Testing The Christian Apologists

But he never suggests throwing God away, does he?

First of all, its virtually a consensus within Christianity that the snake lied. I could care less about your claims to the contrary. If you want to indict a given apologist you will have to indict all of us (who believe that the snake lied). Quite simply, I dont have to prove anything. If you claim we all make it up, so be it. Its a majority opinion within Christianity. Drop the snake stuff already.

But that's not true! I have never listened to any apologist who simply tries to explain away the Bible. And I have listened to several. So in other words, the Bible *can* be contradicted or corrected based on an evidenced fact. Say what? So let me get this straight. An apologist can't explain what the Bible means yet some yahoo who writes a book claiming Jesus is a myth can? Not on my watch. Divine authorship is a belief. Nobody can really disprove that nor can we prove it. Let the jury note that we are beginning to frame up two motives at play here in this case.
1) The motive to prove that the Bible is true and that its authority and authorship originated from a Divine Source.
2) The motive to expose the Bible as simply an anthology of anthologies and a book of myths written by humans with ulterior motives rather than as sincere effort to explain God as they understood Him.Let's examine this issue in more depth.
First, let's clarify the definitions rather than simply listen to jar.
[url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Apologist]
Apologists were never defined as Christians attempting to defend Christianity from other Christians. I suppose we can lump jar and the Anglicans in with skeptics who arose during the Age of Reason, however. In my mind, it is they who are attempting to redefine Christianity based on logic, reason, and reality rather than simply the scriptures.
So let's examine the evidence.
I will note: The Apostle Paul was one of the earliest people who was called an apologist. Critics argue that his writings themselves were attempts to redefine and change the religion of Judaism.
But were they? Anyone can quote the Bible as written and attempt to define it. jar will argue, as will ringo, that they are simply letting the text speak for itself. And yet it is they who have defined the meaning of the text as the idea that God lied and the snake told the truth. You wont find that in the text if you examine the entire book. I was taught the basic idea that God was the Father of Jesus Christ. Thus, ignoring the human attempts at defining who God was, I started with the much later New Testament when I formed my own ideas about who God was, is, and always will be. I can see jars point about many ideas of God being expressed within the Bible, and I won't argue against that. I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant in a word for word context, and I will admit that many Pastors and teachers simply use the text with which to build sermons. Granted some sermons sound inspiring, and it is easy to accept them without much thought. Here in EvC Class, however, I am being asked to think! So on we go.Having somewhat loosely defined the word "apologist" as specifically Christian apologist, lets examine some of the modern ones that I have researched. Because I dont see them attempting to define Christianity any more than I have seen jar attempt to define it here at EvC.
1) Dr.Frank Turek
2) Josh McDowell
3) Sean McDowell
4) Hugh Ross
5) Dr.John LennoxNow I will be honest. As I compiled these websites, I did note several things that challenge what I have just said.

Modern Christian Apologists do attempt to explain Christianity to Christians.

The latter two, Hugh Ross and Dr.John Lennox, even attempt to defend Biblical Creationism.

​

Thus I can see some of jars accusation against this modern profession of apologetics.

​

Thus we continue...

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction .
"~Thugpreacha

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

That's also what I was taught. What is it that you are trying to teach,ringo?Don't give me this fluff about the book says what the book says. That statement itself would get challenged in any Bible class.

We will never convince them because they think that spiritual discernment is invented. They critically evaluate the Bible as if it is an ordinary book. The only thing that *might* convince them is signs and wonders which can be objectively verified, and they may see those in their lifetimes, but I'm sure there will be an alternate explanation. Satan is very clever on planet earth and is the pied piper of intellectuals. Kool-aid is being drunk, but it is not we who are consuming it.

Not all of it. Eyewitness testimony counts in some investigations

The reason that you do is because not everyone automatically has the Spirit. I know that critics will say that this exclusivity is a cheap marketing ploy, but I have seen evidence of it. I saw it in myself. Jesus even said that many are called and few chosen. Not everyone gets it. You could be a disciplined scholar of many Biblical texts and yet not have the Holy Spirit. It is not an inclusive reality.

I might add that just because one has the Spirit does not make them an expert on the bible. All it does it allow them to know Jesus rather than just knowing about a character in a book. jar will again trot out the question of how one knows that they know, but I'm getting tired of trying to explain it. You either have it or you don't. And it's not my problem or responsibility to teach you how to get it. It is a matter of belief over evidence, however, which is why many of you are excluded.

I know, and i apologize. I just get frustrated with these arguments. At some point, I just need to walk away.

Yes, lets go on. I will ask you a question. And don't answer it by citing evidence. Answer it as to your personal belief.Does the character of Jesus live outside of the book? Your answer to that will then determine whether we will ever agree or remain miles apart.

Good question.Let's look at a couple of scriptures.What's that you say? Don't preach? Keep in mind that the "ghost thing" is in the book. So we need to cite the book in order to answer your question.And keep in mind that I am answering the question for myself. I think I know you well enough to know that nothing I say will affect you except to satisfy your request that I answer your question in my own words, without showing you some video or podcast. My answer only reflects my belief. there is no fact that is objective that would or could answer your question.I believe that many people who believe that there is a God seek to know this Deity. For me personally, when I first felt as if I had an internal communion with God, I felt a sweeping change--an epiphany of sorts. In and of itself, this is nothing unique nor a case for verification. It has been an awareness that I am capable of representing Christ on any given day from that point forward. Granted i don't always do it. You see the worst side of me often, and I'm not proud of that fact though I honestly believe it is common among humans. What I do know about myself is that I never had this feeling of inner communion or confidence at any time before that day when I felt the change.A scripture comes to mind which feels good to say at this point---perhaps to support my explanation. Its a tidy little scripture which critics will charge as coming from a redacted book and which markets that particular Jesus...but I have chosen to ignore those arguments against the power of and validity of the scripture. So in a strict sense, as an answer, the critics will say that we ourselves crown ourselves with this "ghost" character. My belief, however, is that the character lives outside of the book and that He Himself equips those who believe.Is that an honest answer? Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

OK, remember when you said that you believed in Santa Claus? What I inferred that you meant by that is that you believed that the character lived on through the actions of people who became Santa Claus for a day or so for the benefit, edification, and entertainment of their families. As of now, living through the actions of others would be the only way that Jesus would live currently. The book says He will return, I assume bodily as it describes the appearance, but for now, let's equate Jesus' lives with your idea that Sahta Claus lives.

I will agree that works and actions are evidence of having the "Spirit". I also believe that nonreligious people can have the Spirit and not really know or care. They just go about doing good for others. But I would defend the belief that there is no way they could do this without having the Spirit. The natural man is greedy, manipulative, and selfish. Rising above that is no easy task. I believe that we can only rise above it by having the Spirit.

Personally, I believe that you are right in that much of what believers understand is simply not understood by atheists and skeptics approaching the topic with no preconceived bias (or the Holy Spirit) with which to interpret the scriptures.Granted the critics will charge us with swallowing an entire world view without thinking it through. I told them I was frustrated and simply wanted to walk away from these arguments, but ringo and jar are urging me to stay and think. (fight) so I suppose I will stick around and hang with you, Faith. You and I don't agree on everything, but I think we both agree that it is the Holy Spirit working in us that gives us understanding.Critics will say that this belief actually stifles our natural critical thinking abilities and that science always tries to disprove a theory rather than simply finding more evidence to support it, so I can see their point to a degree. They disagree with the idea that scripture is *supposed* to be read a certain way, and I can see their objections, but I think that their method will never allow God to become real to them.Take AZPaul3, our other brother from Arizona. He says that he will stick with evidence alone and forever shun belief. His basic argument is that he would never believe in God as portrayed in scripture, and he limits his whole idea of God to the god he interprets to exist as described in the book. For me personally, I never even could conceive of knowing God before I was saved. God was simply a character in that book and in the popular mythos. When God became real to me, (as Jesus, as a relatable character) I never met any sort of OT God who ordered the slaughter of innocents, as critics claim God did. Does that mean it never happened? To me, all it means is that at that point in time given the attitudes of the warring tribes in question, it was an appropriate action. This is for another argument, however. Unbelievers and unbiased critics do the same thing. The whole snake explanation clearly proves that. You take what popular opinion shows to be a villain in the narrative and turn it into a plot device, then take God and turn Him into a liar. That is clearly your preconceived doctrine.Our preconceived doctrine originated from our claimed change the day we were saved and is reinforced through teachings. Your preconceived doctrine is to discredit Christian teachings and show that the whole thing is an invention of man. Is it any wonder we will never see eye to eye? You will claim that you are simply presenting the text as written, but I find it incredulous that the entire church and many learned scholars and apologists throughout the years are simply denying reality and attempting to perpetuate a giant cult. Clearly something is wrong here.Edited by Thugpreacha, : spellingEdited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Yes.
The issue now, in our other topic also, is whether we can wear a toga and dance like a heathen during our break time from the feeding line or whether we need to be eventually transformed before our flight reaches its final destination.