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

[tat tvam asi]

So to recap:

Every once in a while I get accused of making things up. When that happens the accuser soon regrets the accusation but in the case of this post, you are making things up. I have shown in the case of Dismas and Acts that people became Christians without the Bible and in the Acts case without Jesus being mentioned.

So you have gone from strongly asserting that people became "Christians" without the Bible and in the case of Acts 17 without Jesus being mentioned to now saying:

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.

Ok then, so you're saying that Jesus didn't need to be named, so the reference to the man that God resurrected from the dead made it clear to the the Greeks that Paul was referring to Jesus because they already knew Jesus' name. And with good reason because the bible says that Paul was preaching Jesus's name and the resurrection in the streets which drew attention and caused him to make this speech about the man God resurrected. In otherwords, you were wrong the entire time. The Greeks in Athens did not become Christians without the mention of Jesus' name, you were spinning a tall tale to make the story sound more dramatic then it actually is.

[johnson1010]

I'm glad you have the patience to battle the day to day nonsense Tat.

Spaghetti monster bless you, sir.

[stahrwe]

So to recap:

Every once in a while I get accused of making things up. When that happens the accuser soon regrets the accusation but in the case of this post, you are making things up. I have shown in the case of Dismas and Acts that people became Christians without the Bible and in the Acts case without Jesus being mentioned.

So you have gone from strongly asserting that people became "Christians" without the Bible and in the case of Acts 17 without Jesus being mentioned to now saying:

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.

Ok then, so you're saying that Jesus didn't need to be named, so the reference to the man that God resurrected from the dead made it clear to the the Greeks that Paul was referring to Jesus because they already knew Jesus' name. And with good reason because the bible says that Paul was preaching Jesus's name and the resurrection in the streets which drew attention and caused him to make this speech about the man God resurrected. In otherwords, you were wrong the entire time. The Greeks in Athens did not become Christians without the mention of Jesus' name, you were spinning a tall tale to make the story sound more dramatic then it actually is.

I think you need to take a few deep breaths and decompress a bit. This is a discussion. Sometimes in discussions it is instructive to explore unlikely or even silly side roads. When I was a wild youth at University a friend of mine would speculate as to what would happen if one's head fell off. It never happened but it made for some interesting conversations late at night betting someone a dollar if they would eat the mayo/mustard facsimile of a sunnyside up egg on their plate at the all night diner in Walgreens.

On the other hand, there are places in the world today where it is illegal to mention the name Jesus. I dare say that some on this discussion might applaude that, I am sure Sam Harris and co. would but they live in countries where they enjoy the benefits of Western democratic governments and are free to spread their 'ideas'.

What I am driving at is that there is nothing you can do to supress the Gospel. No Bible it will spread. Outlaw the Bible it will spread. Can't mention the name of Jesus and it will spread. Drag your eyes over to the Book of Jonah and see what happened when the world's shortest evangelical message was preached. It didn't even mention God, may have been as short as four words and caused an entire city, perhaps a million people to repent.

[tat tvam asi]

What I am driving at is that there is nothing you can do to supress the Gospel. No Bible it will spread. Outlaw the Bible it will spread. Can't mention the name of Jesus and it will spread. Drag your eyes over to the Book of Jonah and see what happened when the world's shortest evangelical message was preached. It didn't even mention God, may have been as short as four words and caused an entire city, perhaps a million people to repent.

First off, you started out making a very strong assertion and taunting me about making things up because I said that the Greeks in Athens were not converted without Jesus' name being mentioned. You've only just relaxed on that now that I've taken you to the bitter end and demonstrated that you were wrong the entire time. That goes to show just how strongly you'll fight to say that you're right, when in fact you are wrong. You have to see for yourself that you were wrong in order to back off, which you seem to be doing right now that you see it. That also tells me something. You weren't being intentionally dishonest with me previously, you actually believed that your argument was correct. That's a good thing by the way. I can't accuse you of ill intent.

I think you believe what you've wrote above as well Stahrwe. Christianity has spread no matter whether it's outlawed or not. But how Stahrwe? How does Christianity spread? People have to break the law in order to spread it!!! They have to use the name of Jesus anyways. Otherwise no one can know that there is such a belief in Jesus to begin with. Do they use mental telepathy to spread the gospel where bibles are outlawed and Jesus name is prohibited? And even if they did they would still have to communicate, through the mind, the name of Jesus and the gospel account of salvation through Christ in order for anyone to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. They have to know about Jesus and salvation in some way. Otherwise the gospel will not spread around the earth and the end will not come. Do you follow this so far? They are spreading the gospel somehow because believe that they have to spread the gospel so that the end will come, as promised in the gospel...

Now look at what you just did to the context of Jonah Stahrwe:

Drag your eyes over to the Book of Jonah and see what happened when the world's shortest evangelical message was preached. It didn't even mention God, may have been as short as four words and caused an entire city, perhaps a million people to repent.

So the Book of Johah didn't even mention God? That's just plain silly. You must mean the short evangelical message that Jonah preached didn't mention God when you say "it". So let's look at the greater context once again anyways:

Jonah 3:1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.”

So the LORD told Jonah to go to Nineveh and proclaim the message that YHWH gave to Jonah. The tetragramaton (YHWH) is rendered as LORD here.

3 Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” 5 The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth.

What is the context? They were told that fourty more days Nineveh will be overthrown. By who? By Jonah himself or by God who told Jonah to proclaim to the people that God will over throw the city? They believed God in the verse, because the message was obviously given to them as coming from God. God is mentioned all over the place here. Just because the quotation is short and doesn't use the word "God" within quotation doesn't matter, the context is plainly clear. Jonah's message was given out as coming from "God" regardless. Just like the resurrected man Paul spoke of in Athens was Jesus. In both cases, that the writers are referring to Jesus in Acts 17 and to God (YHWH) in Jonah, goes without saying...

6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:

“By the decree of the king and his nobles:

Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”

10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

Once again, you're wrong from the very beginning of your assertion just like last time Stahrwe. You turned right around and repeated the very same mistake again right after standing corrected for doing the first time. Context is everything Stahrwe, and you'd be wise to pay closer attention to it.

[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.

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...

... 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 *** would the gospel be sent out to all nations if that were the case?

Can the Gospel not be shared without a copy of the Bible in hand? The Bible is the record of God's dealings with man, but He is not bound by it in His communications with man. This is the simple point I'm making. The facts of who Jesus is and what He's done need to be conveyed since we aren't eyewitnesses... We use the Bible because it contains this record. That's not to say that the early church had that luxury... When did the first Bible 'roll of the presses' (figuratively) anyway? Nor did Noah have this honor for example...In fact, the first ones to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26) did not have a copy of the Bible you speak of. To be a Christian is to be a Christ-follower, not a Bible scholar.

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.

Just be careful you don't add to the requirements for salvation. A person can become a Christ-follower without believing everything he reads in the Bible. The critical part is of course receiving Christ's sacrifice for his own sin--repentance and forgiveness, which necessitates believing Christ indeed did die and rise again. I would concur with Paul's testimiony: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith...for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them..."(Rom1:16-19) Sometime I'd like to hear your story, how did you come to know the Bible so well and disdain it so thoroughly?

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.

You're funny, and a natural teacher. Have you considered teaching for a living? I'm not aware of any falsehoods I've told personally here, certainly no intentional ones. This has certainly been an interesting thread, no?

[tat tvam asi]

You're funny, and a natural teacher. Have you considered teaching for a living? I'm not aware of any falsehoods I've told personally here, certainly no intentional ones. This has certainly been an interesting thread, no?

Stahrwe has, and because you tried to post a verse as an example of Christianity without the bible, coming behind Stahrwe's assertion, I included you in the warning as well. I've caught him twice now spinning tall tales in the name of evangelical Christianity. That's the thing about truth seeking - if you're dedicated to finding it you will. The truth will come out. And twice now Stahrwe has spoken in the name of truth only to be found false in the end. From what spirit is he speaking Dawn? He is overcome with the spirit of deception by the looks of things. Had anyone believed Stahrwe and accepted his assertions as true, they would have been deceived by a guy taking the bible out of context and making false assertions about it's content...

I'm the result of Methodists turned Millerites until the great dissappointments of 1843 and 1844 who then went on to follow the Seventh Day Adventist movment for generations until I came along and had my name taken off the books. I spent most of my time as a youth blindly believing in YEC and biblical literalism in general. Then I grew out of it in my teens while away at SDA boarding academy (largerly due to seeing through apologists just like Stahrwe here) and by my early to mid twenties I took up reading on comparative mythology and religion by diving into Joseph Campbell's books and lectures. I went on from there to investigate the mythicist works dealing with whether or not Jesus had any historical existence to begin with, and the evidence and lack thereof surrounding the issue. So I've lived and experienced the entire range from strict fundamentalist to liberal perspectives. And so I'm also capable of seeing through both mind sets when I choose. I prefer seeing from both perspectives as I find that it's better to find a centered understanding. Sorry for not introducing myself earlier.

Now by the sound of your post I don't think you really caught the point that I've been trying to make here:

Can the Gospel not be shared without a copy of the Bible in hand?

Of course it can. I even outlined that oral communication is still communicating the content of the biblical stories nontheless. God and Jesus are of the content of the biblical stories. So to communicate anything at all about God and Jesus in any way of communication at all, is to communicate content from the bible. Plain and simple.

To be a Christian is to be a Christ-follower, not a Bible scholar.

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.

Just be careful you don't add to the requirements for salvation. A person can become a Christ-follower without believing everything he reads in the Bible. The critical part is of course receiving Christ's sacrifice for his own sin--repentance and forgiveness, which necessitates believing Christ indeed did die and rise again.

You're the first to even make such a suggestion here Dawn. What gives you the idea that anyone would have to be a bible scholar in order to be a Christian? I never said that.

The critical part of being a Christ-Believer that you outlined above, displays what I've been saying all along however. Believing in the critical points you've outlined above involves believing in content from the stories found in the bible about Jesus. To be a Christ-Follower, you have to follow content that is located in the biblical stories, or scripture, or the gospels, or whatever you would like to call it. It especially involves knowing of, and believing in Jesus. To suggest that anyone has ever become a "Christian" without knowing something about content coming from the bible, is to make a false assertion right off the bat. That's my point. And Stahrwe did make a false assertion - actually two now - for the sake of trying to spin an evangelical tall tale that he thought was the right thing to do. That's referred to as being a "liar for the Lord", however. And anyone wishing to take up such a position had better second guess themself, because when the truth arises they'll be found on the opposite side of it, just as Stahrwe has been found in the last two examples that he offered. How does that help Jesus Dawn? Did Jesus guide Stahrwe into making these two false assertions that he's offered so far? If not, then what drives people to make false claims according to your thinking? Is it Satan? Satan's business involves twisting scripture, among other things, doesn't it? At least that's what I was always told...

Why not take the high road and stop trying to distance the bible from Christianity and simply tell people the truth? In order to accept Jesus, one has to believe that at least part of the content in the bible is true - that Jesus did come to the earth, did die for their sins, did ascend to heaven, and will come again. It doesn't matter if they read through the bible or accept it's content from oral stories told by others, or mental telepathy even, the bottom line is that in order to become a Christian you have to know about some of the content of at least some of the bibles stories - you have to know about the God of the bible and of Jesus in some way in otherwords. It's a dishonest trick to come here telling atheists that they can become Christians without accepting content of the bible, as some way to get them to become Christians even if they have problems with the bible. That's the point. It's an incorrect assertion given out into a community of book smart, freethinking, truth seeking types. And it only serves to damage the credibility of the person making such an assertion.

[lady of shallot]

Thank you very much for the above post Tat. I was also very curious and very impressed with your Biblical knowledge and also the time you take to write such long and explanatory posts, when, I assume from your age you must also be employed.

"It's a dishonest trick to come here telling atheists that they can become Christians without accepting the content of the bible. And it only serves to damage the credibility of the person making such an assertion."



Is this your assumption of what Stahrwe was (is) doing? I was frankly wondering at the depth of involvement in this thread on both your part and on Stahrwe's. I was beginning to think that he was really uncertain in his faith. Now I understand more about your path and also why you use Joseph Campbell's photo as your avatar. Have you read his biography, (which my husband just got me)?

Do you think Stahrwe and Dawn (?) truly think they could covert an atheist to belief?

Is your family o.k. with the divergence of your path from theirs?

[tat tvam asi]

Thank you very much for the above post Tat. I was also very curious and very impressed with your Biblical knowledge and also the time you take to write such long and explanatory posts, when, I assume from your age you must also be employed.

Oh, by the way, that was ten years ago when I started getting into Campbell. I'm 35 now and yes I'm still employed, but self employed. I have times of leisure followed by no leisure at all. I've been on an extended holiday, but that's coming to a close now as things get rolling with the new year.

"It's a dishonest trick to come here telling atheists that they can become Christians without accepting the content of the bible. And it only serves to damage the credibility of the person making such an assertion."

Is this your assumption of what Stahrwe was (is) doing? I was frankly wondering at the depth of involvement in this thread on both your part and on Stahrwe's. I was beginning to think that he was really uncertain in his faith. Now I understand more about your path and also why you use Joseph Campbell's photo as your avatar. Have you read his biography, (which my husband just got me)?

Stahrwe is locked in around here. He's always trying to turn atheist forum discussion into bible discussion. You can't mention the bible anywhere around here without Stahrwe trolling up the entire thread to high heaven. So this time I decided to hold his feet to fire here for making these false assertions about the bible...

Do you think Stahrwe and Dawn (?) truly think they could covert an atheist to belief?

Yes, especially Dawn. Just look at the content of these posts. I could be wrong of course, but that's my immediate take on it. Stahrwe started off on me by trying to insinuate that I'm questioning myself, and may want to return to Christianity, when I first arrived here at BT and started arguing that Jesus is not a proven historical figure at all...

Is your family o.k. with the divergence of your path from theirs?

I caused a big fall out. At first I stepped out of Adventism all by myself. Later my parents read up on the church and the problems with Ellen G. White, at my request, and decided to leave as well. My grand parents did the same, although my grand father was ex-communicated for talking about Ellen G. White's numerous false prophecies and plagiarized books with the president of the FL Conference of SDA's. I still have aunts, uncles, and cousins in the church however. They just dismiss us away as fallen. We're out of the cult. In order to try and get me back into the church / cult they have to debate me and demonstrate that they are in fact representing the truth, which, they can not do because I've already done the research and know the outcome. They refuse to read the books I send them. So everyone's given up on trying to convince the other of what's what. All bets are in right now and we'll just have to see who's right in the end...

[lady of shallot]

My own experience is quite different as I was raised Episcopalian and they are rather reserved and not so into reading the Bible and certainly not proselytizing. Its a rather removed message with stately services in beautiful settings, but I always have hated the message, at least ever since I understood what it was.

Now that I think about it, Starhwe did also insinuate to me that I was questioning myself, early on after I joined this group. Poor Dawn, I think she believes that if I just read the Bible I would get it.

[tat tvam asi]

Dawn's just doing what she thinks is right, and I suppose that Stahrwe is too. Although it is kind of odd that right after Stahrwe backed off of his original false assertion that he would have made another assertion just as false and easily exposed as the first. I have to wonder if these so-called examples are part of his evangelical message that he's been preaching for years and didn't even realize what the problems where because his feet were never held to the fire like this before? He shot the second one out so fast it was like second nature for him to go straight to Jonah with an equally false claim every bit as weak as the first claim about Acts 17. He's probably just parroting something he's heard at church and never bothered to thoroughly investigate before repeating...