tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8068333749383908462..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Is It Sinful To Produce Or Want Evidence Like The Shroud Of Turin?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64372748372578048762013-02-07T18:45:24.245-05:002013-02-07T18:45:24.245-05:00Michael,
Pointing me to videos of beaten individu...Michael,<br /><br />Pointing me to videos of beaten individuals, or telling me about an experience you had seeing somebody's face damaged in an accident, doesn’t' refute anything I said in our previous discussion. I disputed your interpretation of Isaiah 52. Nothing you've written since then has refuted what I said.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44456822483533077912013-02-07T11:38:50.122-05:002013-02-07T11:38:50.122-05:00Jason,
I went to both the Septuagint and looked a...Jason,<br /><br />I went to both the Septuagint and looked at the Greek words of the verse from Isaiah 52 and then the Hebrew words used by the translators of the KJV and both indicate there is quite a bit of difference between a person who was pummeled by a fist or hand slapped or struck with a stick and what happened to Christ's face. If He gave up the Ghost very soon after this brutal beating and crucifixion as Scripture records, there would be no major change to the facial expression at that point as all life would cease so that facial expression would have been frozen in time and that's what one would expect to see as that image captured on the Shroud not the image we clearly see. Or the only other plausible facial expression would be the pristine Face of Christ Mary saw when looking at what she thought was a gardener, either extreme not what the Shroud of Turin captured which clearly shows a man's face with wounds on it that appear to have been caused by thorn pricks and tears and hitting.<br /><br />The Scriptures point to the wounds in His hands and side not face when He is having that encounter with Thomas.<br /><br />My definition and yours of interacting with you is different, I guess, because I thought I was interacting with you in regard to Isaiah 52? But maybe it isn't on your terms. Well ok then.<br /><br />As for reiterating the video, you were the one who repeatedly raised the issue that what I represented wasn't verifiable so I merely was establishing that yes it was if you cared to dig into the archives of Google you would see what multiple men and women looked like after the Nigerians gave them a brutal thrashing with long thin bendable strong stems of bushes. Watching that brutality was a way of judging the difference between that and Christ's face as Isaiah recorded it. There is quite a difference in the effects after the brutality. You could see clearly a semblance of human features yet torn facial flesh and welts bulging didn't wipe away their human features. That contrasted with Isaiah 52 where the Spirit of the Lord describes something far more brutal and devastating done to Our Dear Husband's tortureous brutalitiy suffered by the hands of godless men.<br /><br />If you would like me to photo copy my passports so you can see the dates of entry to Sierra Leone and Liberia and many other West African countries I can do that to also verify my presence in those countries?<br /><br />I would leave off with one final group of verses that point to nothing about a Shroud in the work of the Gospel being completed and every creature reached so the end shall then finally come. And by doing that I mean to say I want to be informed about my basis and daily Life in Christianity by the Scriptural records first and then by evidentiary and scientific means after that:<br /><br /><b>Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages <br />Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-- <br />Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen. </b><br /><br />I happen to believe there may be slight usefulness to this Shroud of Turin if it impacts one who sees it in Turin, Italy like I was impacted seeing that painting on the wall of my friend's house that morning where there is an artful depiction of two periods of time, one supposedly the at the time of Christ by what He was wearing, long hair and a robe and two children at the time of World War 2. When I looked at that painting I kept questioning that that this Artist I suppose intended to impress upon those who would look at his artful depiction. That seems to me to be the only value and benefit that could come from this Shroud, not that the image was the real corpse of Christ's face after burial and resurrection.michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744678277860175675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33268720747549115692013-02-07T06:10:23.531-05:002013-02-07T06:10:23.531-05:00For unless the sovereign God stands behind reality...For unless the sovereign God stands behind reality, human experience operates in a void, and reality is unintelligible. The truth of Christianity is thus the axiom on which all rationality depends, rather than the conclusion of a process of argumentation. For there can be no epistemology common to all men. Unless we start with this God, we will never get to him. It is not only useless, but wrong, to appeal to theistic arguments or historical vindications in defense of the Christian faith.(1)<br /><br />The truth of what Van Til thought about traditional apologetics and its emphasis on evidences: "the traditional method of Apologetics compromises Christianity in order to win men to an acceptance of it."(2)<br /><br />The one thing the Christian is supposed to do in proclaiming and giving an answer for the truth, is generally the one thing he does not do in modern apologetics: proclaim the truth without compromise. I have heard the "Scripture isn't enough." I have read that fallible evidence is superior to infallible evidence. I even witness the folly that evidence within the drama of revelation itself is extrabiblical. Detaching the apologetic effort from a sound biblial theology is not only ineffective and harmful to the cause of evangelism, it is degrades the message of the gospel of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. <br /><br />1. Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til., ed. E. R. Geehan (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Nutley, NJ, 1971).<br /><br />2. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith. 257Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05761345786829868810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6419801591388694382013-02-07T05:34:04.603-05:002013-02-07T05:34:04.603-05:00RPV wrote:
"Paul’s conversion as an apostle ...RPV wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous…. Could they be mistaken?... Acts while canonical describes what was going on before the canon was closed. And dreams as one of the 'diverse manners' God has previously chosen to reveal himself have ceased (WCF1:1)."</i></b> <br /><br />You give us no reason to apply Luke 16 beyond the people Jesus is addressing in that passage. Instead, you assume without argument that Jesus is addressing all unbelievers.<br /><br />Then, when Paul's conversion contradicts your reading of Luke 16, you dismiss his conversion as "miraculous". How does the miraculous nature of his conversion resolve the problem it poses for your reading of Luke 16? All conversions are miraculous. And some of those miraculous conversions are brought about by means of encountering the risen Jesus or evidence for his resurrection.<br /><br />You then dismiss all post-Biblical converts who cite evidence for Jesus' resurrection as a factor in their conversion. You ask, "Could they be mistaken?" Asking that question doesn't give us reason to think it's probable that they're all mistaken. And we don't assume that people are mistaken about their conversions as our default position. If you want us to think they were mistaken, you need to provide some reason for reaching that conclusion. People aren't normally dishonest or experiencing a memory lapse, for example, so we don't begin with an assumption that people are probably wrong about what they're saying regarding a subject they're in a good position to judge. So far, in order to preserve your speculative reading of Luke 16, you not only have to dismiss Paul's conversion, but also the claims of many post-Biblical converts.<br /><br />Then you dismiss Cornelius' conversion by citing the Westminster Confession and making a comment about the canon and dreams. Why is it that we should avoid spending time and other resources on an extra-Biblical source like the Shroud, because it's extra-Biblical, yet it's acceptable for you to study and cite extra-Biblical sources like the Westminster Confession? And how does citing the Westminster Confession reconcile Cornelius' conversion with your reading of Luke 16?<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"What are those contexts?"</i></b> <br /><br />I've already explained, many times. Similarly, a hymn, a book, or an archeological artifact wouldn't have to convert people in order to be useful in some manner.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21659551605363912852013-02-07T05:08:29.766-05:002013-02-07T05:08:29.766-05:00Michael,
I appreciate the encouragement. But I st...Michael,<br /><br />I appreciate the encouragement. But I still disagree with much of what you're saying.<br /><br />You still aren't interacting with what I said about Isaiah 52 in our previous discussion. Repeating your previous claims, or telling us about a video of a person's damaged face, doesn't address the points I made previously.<br /><br />You raise the issue of the number of burial cloths Jesus had. Again, you're repeating an argument I've already addressed. Both here and at TurretinFan's blog, I've explained how the Shroud is consistent with multiple burial cloths.<br /><br />You tell us, apparently, that the Shroud does accurately depict a crucifixion victim. But its accurate portrayal of a crucifixion victim is problematic for Shroud theories involving medieval forgery, for reasons I've explained before, both here and at TurretinFan's blog.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13899195095658721792013-02-07T01:38:22.674-05:002013-02-07T01:38:22.674-05:00RPV
"Don’t know CM’s work or beliefs. Warfie...RPV<br /><br />"Don’t know CM’s work or beliefs. Warfield didn’t think there were any if I understand the gist of him on Perfectionism. In light of the purpose of miracles in Act 2:22, Heb. 2:4 I am inclined to say no."<br /><br />So, for instance, you don't think God ever heals anyone in answer to prayer.<br /><br />"See above. What kind of evidence. Fallible or infallible?"<br /><br />So you're admitting that your appeal to Lk 16:31 is qualified. Some people believe when they witnessed the Resurrection.<br /><br />"Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous. Can/will it happen again. (Mohammed?Joesph Smith?)"<br /><br />Do you agree with the Westminster Confession that the Pope is the Antichrist (a la Mt 23, 2 Thes 2, Rev 13)? <br /> <br />"Because we are not archaelogists, but Christians. We require infallible proof...IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism."<br /><br />Perhaps you can identify the author of the following statement:<br /><br />"We determine what books have a place in this canon or divine rule by an examination of the evidences which show that each of them, severally, was written by the inspired prophet or apostle whose name it bears; or, as in the case of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, written under the superintendence and published by the authority of an apostle. This evidence in the case of the Sacred Scriptures is of the same kind of historical and critical proof as is relied upon by all literary men to establish the genuineness and authenticity of any other ancient writings, such as the Odes of Horace or the works of Herodotus. In general this evidence is (a) Internal, such as language, style, and the character of the matter they contain; (b) External, such as the testimony of contemporaneous writers, the universal consent of contemporary readers, and corroborating history drawn from independent credible sources."stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69284808974334457342013-02-07T00:52:55.438-05:002013-02-07T00:52:55.438-05:00steve2/06/2013 9:28 PM
RPV
"Distinguish. The...<i>steve2/06/2013 9:28 PM<br /><br />RPV<br />"Distinguish. The NT is inspired and infallible "evidence". Do we want to claim that for the shroud?"<br /><br />Why should I distinguish what you failed to distinguish. You quoted Lk 16:31 to prove whatever point you were attempting to make.</i><br /><br />Ummm, Lk 16:31 is Scripture. The SoT is not. So what is your point? Luke 24:12?<br /><br /> Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. <br /> <br />Since Christ was buried in a linen shroud.<br />And the SoT is a linen shroud.<br />∴ The SoT must be Christ’s shroud.<br /><br />Rather:<br /> Scripture says Christ was buried in a shroud. <br />But Scripture does not say Christ was buried in the SoT.<br />∴ Therefore the SoT is not the shroud of Christ.<br /> <br /><i>Well, were some people persuaded by the Resurrection of Christ or not? Did you intend to quote that as a blanket statement, meaning no one was ever persuaded by the Resurrection? If not, then you should have qualified your appeal at the outset.</i><br /><br />Yeah, some eyewitnesses were. Some weren’t. Why not?<br />Some of those who hear the preaching of the resurrection are converted. Some are not. Why not?<br /><br /><i>So are you now admitting that evidence can be convincing?</i><br /><br />See above. What kind of evidence. Fallible or infallible?<br /><br /><i>BTW, do you agree with Conyers Middleton that there are no post-apostolic miracles? </i><br /><br />Don’t know CM’s work or beliefs.<br />Warfield didn’t think there were any if I understand the gist of him on Perfectionism. <br />In light of the purpose of miracles in Act 2:22, Heb. 2:4 I am inclined to say no. <br /><br /><i>Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:<br />Hebrews 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?</i><br /><br />Did Knox or Peden have “second sight”? Dunno. Weren’t there, much more if they did, it cannot be made an item of faith ecclesiastically, to discipline belief in or no. <br /><br />thanks,<br />Bob SRPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17962168192254454542013-02-06T21:28:17.389-05:002013-02-06T21:28:17.389-05:00RPV
"Distinguish. The NT is inspired and inf...RPV<br /><br />"Distinguish. The NT is inspired and infallible "evidence". Do we want to claim that for the shroud?"<br /><br />Why should I distinguish what you failed to distinguish. You quoted Lk 16:31 to prove whatever point you were attempting to make.<br /><br />Well, were some people persuaded by the Resurrection of Christ or not? Did you intend to quote that as a blanket statement, meaning no one was ever persuaded by the Resurrection? If not, then you should have qualified your appeal at the outset. <br /><br />So are you now admitting that evidence can be convincing? <br /><br />BTW, do you agree with Conyers Middleton that there are no post-apostolic miracles? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10856545923110913532013-02-06T20:33:11.220-05:002013-02-06T20:33:11.220-05:00Jason,
thanks for doing that and putting up that ...Jason,<br /><br />thanks for doing that and putting up that link as it would have taken me a month of Sundays and confessions of angry responses before I would have found that article.<br /><br />I am more refreshed now about it especially the part about Jesus' clothes raising the question to you where were they kept and who brought them to Him seeing the Bible is clear the clothes He was wearing before the scourging the Romans made off with after they stripped off Him them. Before He was tortured with the cat of nine tails <i>Psa 22:18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.</i><br /><br />As for the video I referenced I watched about the atrocities of the civil war in Sierra Leone. It is a real video that captures the torture and execution of these Sierra Leonians, both women and men and some of them were not a part of the strife just mistaken as such by the Nigerian Mercenaries so they suffered being at the wrong place at the wrong time! There are public videos available and by googling the Civil War atrocities of that decade, the 1990's or Samuel Doe, you can see portions of that video I have in my possession. I know because my copy is in storage and it would probably take me two months of Sunday's and a lot more confessions of anger to find it to send it to you as proof of what I have. I wanted to recall something from it awhile ago and because of it not being readily available I googled what was in the public's domain and was surprised to see portions of the copy of the video I have. It is available and substantiates my claims which refute yours that there is no outside proof of what I claim I saw. So I want to set the record straight that what I represented in my exchange with you then about the faces of both men and women looked like being marred by the thrashing they got before their brutal executions can be seen via a google search if one cares to do it?<br /><br />Finally, as for the verse I proffer that I believe nullifies your contention that the Shroud captures Christ's corpse's facial features after death, Isaiah 52:14, it seems to me when you weigh both the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew words of the verse you get an accurate sense as the one I come away with that Christ's facial features looked like no human man's face after the hitting and torture His face suffered by these men.<br /><br />Adding to that there's Turrentinfan's execellent observation, which I forgot about, too, of the Biblical record that there was more than one burial cloth Joseph used and the description indicates something so much different that a one piece shroud as the Shroud of Turin is!<br /><br />Anyway, Jason, this has been a healthy continuation of that early debate as to whether or not the Shroud of Turin captures the likeness of the Corpse of Our Husband Christ the Lord after His death and burial.<br /><br />No doubt there is high speculations as to who that image is. I more now am doubtful it is Christ's.<br /><br />Bless you nevertheless for the work you contribute in here at Triablogue and as you said, I believe it was you who said it to Ed Dingess, it is the work of some ministers of Christ to bring health to the minds of men which your posts certainly do to my mind as does Steve's who I enjoy not only for the perpiscaciousness and sharpness of his intelligence but also for the many new words I learn reading his posts!<br /><br />I want again to reiterate also I was refreshed by the subperb analysis TurrentinFan put forward too. I forgot what he wrote so going back and rereading it was enlightening and reassuring to me that raises the doubt I have been saying I have about the Shroud of Turin that it ain't Jesus' face on it. It does reflect the face of a corpse of someone crucified and wrapped in a shroud in any event.<br /><br /> michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744678277860175675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25924866812692199152013-02-06T19:53:27.239-05:002013-02-06T19:53:27.239-05:00Rather than me expounding on what I think your pos...Rather than me expounding on what I think your position is on the issues, why don't you state in plain English. That would save us time and perhaps clear up any potential misunderstandings I have on your position. My deduction could be wrong. We can talk about consistency later.<br /><br />Common grace does not provide for rational persuasion to believe the gospel. Common grace does not bring men to faith in Christ. Common grace has already given men knowledge of God. Van Til says that men do not merely have the capacity to know God, they actually know God. The unbeliever's knowledge of God is not potential, it is actual. Scripture unambiguously reveals this to be true. When we act as if men don't actually know God, we pretend that Scripture is wrong. "Christians can bear witness of this God only if they humbly but boldly make the claim that only on the presupposition of the existence of this God is there any footing and verge for the interpretative efforts of man." Proofs only have probative force if they are formulated on a Christian basis. There is no neutrality. The unbeliever is not about to let you formulate your proofs upon a Christian basis. They would say you are assuming what you must prove. They insist on neutrality, suggesting that the proofs should rationally lead to whatever the truth might be. With this, Van Til would strongly disagree. Yet, this seems to be the crux of our difference.<br /><br />My argument does not ipso facto devalue apologetics. What my argument purports to do is point apologetics back to revelation, back to Scripture, back to humility. I seek a biblical understanding of the relationship between faith and reason. I have a high regard for apologetic work. I think it is valuable so long as it is faithful to divine revelation, so long as it is reflective of a firmly biblical theology. Far too often, the enterprise of apologetics is an exercise of arrogant men who seem to be more interested in displaying their philosophical acumen and intellectual dexterity than they are in presenting the gospel. To many of them, presenting the gospel is just too boring. And should one criticize them for their disposition, they are branded an anti-intellectual. Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05761345786829868810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56986344953381556512013-02-06T19:22:45.875-05:002013-02-06T19:22:45.875-05:00steve2/06/2013 6:43 PM
So you're saying the R...steve2/06/2013 6:43 PM<br /><br />So you're saying the Resurrection of Christ isn't evidentiary, even though the NT treats his resurrection as evidentiary.<br /><br />Distinguish. The NT is inspired and infallible "evidence". Do we want to claim that for the shroud?<br /><br />Jason Engwer2/06/2013 6:58 PM<br /><br />RPV wrote:<br /><br />"Abraham told the rich man in hell that If his brothers would not hear Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31 But the shroud is from one who rose from the dead. ? They will not be persuaded."<br /><br />You seem to be assuming that Jesus is describing what will occur with all unbelievers throughout history. <br /><br />You’re assuming he’s not.<br /><br />You haven't given us any reason to accept that assumption. <br /><br />Likewise.<br /><br />And it's a dubious assumption in light of other passages of scripture and post-Biblical history. The apostle Paul opposed Christianity, yet converted when he encountered the risen Jesus.<br /><br />Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous. Can/will it happen again. (Mohammed?Joesph Smith?)<br /><br /> Similarly, other opponents of Christianity since then have cited evidence for Jesus' resurrection as a factor leading to their conversion. <br /><br />Could they be mistaken?<br /><br />What about non-Christians who don't reject Moses and the prophets, but instead are gradually being drawn to Christianity, like Cornelius prior to his conversion?<br /><br />Acts while canonical describes what was going on before the canon was closed. And dreams as one of the “diverse manners” God has previously chosen to reveal himself have ceased (WCF1:1).<br /><br /> Etc. Jesus is addressing a particular type of unbeliever in Luke 16, not all unbelievers. The fact that some unbelievers wouldn't come to faith even if they saw a man risen from the dead doesn't prove that all unbelievers fall into that category.<br /><br />Why not/prove.<br /><br />Besides, even if the Shroud weren't useful in converting people, it would be useful in other contexts.<br /><br />What are those contexts? Are they primary, secondary, tertiary/auxiliary or what?<br />Or could they be in the light of the Second Commandment a distraction and stone of stumbling for the reprobate? <br /><br />Bob S<br /><br /><br />RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86672638474063434032013-02-06T18:58:13.382-05:002013-02-06T18:58:13.382-05:00RPV wrote:
"Abraham told the rich man in hel...RPV wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Abraham told the rich man in hell that If his brothers would not hear Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31 But the shroud is from one who rose from the dead. ∴ They will not be persuaded."</i></b> <br /><br />You seem to be assuming that Jesus is describing what will occur with all unbelievers throughout history. You haven't given us any reason to accept that assumption. And it's a dubious assumption in light of other passages of scripture and post-Biblical history. The apostle Paul opposed Christianity, yet converted when he encountered the risen Jesus. Similarly, other opponents of Christianity since then have cited evidence for Jesus' resurrection as a factor leading to their conversion. What about non-Christians who don't reject Moses and the prophets, but instead are gradually being drawn to Christianity, like Cornelius prior to his conversion? Etc. Jesus is addressing a particular type of unbeliever in Luke 16, not all unbelievers. The fact that some unbelievers wouldn't come to faith even if they saw a man risen from the dead doesn't prove that all unbelievers fall into that category.<br /><br />Besides, even if the Shroud weren't useful in converting people, it would be useful in other contexts.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38634551809381591172013-02-06T18:48:03.045-05:002013-02-06T18:48:03.045-05:00RPV
"1. Distinguish between miracles recorde...RPV<br /><br />"1. Distinguish between miracles recorded in Scripture and those that aren't."<br /><br />And after you've drawn that distinction, what then? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14314521544360077182013-02-06T18:43:39.132-05:002013-02-06T18:43:39.132-05:00So you're saying the Resurrection of Christ is...So you're saying the Resurrection of Christ isn't evidentiary, even though the NT treats his resurrection as evidentiary.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8171995655534628462013-02-06T18:36:33.492-05:002013-02-06T18:36:33.492-05:00Michael,
Here's the thread I was referring to...Michael,<br /><br /><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012/04/dishonoring-truth-abou-shroud.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> the thread I was referring to.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77864246050022954142013-02-06T18:36:01.093-05:002013-02-06T18:36:01.093-05:00The Holy Spirit can and does make use of evidence....<i>The Holy Spirit can and does make use of evidence. </i><br /><br />Then if Scripture is an evidence, the long argument/combox thread short would seem to follow. After all the title to this post is:<br /><b>Is It Sinful To Produce Or Want Evidence Like The Shroud Of Turin? </b><br /><br />Or if we prefer, what does Christ say?<br /><br />Abraham told the rich man in hell that If his brothers would not hear Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31<br /><br />But the shroud is from one who rose from the dead.<br /><br /> ∴ They will not be persuaded.<br /><br />thank you<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8748741424775497102013-02-06T17:29:52.084-05:002013-02-06T17:29:52.084-05:001. Distinguish between miracles recorded in Script...1. Distinguish between miracles recorded in Scripture and those that aren't.<br />2. in a nutshell what is the SoT defeater to the 2nd?<br />If God may appear to set aside the 6th as with Abraham and Isaac in Scripture, he may do likewise with the SoT extra biblically?<br />3. Everybody has something to learn (see 1.), so what is the distinction between evidence and evidentialism?<br />4. Nobody needs to prove anything to anybody. I assumed this was a reformed site. If it is not, fine. <br />5. Never said lutheranism and evidentialism are necessarily a pair.<br /><br />thanks,<br />RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78263073870081020932013-02-06T12:04:47.322-05:002013-02-06T12:04:47.322-05:00RPV
"IOW by this time more and more TB looks...RPV<br /><br />"IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism. My bad. I merely thought it was more of a reformed site."<br /><br />What makes you think Lutheranism pairs off with evidentialism? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86551146717216521842013-02-06T11:52:55.290-05:002013-02-06T11:52:55.290-05:00RPV
"IOW by this time more and more TB looks...RPV<br /><br />"IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism. My bad. I merely thought it was more of a reformed site."<br /><br />Calvinism doesn't select for a particular school of apologetics. Warfield's apologetic is quite different from Van Til's.<br /><br />Moreover, when Van Til was teaching at Westminster, he didn't normally defend the Bible. He left that to his colleagues in the OT and NT departments. When Young and Stonehouse defend the Bible, there's nothing especially presuppositional about their approach. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45321472965531718252013-02-06T11:47:28.139-05:002013-02-06T11:47:28.139-05:00Ed Dingess
“Van Til would reject your perspective...Ed Dingess<br /><br />“Van Til would reject your perspective on the relationship between faith and extrabiblical evidence. He would also disagree about where you stand in terms of human reason.”<br /><br />You need to expound and document what you think my position is on those issues. <br /><br />“Van Til would argue that one cannot possibly interpret evidence correcly unless he presupposes the truth of the Christian worldview. He would say that human reason, apart from faith, is woefully inadequate to the task of producing believers. Evidence without faith and unregenerated reason is subject to all kinds of misinterpretations. Faith is the necessary prerequisite in order to arrive at an adaquate interpretation of the evidences.”<br /><br />Van Til had a doctrine of common grace. Unbelievers are inconsistent. They can be inconsistently right as well as inconsistently wrong. Indeed, it’s impossible for them to be consistently wrong, for there is no consistent alternative.<br /><br />Due to common grace, Van Til didn’t think unbelievers were beyond the reach of rational persuasion. <br /><br />“Man willingly and sinfully treats God's evidence unethically. Paul was unambiguous on this point in Romans one.”<br /><br />The unregenerate are just as hostile to the Gospel as they are to apologetics. If your argument devalues apologetics, then, by parity of argument, it devalues evangelism.<br /><br />“While historical and scientific evidences may indeed be edifying to one's faith, they can never serve as the basis for faith or the basis for accepting the testimony of Scripture.”<br /><br />The Holy Spirit can and does make use of evidence. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4489766382876018372013-02-06T10:47:18.076-05:002013-02-06T10:47:18.076-05:00Jason,
you will have to refresh my recollections ...Jason,<br /><br />you will have to refresh my recollections here as I am not following you? Did we have a debate or discussion with each other already about the Shroud over at TurretinFan's blog last year?<br /><br />I recall being involved in a discussion about caricatures and that drawing someone posted on the internet of what someone artfully made of features of what Jesus might have looked like having some discussion with someone or others in a drawing. TurretinFan does not agree saying that is a violation of the 2nd Commandment. I respect his views although I took a different position because of the painting I saw at a friend's house hanging on the wall of a featured piece of a man in long hair and a long robe on talking to a little boy holding a model airplane and a little girl holding a rag doll with the caption about becoming as a child to enter the Kingdom. That struck me and stayed with me for several years until the Lord opened my eyes to understand Him to be the Way, the Truth and the Life.<br /><br />If you can put the link up to what you are referring to I would greatly appreciate it?michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744678277860175675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10119571980398511562013-02-06T05:21:26.537-05:002013-02-06T05:21:26.537-05:00RPV wrote:
"Because we are not archaelogists...RPV wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Because we are not archaelogists, but Christians. We require infallible proof. "</i></b> <br /><br />That's an assertion, not an argument. Why are we supposed to agree with you?<br /><br />When people mentioned in the Bible believed on the basis of miracles they had witnessed, their eyesight, hearing, and other faculties weren't infallible. Similarly, when we today trust a Bible translation we're reading, we don't trust that translation on the basis of infallible proof. We trust it on the basis of common standards of evidence. Similarly, when Josephus, Tacitus, and other sources give us information about the context of the Bible and the meaning of its terminology, they're giving us probable information, not infallible proof. When you rely on your eyesight to read the Bible, your eyesight isn't infallible. There are many things Christians believe, whether closely related to Christianity or more distantly related, based on fallible means.<br /><br />If you're saying that the <i>object</i> of faith is infallible or that the <i>source</i> of something needs to be infallible, then so what? If God produced the image on the Shroud of Turin by means of the resurrection, then the source of the Shroud image is infallible. If I argue that the Shroud leads to faith in the God of scripture, that God is infallible. What do you mean when you say "We require infallible proof"? Judging from your posts, I doubt that you've given the issue much thought.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"The signs and wonders only attested to the previously preached word or called people's attention to the preaching of the word. Deut. 13:1-3. They never stood on their own as proof of anything."</i></b> <br /><br />Who argued that the Shroud of Turin "stands on its own"? What's argued is that it points to Jesus, his death, his resurrection, etc.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"Further with the completion of the canon of Scripture, they fell away as a necessary seal of an apostle's message."</i></b> <br /><br />This is now the fourth time I've had to correct you on this point (in this thread and another one). The issue isn't what's "necessary". I haven't argued that the Shroud is "a necessary seal". You keep burning straw men.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"And just as the sacraments accompany the word of God and are for our strengthening in the faith, they do not engender faith or convert anyone."</i></b> <br /><br />You need to interact with what I've already said on that subject.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88979799665220113682013-02-06T00:18:12.706-05:002013-02-06T00:18:12.706-05:00RPV
"Really? One I didn't think the argu...RPV<br /><br />"Really? One I didn't think the argument was for a miraculous production of the image but rather just an unusual production, because if we are talking miraculous we are in CtC territory/Raiders of the Lost Ark camp."<br /><br />Do you also think the miraculous inscription by a hand that materializes out of thin air (Dan 5:5) is CtC territory/Raiders of the Lost Ark camp?<br /><br />"Two, if the Second Commandment forbids images of any person in the Godhead, why would God produce or allow to be produced an image other than to try the faith of the elect?"<br /><br />Why don't you come up with an objection I hadn't dealt with before?<br /><br />"IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism."<br /><br />You need to learn the difference between evidence and evidentialism.<br /><br />Oh, and I've critiqued Lutheranism on many occasions.<br /><br />"My bad. I merely thought it was more of a reformed site."<br /><br />I don't need to prove myself to you. Don't delude yourself into thinking I measure myself by you. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82593445954894039642013-02-05T21:42:51.914-05:002013-02-05T21:42:51.914-05:00Steve says,
"On what definition? Van Tilian ...Steve says,<br /><br />"On what definition? Van Tilian presuppositionalism doesn't reject extrabiblical evidence or rational arguments." <br /><br />"You're not doing presuppositional apologetics. You're just preaching at people. If you think that's adequate, so be it, but don't call it apologetics."<br /><br />Response:<br />Van Til would reject your perspective on the relationship between faith and extrabiblical evidence. He would also disagree about where you stand in terms of human reason. Van Til would argue that one cannot possibly interpret evidence correcly unless he presupposes the truth of the Christian worldview. He would say that human reason, apart from faith, is woefully inadequate to the task of producing believers. Evidence without faith and unregenerated reason is subject to all kinds of misinterpretations. Faith is the necessary prerequisite in order to arrive at an adaquate interpretation of the evidences. Man willingly and sinfully treats God's evidence unethically. Paul was unambiguous on this point in Romans one.<br /><br />While historical and scientific evidences may indeed be edifying to one's faith, they can never serve as the basis for faith or the basis for accepting the testimony of Scripture. In other words, the Bible is not reliable because there is good extrabiblical support for it. There is good extrabiblical support for it because it is true. I do not deny evidence a place in evangelism or in apoologetics. I merely insist that we make sure it is located in its proper place.<br /><br />Some evidences that should convince men of the truth of Christianity are as follows: the existence of the Church; observation of miraculous changes in Christian converts; the testimony of conscience and creation; the historical facts of the risen Christ recorded in Scripture; the ministry of the Holy Spirit convincing the world of sin. These evidences are more than enough justication for accepting the truth-claims of the Christian worldview. Moreover, these evidences do not stop at the place where we can say that Christianity is probably true, or that it is highly probable that God exists, or that the Christ event probably happened, or that the Bible is very likely the Word of God. As a presuppositionalist, and a biblical fideist, I claim with certainty that these things are absolutely true. Moreover, I claim that all the evidence I need is that evidence that is directly contained within Scripture, to include those outward manifestations produced directly by Scripture. In other words, all my evidence is indissolubly attached to Scripture.<br /><br />I will say it one more time: historical, scientific, and archeological evidence is edifying to the faith. It is useful for exegesis. It can correct misinformation. Evidence is a very good thing so long as we use it ethically, so long as we use it faithfully, and keep it in its proper place.<br /><br />I hope this clarifies my position.<br /><br />Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05761345786829868810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27998548207791793932013-02-05T21:19:51.207-05:002013-02-05T21:19:51.207-05:00Missed this from Steve above:
That said, I imagin...Missed this from Steve above:<br /><br /><i>That said, I imagine the argument goes something like this: There is no known or plausible technology back then which could produce the image by natural means. Therefore, all available evidence points to miraculous production. Why would God miraculously produce an image of a crucified man other than Jesus?</i><br /><br />Really?<br />One I didn't think the argument was for a miraculous production of the image but rather just an unusual production, because if we are talking miraculous we are in CtC territory/Raiders of the Lost Ark camp.<br />Two, if the Second Commandment forbids images of any person in the Godhead, why would God produce or allow to be produced an image other than to try the faith of the elect?<br /><br />IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism. My bad. I merely thought it was more of a reformed site. <br /><br />Thank you. RPVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812675463969384709noreply@blogger.com