Let's analyze "Defeaters: The Problem of Science" - a sermon by Joe Coffey

[tat tvam asi]

One of the cautions about the Bible is that it is just as bad to add to what the Bible says as it is to take things out. In fact, I think it is worse.

Oh really? You mean like when you excluded Acts 17:18 -

18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.

- In order to take Acts 17:31-33 out of context?

31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

And then so ignorantly went on to ramble about:

Eve god in trouble adding to God's instructions. Once she did that she was doomed. You are adding things to what the Bible says so you can attack it.

I added things? Really? Or was it you removing the proper context in order to support your personal argument that was wrong from the very beginning? I didn't add or remove anything, I just read the passage in context.

I understand that it is scarey. If the gospel is so powerful that it can convert people in the watered down form we see in the Act passage under discussion imagine its power in its full presentation.

What watered down form in the Acts passage, you mean the preaching of Jesus and the resurrection is a watered down form of Christianity? You were working from an out of context deception the entire time, one easily exposed by simply reading the story through and paying attention to what is being said.

And it's just a story on top of it all. There's no evidence that either Paul existed in history or that any of these events even happened:
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... =15&t=2958
Paul's journey's have been recognized as mirroring the Apollonius stories and some suspect that the Pauline versions are a later Christian manipulation on the Apollonius tales. But no matter, the point is that all of this power you thought was there, wasn't there in the first place. You were wrong and you managed to condem yourself in the process of trying to condem me...

[lady of shallot]

Dawn said: But listen, we don't have to argue about this.

That's good. We evidently have each chosen a path that makes our individual lives meaningful to us. Doubt either of us have time enough or will enough to chance and that is o.k. with me.

I doubt Tat (or anyone) would want to deny what you say about people in Muslim nations converting to Christianity on spiritual grounds, that is. Technically I don't actually know. But it does remind me of what they used to say about people who got involved in cults (you may be too young to remember when this was a fairly common concern) Anyway it was said that people who became involved in cults were most often those who had already belonged to fairly demanding religious sects. In other words people who were atheists would not have fallen prey to such inculcations.

[tat tvam asi]

Jesus' own words continue to come to mind in this whole discussion of the necessity of the Bible.

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life"

Tat and Stahrwe, you both know the Bible well obviously but the critical thing is not the head knowledge. It's whether you've met Jesus. He is free to reveal Himself through the Bible or completely apart from it. This is happening in our day repeatedly in Muslim nations in particular. It is undeniable. (Well, you can deny it but it's happening anyway.) The Bible is most commonly used in leading a person to the knowledge of the one true God, but it is not absolutely essential to that knowledge. God knows how to speak to the hearts of the people He has created. He's not mute!

Dawn, you have to face the same problem as Stahrwe by taking the above verse out of context. And when you throw bible verses out please cite the verse or verses in question. I intend to check the full context to verify your position.

Without the bible stories about Yahweh and Yeshua / Jesus, no one could know Jesus because the very name Jesus itself would be absent. There would be no Christianity if there were no Judaism first, and there would be no Islam if there were not first a Judaism, a Christianity, and then an Islam coming behind the two which makes use of both of them in order to spin yet another version of the mythology. Jesus is known as a prophet in Islam already. They know about the bible. When a Muslim converts to Christianity they are converting to a religion that is intertwined into their own because theirs is an offshoot. No biblical stories, no father Abraham, no Islam!!! Nice try though.

If you are right, and an actual being named Jesus or Yeshua spoke in an audible voice to someone who had never heard of the bible, they wouldn't have a clue who he is unless they already knew about the stories of Jesus. Jesus would have to either relate the stories of the bible about the creation of the world, and God, and who Jesus is in the first place, orally to that person or direct them to the bible to read it for themselves. To let that person know that Jesus is the messiah, the being talking to them, he would have to explain to the person who he is in the first place. How would Jesus do that without touching on the bible stories about God and Jesus? Without the history given in the gospels there's nothing to believe in and no one to have a personal relationship with in the first place. That's what the context of Paul speaking at Athens entails. It's clear that he was preaching Jesus and resurrection and that after his speech some people decided to take him up on that particular message. Christianity is not absent from the bible, bottom line.

[Dawn]

Sorry 'bout that missed reference. It's in John 5. No intent to take it from its context. I do appreciate your attention to context. This is a pet peeve of mine when doing Bible study. Very key component of solid study.

[tat tvam asi]

Sorry 'bout that missed reference. It's in John 5. No intent to take it from its context. I do appreciate your attention to context. This is a pet peeve of mine when doing Bible study. Very key component of solid study.

Thanks, that's just what we do most of the time when throwing verses around because, like I've demonstrated, the context means everything. Let's have a look at the greater context surrounding this verse in John 5:

16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.

Ok, we need to know who Jesus is addressing here, first and foremost. It's the Jewish religious authorities of course. Those who know scripture, or the Jewish bible if you will.

36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

This shouldn't be taken to assert that the bible or scripture is not necessary to be a Christian. He's talking to the Jews about how they think they have eternal life via the scriptures alone, without Jesus. But he's suggesting that the scriptures testify about him and yet the Jewish religious authorities refuse to come to him in order to get the eternal life mentioned in the scriptures. In other words, scripture without Jesus does not equall eternal life. At the minimum here, he's making the point that they both have to be used together - Jesus and scripture. Once again, without the scriptures how would anyone even know to expect such a being as Jesus to come in the first place, who even should be recognized as the one spoken of in the scriptures? So this does not indicate that a personal relationship with Jesus is free and clear of scripture, and that Christianity does not depend on scripture. Why in the hell would the gospel be sent out to all nations if that were the case?

What the Jewish religious authorities are rejecting here is the assertion that Jesus does in fact fulfill prophecy in the scriptures. They don't think he's the messiah of the scriptures, rather they take him as some crack pot cult leader. This can't be used to come along now and say that Christianity doesn't depend on the bible, just a relationship with Jesus. A relationship with Jesus involves accepting the stories of the bible as true - accepting Jesus as the messiah - lord and personal savior - spoken of in scripture. You guys actually need to second guess this position greatly. Let me just play devils advocate here a little more. What if Jesus influenced me to confront you two right now about this issue because the two of you have been wrong and you're being humbled in this atheist forum because of it? And what if it's because he doesn't approve of you telling these atheists a falsehood in order to make them think that they don't need the bible to become Christians? You would be doing the work of the devil without even knowing it.

[stahrwe]

But, let's look at Paul in Acts to see whether or not the bible or Jesus is mentioned:

Acts 13:16 Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: “Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me! 17 The God of the people of Israel chose our ancestors; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt; with mighty power he led them out of that country;

Pretty clear. Paul is preaching that the God of Israel, the biblical God who was the God of Noah who fathered all nations according to the scriptures, is the God he is preaching to both Jews and Gentiles.

26 “Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent.

Still, very clear as to who the God in question is.

32 “We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors 33 he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus.

I don't find it clear at all.

Didn't Abraham have two lines which descended from him; one through Isaac and the other through Ishmael?

Also, aren't the gentiles who are God fearing already saved? So, why do they need a message of salvation?

Finally, isn't the Gospel intended for all mankind?

I think you have confused the issue as usual.

[tat tvam asi]

I don't find it clear at all.

Didn't Abraham have two lines which descended from him; one through Isaac and the other through Ishmael?

And so then both lines descending from Abraham's God, correct? The Biblical God in question here. The God who created one man on earth from which all men came that Paul outlines later to Stoics as we move along. All of this playing ignorant just avoid the fact that you were wrong from the beginning - that bible is necessary after all. You are just playing ignorant to aviod standing corrected aren't you?

Also, aren't the gentiles who are God fearing already saved? So, why do they need a message of salvation?

When were the Gentiles ever saved? Not until the message of Jesus went out if they accepted his name, hence the NT period. Until then the Jews were chosen along, as per the mythology. Paul was giving them a message of salvation through Jesus because he was told by Jesus to do it. And so he did. Hence Paul taking the message of salvation from Yahweh and his son Yeshua to these Stoics in Athens. And the one who joined Paul did so because of this particular message that he was preaching - they accepted the Jewish biblical God and his son Jesus therefore becoming Christians

Finally, isn't the Gospel intended for all mankind?

Has anyone said at any point that it isn't, or shouldn't be? What are you talking about? I just got done outlining the fact that the gospel is supposed to be preached throughout the world, then shall the end come. That is one of the points I'm using to argue against your assertion that the bible is not necessary to be a Christian. Why can't the end come until the gospel has gone out to the whole world? The good news of salvation through Jesus is the message. And the bible stories are required in order to outline that message of salvation. People have to know who Jesus is and whose son he is in order to know that he is the son of God and can bring them salvation.

I think you have confused the issue as usual.

I'm not confused at all, as usual you've shown yourself to either be completely confused about your own faith, or willfully ignorant for sake of not conceding that you were wrong the entire.

[stahrwe]

I don't find it clear at all.

Didn't Abraham have two lines which descended from him; one through Isaac and the other through Ishmael?

And so then both lines descending from Abraham's God, correct? The Biblical God in question here. The God who created one man on earth from which all men came that Paul outlines later to Stoics as we move along. All of this playing ignorant just avoid the fact that you were wrong from the beginning - that bible is necessary after all. You are just playing ignorant to aviod standing corrected aren't you?

Also, aren't the gentiles who are God fearing already saved? So, why do they need a message of salvation?

When were the Gentiles ever saved? Not until the message of Jesus went out if they accepted his name, hence the NT period. Until then the Jews were chosen along, as per the mythology. Paul was giving them a message of salvation through Jesus because he was told by Jesus to do it. And so he did. Hence Paul taking the message of salvation from Yahweh and his son Yeshua to these Stoics in Athens. And the one who joined Paul did so because of this particular message that he was preaching - they accepted the Jewish biblical God and his son Jesus therefore becoming Christians

Finally, isn't the Gospel intended for all mankind?

Has anyone said at any point that it isn't, or shouldn't be? What are you talking about? I just got done outlining the fact that the gospel is supposed to be preached throughout the world, then shall the end come. That is one of the points I'm using to argue against your assertion that the bible is not necessary to be a Christian. Why can't the end come until the gospel has gone out to the whole world? The good news of salvation through Jesus is the message. And the bible stories are required in order to outline that message of salvation. People have to know who Jesus is and whose son he is in order to know that he is the son of God and can bring them salvation.

I think you have confused the issue as usual.

I'm not confused at all, as usual you've shown yourself to either be completely confused about your own faith, or willfully ignorant for sake of not conceding that you were wrong the entire.

Maybe, but isn't Acts 13 directed to Jews and some others who were evidently gentiles who believed in the Jewish God while Acts 17 is directed to Greeks, ie total gentiles?

So, how does salvation transition from Jews and gentiles who believe in the Jewish God to pagan Greeks?

[tat tvam asi]

Maybe, but isn't Acts 13 directed to Jews and some others who were evidently gentiles who believed in the Jewish God while Acts 17 is directed to Greeks, ie total gentiles?

So, how does salvation transition from Jews and gentiles who believe in the Jewish God to pagan Greeks?

If you want me to help you with the context, I will. I posted Acts 13 through 17 in order to outline Paul's ministry to the Gentiles leading up into the verse in question. He was told to go the Gentiles after having been told to do that Paul would go into town to the synagogues and speak to the Jews and Gentiles about salvation through Jesus. That's how the story reads. He came into Athens and went straight to the synagogue there like he'd been doing previously at the other locations. Then it goes on to say that he preached in both the synagogue and the streets about the message of salvation through Jesus. The Greeks heard this message about foreign Gods, invited him to speak more about it because they like to hear new things, and after he spoke about it some decided to join him as followers and believers. And I think it goes without saying that these people, by joining Paul, in term had to get up to speed with everything in due time. He was setting up a following in Jesus' name.

But I want to point something out here that you should face when arguing the way your are right now:

32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

I just caught something that may help you get this a little better. You took a small portion of this story out of context and then claimed that these Stoic's in Athen became Christian without the bible or even Jesus name being mentioned. Jesus name was mentioned because the story starts off with Paul preaching the resurrection of Jesus and then gets invited to speak more about it, and he does. The context is of some of these people joining Paul as followers and believing. Believing what? Obviously Pauls message of salvation through Jesus that he was preaching the entire time.

Now if I did the same thing you are doing, I could take the above quote out of context and say that the word "Christian" is never used, so therefore these people never became "Christians" to begin with, and so you were wrong about this being an example of "Christianity" without the bible and without even the mention of Jesus because these greeks never became "Christian" to begin with.

And then you'd have to try and pull the 'greater context of the story' in order prove me wrong and say that they were converted to "Christianity". And if I was like you, I would sit back and dismiss the 'greater context' and say things like: 'I don't see the word "Christian" there in the verse, you're confused Stahrwe. It doesn't even say that they became "Christians", you're adding words to the bible Stahrwe.'

But I would be wrong for doing that, just as wrong as you are right now for tossing the 'greater context'. The context is more than clear I've demonstrated several times already. Just because it doesn't say "Christian" in that particular line doesn't mean that these people were not converting to "Christianity". They were converting to "Christianity", if "Christianity" means believing in salvation through Jesus Christ. That's what they were believing in and becoming followers of by believing and following Paul as per the storyline...

[stahrwe]

Maybe, but isn't Acts 13 directed to Jews and some others who were evidently gentiles who believed in the Jewish God while Acts 17 is directed to Greeks, ie total gentiles?

So, how does salvation transition from Jews and gentiles who believe in the Jewish God to pagan Greeks?

If you want me to help you with the context, I will. I posted Acts 13 through 17 in order to outline Paul's ministry to the Gentiles leading up into the verse in question. He was told to go the Gentiles after having been told to do that Paul would go into town to the synagogues and speak to the Jews and Gentiles about salvation through Jesus. That's how the story reads. He came into Athens and went straight to the synagogue there like he'd been doing previously at the other locations. Then it goes on to say that he preached in both the synagogue and the streets about the message of salvation through Jesus. The Greeks heard this message about foreign Gods, invited him to speak more about it because they like to hear new things, and after he spoke about it some decided to join him as followers and believers. And I think it goes without saying that these people, by joining Paul, in term had to get up to speed with everything in due time. He was setting up a following in Jesus' name.

But I want to point something out here that you should face when arguing the way your are right now:

32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

I just caught something that may help you get this a little better. You took a small portion of this story out of context and then claimed that these Stoic's in Athen became Christian without the bible or even Jesus name being mentioned. Jesus name was mentioned because the story starts off with Paul preaching the resurrection of Jesus and then gets invited to speak more about it, and he does. The context is of some of these people joining Paul as followers and believing. Believing what? Obviously Pauls message of salvation through Jesus that he was preaching the entire time.

Now if I did the same thing you are doing, I could take the above quote out of context and say that the word "Christian" is never used, so therefore these people never became "Christians" to begin with, and so you were wrong about this being an example of "Christianity" without the bible and without even the mention of Jesus because these greeks never became "Christian" to begin with.

And then you'd have to try and pull the 'greater context of the story' in order prove me wrong and say that they were converted to "Christianity". And if I was like you, I would sit back and dismiss the 'greater context' and say things like: 'I don't see the word "Christian" there in the verse, you're confused Stahrwe. It doesn't even say that they became "Christians", you're adding words to the bible Stahrwe.'

But I would be wrong for doing that, just as wrong as you are right now for tossing the 'greater context'. The context is more than clear I've demonstrated several times already. Just because it doesn't say "Christian" in that particular line doesn't mean that these people were not converting to "Christianity". They were converting to "Christianity", if "Christianity" means believing in salvation through Jesus Christ. That's what they were believing in and becoming followers of by believing and following Paul as per the storyline...

I don't mind you splitting hairs, but don't cut them off. I didn't take the passage out of context. Chapter 17 relates several encounters. The one at the Areopagus, which I posted occurred separately from the others, and during it Jesus name was not mentioned. By that don't assume that I am doing anything other than calling it to your attention and perhaps hinting that He was becoming so famous that He didn't need to be named.

As for what the early converts knew or cared about Apologetics, I doubt there was much interest. My experience is that most people have spiritual questions which lead to salvation and the other details are filled in later.