tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post1779402732773701663..comments2023-09-01T16:11:44.564+08:00Comments on Daniel's Place - (Reformata et semper reformanda): The reality of the offence of the GospelDaniel Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-37543370256790586522012-05-15T07:52:51.030+08:002012-05-15T07:52:51.030+08:00SJ, God is under no obligation to prove anything t...SJ, God is under no obligation to prove anything to anyone-you, me, everyone. Equally He is not obligated to provide a remedy for the sin mess we have made on earth-sin brings death, death brings eternal damnation. However, He did provide a remedy, an escape from the penalty of sin including eternal damnation. The remedy's name is Jesus Christ who died on the cross for the sins of men and Darrelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13394480152156186566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-15708106531589289922012-05-15T06:47:08.329+08:002012-05-15T06:47:08.329+08:00@s SJ, I wonder is your quest for "truth"...@s SJ, I wonder is your quest for "truth" just a ruse to avoid admitting that you really are full of sin and all things loathsome to the Lord? Everyone who has been born again has had their playhouse of lies and tricks to "fool" God destroyed when their own sin is made real to them. I had mine and they were made into nothing the second my sin was revealed to me. My only Darrelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13394480152156186566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-20224971309156952782012-05-15T06:45:51.277+08:002012-05-15T06:45:51.277+08:00@SteveJ:
you can demonstrate gravity? Prove it be...@SteveJ:<br /><br />you can demonstrate gravity? Prove it beyond all doubt. This time we can reverse roles, and I will be the persistent skeptic.<br /><br />I am even more skeptical than the solipsist, just fyi.<br /><br />It is one thing to claim that I am not listening. It is another time when you yourself are not listening, and think you do.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-63170821137080677402012-05-15T06:08:15.621+08:002012-05-15T06:08:15.621+08:00Sigh,
I can demonstrate the existence of gravity...Sigh, <br /><br />I can demonstrate the existence of gravity. You can't demonstrate the reality of hell, except to put your finger under a text in an ancient book and say, "there!" Nor can you even demonstrate why that ancient book should trump all other considerations ... except to say that, well, it's just a fact. A fact, fact, fact. But as I've been saying, the Muslim SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-53262567021333613862012-05-15T05:39:04.610+08:002012-05-15T05:39:04.610+08:00@SteveJ:
the problem is that you have discounted ...@SteveJ:<br /><br />the problem is that you have discounted a priori the historical evidence as being of no validity. As I have said, using the type of skepticism to all other historical events must mean that they also don't exist.<br /><br />As I have said, the type of historical skepticism you used to deny the relevant evidence a priori, if consistently applied, must make you skeptical of Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-57719234500240073722012-05-15T05:34:59.986+08:002012-05-15T05:34:59.986+08:00@SteveJ:
History is not science in the lab. Requi...@SteveJ:<br /><br />History is not science in the lab. Requiring infallible proof of the apostolic authorship of the Gospels while discounting the historical eye-witnesses of the early church and the Church Fathers is just plain bad historiography. Using that type of critiera, there is no proof that Napolean actually existed, since after all we today have only eye-witnesse testimonies to NapoleanDaniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-47506064372214475082012-05-15T05:31:02.552+08:002012-05-15T05:31:02.552+08:00@SteveJ:
you see, you are not getting the point a...@SteveJ:<br /><br />you see, you are not getting the point again. I am not the one one threatening eternal damnation; that is a fact. The issue here is truth and what are the true facts. Taking the existence of hell as a threat is no more different from treating the idea the warning that graviry exists and one would die if one jumped from the top of a building as a threat.<br /><br />The questionDaniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-18242906905528758012012-05-15T03:01:18.730+08:002012-05-15T03:01:18.730+08:00Darrell, I'm not asking for proof in the sense...Darrell, I'm not asking for proof in the sense that we can prove the point at which water boils. Both PuritanReformed and Linda have made statements about the New Testament that, as far as I can tell, are unsupported by any evidence. Is it asking too much that you furnish some compelling evidence that what you're saying is actually the truth? Otherwise, you're in effect saying to me, SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-76840239652755462242012-05-15T02:12:06.348+08:002012-05-15T02:12:06.348+08:00@SJ, If proof is what you seek before you believe ...@SJ, If proof is what you seek before you believe the Gospel, then you will never believe the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not based on the proof you seek, rather it is based on faith and faith only. You can argue from now 'til the day that you pass into eternity that your version of proof is required before you believe the Gospel and you will pass into hell. This is fact and no Darrelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13394480152156186566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-49867565811043544982012-05-15T00:23:00.330+08:002012-05-15T00:23:00.330+08:00Again, Linda, there's no real proof that the a...Again, Linda, there's no real proof that the authors of the gospels were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. The gospels are not first-person accounts and the authors never even identify themselves at all -- look for yourself. That being the case, the claim of eyewitness testimony is pure speculation on your part (and I might add, wishful thinking). <br /> <br />I'm not saying the SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-35436532367320748112012-05-14T22:19:33.176+08:002012-05-14T22:19:33.176+08:00"Why is it that I must prove my positive clai..."Why is it that I must prove my positive claim, but you are allowed to assert your positive claim without proof?"<br /><br />You hit the nail on the head PuritanReformed...<br /><br />SteveJ, Where is your proof and where are the documents and facts? <br /><br />All you are doing is merely dismissing the New Testament and it's truth's. That's merely assertions and assertionsLindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09418337100329537312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-64896835719780123572012-05-14T22:08:19.822+08:002012-05-14T22:08:19.822+08:00First, I'm not demanding on pain of eternal da...First, I'm not demanding on pain of eternal damnation that you believe in my existence. That being the case, there's no dire necessity laid upon me to prove to you that I exist. <br /><br />Second, your charge of anti-supernaturalism falls to the ground in so many ways. It is no more valid that a Roman Catholic's similar charge against you for not believing in transubstantiation, or SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-86153316617530803442012-05-14T17:23:48.192+08:002012-05-14T17:23:48.192+08:00@SteveJ:
the problem is that you want to assert s...@SteveJ:<br /><br />the problem is that you want to assert something (your existence) essentially by faith. Yet, you claim that my dependence upon Scripture cannot be by faith.<br /><br />Why is it that I must prove my positive claim, but you are allowed to assert your positive claim without proof?<br /><br />As such, I don't see the need to make a "positive case" for anything.<br /Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-61006232577887382802012-05-14T10:39:49.068+08:002012-05-14T10:39:49.068+08:00Thank you, Linda. No, you're not being rude at...Thank you, Linda. No, you're not being rude at all and I welcome your explanations.<br /><br />A couple of things:<br /><br />I'm not denying the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth any more than that of Alexander. And I do believe that all documents of antiquity should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. It's just that no one is telling me I'm going to hell over something SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-13663533705075689802012-05-14T10:07:04.906+08:002012-05-14T10:07:04.906+08:00I hope you don't mind me entering your convo. ...I hope you don't mind me entering your convo. Not trying to be rude or anything but,,,,<br /><br />SteveJ, the bible is basically a trustworthy Historical Document--and that's the basis for anyone who is studious and sincere <br /><br />Investigating the evidence and weighing the pros and cons is what every intelligent, thinking person should do. Maybe if you set out to look for Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09418337100329537312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-79646704191073159232012-05-14T10:06:19.777+08:002012-05-14T10:06:19.777+08:00I have no interest in proving my existence. I'...I have no interest in proving my existence. I'm convinced of it and if anyone else is unconvinced, well, that's their problem.<br /> <br />But let me address this charge of being anti-supernaturalist, because it's a false charge. Just because I don't necessarily believe that the book of Matthew, for instance, was written under divine inspiration and maintain such a view as my SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-70216515154029686102012-05-14T07:46:36.098+08:002012-05-14T07:46:36.098+08:00@SteveJ:
and how do you know that? Why must I acc...@SteveJ:<br /><br />and how do you know that? Why must I accept your anti-supernatural presupposition? I reject those other positions because of my Scripturalist position, not an anti-supernatural position.<br /><br />Let's go back to our original question in Epistemology: Prove that you exist. I don't think you can.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-16024217195464997552012-05-14T07:38:54.860+08:002012-05-14T07:38:54.860+08:00The default position is not that God (though whate...The default position is not that God (though whatever means of inspiration you deem) wrote any particular book. For example, I don't begin with the assumption that God wrote the Koran, the Book of Mormon or the Rig Veda. And neither do you. It's up to the adherents of those books to tell us why their extraordinary claims are true. Same holds true for you.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-90446465457991089022012-05-14T07:14:11.666+08:002012-05-14T07:14:11.666+08:00@SteveJ:
you don't have to prove it if the de...@SteveJ:<br /><br />you don't have to prove it if the default position is that Matthew was not written by God. But why is that the default position?<br /><br />You start off with an anti-supernatural position as the default. Please justify your assumption.<br /><br />And no, similarity does not necessarily imply the same source. A Honda look similar to a Ford, but they do not come from the Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-4896877571038684772012-05-14T07:01:43.926+08:002012-05-14T07:01:43.926+08:00BTW, similarity does strongly suggest the same sou...BTW, similarity does strongly suggest the same source when the language itself is the same -- almost verbatim -- as it is often among the Synoptics.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-25807681472295424272012-05-14T06:58:23.446+08:002012-05-14T06:58:23.446+08:00I don't have to prove that Matthew wasn't ...I don't have to prove that Matthew wasn't written by God. You're the one making the claim that it was, therefore, the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate why your claim is worthy of belief.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-78891983642008666722012-05-14T06:42:15.406+08:002012-05-14T06:42:15.406+08:00@SteveJ:
you have no proof that Matthew borrowed ...@SteveJ:<br /><br />you have no proof that Matthew borrowed wholesale from Mark, just mere conjecture based upon speculative theories about Q, as if similarity= same source.<br /><br />You have no proof that any of the Scriptures are not breathed out by God. You don't even understand the difference between dictation and providential inspiration. You don't have any proof that Matthew is Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-26812422624041106702012-05-14T06:23:39.773+08:002012-05-14T06:23:39.773+08:00Proof?
If we're talking about proof, you hav...Proof?<br /> <br />If we're talking about proof, you have no actual proof that any given book of the New Testament is divinely penned scripture. None. You proceed on the basis of enormous religious assumptions, without a particle of proof. <br /><br />For example, how do you prove that Matthew was written under a divine unction that renders it scripture? The author is anonymous, makes no SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-8812746547290309272012-05-14T04:27:17.620+08:002012-05-14T04:27:17.620+08:00But these, like irrational animals, creatures of i...But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction,<br />(2 Peter 2:12 ESV)Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-62541117850896085872012-05-14T04:26:15.598+08:002012-05-14T04:26:15.598+08:00Rational beings? You are not rational. Christianit...Rational beings? You are not rational. Christianity is the supremely rational religion, for it alone gives the basis for rationality.<br /><br />I challenge you to prove rationality, without resorting to arguing in circles.<br /><br />All unbelievers are fundamentally irrational. As the Scriptures say, "claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1:23)Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.com