The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

[dylanvb]

Boyce's positions are generally outside mainstream Christian biblical scholarship even in Christian academic circles.

I see it the other way but could be my specific YouTube algorithm

 

[Yoder]

You are speaking Chinese. We don’t have a recent police report from an interview with an eye witness to a crime here.

What we do have is Paul and the Gospels recording oral traditions that were passed down over the previous 25 - 70 years. There were no eye witness interviews only hearsay passed down for a couple generations. And as to the Gospels they were written by unknown authors. The early church only added apostolic names to the Gospels in the second century.

I'm not talking about any of that. I don't care about what was written about anything. All I care about is the reaction of the Apostles. Not what they taught or passed down. They witnessed the event. If a Muslim knew Mohammed personally and knew for a fact everything he said was a lie they would never kill themselves for fake 72 virgins. The Apostles, they saw what happened with their own eyes and STILL were willing to die. It's not dying for a lie or a belief. They knew the truth.

 

[Yoder]

This is the position of early church figures not the consensus among historians and theologians.

Did you go to Seminary? Are you a Biblical scholar? You are so arrogant to speak in such absolutes. I'm sure I could find 10 other "experts" claiming otherwise.

 

[Yoder]

You are missing the point.

You’re raising a moral issue, but my point was about historical consistency. I’m not saying Jesus and Muhammad are the same. I’m saying if you accept the Gospels, written decades later by unknown authors based on oral tradition, as trustworthy, then for consistency, you’d also have to give some credibility to the Qur’an, which was compiled sooner with a more traceable transmission.

So you don’t have to believe its theology to apply the same historical standards. . Otherwise, it’s a double standard.

Mohammed talked about Jesus in the Koran. It was 500 years later. I'm sure that's more accurate than an account of people who were actually alive during the life of Jesus on Earth.

 

[go_deep]

It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one.”
Matthew 15:11

 

[dylanvb]

I also think that we can come to a definite conclusion that John was written by the disciple John.

“Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”
‭‭John‬ ‭21‬:‭20‬-‭25‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

For the same argument that could be made that this gospel wasn’t written by John could be the same argument made for how all the other gospels were written by who they say they are written by.
For example the book of Mathew doesn’t say this is Mathew the disciple but it does in fact have the exact outlook that Mathew the disciple would have. The evidence points towards the writer having the same characteristics.

 

[go_deep]

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
Matthew 16:24

 

[Texasbuckeye]

I also think that we can come to a definite conclusion that John was written by the disciple John.

“Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”
‭‭John‬ ‭21‬:‭20‬-‭25‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

For the same argument that could be made that this gospel wasn’t written by John could be the same argument made for how all the other gospels were written by who they say they are written by.
For example the book of Mathew doesn’t say this is Mathew the disciple but it does in fact have the exact outlook that Mathew the disciple would have. The evidence points towards the writer having the same characteristics.

While I enjoy a nice discussion with someone who is seeking to find Truth, I do not suspect this to be the case with Beagle or the others that have chimed in on this thread. I found it easier to just stop responding because it turned into nothing more than a back and forth, you are saying the same thing over and over type situation.

Like arguing over the semantics of whether someone needs faith to believe in science's explanation of how we all got here, it is a pointless discussion if the people you are discussing with will not see the objective truth that faith is required and simply call it part of the scientific process.

Naturalists vs supernaturalists. CS Lewis early in this post, simply stated that if you are dealing with a naturalist, just stop now. That's where I am at with these guys. As I have told them multiple times, there is enough in just this thread to let them know Truth, it is up to them to determine it for themselves. We have done our job, it is now out of our hands (as if it were ever in our hands).

 

[go_deep]

The argument I've heard at times reminds me of flat earthers today. Because they haven't orbited Earth and seen it first hand, they don't believe it, even though all the facts support it.
For the love of conflict...

 

[dylanvb]

While I enjoy a nice discussion with someone who is seeking to find Truth, I do not suspect this to be the case with Beagle or the others that have chimed in on this thread. I found it easier to just stop responding because it turned into nothing more than a back and forth, you are saying the same thing over and over type situation.

Like arguing over the semantics of whether someone needs faith to believe in science's explanation of how we all got here, it is a pointless discussion if the people you are discussing with will not see the objective truth that faith is required and simply call it part of the scientific process.

Naturalists vs supernaturalists. CS Lewis early in this post, simply stated that if you are dealing with a naturalist, just stop now. That's where I am at with these guys. As I have told them multiple times, there is enough in just this thread to let them know Truth, it is up to them to determine it for themselves. We have done our job, it is now out of our hands (as if it were ever in our hands).

agreed but I also see it as a way I can learn more about why a non believer doesn’t believe besides the faith aspect.

 

[Texasbuckeye]

agreed but I also see it as a way I can learn more about why a non believer doesn’t believe besides the faith aspect.

totally understand that. And that is partially why I enjoy engaging in such discussions, to help me understand their viewpoint.

 

[Hill Difficulty]

Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

For Beagle1 and each of you trying to sell Beagle1 on Jesus:

From end to end, the whole counsel of scripture repeatedly hammers home two things, (1) God is incomprehensible, and (2) God's sovereignty is specific.

Understand that Beagle1, Bart Ehrman (+ tons of other liberal scholars) and our lost neighbors and loved ones don't believe in the authority of scripture (they can't, impossible - see bullet points). The hangup that a lot of you "proof" guys are having is that Beagle1's comments and questions are challenging you to prove a God who is comprehensible. Notice that you're not helping Beagle1 by trying to keep within the limits of what man can comprehend. Make sense?

Another way to help Beagle1 and others is to think twice before prescribing any ideas that man can somehow freely will himself to "fear God"/ "have faith"/ "to believe"... That approach is always well-meaning, but often misleading. If you can't resist going that route, it helps others when we provide definitions.

Without God, man does not have the ability to do any of the following:

• fear god (God gives)
• Gospel calling (Holy Spirit)
• call to repentance (Jesus calls sinners to repent and be saved)
• saving faith (a gift, Jesus gives)
• spiritual baptism/filling with the Spirit (Jesus baptizes)
• the illumination of scripture (Holy Spirit)

Each bullet point is a miracle that will lead toward preferring and treasuring Christ and His coming over anything this world can offer.

If you're reading this and not sure what to do with your curiosity... ask a believer in Christ to share the Gospel with you. And from a place of humility, ask God to reveal your sin to you and call you to repentance... And keep after it! That's my challenge. God does the work, and you can't stop him from doing what He is going to do.

 

[TJ]

Or ignorance.