Paul's Message is Irrefutable

Author: Fruit_Inspector

Posts

Total: 244
Topic's author
#31
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Were those human writters ever been wrong about anything?
Yes. Recall Paul's error regarding his view of Jesus prior to his conversion. But the authority of the Bible is not based on whether the human authors are capable of error. The authority of the Bible is based on whether or not the words are true. It is the written message recorded in the Bible that is inerrant, not the human authors.

So we know that the books were inspired by God because the human writers wrote a passage saying that it was inspired.
In a sense, yes. However, that would be an incomplete statement. It is not only because the human writers wrote a passage saying it was inspired. Voddie Baucham gave an extremely concise statement that would give a more complete picture of how we know the Bible is the Word of God:

"I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They reported supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin."

I italicized that last bit to show there is far more than a single human claim in determining how we know the Bible is inspired. But I suppose much of the disagreement would probably come down to the question of how we can know anything at all.
#32
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No, the Council of Nicaea of 325 CE did not develop the canon that is, today, the Holy Bible; their function was strictly the development and agreement of the Nicene Creed; a rather short dissertation of the nature of the Godhead. The Nicene Council was the first ecumenical council of several, but that which is recognized as the first complete canonical collection did not occur for another century.
#33
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Were those human writters ever been wrong about anything?
Of course, they were. They were human, yeah? Don't all of us have frailties? Nevertheless, several authors gave us the means to determine God's intent without having to depend on the scholarship of men. Moses gave us some pretty good advice in Exodus 20:  David's Psalms, collectively, are a gold mine.  Isaiah: poetic, but potent. I have often offered James 1: as an example of a very distinct process by which we, ourselves, can be inspired by God to understand his word, regardless of the human frailties it contains, boiled down to two words: Ask him. By the way; you're not asking about the weather. Have some respect, and sincere desire to know.
#34
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What do mean irrefutable? 
Topic's author
#35
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Timid8967
"not capable of being refuted or disproved"

It might be simpler to just say Paul's message in Acts 17:24-31 is true.
#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Quoted from Acts 17:31 and from my original post: "and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

Can you provide some meaningful argument to show that Paul was not referring to a physical resurrection in Acts 17:31?
Can you prove otherwise.



That is a nice try but the words themselves make the point.

Quoted from Acts 17:31 and from my original post: "and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

So that is a no then. 

Does Paul say physically or spiritually? 


He doesn't use either of those words (physical/spiritual) as a modifier for the term 'resurrection' in this specific passage.

 So that is another NO then.
Does Paul make a distinction between a physical and a spiritual resurrection?

#37
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
"not capable of being refuted or disproved"

It might be simpler to just say Paul's message in Acts 17:24-31 is true.
Ok then. Slowly back out and goes to another topic. 
Topic's author
#38
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
In Acts 17:24-31, I've already said Paul does not use the specific words "physical" or "spiritual" as a modifier for the term "resurrection" in this particular passage. However, Paul is explicitly clear elsewhere in Scripture that the resurrection is a physical bodily resurrection and not just spiritual. Perhaps you will now enlighten us all with the knowledge of such an astute biblical scholar like yourself. I can tell how strongly you desire to share your infinite wisdom with all of us.
#39
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Quoted from Acts 17:31 and from my original post: "and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

Can you provide some meaningful argument to show that Paul was not referring to a physical resurrection in Acts 17:31?
Can you prove otherwise.



That is a nice try but the words themselves make the point.

Quoted from Acts 17:31 and from my original post: "and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

So that is a no then. 

Does Paul say physically or spiritually? 


He doesn't use either of those words (physical/spiritual) as a modifier for the term 'resurrection' in this specific passage.

 So that is another NO then.
Does Paul make a distinction between a physical and a spiritual resurrection?

In Acts 17:24-31, I've already said Paul does not use the specific words "physical" or "spiritual" as a modifier for the term "resurrection" in this particular passage. However, Paul is explicitly clear elsewhere in Scripture that the resurrection is a physical bodily resurrection and not just spiritual.


So that is still a NO then.


Paul is explicitly clear elsewhere in Scripture that the resurrection is a physical bodily resurrection and not just spiritual.

 Is this word play?  And can you pinpoint to us where it is that Paul speaks of both, or both at the same time. Or are you trying to tell us that we resurrect in the flesh and blood and spiritually?


Topic's author
#40
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
I have answered your question about Paul's use of the term resurrection in Acts 17:31. Are you going to make your point?

Or is that still a NO then?
#41
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You missed this>.



Paul is explicitly clear elsewhere in Scripture that the resurrection is a physical bodily resurrection and not just spiritual.

 Is this word play?  And can you pinpoint to us where it is that Paul speaks of both, or both at the same time. Or are you trying to tell us that we resurrect in the flesh and blood and spiritually?


Topic's author
#42
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
No I didn't. You missed where I asked what your point was and now you're just trying to distract from that.

But obviously you don't have one because you have given another NO then!
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So in the end you have nothing at all . And  amounts to four consecutive no's.

You are just another 'fundie' that cannot explain himself once when just slightly probed.

And using my own words or phrases  don't excuse all of your none answers, besides it not being very clever.
Did Jesus walk in to a closed room?  If your answer is yes then simply tell us how did he did it?

Topic's author
#44
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
You don't strike my as an honest person who is actually interested in a conversation. So go ahead and count this as another "fundie" destroyed by your towering intellect if you like. If you won't tell me your point after I answered your question, there is no reason to continue. Dialogue is a two way street.
#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You don't strike my as an honest person   ........................If you won't tell me your point..................



it is Irrelevant what your opinion of me is. You missed this too..
Did Jesus walk in to a closed locked room?  If your answer is yes then simply tell us how he did it?
Topic's author
#46
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Why are you asking?
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So in typical style of the christian on the backfoot, -  you are now at the answering questions with questions of your own , stage.

So, you don't want to answer this question then;


Did Jesus walk in to a closed locked room?  If your answer is yes then simply tell us how he did it?


Topic's author
#48
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
So in typical style of the christian on the backfoot, -  you are now at the answering questions with questions of your own , stage.

So, you don't want to answer this question then;
Isn't answering a question with a question answering a question? Would this quote then be an example of irony?
#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Did Jesus walk in to a closed locked room?  If your answer is yes then simply tell us how he did it?


 I will come back when you have the bollocks to address the above question. Meanwhile, I just have you down as yet  another typical  bible basher that cannot explain his own Bullshite.
#50
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Irrefutable? I think you're getting ahead of yourself. The message needs to first be established true and then we can talk about refuting it. 

Also, the Bible is the claim. Using it for claim AND evidence would be circular.

Good luck.
Topic's author
#51
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are you saying that something is only true if humans subjectively "establish" that it's true? Do we all have to agree that something is true,  or is majority vote sufficient?
#52
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Also, the Bible is the claim. Using it for claim AND evidence would be circular.

A+1
Topic's author
#53
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
I will come back when you have the bollocks to address the above question.
Couldn't stay away?
#54
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
"I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They reported supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin."

I italicized that last bit to show there is far more than a single human claim in determining how we know the Bible is inspired.
Your italicized bit basically says "the humans that wrote the books said the writing was inspired". You said these humans are right about some things and wrong about others, so what methods should we use to distinguish between which claims they are correct about and which they are not? Is it merely the fact that multiple humans made the claim that makes the claim irrefutable?
#55
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No. I'm saying claims should not be accepted as true until they can be shown connected to objective reality in some way. 

Can you show Paul is talking about a real thing? If not, you're skipping a step in asking for refutation. 
#56
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Can you show Paul is talking about a real thing? If not, you're skipping a step in asking for refutation. 


 He is skipping around questions that would put his bs to bed, too. 
Topic's author
#57
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
In my defense, I wasn't asking anyone to refute it. I simply stated something in an open forum and people can comment how they choose. If Paul's message in Acts 17:24-31 is objectively true, it doesn't matter whether I present a convincing argument. Nor does it matter whether you accept it. It is either true or it is false.
#58
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Remember that Albert Einstein said, “The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.”


#59
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
In my defense, I wasn't asking anyone to refute it
Nonsense. The title of your thread is a truth claim and you posted it on a debate website. 

Your next argument will be stronger I have no doubt. :)
Topic's author
#60
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Question my motives as you will, that doesn't change that everything I said in comment #57 is factually and verifiably true. This site has both a debate section and a forum section. But since you have some interest, let me ask a simple question. I'll reiterate Paul's message:

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

-- Acts 17:24-31

And here is my summary of Paul's message:

God is Creator of all things and is Lord over all (Acts 17:24). He created mankind and is sovereign over kings and nations (v. 26). God is completely distinct and separate from creation (v. 29). God is not only Creator of mankind, but also Judge (v. 31). Since all are guilty of transgressing God's law - or guilty of sin - all must repent of their sins to be saved from the coming judgment (v. 30-31). The proof and assurance of salvation for those who repent is the resurrection of the Jesus Christ (v. 31).

So my simple question: Is Paul's message true?