" in Luke when Luke tells us quite specifically and unequivocally that "eleven" disciples were present? You may want to send Thomas out for a bathroom break, but there is not a thing in Luke's own account to suggest that anything fewer than the eleven were there. In fact, he goes out of his way to cite the exact number of disciples present.

What you are doing is, quite simply, a travesty to the original authors.

OK. Define what Mark means when he says, "Later..." in v14? That is the crux of the problem. Show us within the context of Mark how you come to understand the meaning of "Later." Show us the travesty.

makerowner · 01-03-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Wrong again:

Next excuse?

You need to tell the Muslims. The ones I have heard about seem to think that they need to be as good as possible and obey all the laws and, if they are fortunate, they will see paradise. Alternatively, blowing oneself up and killing infidels in the process is a gimme.

Do you actually know any Muslims? Doesn't sound like it.

Quote:

Because Paul and Peter said so.

Well Muhammad said so too, so why isn't that good enough for you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

As someone else pointed out, there are hundreds of books attributed to various prophets and apostles; how do you know which ones are real? Conversely, many of the books included in the Protestant canon are generally considered not to have been written by "apostles of Christ": several of the Pauline letters, Revelation, Matthew, Mark, 2nd Peter, etc. Are you chucking them out too?

Quote:

I think the current lineup is as good as it gets.

Based on no evidence. Also, which lineup? 1&2 Maccabees? 3&4 Esdras? Jubilees? 1 Enoch? All of these are considered canon by some churches. What is your criteria for decided what books are inspired by God? (I'll give you a hint: it's the ones your church uses.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2008, 11:25 AM	#113
ben052483 Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: nowhere,U.S.A Posts: 216	This is an exercise in futility. The bible is inerrant and infallible as long as you can invent scenarios and excuse away obvious contradictions or redefine words and rearrange sentences to mean other things. Then yes I guess it is the inerrant and infallible word of god, but then so is Green Eggs and Ham.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.