If you don't like the only God there is, you can always make up your own and believe in him or her. What do you think? I mean, you can do that, just like you can wait in line for an invisible ride at the amusement park, hoping to ride it. You say, "No one does that." Most people do that with God. They shape a god in their minds to fit their desires. Religions or churches encourage this too. People fill up buildings to and for a god that doesn't exist. There is a point when actual God dips below His actual identity in people's imagination, so that He isn't God anymore.
Let's say a very strong, large, tough man in an official uniform, because he's in authority, tells you that you've got to eat two fried eggs and two slices of whole wheat, buttered toast every morning, or he'll plaster you in the nose with his fist. In your mind, he doesn't exist, so you eat oatmeal instead. I guess he was real, as seen in your broken, bleeding nose. The next morning you try two pieces of fruit and then welcome his fist again. It doesn't seem you can just wish him away. He's real. The next morning it is two fried eggs and two slices of whole wheat, buttered toast, no fist in your nose either.
Your thoughts and the acknowledgement and belief about God must portend with reality. You can't imagine Him to be who you want Him to be and then count a response to Him as God to count as one. God has to be God.
People worship the God of their imagination. For Him to be God, the imagination must be shaped by and then conform to the truth. If not, He isn't Him. You can say you are worshiping Him, but you are not. You can say He will save you, and He won't. You can say that you are safe from God's judgment, but you are not. You can say that you are waiting for a ride at the amusement park, but it must exist for you to do that.
The nation Israel started off with God, or what we could call the One, True God. There is only One, so someone can just call Him God. God revealed Himself. After awhile, in general Israel didn't like their God, Who was the only God. Even though there isn't another one, they wanted another one, or at least the One they had, the true One, to be different than Who He actually was. They began worshiping their God like one of the other ones, which were gods of their roundabout neighbors.
By the time we get to Jesus in the gospels, the Samaritans, who were partly Jewish, were worshiping a god about which Jesus said in John 4:22, "Ye worship ye know not what." Later, when the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, you could say that they were in a similar circumstance, when he told the Jews there in the audience in Romans 10:2, "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." At Corinth, the imagination of Jesus had been so distorted, that Paul wrote professing believers there in 1 Corinthians 12:3, claiming to be "speaking by the Spirit of God," "calleth Jesus accursed." In their ecstatic state, they thought that true about Jesus, and accused the Holy Spirit of revealing that lie to them about Jesus as well.
The nation Israel started with the right knowledge, but that knowledge became distorted as Israelites, Jews, began to conform God in their minds to their own desires. They would match up to God in their own righteousness, so His righteousness must be something where theirs could do that. They diminished God's righteousness with the thought that He would see theirs as acceptable. They wouldn't have to submit to the righteousness of the new god of their imagination. They could establish their own righteousness as good enough and be saved by works. God wasn't God anymore in their imagination. The god that replaces God is an idol. They are worshiping an idol, an idol that accepts their behavior, which is less than what actual God accepts.
Most people have a different god today with whom they are satisfied with. They serve him in their own way. They obey him like they like to obey. He saves them like they want to be saved. He's not real. In the end, the one, only True God will give them the equivalent of the metaphorical fist in the nose of the above illustration in paragraph two. They'll know Who He is right at that moment, but it will be too late.
If we can't take the only God at His Word, we won't believe in Him. When we won't or can't believe, we won't or can't be saved. God has to be God.
26 comments:
Humans are analytical and imaginative by design (or evolution). It's easy to say "God is God," but what is God? It is imperative for analytics to understand that which he believe. The genesis of such is to define God. Humans are extremely limited by our cognitive ability. What we conceptualize as God is imaginative. God is so much more complex than we are capable of comprehending. To truly come to God, one's philosophy should transcend their theology. This is how one becomes humble enough to accept our irrelevance as mortal man. To accept that we are but a drop of water in a universal ocean. To deny the coincidence associated with science's big bang. That we aren't descendants of fish and birds, but creations of God. When one exhausts his philosophical journey, his path ends at God.
HEM,
God revealed Himself in His Word, the Bible. We can know Him, because He revealed Himself. We must acquiesce to Who He says He is, what He says about Himself, instead of conforming Him to what we want Him to be.
The refinement or adjustment of our mind's perception of God to what He actually is goes beyond the moment of salvation, and lasts the entirety of our earthly life. Sadly, Christians become comfortable with their (imperfect) view of God, because in that form He is more tolerant and accepting of their pet sins or their incomplete surrender. May we have a hunger for a deeper knowledge of our longsuffering, gracious Saviour, and the strength and determination to obey and worship Him as He truly is!
The view that the Bible is the revealed word of God is a subjective opinion and, as such, is not provable. Claiming your subjective opinion as fact does little to persuade those who are not already convinced.
Kevin,
The Bible claims divine inspiration. If it didn't, there would be no reason to defend it. However, there is evidence to support its claim. Every philosophical system starts with presuppositions -- none are neutral. I haven't met anyone who won't accept the standard the Bible holds for itself as a standard of truth. With that the case, it is intellectually honest to receive the Bible as truth or fact. The issue, however, isn't an intellectual one, but volitional. People want to do what they want to do without authority.
I hope you can see the circular nature of your reasoning. The Bible claims to be divinely inspired, therefore, it is divinely inspired. The Q'uran claims to be divinely inspired, therefore it is divinely inspired as well? You mention evidence to support this, however, you fail to detail that evidence. Apologists typically mention fulfilled prophesies at this point to support inspiration, however, even if one were to accept the validity of the prophesies in Daniel, for example, what does that have to do with whether the gospel of Matthew, written by a different author, hundreds of years later is divinely inspired? The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by around 40 human authors, if one accepts traditional attribution, not one book, written by one person under divine inspiration. There are hundreds of other ancient books, claiming to be divinely inspired as well that were ultimately excluded from the canon. These decisions were made by men. There were vigorous debates about whether certain canonical books, such as Hebrews, should be included in the canon or not. Some early churches included it, so did not. As much as apologists want to claim to have objective truth, they cannot get out from under subjectivism. The Bible was written by men and the canon was assembled by men- that is as subjective as you can get. But they were inspired you say! This goes back to my original post- this is an unfounded assertion that is unprovable. You cannot know what was in their mind when they were writing or assembling the text.
The presupposition argument is tiresome. Of course everyone has presuppositions, but not all presuppositions are equal. What if I believed that the universe was created by a green monkey god living on the planet Xenon? You say, well that's crazy, and I respond, well that is my presupposition and it is a equally valid as yours. See the problem? Presuppositions have to be founded on evidence otherwise people can and will claim any absurd belief and there is nothing you can do to refute them.
I find it hard to believe that you haven't met anyone who won't accept the standard the Bible holds for itself as the standard of truth. There are billions of people around the world who are not Christian, and who do not accept that standard. People don't reject the Bible because they do not want to be under authority. Muslims reject the Bible because they have been told since birth that if they do not follow the Q'uran, they will go to hell. Hindus have been told since birth that if they do not follow their holy books, there will be negative consequences in the next life. Christians follow the Bible because they have been told since birth that if they don't follow it they will go to hell. It is wrong to ascribe ill intent to billions of people you have never met merely to support your presuppositions.
Anyway, I appreciate your website and interacting with me. Have a good day.
Kevin,
I printed your comment, but its long and Sunday is a busy day for me. I'll probably get back to it before I go to bed tonight, but I'm not sure when.
Kevin,
Tomorrow. Just getting here and I'm too tired to write.
Dear Kevin,
The position that, say, Daniel is inspired because of its incredibly specific predictive prophecies, but the rest of the Bible is not, is not intellectually tenable. That is why nobody actually takes that position. Daniel involves the inspiration of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2), both assume the inspiration of the Pentateuch, etc. You will have to actually show that there is no real evidence of miracle in Daniel, contrary to the facts as laid out, say, here:
http://faithsaves.net/daniel/
instead of going for this sort of unreasonable position. Since there are genuine predictive prophecies that cannot be explained naturalistically in the Bible--unlike in the Quran, Book of Mormon, etc.--the Bible is the Word of God.
You complained that a short blog post "failed to detail the evidence" that the Bible is the Word of God. Please read here:
http://faithsaves.net/Gods-Word/
for the evidence.
You are wrong on your view of the canon. The canonical books were recognized as Scripture right away, not picked and chosen centuries later. I will let Pastor Brandenburg explain that one.
The presupposition that there was a green monkey god on the planet Xenon has no explanatory value of any kind. It does not, for example, explain how one who reveals Himself as the Triune Jehovah can give standing proof of undeniable miracle in the Bible, provide a coherent foundation for morality, science, etc. So, yes, all presuppositions are not equal--Biblical presuppositions properly explain God's world--the real world--while no other presuppositions avoid fatal problems, since they are false.
I'm sorry, but Christians do not believe that the way to be saved, supposedly taught them since birth, is to follow the Bible in order to receive salvation. No true Christians believe that at all. Christians believe that salvation is by repentant faith alone in the crucified and risen Christ who shed His blood for their sins, not by doing good deeds in order to be saved. Please read here:
http://faithsaves.net/salvation/
to find out what the most basic beliefs of Christianity are, as, regrettably, you do not appear to know about them.
Thanks.
Kevin,
Circular reasoning is, A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true. The Bible says it is inspired, and when we consider whether it is, we see evidence, so that claim is backed up. It is also self authenticating and speaks with authority. Neither of those is circular reasoning. You may have been thinking of something else. The Quran may say it is inspired, but evidence says otherwise. Scripture says nothing to be added to it (Rev 22:18-19), so Quran must be rejected for that among many other reasons, including its contradictions with the Bible.
There is overwhelming evidence that the human authors believed they were writing God's Word. They copied it, passed it around, received it as the Word of God. The canonical books were accepted right away as scripture.
Biblical presuppositions fit reality. I don't know a Christian, a biblical one, who follows the Bible because they grew up that way.
When I say the standard the Bible holds for itself, I'm saying 100 out of 100 or 1000 out of 1000 or 10,000 out 10,000 times the Bible says something will happen, it does happen. When it says something, it is true. Generally, people will say something is true then. They don't with the Bible because they aren't intellectually honest.
KJB1611,
Lest you feel the need to make any more condescending, ad hominem attacks about my lack of knowledge of the tenants of Christianity, let me reassure you, I have attended a Baptist church all my life. I attending a conservative Christian school from 2nd through 12th grade and was a theology major in college before I changed my studies to medicine. It is a common fallacy to claim that one has a lack of knowledge just because one has a different opinion. With that out of the way, let me address your points specifically.
I suggest you read a little more church history on the formation of the canon. In 325, church father Eusebius wrote in his "Church History" about the antilegomena, or "disputed books." These included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the epistle of the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. This was a list of books that were "spoken against" in certain parts of Christendom before the closure of the canon. As you can see from the list, some of the books were included in the final canon and some were not. My claim that the epistle of Hebrews was a disputed book stands. Some churches accepted it, some did not.
It was not until 367 that the 27 book canon we have today was formulated in a single list by Athanasius. Even during the Protestant reformation there were disputed books. Martin Luther questioned the inclusion of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation and this list became known as "Luther's Antilegomena." You can claim all you want that the current 27 book canon extends to the time of Christ, but I would ask you to show me the evidence from the ancient sources, the early church fathers.
I never claimed that some people accept the prophesies in Daniel but reject the rest of the Bible. I was pointing out that, EVEN IF, one did accept the prophesies in Daniel, it does not logically extend that another book written by another author in another century HAS to be inspired as well. Of course Christians accept the whole Bible, however, if you are using prophesies in Daniel to support inspiration, that only supports inspiration of Daniel, IF the prophesies are true. It does not support inspiration from Hosea or some other book.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the presupposition issue. If you ask a Muslim, or a Mormon or a Jew about their presuppositions, they will also claim they adequately explain reality. They don't to you because you were taught and have accepted different presuppositions. This gets us back to the issue of subjectivism. You cannot prove your presuppositions are true any more than I can prove a green monkey god presuppositional system, which I hope you understand was hyperbole.
You say: "Christians believe that salvation is by repentant faith alone in the crucified and risen Christ who shed His blood for their sins, not by doing good deeds in order to be saved." Of course they do! But where do they get this idea from? The Bible!! So yes, Christians believe they are saved by following the Bible.
Kent,
The Q'uran claims to be inspired and Muslims claim the evidence supports this just as Christians claim the Bible is inspired and supported by the evidence. Muslims and Christians have the same facts but different presuppositions leading to different conclusions. More subjectivism! You can believe yours are right and they will continue to believe theirs are right. Just because you believe strongly that your views are the correct views does not prove this.
I must point out also that the belief that the New Testament writers knew they were writing Scripture is highly debated. Most references to "scripture" in the New Testament actually are quoting the Old Testament. If my brother asks my opinion about a religious matter, I may reply that I think God wants him to do A and B but this does not imply that I think my letter has the authority of Scripture. Most of the letters in the New Testament fit this format.
Thanks for the discussion gentlemen. I know we have not changed any minds, but I appreciate the conversation.
Dear Kevin,
Thanks for the e-mail. I have read Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History in toto in English and parts in Greek, as well as the ecclesiastical histories of Sozomen, Socrates, etc. I am all for reading more church history, though. Thank you for the recommendation. If your major was theology, and you have looked at an introductory text in NT Introduction, you can easily find the evidence you are looking for on the canon. 2 Peter 3:15-16 shows that there was already a canonical collection of Paul's epistles in Peter's lifetime--and, note, 2 Peter was written to the Jewish dispersion, so 2 Peter 3:15-16 includes Hebrews--while 1 Timothy 5:18 refers to Luke as Scripture equal to the Pentateuch, and there is a lot more where that came from.
Perhaps the best thing to do would be for you to read the work at http://faithsaves.net/Daniel/ and then, if you can refute it, you can post your refutation here:
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2017/05/atheist-compliments-on-daniel.html
as this post is really not about apologetics at all.
I trust you can see why someone who says "Christians believe salvation is by following the Bible, and they think this because they were taught it from infancy" sounds like someone who doesn't know much about Christianity and also sounds like an incredible oversimplification, especially for the many people who converted to Christ during college or adult years, such as this writer.
Thanks.
Dear Kevin,
One final thing--I don't know what kind of religious organization you attended, but you might find the post here:
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2016/01/southern-baptist-evangelism-and.html
of interest, as the large majority of Southern Baptists have never been born again, and in American Baptists, etc. it is even worse.
Thanks.
KJB1611,
I think you just demonstrated why I rarely involve myself in theological debates with fundamentalists like yourself. You have claimed to know that original autographs are inerrant without ever seeing them. And now, you have just questioned the salvation of millions of Southern and American Baptists without knowing them or their hearts, just because they have theological opinions that differ from you. I grew up around people like you and, in my opinion, people that hold opinions like you who claim to know the final destination of millions of other people are, frankly, unchristian. Add to that your obvious King James Onlyism and you squarely place yourself in the Flat Earth Society realm of the theological world. You do realized that there are large chunks of the KVJ that are not found in the oldest and best manuscripts from the 3rd and 4th centuries? That's another debate that I really don't have any interest in starting.
I hope I am not being too harsh, but I feel that it is deserved given what you have
just said.
Dear Kevin,
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
Have you been swift to hear, and slow to speak, or have you ignored the material that I referenced to you? If you are not interested in finding out if you are wrong, but prefer to ignore the information and talk about the Flat Earth Society, then there is no point going on here. But please don't think that you care about the truth if you are swift to speak and slow to hear.
Thanks.
It takes Faith to believe in the preservation of Scriptures from an almighty God.
Is that a misplaced Faith?
Kevin,
It would be helpful to discuss less topics or issues all at one time. As well, if something has been proven to be true, someone should be willing to admit it. I have given some answers here and you treated them like nothing. What's the point of a discussion if you throw out 20 things that aren't even the point of my post (trolling, even by the world's standard), and when something is answered, you can't acknowledge it. I think I'm willing to acknowledge if you say something that is true. I've read somewhere everything that you have written, and I don't agree with any of it for many reasons. I think I'm willing to agree with you, but you haven't provided a basis for it.
It's interesting, for instance, how much you depend on what someone has said about canonicity. What is your basis for knowing that what they are saying is true? It doesn't match up to your own standard of evidence.
Let's just take one of your issues, that you emphasized as important. You are saying that we can't claim an inerrant original manuscript, if we haven't seen the original manuscript. First, what do you mean by inerrant? The claim of an inerrant original manuscript began with Princeton professor, Benjamin Warfield. Without googling to find the answer, do you know what Warfield meant by inerrant? I don't agree with Warfield's position, a new one as of the late 19th century, and it isn't the historic position of the church. However, if you are going to ask about the inerrancy of the original manuscripts, we would need to know what you mean by "inerrant."
Let's say that you think that Warfield meant, without error, which he didn't, but let's just deal with that. The position that I am reading from you is a modernistic (post enlightenment) epistemology. How do we know what we know? How do we know that the original manuscripts of the Bible are without error? Is this based upon physically seeing them, that is, if you can't physically see something, then you can't say that it is true? This is not how pre-moderns thought, nor how I think. We are not required to possess the original manuscripts to know they were without error. We can know by faith and faith is not the absence of evidence.
Scripture has been preserved. By looking at a majority of the manuscripts or the oldest manuscripts or by comparing either with ancient translations, we know what scripture says about itself. There is enough witness for someone who is open and not rebellious against truth. Scripture says it is without error. If God says that it is without error, then it is without error. We can believe what He said, and that is scientific. I've already explained the standard honest people expect. Scripture meets that standard.
The Bible surpasses any reasonable standard for truth. That you just poo-poo one sample, the book of Daniel, indicates a closed mind. Nothing in the world comes close to Daniel, including the Quran. If you see the truth and you are unwilling to bite down on it, it's not an intellectual issue, but a volitional one.
Kent,
Thank you for acknowledging what I have been saying all along, that the belief that the original autographs were inerrant is a position of faith. I am not saying this as a criticism, but as a statement of fact. If we don't have the manuscripts, any claim we make about them HAS to be a position of faith, by definition. This is not just a post-modernist view, but one that follows the rules of logic. You are correct, pre-modernists had many views that did not logically follow from the evidence.
I am not a troll- disagreeing with your position is not the definition of a troll. I have not acknowledged your arguments as valid because I do not believe they are, not because I am trolling you.
My statements on canonicity were that there were debates about which books should be included in the canon as late as the 4th century as demonstrated by Eusebius' "Church History" and these debates included books that were eventually canonized. Some churches did not accept books that were later accepted in the 27 book canon. This is a fact as recorded by Eusebius and others. If you disagree with Eusebius' opinion, you are free to do so, but I take him at his word.
You keep going back to your line of circular reasoning to defend your position: God says the Scriptures are without error, therefore they are without error. How do we know what God says? . . . because Scripture tells us. I don't know how you can defend this as not circular.
I know it is important for you theologically to believe that rebellion against the Bible is volitional, but this position really makes no sense. If one really believed the Bible to be true, why would one reject it? So they could enjoy sin for 70 or 80 years, all the while knowing they would be cast into hell at the end of their life? Would anyone logically do this? I have never met a person who holds this position. Most reject the Bible because they do not believe it to be true or because they have been indoctrinated into some other faith that threatens punishment if they do not follow their own tradition. Think about a Muslim born in rural Afganistan. First, there is a high probability that he will never see a Bible in his life and probably can't read it anyway. If he does happen to come across it, reading it may threaten loss of family and even his life if he converts. Add to that the tremendous psychological weight it takes one to overcome the cultural/religious inertia of the society he is in. To describe such a person as this as volitionally rebelling against God's will is, frankly, stupid. If the Bible is God's word, he does not have the Bible, so how can his failure to follow it be volitional? This segues into your discussion of epistemology: as a general rule, I do not believe people have power to volitionally change what they know to be true. One's epistemology stems from our experience of the natural world from our 5 senses and from what information we have been exposed to that makes sense to us. If I came to you with a gun and said that I would kill you if you did not believe the sky was green, would you be able to do it? You might say you believe it in order to save your life, but you would not REALLY believe it because your senses tell you otherwise. When it comes to accepting or rejecting any position, religious or not, there are similar factors at play. I know you do not accept this view and I am not trying to troll you or draw you into a long online debate, however, I wish that some Christians exhibited a greater sense of grace and emphasis on God's mercy when discussing these big issues. I read these websites and I see the words "unsaved" or "apostate" thrown around an awful lot about people you do not know personally. Can't you leave such decisions to God? I really hope God has more grace and mercy that you attribute to him.
Have a good day.
Kevin
Dear Kevin,
2 Peter 3:15-17 shows that Paul's epistles were recognized as canonical (including Hebrews) in the 60s AD. That some religious organizations who did not like, say, the book of Revelation's teaching on a literal millenium, like Eusebius did not, does not mean that faithful assemblies did not know immediately where the Word of God was. Let's take 2 Peter very seriously instead of ignoring it and using the fact that centuries later people whose doctrine was condemned by certain Biblical books decided to make those books antilegomena an argument that centuries earlier nobody knew where the canon was. Thanks.
One only "knows" what Eusebius said in his church history if one can read 4th century Koine Greek.
One can only "read" 4th century Koine Greek if one trusts and believes what scholars have taught one about Koine Greek, if one trusts the lexicons and grammars that have been written by fallible men.
The lexicons and grammars are only accurate if the sources that were used to compile them are accurate. So one must not only trust the compilers of the lexicons and grammars, but also trust that they used the right sources and those sources provided good information.
There is no one today who speaks 4th century Koine Greek or really "knows" what all the vocabulary means. It is deduced in part by looking at how words are used in context, which means one is relying on 4th century Koine Greek to learn and understand 4th century Koine Greek, which is, of course, circular. But most don't do the circular work, they just rely on the work of those who have used this circular approach to learning.
And no one has done all that work. Everyone is trusting on the circular work of others to be able to work in 4th century Koine Greek.
But most people who talk about what Eusebius said actually have just read translations. Which means, well, that they are taking it on faith, a faith which is built, when you dig down, on circular processes.
But if we do accurately know what Eusebius said, and we probably do know that because "circular" doesn't mean untrue nor necessarily even suspect, if we do know what he said, it doesn't mean that Eusebius was right. He could have lied, or he could have been mistaken. Or, since the earliest Greek manuscript is some 600 years after he wrote, the text could have been corrupted. But maybe we can take it on "faith" that it has been preserved?
But even if we knew what Eusebius said, and even if we knew that he told the truth, it wouldn't invalidate the clear Scriptural teaching, in II Peter and other places, which shows that the New Testament Canon was known and accepted by early churches during the first century, and the Biblical basis for recognising it. The fact that some churches may have disagreed proves nothing other than that churches have a marvelous ability to get things wrong sometimes. There are a few around these days that get some things wrong, too.
KJB1611,
I hope you see the irony in quoting 2 Peter, one of THE most disputed books by the early church fathers to prop up your assertion that Hebrews has always been considered canonical. Origen expressed doubts about it's authenticity, as did Eusebius. There is a dearth of quotes from 2 Peter from the early church fathers which also suggests that it either wasn't widely read as scripture or that it was suspect, if it was read. Maybe I'm missing something, but 2 Peter certainly never describes Hebrews as canonical. It references "Paul's letters" as being scripture but does not list which letters were considered to be from Paul. That was the whole point of the debate! I fail to see how this advances your case.
You also mention that "faithful assemblies" knew what the Word of God was. This, I assume, is your way of saying that "real" Christians knew what was scripture? Heretical Christians were the ones that had doubts about these books? It looks a lot like you only accept as a "real" Christian, those who share your views. This is a classic trait of fundamentalists . . . anyone else is doomed to Hell! I don't fault you for this weak argument because it's the only one you have but surely you can see this will only resonate with those who share your views. I think I'm going to sign off on this debate.
Thanks for your interaction and have a good day!
Kevin
Kevin,
You wrote that believing in something is a position of faith. Do you have an example of believing in something that isn't a position of faith? However, believing something or in something doesn't mean that it isn't a way or even the chief way of knowing something. I'm saying it is a superior way of knowing, to believe it. I didn't have to see it happen to believe, just like you believe in Eusebius, who has far less attestation than the Bible itself.
It's not important for me to believe that your problem is volitional. It is, because scripture itself, which is evidence, says your problem is volitional. You know people operate all the time against what is best for them. The present and all history is the story of this.
The Bible says people reject and then harden and can't receive the truth, even though they are worse off from doing so. This is the nature of man. You know this. I call on you to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Lord of all and only Savior of the world.
Kevin,
Both 1st and 2nd Peter were written to the Jewish dispersion. What epistle of Paul was written to the Jewish dispersion, if not Hebrews? Didn't they teach you this when you were a theology major?
Even if you wish to deny Peter wrote 2 Peter, isn't 2 Peter centuries earlier than Eusebius?
Perhaps before saying 2 Peter is the only argument that I have you should read my responses a little more carefully.
You can go ahead and sign off on the debate, but perhaps being quick to hear and slow to speak would be a better idea.
Thanks.
Kevin:
If you're looking for a sane, conservative work on the canon, please read "Canon Revisited" by Michael Kruger. He has also written another book, entitled, "The Question of the Canon," which may be helpful. And, of course, there is always Metzger's book, with the amazingly original title, "The Canon of the New Testament."
Take care.
Tyler,
I've read Kruger's material and on the canon, I agree with him. If Kevin really cares, it would prove it to him, and I don't mean that in a disrespectful way. If you start with doubt and look for a way to buttress your doubt, you won't get there, of course. It's nice of you to care about him though. I do too, whoever he is.
Post a Comment