Dear brothers and sisters
These are the 'objections against the Christian faith and the Gospel' we will be assessing this week.
Notice that there are three sessions, which will include teaching, debate videos, discussion and role-plays.
It would benefit you all greatly if you spent some time looking at the objections (written below) and write a few notes on each of them.
When I say benefit you, it is because these sessions will involve you personally in discussion, role plays (in which you debate other students) or if you really unlucky (or lucky) you will be picked out to debate me personally, you will be the Christian and I will be the opponent.
Notice I intend to drain you and challenge your faith, which will be part of the training.
Good luck.
Session 1: Objections related to God, Jesus and the Gospels:
· How do you know God exists: Science, history, miracles and the supernatural, personal experiences
· In the beginning there were different kinds of Christianity! The Gnostics, the Ebionites, others.
· How about the Apocryphical Gospels, Epistles, Acts and Revelations?
· Did the Apostles all preach the same Gospel?
· How do you know Jesus ever existed?
· If Jesus existed how do you know Jesus was what the Bible describes him to be?
1. What Jesus truly a moral person
2. Did Jesus do miracles
3. Did Jesus truly raise from the dead
· Was Jesus not copied from other religions?
Session 2: Objections related to the Bible:
· How do you know the Bible is inspired?
· Has the Bible not been changed?
· Early Christians were uneducated, unorganised and confused how did Christianity survive?
· What was Christianity before the Gospels were written? Did the apostles preserve and guard it?
· Why do so many Christian scholars not trust the Bible?
· Why does the Bible get Science so wrong (The flat earth and centrality of the earth debate)?
Session 3: Issues relate to personal experiences or ethics:
· There are so many different kinds of Christians!
· Is the Christian faith not suppressive: marriage, women, upbringing of children, normal values?
· Why do so many Christians leave the Christian faith?
· Why are Christians not better than non-Christians: general behaviour, priests and paedophilia, divorce?
· Why are Christians ashamed about their faith
· Are Christians willing to live and die for their faith: some religions do because they truly believe it!
· Why do Christians not care about their kind being persecuted in a variety of nations?
· Can Christianity change the social situation in our world?
· Why do Christians commit atrocities? Rwanda, the religious wars, the inquisition, witch hunts, etc?
· Why are Christians so intolerant?
· Why are Christians not open-minded?
· Christianity restricts my freedom, or what?
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Thursday, 16 April 2009
UK Apologetics Seminar: Can We Trust the Bible?
This is the outline for the first of a series of apologetics sessions, which I will be taking over a period of a month in the UK, starting on the 22 april.
On Wednesday 22 April the Topic is:
Can We Trust the Bible?
Which will focus primarily on 1) the New Testament, 2) refuting its critics and their methods, 3) the early preservation of the Gospels and the methods utilized by the early Christians to preserve it.
This is the basic outline below:
Can We Trust the Bible?
- What critics say and why they say it
- The reality about the Jewish-Greek society
- The ability of Jews, Greeks and early Christians to read, to memorize and the desire to preserve information
- Jesus the rabbi, his students, his methods and commands to the apostles
- The time span (30 years gap between Jesus and the Gospels)
- The succession and the successors and the community
- The traditions (an introduction to oral transmission)
- The writings (The written transmission: the Gospels)
- Why do we have four Gospels?
- Who wrote the Gospels and when?
- Why are the four Gospels different?
- Textual Criticism and the manuscripts
- What about other types of Christianity and their gospels?
Thursday, 9 April 2009
Osama Abdallah Refuted (Again)
This is what Osama Abdallah originally wrote to Keith, and where I personally got involved (I have removed insults, issues posted to Keith, etc); what you will witness here is a typical debate with Osama Abdallah online:
Osama Abdallah wrote:
Keith the snake,
Why did you delete my last post? Was it too exposing and humiliating to you?
Again liar, show us where Ibn Abbas said that.
I challenge you to produce your evidence liar.
As to your corrupt bible's authors, I've given ample quotes from the bible's theologians admitting that your bible's books had been:
1- Written by unknown men.
2- Written by an unknown number of men.
3- Written in unknown dates.
4- Written in unknown places.
Christians lie and state that such and such "scholar" is an atheist when he isn't, and he's just another snake and a liar like them who had put on an atheist's mask and made a statement favoring to the gospel of porn on their behalf.
These tricks are getting old. All you've got are speculations and desperations.
LOL Plus Even if it were true that the gospel narratives were written by those who followed the desciples or passed on oral tradition God is powerful enough to pull that off. It's justnot an issue.
Osama Abdallahwww.answering-christianity.com
April 7, 2009 9:27 PM
I (Elijah) replies:
Osama Abdallah wrote:
As to your corrupt bible's authors, I've given ample quotes from the bible's theologians admitting that your bible's books had been:
1- Written by unknown men.
2- Written by an unknown number of men.
3- Written in unknown dates.
4- Written in unknown places.
Elijah replies:A few issues need to considered here. Osama's appeal to theologians is a typical islamic trick.
It typical backfires, since these scholars and their methods will ussually harm islam in the same way; muslims ussually avoid telling us that side of the story.
Furthermore, this approach of Osama is a joke and fairly non-academic.
While I spend my time studying primary sources, all Osama can do is posting us references or quotes from secondary sources. And not only are these secondary sources these are quotes. As to his four objections, they are easily refuted.
No the Gospels were not written by unknown men, Papias a disciple of John the elder (and eyewitness and disciple of Jesus) and who also was aquainted with a number of early successors and eyewitnesses, had it from John while John was alive that Mark dictated his Gospel from the mouth of Peter in Rome.
Furthermore, Papias also confirms that Matthew wrote Matthew in Hebrew (probably Aramaic language).
A similar testimony is provided by Justin Martyr in Rome in 150 AD in which a line of successors and transmitters were present, in which he testifies that Mark's Gospel is the Gospel of Peter.
Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the apostle, and who also knew a number of other eyewitness confirms the information as well, and also provides information about Luke and John Gospels.
Here we have primary sources testifying to the authors, the number of authors and the date, which would be the first century.
In fact even critical scholars admit that the gospels are written within the first century.We also know that Mark was written in Rome and Matthew was written in Syria and John written in Ephesus.
We are not certain about where Luke wrote his gospel, but who cares, we know Luke wrote it, we know that Luke knew the apostles and we know when he wrote it.
April 8, 2009 6:22 AM
Osama replies:
Hogan,
If quoting your bible's commentaries and appendecies to each chapter are secondary sources to you, then obviously you are a hopeless case.
Osama Abdallahwww.answering-christianity.com
April 8, 2009 8:22 AM
I (Elijah) replies:
Osama wrote:
Hogan,If quoting your bible's commentaries and appendecies to each chapter are secondary sources to you, then obviously you are a hopeless case.
Elijah replies:
Osama,
commentaries are secondary sources.
For example, the Bible is a primary source, early church fathers are primary sources as to the history and background of church history and in the field of textual criticism.
Commentaries and opinions on Bible and these writings from second century scholars are secondary sources.
I find it funny that you can plant a large website on the internet promoting islam and attempting to refute Christianity, without focusing on the primary sources.
This debunks you (Osama)as a scholar; it certainly suggests that you are not worthy of consideration when probing into the Biblical studies. You need to provide something more impressive.
April 8, 2009 8:40 AM
Notice, this is how it ussually works, Osama comes up with some incredible ideas, I refute these, he brings up more ideas of similar nature, I refute these, then he runs.
Osama Abdallah wrote:
Keith the snake,
Why did you delete my last post? Was it too exposing and humiliating to you?
Again liar, show us where Ibn Abbas said that.
I challenge you to produce your evidence liar.
As to your corrupt bible's authors, I've given ample quotes from the bible's theologians admitting that your bible's books had been:
1- Written by unknown men.
2- Written by an unknown number of men.
3- Written in unknown dates.
4- Written in unknown places.
Christians lie and state that such and such "scholar" is an atheist when he isn't, and he's just another snake and a liar like them who had put on an atheist's mask and made a statement favoring to the gospel of porn on their behalf.
These tricks are getting old. All you've got are speculations and desperations.
LOL Plus Even if it were true that the gospel narratives were written by those who followed the desciples or passed on oral tradition God is powerful enough to pull that off. It's justnot an issue.
Osama Abdallahwww.answering-christianity.com
April 7, 2009 9:27 PM
I (Elijah) replies:
Osama Abdallah wrote:
As to your corrupt bible's authors, I've given ample quotes from the bible's theologians admitting that your bible's books had been:
1- Written by unknown men.
2- Written by an unknown number of men.
3- Written in unknown dates.
4- Written in unknown places.
Elijah replies:A few issues need to considered here. Osama's appeal to theologians is a typical islamic trick.
It typical backfires, since these scholars and their methods will ussually harm islam in the same way; muslims ussually avoid telling us that side of the story.
Furthermore, this approach of Osama is a joke and fairly non-academic.
While I spend my time studying primary sources, all Osama can do is posting us references or quotes from secondary sources. And not only are these secondary sources these are quotes. As to his four objections, they are easily refuted.
No the Gospels were not written by unknown men, Papias a disciple of John the elder (and eyewitness and disciple of Jesus) and who also was aquainted with a number of early successors and eyewitnesses, had it from John while John was alive that Mark dictated his Gospel from the mouth of Peter in Rome.
Furthermore, Papias also confirms that Matthew wrote Matthew in Hebrew (probably Aramaic language).
A similar testimony is provided by Justin Martyr in Rome in 150 AD in which a line of successors and transmitters were present, in which he testifies that Mark's Gospel is the Gospel of Peter.
Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the apostle, and who also knew a number of other eyewitness confirms the information as well, and also provides information about Luke and John Gospels.
Here we have primary sources testifying to the authors, the number of authors and the date, which would be the first century.
In fact even critical scholars admit that the gospels are written within the first century.We also know that Mark was written in Rome and Matthew was written in Syria and John written in Ephesus.
We are not certain about where Luke wrote his gospel, but who cares, we know Luke wrote it, we know that Luke knew the apostles and we know when he wrote it.
April 8, 2009 6:22 AM
Osama replies:
Hogan,
If quoting your bible's commentaries and appendecies to each chapter are secondary sources to you, then obviously you are a hopeless case.
Osama Abdallahwww.answering-christianity.com
April 8, 2009 8:22 AM
I (Elijah) replies:
Osama wrote:
Hogan,If quoting your bible's commentaries and appendecies to each chapter are secondary sources to you, then obviously you are a hopeless case.
Elijah replies:
Osama,
commentaries are secondary sources.
For example, the Bible is a primary source, early church fathers are primary sources as to the history and background of church history and in the field of textual criticism.
Commentaries and opinions on Bible and these writings from second century scholars are secondary sources.
I find it funny that you can plant a large website on the internet promoting islam and attempting to refute Christianity, without focusing on the primary sources.
This debunks you (Osama)as a scholar; it certainly suggests that you are not worthy of consideration when probing into the Biblical studies. You need to provide something more impressive.
April 8, 2009 8:40 AM
Notice, this is how it ussually works, Osama comes up with some incredible ideas, I refute these, he brings up more ideas of similar nature, I refute these, then he runs.
Atheists and their supression of the opposing factions
Atheists and Evolutionists despartely fear Intelligent design.
Watch the video below:
Barbara Forrest shares her desparation of how Intelligent design is challenging the atheist foundation for a atheist type universe (mind though I do not know her view upon religion).
Notice firstly that these people are so desparate that they want the law to end the influence of Creationists.
Notice secondly that she finds it almost a crime that Christian kids challenge their school teachers about the lying propaganda of evolution. Well I thought our society was based upon, debate, reason, research rather than a supressing academia that enforces its conclusions upon us; seems that we are back in the ancient dark ages, only now the atheists play the suppressive role.
Notice, thirdly that the evolution theory is simply science while creation is not, talk about presuppositions.
Notice, fourthly, that science is based upon presuppositions, and these presuppositions do simply not allow God any space in the possible conclusions.
She claims that Christians base their science upon authority! Really, is she then concluding that the secular world is not depending upon authority? More or less all my studies have been supressed by secular academia, believe, Christians do not have monopoly upon authority.
Funny, in every field of philosophy and science with the natural academia conclusions are based upon authority, namely what you are permitted to conclude as plausible and what to reject. In my studies I am not allowed to conclude that Jesus resurrected since that simply breaks the natural law. I am not allowed to claim that the Gospels were written prior to 60 AD since that supports the possibility that Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem which then is supernatural, and because such an early date increses the possibility that the Gospels are historical. Similarly we are not allowed to conclude that the apostles wrote the Gospels since such again supports its historical reliabilty. The fact is that the secular academia is greatly supressive and distortive and these same minds intend to enforce upon us the evolution theory of which not shred of actual evidence has be brought before us.
Funny then, that she just throws this claim of authority upon those of us who accept the fact that the universe needed a creator and that the process of the universe is far to complex to be random, while atheist presume the opposite, I hence need a lot of explanation to do. This is the very reason why atheists and their claim to science and intelligence is so absurd and naive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q&feature=channel_page
Watch the video below:
Barbara Forrest shares her desparation of how Intelligent design is challenging the atheist foundation for a atheist type universe (mind though I do not know her view upon religion).
Notice firstly that these people are so desparate that they want the law to end the influence of Creationists.
Notice secondly that she finds it almost a crime that Christian kids challenge their school teachers about the lying propaganda of evolution. Well I thought our society was based upon, debate, reason, research rather than a supressing academia that enforces its conclusions upon us; seems that we are back in the ancient dark ages, only now the atheists play the suppressive role.
Notice, thirdly that the evolution theory is simply science while creation is not, talk about presuppositions.
Notice, fourthly, that science is based upon presuppositions, and these presuppositions do simply not allow God any space in the possible conclusions.
She claims that Christians base their science upon authority! Really, is she then concluding that the secular world is not depending upon authority? More or less all my studies have been supressed by secular academia, believe, Christians do not have monopoly upon authority.
Funny, in every field of philosophy and science with the natural academia conclusions are based upon authority, namely what you are permitted to conclude as plausible and what to reject. In my studies I am not allowed to conclude that Jesus resurrected since that simply breaks the natural law. I am not allowed to claim that the Gospels were written prior to 60 AD since that supports the possibility that Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem which then is supernatural, and because such an early date increses the possibility that the Gospels are historical. Similarly we are not allowed to conclude that the apostles wrote the Gospels since such again supports its historical reliabilty. The fact is that the secular academia is greatly supressive and distortive and these same minds intend to enforce upon us the evolution theory of which not shred of actual evidence has be brought before us.
Funny then, that she just throws this claim of authority upon those of us who accept the fact that the universe needed a creator and that the process of the universe is far to complex to be random, while atheist presume the opposite, I hence need a lot of explanation to do. This is the very reason why atheists and their claim to science and intelligence is so absurd and naive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q&feature=channel_page
Monday, 6 April 2009
Questions for Osama Abdallah: Related to the Qur'an and Cosmology
I am informed that Osama Abdallah has stated that his priory reason for being and remaining a muslim are the supposed Qur'anic predictions of modern science.
The Qur'an states that:
1. That Allah separated the heavens and earth who once were combined together or fused. This is supposedly a prediction to the Big Bang theory.
2. That the heavens were once smoke. This is supposedly a prediction of the early state of the universe in its gasseous level.
3. That Allah initially made the smoke into seven heavens. I am not sure exactly what this is supposed to predict.
My questions for Osama Abdallah:
1. Would you state that these are miracolous predictions to modern science?
2. Would you say that these predictions provide good reason for an individual to remain a muslim?
Saturday, 4 April 2009
A Challenge for Osama Abdallah
This challenge to Osama Abdallah is on the board mainly for Osama to respond to.
It is my hope and desire to debate him later this year. I have informed him that I am available for such a debate any time after June when most of my studies are over.
I hope Osama and I can agree over a topic.
I hope also we can do this in a godly behavior appropriate for theists, with the the outmost respect and integrity for each other, despite our views on each others religion.
One word of caution: if our dialogue prior to the debate leads toward personal insult or attack, I will withdraw from the challenge.
I will be waiting for Osama to respond.
It is my hope and desire to debate him later this year. I have informed him that I am available for such a debate any time after June when most of my studies are over.
I hope Osama and I can agree over a topic.
I hope also we can do this in a godly behavior appropriate for theists, with the the outmost respect and integrity for each other, despite our views on each others religion.
One word of caution: if our dialogue prior to the debate leads toward personal insult or attack, I will withdraw from the challenge.
I will be waiting for Osama to respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)