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

[stahrwe]

you're a real trip Tat. I suggest that you brush up on your NT and post any more 'observations' you have tonight. Just a clue, you're way off but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Once again, you might review your post to Dawn and make the needed corrections.

[tat tvam asi]

you're a real trip Tat. I suggest that you brush up on your NT and post any more 'observations' you have tonight. Just a clue, you're way off but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Once again, you might review your post to Dawn and make the needed corrections.

Your warnings are hilarious Stahrwe. Both of the examples you gave me failed because you were taking short sections of the bible and distorting the context of the situation described therein. No one was converted to Christianity without mention of Jesus in Acts 17 and Jonah didn't warn Nineveh without mention of God either. If these assertions didn't originate with you, well then the person or whatever source you took these ridiculous assertions from distorted the context and you passed it along. If you have more examples like this bring them on. It's ridiculous to say that someone became a Christian without mention of Jesus or some other content from the bible. That's why it hasn't worked for you in these so-called examples you keep throwing out. Your track record so far consists of being wrong, and then wrong again. What next?

[stahrwe]

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 am not sure why you think I was backing off. The passage I am referencing in Acts clearly shows that people became Christians without the name Jesus being mentioned. Now, it is likely that they had heard the name prior to Paul’s presentation but it is not mentioned in the record presented to us. I have reproduced the relevant sections below. If I am wrong, show me where the name Jesus is mentioned between verses 19 and 33. My argument is correct.

Encounter A
16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols.

17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.

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.

Encounter B
19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?

20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.”

21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.

23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.

25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.

26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c]

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.

30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

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.”

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 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...

Stahrwe: Alex, I’d like the Bible for $1,000
Alex: This is an audio daily double.
Stahrwe: I’ll wager Everything on this Alex.
Alex: Here’s the clue and be sure to phrase your response in the form of a question: This song, from a popular musical, was based on Luke 19:28-41

Stahrwe: What is Hosanna from Jesus Christ Superstar?

Crowd
Hosanna Heysanna Sanna Sanna Ho
Sanna Hey Sanna Ho Sanna
Hey J C, J C won't you smile at me?
Sanna Ho Sanna Hey Superstar

Caiaphas
Tell the rabble to be quiet
We anticipate a riot
This common crowd
Is much too loud
Tell the mob who sing your song
That they are fools and they are wrong
They are a curse
They should disperse

Crowd
Hosanna Heysanna Sanna Sanna Ho
Sanna Hey Sanna Ho Sanna
Hey J C, J C you're alright by me
Sanna Ho Sanna Hey Superstar

Jesus
Why waste your breath moaning at the crowd?
Nothing can be done to stop the shouting
If ev'ry tongue was still the noise would still continue
The rocks and stones themselves would start to sing:

Crowd, with Jesus
Hosanna Heysanna Sanna Sanna Ho
Sanna Hey Sanna Ho Sanna
Hey J C, J C won't you fight for me?
Sanna Ho Sanna Hey Superstar
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/jesus-christ ... sanna.html

When JCS came out it was fairly controversial but I have come to appreciate the music and I especially like the imagery of this song. I picture the Pharisees jumping up and down demanding that the crowd be brought under control. In reality, there was no threat but the idea that the pavement would testify of Jesus if the crowd were silenced I think answers your question about how the Gospel can spread under any conditions very nicely indeed.

Further
The question of violating civil laws in order to spread the Gospel are issues that each evangelist must face and decide how to deal with. Some are very careful to share the Gospel in a way which is legal, others take a civil disobedience stand and accept the consequences. We are given models in the New Testament as to how to deal with that question. The apostles were forbidden to preach about Jesus. They did anyway and were arrested, beaten, and even stoned.

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 man Paul spoke of was Jesus. In both cases that they are referring to Jesus in Acts 17 and YWHW 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. You turned right around and repeated the very same mistake again. Context is everything Stahrwe, and you'd be wise to pay closer attention to it.

I am not sure how I should respond to this so I don’t think I will other than to say that what I said about the content of Jonah’s message was accurate. And, by the way, you should pass along to UPENN-skeptic that Jonah is a stand alone book. He seems to think Jonah is found in Genesis for some reason, but of course there is no need to read the Bible on BT is there?

[tat tvam asi]

Post moved down

[Interbane]

If I am wrong, show me where the name Jesus is mentioned between verses 16 and 33.

In verse 18.

[stahrwe]

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.

No one is trying to distance the Bible from Christianity but the fact is that one depends on the other. The direction of dependence is one way, unviolable and irreversable. That direction is that the Bible depends on Christianity. Further Christianity depends on Jesus. It is impossible to go the otherway for that would be to say that God depends on the Bible and that is not possible. Presented in this ultra simple way, it should be obvious that one could (hypothecally) envision a world where the Bible never existed and yet our relationship with God would be unchanged from the way it is now. It is not my place to question but it might seem easier if we did not have the Bible since there are people who ignore the message and instead lose themselves in scouring each word looking for error, and when they find none they invent, perhaps that is too harsh a word, instead say, they imagine problems.

If that is clear now understand that the Bible is not a keepsake, or a charm, or a book of incantations or spells, it is not divine in its essence as a physical object, one cannot cover oneself with its pages as if it were armor. So, what is the Bible? It is a gift, or more precisely the representation of a gift. It provides us with a connection between the physical world of flesh we live in and the spiritual world. It is a letter from God to man written in code. If you have the code the Bible becomes a source of pleasure and contentment. If you don't have the key it is irritating and perhaps unintelligle.

People like Sarah and Ettle, Wycliffe Bible translators in the mountains of Panama know that. They have spent their lives living in harsh conditions while creating a written language and then translating the Bible into that language for the people they live with. But if tomorrow you took the Bible away from them, their relationship with God would be unchanged. I should stop here because if go any further and tell you how they would react to losing the Bible you would not believe me.

[tat tvam asi]

The passage I am referencing in Acts clearly shows that people became Christians without the name Jesus being mentioned. Now, it is likely that they had heard the name prior to Paul’s presentation but it is not mentioned in the record presented to us.

If you take this route and dump the greater context of the story in Acts which states in verse 18 that Paul was preaching Jesus and the resurrection, then you have to apply the same standard of dumping the context to the fact that the name Christian is never mentioned in the record presented to us in verses 30 to 33 either!!! Therefore no one at the meeting ever became a Christian without the mention of Jesus according to the standard you yourself have just put forward Stahrwe.

What we are left with is a situation where Paul is talking about some unknown man who was resurrected and some the Gentiles believed Paul about this unknown man. Nowhere is Jesus, Christ, or Christianity mentioned, therefore by your standard we can't even accept this as a case where anyone became a Christian in the first place, or became a Christ-Follower at all:

30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

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.”

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.

That's what happens when you try to dump the context of the passage in favor of claiming that people were converted to "Christianity" without the mention of "Jesus". You're wrong by the standard you set. And if you toss that standard and point out that bible means "Christian" by saying "followers of Paul" then it also clearly means "Jesus" by saying "the man he has appointed". And notice how no one became a believer due to the speech in question. Some said that they wanted to hear it "again". At that Paul left the counsil. And then some people became followers and believed. No one was even converted at the counsil to begin with!!! What did Paul tell them when they wanted to hear more about it? It doesn't say. He apparently had to expand on the speech that he had given in the counsil after he left, and it was Pauls speech along with this silent part of the story which led to people becoming followers of Paul and believing.

Stahrwe's wrong across the entire board everybody, surprise again.

[stahrwe]

The passage I am referencing in Acts clearly shows that people became Christians without the name Jesus being mentioned. Now, it is likely that they had heard the name prior to Paul’s presentation but it is not mentioned in the record presented to us.

If you take this route and dump the greater context of the story in Acts which states in verse 18 that Paul was preaching Jesus and the resurrection, then you have to apply the same standard of dumping the context to the fact that the name Christian is never mentioned in the record presented to us in verses 30 to 33 either!!! Therefore no one at the meeting ever became a Christian without the mention of Jesus according to the standard you yourself have just put forward Stahrwe.

What we are left with is a situation where Paul is talking about some unknown man who was resurrected and some the Gentiles believed Paul about this unknown man. Nowhere is Jesus, Christ, or Christianity mentioned, therefore by your standard we can't even accept this as a case where anyone became a Christian in the first place, or became a Christ-Follower at all:

30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

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.”

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.

That's what happens when you try to dump the context of the passage in favor of claiming that people were converted to "Christianity" without the mention of "Jesus". You're wrong by the standard you set. And if you toss that standard and point out that bible means "Christian" by saying "followers of Paul" then it also clearly means "Jesus" by saying "the man he has appointed". And notice how no one became a believer due to the speech in question. Some said that they wanted to hear it "again". At that Paul left the counsil. And then some people became followers and believed. No one was even converted at the counsil to begin with!!! What did Paul tell them when they wanted to hear more about it? It doesn't say. He apparently had to expand on the speech that he had given in the counsil after he left, and it was Pauls speech along with this silent part of the story which led to people becoming followers of Paul and believing.

Stahrwe's wrong across the entire board everybody, surprise again.

I corrected the type-o I had in the post to reflect from verses 19 on Jesus is not named. That was the encounter where people believed. I have to ask, why was Jesus not named in the relevant passage? Perhaps nothing significant in the answer perhaps to demonstrate power of the rocks and stones.

[lady of shallot]

Stahrwe said: " So, what is the Bible? It is a gift, or more precisely the representation of a gift. It provides us with a connection between the physical world of flesh we live in and the spiritual world.

It is a letter from God to man written in code.

If you have the code the Bible becomes a source of pleasure and contentment."

O.K. I will admit to being very ignorant of the Bible compared to the two main debaters on this topic just now, however this sentence above of Starhwe's . . . IT IS A LETTER FROM GOD TO MAN WRITTEN IN CODE' leads me to believe that no one could understand the code unless it agreed with the interpretation of the person who was presenting the message or teachings. Here that would be Starhwe.

However I, in my blessed ignorance, reading or hearing Biblical text always thought it was a bunch of gobbledy gook, if not that, very questionable moral content. . . Lot's wife being turned into stone cause she turned around? His daughters seducing him with drink? Jesus smiting the bush? The virgin birth? Cain going into the land of Nod to find a wife? David sending Bathsheba's husband into battle so he could have her?

I think the evangelists and maybe all Christians are fighting a losing battle. More and more people are becoming better and better informed (thanks in great part to this media we are all sharing) Look at all the churches that are closing. Look at your friends and neighbors who no longer even make a pretense of attending church. Out of my 20 + nieces and nephews, all of whom were baptized and confirmed about 3 or 4 attend church.

[tat tvam asi]

I corrected the type-o I had in the post to reflect from verses 19 on Jesus is not named. That was the encounter where people believed. I have to ask, why was Jesus not named in the relevant passage? Perhaps nothing significant in the answer perhaps to demonstrate power of the rocks and stones

Fair enough, you had a type-o. But I'm pointing out to you that Paul spoke of the resurrection in the counsel, some people sneered, but some wanted to hear more about it. No one was ever converted at the counsel simply by hearing that particular speech you've outlined, they had to have more than just the speech you've outlined at the counsel before any one believed Paul. Take a closer look now:

Encounter B...
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.”

Encounter C
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.

It looks like the answer to your question is that Paul was being portrayed as drumming up interest in the counsel for further investigation about his message of salvation through Jesus which is mentioned in verse 18 (Encounter A) and outlines why he was invited to speak at the counsel (Encounter B) in the first place. Paul found a group of people at the counsel (Encounter B) that wanted to hear more about his message (Encounter A) and then Paul left the council (Encounter B) to tell the interested parties more about the message away from the naysayers back at the counsel. And those who became "followers of Paul" in the story were those who left the council (Encounter B) and went on to hear more from Paul about his message of salvation through Jesus which was already outlined in verse 18 (Encounter A).

There was no powerful conversion of anyone during the counsel (Encounter B) without mention of Jesus name in the first place!!! There's a variety of ways that show your initial assertion as false to begin with Stahrwe. This is the result of truth seeking and staying the course. You keep coming up on the opposite side of the truth over and over again as we go along. At what point are going to recognize this?