Intellectual Defense of Christianity.

[Jordan Kurecki]

To me, it was all apologetic nonsense. A lot of religious word salad and quote mining out of context.

With complete ignorance of any true historical facts.


Can you tell me why Israelites factually evolved from displaced Canaanites?

Can you tell me why Abraham has no historicity as existing as a person?

Can you tell me why Moses does not exist as a historical person, and the Exodus never happened?

Nor Noah, nor adam/eve


Can you tell me why monotheism was not born in this tradition until after 622 BC?


TO save yourself from further embarrassment, I would suggest you have this moved to the same faith section where you can proselytize this to your hearts content.

And you know these people never existed how?

What evidence would you accept that they exist?

Josephus a Jewish historian around the time of Christ wrote about Abraham and Moses.

Your statements are a bunch of Atheistic propaganda

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your statements are a bunch of Atheistic propaganda

Well that's our cue.:yes:

 

[metis]

Also Baptists are not protestant, there have always been groups with Baptistic Doctrine before the Protestant Reformation in the 1600s.

Let me name a few groups :Waldenses,Albigenses, Paulicians.

The idea of a universal or "Catholic" church was first introduced by Iraneus in around 187 AD I believe, the Catholic Church as it is today started in 330 AD when Emperor Constantine merged the Roman Government with the state church, hence where you get the yoking of state and church, there have ALWAYS been groups that have been against this. The church at Jerusalem was not connected to the government and they were separated. Catholics have persecuted and murdered people well who rejected the state church concept and infant baptism WAY before the protestant reformation. Baptists are the truth Christians, even non Baptist Historians aknowledge that the Baptists have been around since antiquity I know one of them is the Lutheran Historian Mosheim. I know there are about 3 or 4 others who do the same, one is even a Catholic, if you are interested in the others I can get those to you if you wish.

The reality is that Baptists are very much a part of the Protestant tradition, and the supposed unbroken chain is mostly partisan hype minus historical reality. Yes, there have long been groups that didn't practiced infant baptism, but they often sharply differed on a great many other issues. If we just used opposition to infant baptism as the only consideration, the we would have to include Catholics, which always have recognized and conducted the "baptism of believers", along with infant baptism of course.

BTW, in Acts, there's reference to entire families being baptized, and if my memory is correct there have been records from the latter 2nd century church that confirmed that some were youngsters, even though that wasn't the norm.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

use this link, it is a much better and more formatted document, and for the one who asked, yes this is my work.

You mean you copied and pasted from a view websites?

It's not your work when you didn't write it.

But tell me, why do Christians feel the need to produce pretentious crap under the guise of apologetics?

You're not doing anyone any favors by recycling this garbage.

 

[outhouse]

Your statements are a bunch of Atheistic propaganda

Your factually in error as this information was discovered by many theist.

My statements are not only sourced and accepted by every credible biblical historian, it is taught in every credible college world wide.

This statement of your shows extreme ignorance to the cultural and social anthropology of the first century.

Josephus a Jewish historian around the time of Christ wrote about Abraham and Moses.

Tell me

Can you quote muhammad and give me any credible information based on his life?


Well that is the same time difference were talking about, the only thing you can do is read text and repeat what was written by other men. That is what Josephus did. And he was as ignorant as you are on these topics.

And you know these people never existed how?

BY knowing what did take place in Israelite history, we can see what did not. We can also see the how the mythology developed.

We can see how your god was created by men in detail. We can see Israelites polytheism and how and when monotheism was born.


next thing you will tell us a global flood is real, and evolution is wrong, and how we should all fight to ruin children's education in America.

 

[outhouse]

SOURCED


Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult


Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. That means an exodus of the scale described in the Torah would have been impossible


While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

 

[angellous_evangellous]

More precisely - 'An intellectually bankrupt defense of Christianity.'

But only the plagiarism in the 'paper' is the writer's fault. I suppose the rest of it is just following in someone else's instructions on how not to think, which the writer did admirably.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm going to print this out and put it right next to my copies of "Islam: Empowering Women" and "The Hindu's Guide to Preparing and Cooking Beef."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm going to print this out and put it right next to my copies of "Islam: Empowering Women" and "The Hindu's Guide to Preparing and Cooking Beef."

I just hope that it's not for a seminary course (or similar). To be honest I wouldn't correct him if he were my student -- I'd give a C or B and just move on.

It's impossible to build on this -- it represents years of uncritical thinking. It needs to be completely torn down and reconstructed. They don't pay me for that.

So, Jordan, and this is from the heart -- if someone reads this paper and corrects you, they are going the extra mile. It's compassion.

 

[Ingledsva]

use this link, it is a much better and more formatted document, and for the one who asked, yes this is my work.

OK - I only made it a couple of paragraphs, on the first page, before hitting the first glaring ERROR in your Jesus proof.


You posted this as a Jesus proof -


Acts 2:25 Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:


In reality this refers to PSA 16:8, and is about YHVH, not Jesus. It is another example of Christian FUDGING in their translating of texts, - turning YHVH into "Lord" to make it seem to be talking about their "Lord" Jesus.


PSA 16:8 I have set YHVH always before me; for He is at my right hand: I shall not be shaken/waver.


*

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The reality is that Baptists are very much a part of the Protestant tradition, and the supposed unbroken chain is mostly partisan hype minus historical reality. Yes, there have long been groups that didn't practiced infant baptism, but they often sharply differed on a great many other issues. If we just used opposition to infant baptism as the only consideration, the we would have to include Catholics, which always have recognized and conducted the "baptism of believers", along with infant baptism of course.

BTW, in Acts, there's reference to entire families being baptized, and if my memory is correct there have been records from the latter 2nd century church that confirmed that some were youngsters, even though that wasn't the norm.

There is one reference of a man and his household being baptized. it does not say anything about infants being baptized, for those who hold to infant baptism to claim this is absurd, it would be just as absurd for me to boldly say that there teenagers baptized, the text does not give the age of any of them baptized, for all we know it could have just been a husband and wife with one or two servants.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I recently wrote a defense of Christianity:

https://docs.google.com/a/fairhaven...wbGqiGbrga258uCyIBX68JaCzuuE/edit?usp=sharing

I welcome comments and questions.

it starts off slow, the more intellectual stuff picks up in the middle.

Please read the whole thing if you begin to read a lot of it builds on itself.

That is not an "intellectual defense" of Christianity. That's just conservative Protestant apologetics of the most vapid sort through and through. How disappointing.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

OK - I only made it a couple of paragraphs, on the first page, before hitting the first glaring ERROR in your Jesus proof.


You posted this as a Jesus proof -


Acts 2:25 Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:


In reality this refers to PSA 16:8, and is about YHVH, not Jesus. It is another example of Christian FUDGING in their translating of texts, - turning YHVH into "Lord" to make it seem to be talking about their "Lord" Jesus.


PSA 16:8 I have set YHVH always before me; for He is at my right hand: I shall not be shaken/waver.


*

The Hebrew word LORD in Psalm 16:8 is Jehova, but in the N.T. when it is quoted it is translated in the Greek as Kurios or Lord in the english.

Even the Jews used the word Kurios as a substitute for Jehova:

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord(Kurios) thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

The Old testament passage has Jehova where the above Kurios is used, the Lawyer above was a Jew.

 

[sojourner]

It's not your work when you didn't write it.

But tell me, why do Christians feel the need to produce pretentious crap under the guise of apologetics?

You're not doing anyone any favors by recycling this garbage.

This^^^

More precisely - 'An intellectually bankrupt defense of Christianity.'

But only the plagiarism in the 'paper' is the writer's fault. I suppose the rest of it is just following in someone else's instructions on how not to think, which the writer did admirably.

And this^^^

I suppose it is a "defense," (albeit a poor one). But not "intellectual."
In my seminary, you would have summarily failed the course for turning in plagiarized work like this.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I did not plagiarize, open the document and look at the end and you will see the one source I used for most of the bible facts.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Hebrew word LORD in Psalm 16:8 is Jehova, but in the N.T. when it is quoted it is translated in the Greek as Kurios or Lord in the english.

Even the Jews used the word Kurios as a substitute for Jehova:

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord(Kurios) thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

The Old testament passage has Jehova where the above Kurios is used, the Lawyer above was a Jew.

This is pure baloney on your part.


It is known that YHVH refers to GOD only.


It does not matter what later translations say.


And here is another fudging of YHVH as "Lord" in your text.


You have Acts -


Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.


It actually says -


Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. YHVH (GOD) said to my Lord (David,) Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


EDIT - Forgot to add - note that there is a different word for that second - actual word meaning - "lord."



*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Hebrew word LORD in Psalm 16:8 is Jehova, but in the N.T. when it is quoted it is translated in the Greek as Kurios or Lord in the english.

Even the Jews used the word Kurios as a substitute for Jehova:

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord(Kurios) thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

The Old testament passage has Jehova where the above Kurios is used, the Lawyer above was a Jew.

That's completely irrelevant to the point. Unfortunately, you've prove the point that was made: that Christians use Lord for Jehovah in the NT. And, as you note here, that's exactly what they did.

For whatever it's worth, the LXX uses kurios in Psalms 16:8.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I did not plagiarize, open the document and look at the end and you will see the one source I used for most of the bible facts.

You're not doing yourself any favors, here.

You do know what plagiarism is, don't you? It's when you highlight something online, hit copy (control +C) and then you paste it into your paper (control +V) without quotes or proper citation.

I stopped reading your paper after I found three rather long blocks of text that regularly appear in papers of this quality.

The thing is, people like you tend to recycle the same stuff.

Adding lying to laziness is not going to help your case.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Plagiarism Sample #1

http://www.printmytract.com/store/tract-library/flyer-tracts/living-water-kjv.html#.VDcVWr68udw

"The word repent means a change of mind, heart, or emotion about something. Repentance is not ceasing from sin, penance, or paying for sin, reformation, ... Repentance is simply a change of our heart and attitude towards something."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Plagiarism sample #2

[copied from the paper]
The bible was written by 40+ authors over a period of 1600 years, by men of all different walks of life: fishermen, politicians, kings, shepherds, priests, all in different times and conditions such as dungeons, temples, beaches, hillsides, times of peace, times of war, on different continents, in three languages, and yet they all fit together somehow. Try getting 10 different people who speak different langauges, from different walks of life, countries, atmospheres, and try to get them to write on a controversial subject and agree with eachother.. YEAH RIGHT! There is no book in history that even compares the bible in this sense.

[one of many sources - it's spammed all over the internet]
The Bible - Just Stop and Think