Α) Στη κατηγορία «Ενδιαφέρονταγια Ορθοδόξους/Καθολικούς»: Δύο θέματα:
1) Είναι το βάπτισμα μωρών: α) Θεόπνευστη πρακτική β) της πρώτης Εκκλησίας; Τι διδάσκει η Γραφή, η ιστορία, η λογική. 2) Μεσιτεύουν για τους πιστούς η Μαριά και οι υπόλοιποι άγιοι; (Διάλογος με τον «Ορθόδοξο» Νίκο Μαυρομάγουλο.
Β) Στην κατηγορία «Ενδιαφέροντα για Ορθοδόξους.Καθολικούς»: Ποιοι μπορούν να τελούν Θεία Κοινωνία, το βάπτισμα στο νερό, το ευχέλαιο;
Το επόμενο άρθρο θα είναι 3 σε 1:
1) «Και εγώ δε σοι λέγω ότι συ είσαι Πέτρος, και επί ταύτης της πέτρας θέλω οικοδομήσει την εκκλησίαν μου, και πύλαι άδου δεν θέλουσιν ισχύσει κατ' αυτής. » (Ματθ.16:18) Τι σημαίνει, ποιους αφορά;
2) «…και ενεφύσησε και λέγει προς αυτούς ‘Λάβετε Πνεύμα Άγιο’» (Ιωάν.20:19-23) Πότε λάβανε Πνεύμα Άγιο οι αποστολοι;
3) «…και επί ταύτης της πέτρας θέλω οικοδομήσει την εκκλησία μου.. (Ματθ.16:18)
Ποια είναι αυτή η «πέτρα»;
Το συγκεκριμένο άρθρο έχει «κολλήσει» μήνες τώρα σε κάποιες λεπτομέρειες σχετικά με το «δεσμείν και λύειν». Αν ο Κύριος δεν μου το «ξεκολλήσει» για να μου γίνει όλο ξεκάθαρο και σίγουρο, δεν θα το αναρτήσω παρόλο που οι απαντήσεις στις τελευταίες δύο ερωτήσεις είναι εύκολες. Παρακαλώ όσους θεωρούν απαραίτητη την συμμέτοχή του Αγίου Πνεύματος στην ανεύρεση και κατανόηση της αλήθειας, να με έχετε στις προσευχές σας, αλλά και όσους θα διαβάσουν το άρθρο. Ευχαριστώ
---Το κουμπί ακριβώς κάτω και αριστερά από αυτό εδώ το κουτί ανακοινώσεων το έχετε δοκιμάσει; Πατήστε τα βελάκια να δείτε τι θα γίνει.
Ψάλ.5:8-12 Κύριε, οδήγησόν με εν τη δικαιοσύνη σου, ένεκα των εχθρών μου· κατεύθυνον την οδόν σου έμπροσθέν μου. 9 Διότι δεν είναι εν τω στόματι αυτών αλήθεια· η καρδία αυτών είναι πονηρία· τάφος ανεωγμένος ο λάρυγξ αυτών· διά της γλώσσης αυτών κολακεύουσι. 10 Καταδίκασον αυτούς, Θεέ· ας αποτύχωσι των διαβουλίων αυτών· έξωσον αυτούς διά το πλήθος των παραβάσεων αυτών, διότι απεστάτησαν εναντίον σου. 11 Ας ευφραίνωνται δε πάντες οι ελπίζοντες επί σέ· ας χαίρωσι διαπαντός, διότι συ περισκεπάζεις αυτούς· ας καυχώνται ομοίως επί σε οι αγαπώντες το όνομά σου. 12 Διότι συ, Κύριε, θέλεις ευλογήσει τον δίκαιον· θέλεις περισκεπάσει αυτόν με ευμένειαν, ως με ασπίδα.
The Atheist Experience (part 1) 606# refuted
My following posts are separated based on the 500 space restriction on each post. You can find them under this youtube video thread:
The purpose of my comments is to expose the fallacious thinking of atheists, in order to protect those who **do not want** to be deceived. May God show you, more than I write.
1) The timing (e.g. 00:29) on my comments, is the time shown on the bottom left side of the video, where one can go to and hear the words I am quoting and commenting on.
2) I ask of those who are not familiar with posting on video threads, not to forget the 500 spaces limitattion on Youtube thread posts; it forces one to chose between which thought to include, leaving some out and this is a small problem.
3) AE stands for Atheist Experience episodes.
M.D. stands for Matt Dillahunty.
4) This first part video, is a conversation between a Christian who called in on the show and Matt Dillahunty.
5) The comments following are the same ones on thread, I just refined them a little, that is, I added the word “Comment”, bold lettering, spaces between words I had to connect in order fit my message within the 500 space limitation, removed spaces in the links, and added some periods.)
6) My English is not the best, but I believe it’s good enough to get the job done.
For me, it does not matter AT ALL who wrote the gospel (of Matthew),or any other book in the N.T.! I mean,what changes for Christians as for the importance of its context? If it wasn’t Matthew, can that in itself disprove that God -for various reasons- provided that book for the Church? No. Or disprove our experience/s with Jesus Christ? No. But let’s see some interesting quotes, just to make the point M.D. cannot be trusted as a "free thinker".. (curse at me all you want, just being “reasonable”.)
(Caller)00:29 “Last week you mentioned Mathew was anonymous…“ (M.D. did not deny it)
Comment: No, the authorship of the book is not mentioned within the book, but that doesn’t mean it was unknown to its readers! The writer knew they knew who he was! We have no reason to believe otherwise. If someone does, where’s his proof?
1:22 “However that (judging the book by standards of any other book in history) has nothing to do with mythical claims”
Comment: This “mythical claims” has not been proven by anyone. On the contrary, I can show (!) that many of those claims (miracles are probably implied), as supernatural healings, people being freed of demons, take place today, therefore why not then?? I will provide this when or if called upon.
1:42 “Mythian authorship”?
Comment: What a frivolous remark. Papias wrote (95-110 See link here) that Matthew wrote it. The Church never denied it. See the link. Remove in between spaces:
Why should I accept M.D. remark, than the opinion of Papias, as well as the Church’s?
1:56 “We don’t know who the author is.”
Comment: No, you don’t know. We have no reason to doubt the claim of the church.
1:58 “The names were ascribed by the Church.”
Comment: Yeh, and?? The question is, when was it first “ascribed”?? Why not when it was written and then got passed on?? Is there a reason? Can someone prove that there was a period in the Church, when Christians didn’t know who wrote the Gospel?
2:04 “There is no reason for an eyewitness (Matthew) to rely so heavily on other accounts.” (Hence it is implied it wasn’t Mathew.)
Comment: Who can prove he was “relying” on other accounts?? Nobody. Could there be a simpler explanation? Of course! Maybe he simply considered the other accounts (especially if Mark came before) and added facts from them to make his Gospel fuller. Why not? Continues:
Wouldn’t we do the same if we knew that other eyewitness writers had written a Gospel on Christ? Also it could be that Matthew used a scribe, and that scribe added more facts to the story based on other accounts? -No problem.
2:27 “And how many other history books do we consider true, that talk about zombies?”
Comment: No. Anyone who reads Matthew, clearly sees the intentions! -Now, if the manner of a book shows it was/is intended to be history (names, events etc.) & it talks about zombies, well then, a true scientist would take its claims serious enough to research on it! Even if he concludes there are no zombies, he would give an explanation why not, yet still admit that the purpose behind the book was infact to document actual events.
2:42 “How do we determine whether or not a particular claim is justified?”
Comment: First of all, by not pushing your ideas, and staying on what you have. And you have reasons (if you realize their weight) to believe it was Matthew (see previous comments) & no serious evidence to believe they were lying or mistaken. Therefore why not accept the claim as true, until you can prove otherwise?
2:46 “Even if Mathew wrote the book, it was written by an eyewitness, it still doesn’t mean that the events actually happened.”
Comment: True, but it doesn’t mean the opposite either.
3:04 “There are people today….who will tell you about their experience of being abducted by aliens. Would you believe them?”
Comment: What is this (sorry) nonsense?? Either I would believe them (since such man-made technology [ufo] may exist, & they could have been abducted for experiments), or say I don’t know. Why would I not believe them? What strong evidence would I have to not believe them??
3:53 “What about all the other claims of other religions that claim miracles. Do you believe them as well?”
Comment: Some I would believe, some I wouldn’t, same goes with Christianity. Bible based Christians believe that miracles can take place among pagans. The supernatural is definitely not restricted to Christianity. What Christian doesn’t know this?? Doesn’t the devil do miracles?? -Nonsense again! Probably caught Tommy (the caller) by surprise I guess.
Need I go on? Too bored to go on, but I will, although I believe you got the message so far. Almost everything Matt Dillahunty says is wrong. Feel sorry for the guy and those who he misleads.
4:49 “Talking about miracle claims is not sufficient evidence to believe the claim.”
Comment: A) It is if I as well have lived a miracle by Jesus! B) He downplays the facts which present a different case: 1) the Gospel account for miracles is not by one person, but 4, 2) The Jews who opposed Christianity witnessed Jesus’s miracles but considered him evil, 3) millions of Christians have claimed they have lived similar miracles, 4)miracles happen today by miracle workers (not talking about frauds). Continues:
These 4 facts, together are sufficient evidence for someone to have a sound degree of faith in that the miracle accounts mentioned in the Gospels are true. Why should I start off with disbelief towards one person’s claim, even more so, many people’s claims, thinking that they are lying or mistaken? And as I said, if I too have lived e.g. healing miracles by Jesus, then I have to regard the Gospel accounts as true.
4:58 (Caller: Why not?) “Because, why should it be?”
Comment: Why shouldn’t it be? Are we to start of by thinking of people as liars or stupid, or as honest and reasonable? Both types are around. Who’s to say, what the best approach is?
4:58 “I heard it from some guy, or you telling me this happened to you & I have no other evidence then your word that this happened is not sufficient to believe that.”
Comment: 1) As I showed, this is not the case with the Gospel accounts. 2) If a person you've known for years who is honest and of sound mind, says Jesus showed up, this would not be sufficient evidence for you that it actually happened?? If you’re a logical person it would be! Whether or not you want to apply your faith in it, is another issue.
5:10 “If you use that as a standard of evidence you would be believing all sorts of contradictory claims, all sorts of unreal claims.”
Comment: Yes, using it on any “some guy”(4:58) is wrong, but what does that have to do with the Gospel writers that were martyred for their belief? Persons that by all accounts seem honest and of sound mind! Isn’t that good “standard” enough to say “yes, it’s true” or “maybe”?
M.D example: “Last
week, the angel
Comment: My answer: Because:
a) you would not be on the show as an atheist,
b) I know you don’t believe in angels,
c) I know you are using a hypothetical example. On the other hand,if you,an atheist, called me (!) prior to the show & claimed so, YES, I would believe you had such an encounter, especially if I was planning to call the show.-Christians know there are demons.
(The caller says the disciple’s claim is better than M.D.’s
claim of angel
Comment: How can I believe M.D. is an honest person, when he states such a question? Only if I believe he is very ignorant.
6:53 “..but, you have a book that you don’t have any originals of, that you aren’t positive who the authors is, with claims in it that aren’t supported by evidence from elsewhere.”
Comment: 1) Not having originals does not disprove the copies nor the fact (!) that the originals are indirectly spoken as being "memoirs of the apostles" of by Justin Martyr!
2) We DO have reason to be positive of who the writers are.
3) A Christian’s real experience with Jesus, is evidence to him supporting the Gospel accounts!
8:24 “text alone, is not sufficient evidence for me, and for…………..a court of law, science, or pretty much anybody who’s not willing to believe anything they read.”
Comment: 1) For someone who does not believe in the supernatural, it is not evidence, for someone who does, it is. We can realize why. Hence, believing those texts or not, has to do with prior belief. Question is, whose prior belief is correct? 2)The word “sufficient” can be misleading, since the weight of evidence CAN BE something subjective. Continues:
To me as a Christian that has a relationship with Jesus Christ, those texts are sufficient evidence, that those writers & the people they talk about who as well experienced Jesus’s miraculous dimension, did actually taste the supernatural as it is written, just as a sound, honest person, who wrote that he had some encounter with Jesus last year, is sufficient evidence for me, that he did. Why wouldn’t it?? Why would I right of the bat deny his experience, when my experiences are the same or similar? Cont->
Yes, this person may be lying, or even crazy, but his writings (a year ago) in themselves are sufficient evidence for me to believe him. Do understand this previous statement. So, my prior belief & experience plays a very big role on how I see the ancient texts(alone). Even, if I had no experience with Jesus, the sincerity in the text accounts give me reasons to believe “Maybe it’s true”. This, to me then, is good evidence for the possibility that what they mention is true & can no longer claim “They weren’t real.”
8:34 “If there would be additional evidence that went along with it, that is worth considering.”
Comment: 1) There is much evidence that “goes along with it”, but again, they downplay it.
2)I will add here, that what AE viewers usually don’t take into consideration, is that all this talk about evidence, is useful when **you need to prove to someone else** you had an experience with the supernatural. Other than that, what courts, or science or anyone else says, is irrelevant when you know what you experience.
8:40, “However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Comment: 1) Clarification: they “require” it, when there is need for someone else to believe you. But again, if there is a need, and someone cannot provide it, this doesn’t mean his extraordinary claim is false, but just that he can’t give evidence for it.
2) Q: What would extraordinary evidence be composed of? Can that evidence be doubted? Most likely!! Mmmmm interesting…
9:00 “If you tell me that you have a pet dragon or a pet dinosaur, that is an extraordinary claim and I’m gonna require more than just your say so.”
Comment: Not a fair example since you cannot compare it to the invisible, which is the case with most of God’s “things”. Give us something extraordinary yet invisible (!) that one may claim to have & would have to prove for you to believe, & I will show you that any evidence for it can still be dismissed, showing that any evidence, at the end, is equal with sanity & honesty…
9:16 “I dismiss a specific type of evidence as insufficient to supporting the claim on its own.”
Comment: The question is, can you provide an example of a type of evidence that you would accept as sufficient in “proving” the reality of the claims (e.g. miracles) of the New Testament?
I’d love to hear someone’s answer to this.
--So,again,we see another episode of passionate wrong thinking. While some of their episodes contain some truth, all of them, at the end, are dipped in fallacy. This to me, is a fact.
The purpose of my comments is to refute and expose the fallacious thinking of atheists, in order to protect those who **do not want** to be deceived. May God show you more than I write.
And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil,
who are taken captive by him at his will.
May The Lord give His increase.