- First thing I found … in about 30 seconds of search Amazon.
Im not sure i agree with this statement…witnesses to whom? Other Christians?
I dont come to these forums to try to convert anyone, nor do i see evidence of that in the individuals i engage with regularly here. For example, are two college professors arguing about differing interpretations witnessesing to each other? I doubt it, they are already converted in their own right as professors. (thats not to say professors dont change their minds but that is not the intention)
For me, coming to this forum is kinda like attending a meeting, its a place of gathering with others of like minded interests and passions. I dont view it as a place of witnessing as such (other than the odd individual who comes seeking answers)
As i have said before…apologetics is simply ones defense. Hitlers apologetic as we know was called “Mein Kempf”…its his defense of his ideology and belief for the future of his then native Germany. The world went to war I think largely because of that apologetic.
1 Like
`I see it as a neighborhood bar, like Cheers. And we sit around hoping we are not Norm.
3 Likes
Who do you need to know to get a drink?
J/K: just had my yearly with my doctor and she convince me to just quit all alcohol. Easy enough to do as I hardly ever have any. She is the one who got me to give up my Zolopidum and Flexiril too. I wonder what will be next/
2 Likes
Reminds me of the meme that says,”Give up coffee and you can remove 80% of what little joy you have in life.”
5 Likes
I figure it’s the closest I’ll ever get to The Eagle and Child
1 Like
I do, and I agree.
That’s what I see as well.
You know what is a waste of time?
Uneventful moments
Interestingly, they are of some philosophical significance with the question of an infinite past
- A moment somewhere in the universe in which there is no event? I deny the possibility, whether the past is infinite or not.
Sometimes it is more like a bar room brawl, with words, but still as vicious.
I wish some people would not make it so personal, but then faith is very personal so…
Ah well, I wonder how many people were brought up with
“sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”
Richard
1 Like
Even though we have our fun laughing about these things, I feel like a sound apologetic is actually extremely important in life. It is how we defend our sense of self and world view. I dont think its something that we can ignore (especially as Christians).
If a Christian doesnt really have an apology, wouldnt that adversely affect their ability to witness? (wouldnt we at least be defending our faith against atheism?)
1 Like
But whether we can express it coherently?
We will live by our beliefs anyway.
Apologetics are ineffective if cognition from language fails.
Richard
- Define “apology” and :“apologetic”.
Taken from The web
In summary, apologetics is about defending your own beliefs, while polemics is about challenging the beliefs of others34. (Copilot)
The difference is subtle, but in general Apologetics is not trying to change the views of others while Polemics is. In general I would say that the argument style here is Polemic rather than apologetic.
Richard
2 Likes
This week I heard Tucker C say he was drinking buddies with Christopher Hitchens, and that Hitchens saw his goal everyday as tossing a grenande over the wall into a__hole HQ
3 Likes
- I didn’t even get to ask “How many categories are there in Linguistics?” or “How many topics can one defend in one’s faith?”
2 Likes
Unlikely. The best evidence is that both of his parents were Jewish and were servants in a Roman household where the master believed in educating the children of servants and slaves (they may have actually been slaves, among those carried off from northern Galilee some few years before Saul was born; most of those carried off ended up in Antioch).
Paul in several letters is either using Greek versions we have no evidence for or he was translating freely from the Hebrew. We know he engaged in a rabbinic practice of patching together similar passages along with interpreting the scriptures in the light of subsequent events. And given who he studied under it would be extremely unlikely that he would not have been made to learn Hebrew and learn it well.
Not exactly; he studied under one of the great rabbis who was a member of the Sanhedrin. Many Sanhedrin members were scholars, but it was not a requirement; many, perhaps most of the ones who were scholars took on a few students (not single students as it was considered a good thing for learning if there was a small group that could engage in debate).
Not according to the text; in Acts it is after he had been at the stoning of Stephen and had helped kill a number of other Christians that he went to the high priest and asked for letters of authority to carry out persecution in Damascus.
That he did as you say depends on whether his mention of casting a vote against Christians brought before the Council indicates that he was a Sanhedrin member – if he was, then it could well have been that as a junior member he was called on to stand guard over older members’ (expensive) cloaks and robes as they led the crowd in stoning Stephen.
Something interesting about the situation was that there was essentially a power vacuum in Jerusalem and indeed the entire province in terms of Roman authority, which arguably allowed the Sanhedrin and the high priest to authorize executions for the sake of public order. If Pilate had not been a lame-duck official at the time or if an effective Roman had been sent to replace him it is likely that Saul/Paul’s activities would have been unlawful; as it was they may have been technically unlawful but the Sanhedrin would just argue that there was a threat against Caesar’s authority that convinced them they had to act, an argument that would have been effective – it would have been nearly impossible to get permission for executions, but getting forgiveness due to saying they were acting on Caesar’s behalf would have been easy. It was made even easier due to the Roman policy of not concerning themselves with religious issues unless there was a smell of sedition; the Sanhedrin would have been stretching things to say sedition was involved but claiming to be concerned about public order was still a strong argument, and in the event there may not have even been a Roman investigation, just a shrug at these strange people and their devotion to a single deity.
Plainly not since scholars down the centuries have wondered who really wrote Hebrews. A very good case can be made that it was Apollos, who had worked with and learned from Paul and was from Alexandria – the Greek almost reeks of Alexandrian origin.
2 Likes
- Great! So tell me then, was the author of Hebrews referring to the the Hebrew Torah or the Greek Septuagint when he wrote Hebrews 11:21?