[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96 [21:11] Q

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96 [21:11] Questian (serenity@slip190.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [21:11] whoa [21:11] greetings [21:11] with logic, reff...etc [21:11] re Questian [21:11] the saint somebodys prayer that defines your beliefs [21:12] Hi question....got a question? [21:12] X: the Nicene Creed? [21:12] hi question! [21:12] X: the Apostles' Creed? [21:12] yea yea [21:12] thats it!! [21:12] nicene [21:12] hmmmm [21:12] Yup, it says "Giver of live" [21:12] Does anyone here know masterq [21:12] no, it's "giver of live", as in "live ammo" [21:12] it sez "giver of live [21:13] :-) [21:13] hehehe [21:13] lol [21:13] Questian is ~serenity@slip190.UCS.ORST.EDU * > http://www.orst.edu/~collets/deism.htmlQuestian on #Apologetics @#deism [21:13] very good [21:13] Nick change: Alcuin -> Answier [21:13] Answier, lol [21:14] Ned: what's the popint of pasting my whois? [21:14] point, that is [21:14] yeah, whawhat's ththe popoint? [21:14] Questian: Saves everyone a lot of typing... [21:14] :-) [21:14] Action: NedFlndrs thinks it is interesting [21:14] Answier to the Questian [21:14] :) [21:14] Action: NedFlndrs allways does a whois :) [21:14] OK [21:14] the /whoismeister [21:14] lol [21:15] heheheh [21:15] Action: NedFlndrs is nosey [21:15] It's your channel. [21:15] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: You've got Questians? We've got Answiers! [21:15] #deism??...... [21:15] :-) [21:15] interesting [21:15] Action: Questian is nosy too, but I don't let everyone know that [21:15] Questian: You can whois is, too, by typing "faq" without the quotes, followed by the nick you're interested in... [21:15] NedFlndrs is dananova@ppp38.snni.com * NunyaNedFlndrs on #Apologetics NedFlndrs using SanDiego.CA.US.Undernet.org [] CONNECTnet UUnet/MCI serverNedFlndrs has been 16 seconds idle, Fri Apr 19 16:09:00 signon timeNedF lndrs End of /WHOIS list. [21:16] At least, that's the theory... [21:16] OK [21:16] hehe [21:16] uh oh [21:16] lol [21:16] watch the lightning [21:16] Ned: what about #deism? [21:16] c'mon [21:16] lol [21:16] hehe [21:16] nope [21:16] Apolo...you better re-think that answer [21:16] lol [21:17] lol [21:17] lol! [21:17] cute; more of the xian caricature, of course. [21:17] uhh ohhhhh [21:17] needs work... [21:17] you ppl better get to work on those faqs! [21:17] Questian: How did you come to settle on Deism? [21:17] Chem2555 (estoeben@cs500-1.sl005.cns.vt.edu) joined #apologetics. [21:17] hi [21:17] Nick change: Answier -> Alcuin [21:17] huh? [21:17] hi Chem [21:18] Question..If you have a resolve against Christianity...please throw it out.....But semantical statements are not needed [21:18] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Non-Deism [21:18] you put in a faq for deism before atheism?? [21:18] Questian: You're a deist? [21:18] Hi, Chem [21:18] I don't understand your last remark [21:18] hi chem! [21:18] Ned, that is [21:18] Hi Chem [21:19] Alcuin: yes i am [21:19] Question.......remarks that are synical and sarcastic [21:19] But I don't accept the xian caricature of the philosophy. [21:19] That's an atomic verse for Chem. [21:19] Ned: Did I make such a remark? [21:19] you slay me Al [21:20] Questian: Do you accept philosophical analysis of the philosophy? [21:20] that's the best kind [21:20] Question.....thats an assertion...I asked for a resolve [21:20] Ned: "resolve" - as in a debate? [21:21] Question....lol....yes that is what a resolve is :) [21:21] nice and simple [21:21] Action: NedFlndrs sicks a herd of Angry Chihuahuas on ProfG [21:22] I've never been involved in *formal* debates so I don't tend to think in such terms, Ned. [21:22] Action: Alcuin hands ProfG a moist towelette [21:22] Question...now is the time to start [21:22] heh [21:22] Questian: Is there a reason that you endorse deism, or is it more of a personal preference? [21:23] OK, Ned, my resolve is that deism, as embraced by most historical deists, did not entail an absentee, uncaring creator; merely a non-controlling one. [21:23] My reasons are highly philosophical, certainly not whimsical or emotional or particularly personal. [21:24] Roswell (czege@ppp9-t.gatecom.com) joined #Apologetics. [21:24] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: atheism Atheism ("a" = no, "theos" = god): Asserted belief that there is no God; alternatively, asserted disbelief that the re is a God. [21:24] thats a mere statement of discription.......a better resolve would be that it is superior to Christianity??...correct? [21:24] oops [21:24] heh [21:24] Correct, since christianity is false, IMO. [21:24] prof>>lol.....you ok man? [21:24] Question...ok....how so? [21:24] duh, .topic instead of .faqset... [21:24] lol [21:25] heh heh [21:25] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Non-Deism [21:25] Questian: is there a particular expression of deism that you find compelling? A particular philosopher or school, for example? [21:25] Sue...would you like to have this one with Question? [21:25] lol [21:25] Action: NedFlndrs is evil [21:26] yeah and Ill chair the meeting blindfolded! [21:26] Yes - Charles Hartshorne, with the proviso that he perfers the term neoclassical theism, but it's essentially the same. [21:26] or prefers [21:26] I will be watching tho :) [21:27] It's Questi*a*n, btw, not to be picky, but it's not as tho I've unwittingly mispelled "question" [21:27] Nick change: ProfG -> PrafG [21:27] HARTSHORNE CHARLES HENRY 1802-1865 [21:27] may I call you Q ? [21:27] Sure [21:27] Im a lazy typist... [21:27] Thanks :) [21:27] heheheh [21:27] HARTSHORNE CHARLES HENRY 1802-1865 [21:27] May I smack you sue? [21:27] No, Charles Hartshorne (1897- ) [21:27] It must be the latter one. [21:27] Action: NedFlndrs smacks Sioux over the head with a big book [21:28] HARTSHORNE CHARLES 1897 [21:28] OUCH :fi [21:28] his son? [21:28] yup. Prolific creature, wasn't he? [21:28] lots of children? [21:28] NadFlundrs [21:28] lol [21:28] praf? [21:28] No, I don't think so. Anyway that would be biologically impossible. [21:28] :-) [21:28] ;-) [21:28] Nick change: NedFlndrs -> NadFlundr [21:29] newsong (newsong@ joined #apologetics. [21:29] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: Tha Hame af Ratianal Thaism [21:29] new :-) [21:29] Preeminent exponent of process theology/philosophy. [21:29] LOL!!!! [21:29] hame? [21:29] Nick change: Sioux -> Saoo [21:29] Nice one, Apolobot! [21:29] teehee [21:29] HARTSHORNE CHARLES 1897 [21:29] Nick change: Saoo -> Sioux [21:29] Questian: [21:30] So, you find process philosophy intellectually tenable? [21:30] What is process theology? [21:30] Nick change: NadFlundr -> NedFlndrs [21:30] Action: PrafG is lost on process philosophy, and hands the ball to Alcuan [21:30] Roswell: It's a dialectical construction of theological issues. Emphasis on dynamics of change. [21:31] More so than traditional theism, yes, not to say it's entirely free from problems. [21:31] NED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [21:31] theological thesis/antithesis/sythesis, Al? [21:31] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( newsong )))))))))) [21:31] Uh, *definitely* not to say it's entirely free from problems... ;) [21:31] hi newsong! [21:31] ProfG: do you consider yourself an expert on apologetics (considering you have a website)? [21:31] synthesis even [21:32] Praf: that's one way of configuring it, yes. [21:32] Newsong....How are ya??? [21:32] an "expert"? haha [21:32] I have some knowledge in the area, Q [21:32] great....in the joy of the Lord [21:32] Nick change: PrafG -> ProfG [21:32] expart??...yus thut would bee Praf [21:32] Questian: Are you fond of Whitehead, btw? [21:33] Alcuin: would those comprising the Jesus Seminar then be "process theologians"? [21:33] heh [21:33] OK, I just wondered since you aren't familiar with process phil., a major alternative to xianity in the philosophical marketplace - no disrespect intended. [21:34] It involves, among other things, some *rigor*... [21:34] Alcuin: more fond of CH & David Griffin than Whitehead, but WHitehead was a great man. [21:35] perhaps I know it under a different name, Q [21:35] sure, perhaps. [21:36] I am currently building a deism website & have a few arguments *for* a creator out there, but nothing contra christianity yet. [21:36] Roswell (czege@ppp9-t.gatecom.com) left #Apologetics. [21:36] so is the main objection to the christian God is that he intervenes sometimes as opossed to never [21:37] ? [21:37] Questian: You may be interested in passing a bit of time here. You'll come across some of the more important obstacles to rejecting Christianity.... [21:38] I am always open to dialog in a spirit of good will. [21:38] Chem2555 (estoeben@cs500-1.sl005.cns.vt.edu) left #apologetics. [21:38] Should you choose, you'll also come across compelling reasons to reject deism ;) [21:38] The *Creator* has a few questions, I would suspect, for you also......Q [21:38] Xpressor: the xian god, being omnipotent, elects to intervene seemingly whimsically or inscrutably. [21:39] newsong: He monitors the group, but seldom pipes in. Whenever He does, he get's /whois'd like crazy! [21:39] Alcun...hehehehehe [21:39] Questian: the omnipotent God acts non-arbitrarily and self-consistently [21:39] Alcuin: I was once a devout evangelical Christian, so it is likely that I've heard most of the apologetic approaches, but you might surprise me. I'm open. [21:40] hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....that's unusual.....I know the Creator as very Vocal...Alcuin [21:40] I wonder if you are, though. [21:40] Action: Alcuin observes that newsong has been reading her bible [21:40] hehehehehe,,,, [21:40] Questian: I'm willing to submit to your judgment as to whether I'm open. [21:41] Questian: I would hazard the guess, however, that you haven't heard the apologetic approach that will likely be offered to you here.... [21:41] Alcuin: well, is it even conceivable that you're wrong in your belief? [21:41] Perhaps I haven't, feel free to procee [21:41] Questian: what is your response to the transcendental argument for the existence of the Christian God? [21:42] Outline it for me, please. [21:42] Simply put, the proof of the existence of the God of the Bible is that without His existence, one could prove *nothing* [21:43] so it's an epistemological reductio ad absurdum? [21:43] e pluribus unum, even [21:43] Questian: I prefer to put it less simply, however. It employs a reductio argument. Technically, it's a transcendental argument, if you're into the lingo.... [21:44] habeas corpus [21:44] That is my own favored approach to metaphysical argument (very presuppositional), I just don't see how it can yield the *christian* god. [21:44] Questian: yes, this is the place for you then. Most ops here favor presuppositional apologetics [21:45] more than evidential apologetics [21:45] Alcuin: sometimes I'm into the lingo; other times it makes me laugh; depends on my mood. ;-) [21:45] Interesting. I would argue that the specifically Christian model of God is a necessary precondition (in the TA sense) for epistemology, ethics, science, etc. [21:45] for example, "qua" never fails to crack me up, I'm not sure why. [21:45] Yup! It's right up there with the ubiquitous "ceteris paribus" [21:46] So you think omnipotence is essential. [21:46] Action: Questian laughs [21:46] yes [21:46] and Alcuinus Yaleus [21:46] heheheh [21:46] "Yalensis" actually [21:46] oops [21:46] my bad [21:46] heh [21:46] hehe [21:46] from a "historically Calvinist school in New England" [21:47] Questian: Yes, I not only think that omnipotence is essential, but I argue that a denial of it undermines the possibility of denial *qua*... [21:47] heheheh [21:47] Questian: Or should I say, "denial _tel_quel_"... [21:48] ok, that will be quite enough of that! [21:48] Questian: So, *have* you encountered a specifically christian transcendental argument before? [21:48] Give me an author or two to refresh my memory [21:49] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [21:49] Cornelius Van Til [21:49] Greg Bahnsen [21:49] John Frame [21:49] I read an essay by Van Til a long time ago - can't even recall name. [21:49] (sorta) [21:49] Well, for transcendental arguments as such, you'd want to look at Stephen Arndt, for example. [21:49] Bahnsen - on the web now, I think I saw a reference to him; haven't read him [21:50] Bahnsen has a book coming out on Van Til's apologetic [21:50] I could check out some of his material & later respond to it. [21:50] http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant/ Questian [21:50] thanks [21:50] Questian: He was a philosopher of the early 20th c. Studied under A. A. Bowman at Princeton. Won a couple of awards for his work on Whitehead, actually.... [21:50] The preceding refers to Van Til, btw. [21:50] Does that school of thought cohere well w/ Plantinga's approach [21:51] ah [21:51] Alcuin: what is the guy's name that Icarus (loathian) likes so much? [21:51] Plantinga! that's the guy! [21:51] Plantinga doesn't use a transcendental argument, though. He's more of a neo-Reidian. [21:52] better off with Van Til, Bahnsen, and Frame [21:52] personally speakin as a novice grunt ..i'll take what he gives ..even if its when he feels its right to give it ..who am i to tell him what is right [21:53] Plantinga I'm more familiar with; I attended a lecture by him recently, too. [21:53] Questian: Plantinga and Wolterstorff provide considerations that are in some measure consistent with the TA that Van Til developed; the latter, however, provides argumentation more than analysis, while the former are more descript ive and analytical. [21:53] At Oregon? Or at Notre Dame? [21:54] Oregon State. [21:54] In January. [21:54] A refutation of naturalism. [21:54] Does his notion of epistemic warrant as "proper function over an effective design plan" ring a bell? [21:54] One of the few things I agree with from him. [21:54] brb [21:54] That's how he construes it, yes. [21:55] back [21:55] ChuckF (me@ joined #apologetics. [21:55] Acolyte has it from someone at SCCCS that Bahnsen's book on VT will be printed in 1997. [21:55] ChuckF (me@ left #apologetics. [21:55] hiya chuch [21:55] chuck even [21:55] brb [21:55] Alcuin (an153611@ left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical! [21:55] 97????????????? [21:55] oh no [21:55] not 97 [21:55] JimG (me@ joined #apologetics. [21:56] hi again Chuck [21:56] So: to give you & your way of thinking a fair shake, I wd do well to check out Van Til, Bahnsen & Arndt. [21:56] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line28.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [21:56] There.... [21:56] re Al [21:56] brb....food [21:57] Nick change: NedFlndrs -> Ned_away [21:57] Alcuin: No, "epistemic warrant as "proper function over an effective design plan" was not part of anything I recently read or heard. [21:57] ProfG!!! [21:57] okie dokie, Ned [21:57] Ned...got your ears on? [21:57] Great to see you :) [21:57] JimChuck! [21:57] :-) [21:57] darn [21:57] Well, actually, I'd recommend passing Van Til by. He doesn't write according to the conventions of analytic discourse that we're now all so accustomed to. He's more polemical, and less precise--requires decoding. [21:58] Oh, OK [21:58] hhmm [21:58] Are you going to be around a while, because i must log off for ~1/2 hour or hour. [21:58] have time to answer my questions now Prof? [21:58] But I'll check back later. [21:58] sure, Jim [21:58] we'll be in the middle of another convo, tho... [21:59] ok [21:59] sorry [21:59] no prob at all [21:59] bue quest! [21:59] hang on, Jim [21:59] Questian: I'd like to chat with you more, but I'll be gone later. [21:59] i mean bye [21:59] Questian: Will you be around later this weekend, perhaps? [21:59] Questian: have you read any of the #apologetics logs? [21:59] ANother time then; yes tomorrow evening [21:59] ProfG: Please whois me [22:00] Alcuin is kingtutor@remote4-line28.cis.yale.edu (kingtutor@aachen.gov) [22:00] Alcuin is on channels #Apologetics [22:00] on irc via server lowell.ma.us.undernet.org (News Corporation Undernet Server) [22:00] Yes, I discovered I'm included in a couple under the nick anselm. [22:00] couple logs, that is. [22:00] Thanks. Looks like I'm back to normal. The Blacksburg server was causing that problem.... [22:00] hmmm [22:00] Later [22:00] ah yes, anselm [22:00] Questian: Till then, take care. [22:00] Questian (serenity@slip190.UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [22:00] Jim: still with us? [22:01] Jim: what was your question again? [22:01] yes Prof [22:01] I'm here [22:01] brb [22:01] ok..... [22:01] wasn't it concerning the claims to deity by Christ? [22:01] Xpressor (kgb@slip2.worldaxes.com) left irc: Read error to Xpressor[slip2.worldaxes.com]: Connection reset by peer [22:01] we were talking about the trinity [22:01] uh huh [22:01] yes exactly [22:02] ok, what exactly did you have a prob with? [22:02] beleiving that Christ was God when He was on earth [22:02] i.e...... [22:02] many references to Jesus saying stuff like...... [22:03] "In my Fathers house there are many mansion..."...... [22:03] and so on and so on....... [22:03] If he wasn't God....then he was the biggest fool that ever did walk the earth [22:03] if He was God....... [22:04] then why didn't he just say "I My house there are....." [22:04] ? [22:04] etc [22:04] done [22:04] budso (budman@client59.sedona.net) joined #apologetics. [22:04] oh....brother!!!!!! [22:04] Good evening. [22:04] hmmmmmm... bot lag? [22:04] Ah! Bishop Alcuin. How's the weather in Aachen? [22:04] hiya budso [22:04] It's reigning... [22:05] im sorry you think it's oh brother!!! newsong...it's an honest question from me that i would like to find out about [22:05] Al: 8^) [22:05] hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... [22:05] Jim: but He *did* claim deity... would you like some Scriptural support for that? [22:05] Action: Alcuin observes that JimG is asking a Good Question (tm) [22:05] newsong sings! [22:05] And....how would I know it was *honest*? [22:05] sure why not [22:05] Action: Alcuin observes that men and women of faith *should* ask why they believe what they believe.... [22:05] Jim: who is Lord of the Sabbath? [22:06] Action: budso wonders what is the "good" question? [22:06] budso: JimG is wondering why Jesus referred to God in the third person (no pun intended) if Jesus *was* God. [22:06] newsong......i'm not even talking to you...my question was directed at ProfG.....i don't need this from you [22:06] sorry......JimG....I though we were all in the room...I apologize [22:07] Jim is an honest questioner. Please be kind to them, as the sign says... :-) [22:07] brb...get the Bible [22:07] BOT LAG [22:08] Al or Jim, in which verse? [22:09] Jim: note that Jesus is laying a *direct* claim to deity in Matthew 12:8 [22:09] budso: In all of them. JimG's considering a fully human non-divine Jesus, at least while Jesus was on the earth. [22:09] Action: budso wonders if maybe Bob Dole took a clue from Jesus. "Bob Dole says that you can trust Bob Dole." [22:09] LOL [22:09] Only God, who instituted the Sabbath, is Lord of it [22:10] JimG: How do you understand Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1? [22:10] interesting...i'm not sure i beleive that is what He was sayinig [22:10] what else could he have been saying there, Jim (in context)? [22:10] Alcuin....that isn't what i'm saying either [22:11] Action: budso wonders what the adjective "rational" means when in apposition to "theism." [22:11] BOT LAG [22:12] maybe saying that within Him is the 'spirit' of God....although he's not using the word God......as is the spirit of God within many of us [22:12] ????? [22:12] JimG: I'm sorry. I thought that's what you were saying. What *are* you saying? [22:12] going to Mark 2 1 2 [22:12] I guess I'm lagged. Is Mark 2:1,2 the text under consideration? [22:13] Note that there in Mark, Jesus tells the paralyzed man that his sins are forgiven; the scribes caught the obvious intent of Jesus' words... [22:13] that doesn't say He's God either....to me.....says he preached the word......."the word was with God and the word was God" [22:13] they said, "who can forgive sins but God alone?" [22:14] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line28.cis.yale.edu) left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical! [22:14] Jim: "and the Word became *flesh* and dwelt among us"... [22:14] Praise God...ProfG [22:14] Preach it!!!! [22:14] Jesus replied to the scribes, "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" [22:14] JimG: Notice the interplay in Mark 2:7-10. the point of the healing [22:14] was to demonstrate his authority to forgive sins. [22:14] NO ONE can forgive sins but God [22:14] so there's a simple syllogism here. [22:14] but Jesus said that *HE* could forgive sins [22:15] Prop: Only god can forgive sins. [22:15] Prop: Only God can heal paralytics. [22:15] exactly [22:15] amen budso!!! [22:15] Prop: Jesus can heal paralytics. [22:15] i'm not sure i beleive that is what they are saying either [22:15] exactly, budsop [22:15] maybe there's no hope for me [22:15] lol [22:15] Conc: Jesus can forgive sins. [22:16] there is more, Jim... [22:16] final Conc: Therefore, Jesus is God. [22:16] c'mon, apolobot [22:16] Action: newsong in the "Amen" corner....you know....over there by the choir [22:16] ProfG: Ask pascoe to borrow the new logos 'bot. Way cool. [22:16] in Matthew 7, Jesus speaks of Himself as the ultimate judge who will have authyority to deny entrance into the kingdom of Heaven [22:17] that just talks about evil thing within man???? [22:17] budso: ApoloBot is next on the list for upgrade [22:17] ApoloBot is also a logos bot [22:17] Action: budso hopes that the 'bot responds before the movie starts. [22:17] Sioux (chance@ppp26.snni.com) left irc: God always gives the answers....all we need to do is listen :) [22:18] Action: budso and his son are going to see "Celtic Pride." I'm a basketball fan and my son is a player. [22:18] Prof...i probably beleive that....."the only way into the Kingdom of Heaven is through the son" [22:18] but look, Jim... [22:19] Nomos (pisteuo@kuts11p07.cc.ukans.edu) joined #Apologetics. [22:19] The law has arrived. Time to shape up. [22:19] hehe [22:19] amen [22:19] Action: budso says, "This isn't my cigarette officer; I'm just holding it for a friend!" [22:19] ha Torah veha-Mitzvah [22:19] 1) if no one is good but God alone, and 2) if I am good, then 3) I must be God (Mark 10) [22:19] rrtgoddes (rrtgodes@modem066.magpage.com) joined #Apologetics. [22:20] hello [22:20] Nomos: Somehow the "h" doesn't sound very guttural! [22:20] premise two is incorrect [22:20] but Jesus didn't deny being good! [22:21] RevWillie (wtburns@dialup0.newport.thirdwave.net) joined #apologetics. [22:21] you think that's what Mark 10:18 says? That he is God? [22:21] he did not severely rebuke the man for offering worship to him [22:21] neither did he confirm it either [22:21] Sioux (chance@ppp26.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [22:21] He sorry [22:21] Nite, all. Show starts in 25 minutes. [22:21] budso (budman@client59.sedona.net) left #apologetics. [22:21] because he knew he was sent by the Father???? To professie(sp) ?? [22:22] John: note what happens in Matthew 21:15,16 [22:22] hey nomos [22:22] hi willie [22:22] are we to "revere" you Willie? [22:22] or just God? [22:23] I just want a set of Revere Ware, that [22:23] the chief priests and scribes who saw Jesus receiving the praise "became indignant" [22:23] is all [22:23] ahh [22:23] I often wonder at those who claim that title [22:23] do they expect reverence? [22:23] Prof...there's too many people here to follow you...maybe some other time :( [22:23] Jesus replied, "Have you never read,'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou [God] hast prepared praise for Thyself [God]'?" [22:23] Jim, no don't go [22:23] keep with me here [22:23] ....and this is too important of a subject for me to just not get it all [22:24] it's important, ya know [22:24] afr (arogers@p17.pm2.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [22:24] looks like a fight in #bible [22:24] afr :-) [22:24] newsong (newsong@ left #apologetics. [22:24] you've lost me [22:24] Hi profg and alll [22:24] Did you catch what Jesus said there, Jim? [22:24] there's too much cross talk [22:24] tranquil (user01@lordrich.clark.net) joined #Apologetics. [22:24] Basically it was, "When those children praise me, they are praising God." [22:25] Honeyluv (nan@ joined #Apologetics. [22:25] then of course there is the Gospel of John, where His claims to deity are strongest [22:25] Honeyluv (nan@ left #Apologetics. [22:25] the whole theme of the book [22:26] rrtgoddes (rrtgodes@modem066.magpage.com) left irc: a soul who beholds beauty, becomes beautiful. [22:26] PROFG!!!!! [22:26] i'm having trouble following you [22:26] with all this cross talk [22:26] maybe some other time [22:26] Jim...you do not believe that Jesus is God? [22:26] John 5:23 also [22:26] *sigh* [22:26] sorry..... [22:26] Jim, I've tried to have this convo with you 3 times now [22:27] i appreciate you trying though [22:27] IRC is just like this; it can't be helped [22:27] you get used to it [22:27] hearing they don;t hear [22:27] ok..i'll go elsewhere then.....thanks [22:27] Ned_away (dananova@ppp38.snni.com) left irc: I cant, He can, I think I'll let him. :) [22:27] *sigh* [22:27] sorry to have put you through all this :) [22:28] and i appreciate your efforts..... [22:28] i just want to learn about Jesus [22:28] that is good [22:28] newsong (newsong@ joined #apologetics. [22:28] re new [22:28] yo Prof [22:28] what about him jimg? I just came in, missed earlier statements. [22:28] btw...Prof...are you for real? [22:29] for real? [22:29] for real? [22:29] real.....i.e., Professor [22:29] oh [22:29] heh [22:29] yes [22:29] of? [22:29] of what? [22:29] if I may ask. [22:29] BOT LAG [22:29] Action: ProfG waits patiently [22:29] Professor of Bot Lag..... [22:30] Action: ProfG drums his fingers [22:30] hehe [22:30] Action: ProfG dances a jig or two [22:30] Solitair Prof? [22:30] Action: ProfG builds a prefabricated home [22:30] kewl...jig...Prof [22:31] sealed (dcruden@netport-4.iu.net) joined #apologetics. [22:31] Action: ProfG solves the MidEast crisis [22:31] We could solve the Trinity next. [22:31] hehee [22:31] Action: newsong is a salesperson for lumber yards [22:31] and the Bot STILL hasn't answered [22:31] whew [22:32] and bot fixer [22:32] lol [22:32] a Post'er.......hmmm.... [22:32] What is preterist? [22:32] post? [22:32] I am not post [22:32] Postmillenials.....doesn't fly [22:33] amen [22:33] ; ) [22:33] Preterist: person who believes that many or most of the "end-time" prophecies were fulfilled in the first century [22:33] Action: newsong sings "I'll fly Away, O glory" [22:34] ns...i like that song :) [22:35] there's a place dear to me where i'm longing to be... [22:35] with my friends at eh old country church [22:35] lol [22:35] I never heard of this before who was the first to express this view? [22:35] hehehehe....Jim [22:35] Postmillenialism: Eschatological belief in the victorious advance of God's established kingdom througout history; post-mils believe that the kingdom of God was established with the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Chri st, and [22:35] that He will return at the END of time, once the Holy Spirit has completed His work of worldwide conversion and the Church is "without spot or wrinkle." Ref. Dan. 2:35,44; Matt. 13:33; I Cor. 15: 24-26 [22:36] those need to be put in the bot [22:36] :-) [22:36] What about jere 31: 31-35 [22:36] i.e., the church will become SO perfected...and SO wonderful....that it will be "Christ on Earth......(a little difficult to believe observing the condition of the church) [22:36] what about it? [22:37] : [22:37] no, the BRIDE of Christ [22:37] JimG (me@ left #apologetics. [22:37] what does it matter the "present condition" if the Bible says that the FUTURE condition will be that way? [22:37] eyes of faith, newsong :-) [22:37] The 'church' of Christ is not a building full of people [22:37] amen afr [22:38] amen [22:38] ekklesia [22:38] those called out [22:38] tranquil (user01@lordrich.clark.net) left #Apologetics. [22:38] job (tmay@an21ph.tir.com) joined #Apologetics. [22:39] Whoisthe first to have PRETERIST [22:39] JimG (me@ joined #apologetics. [22:39] .....no....2 Peter 3:3 [22:39] Prof....maybe i'm putting the cart before the horse here [22:39] don't remember, sealed. Ante-Nicene fathers, I believe [22:39] ooopss sorry [22:39] re Jim [22:39] What is Ante-Nicene? [22:40] "ante" before "Nicene" Nicene Creed, foundational creed of Christianity [22:40] Action: afr would suggest the URL [22:40] Triad (giveme@dialup11.newport.thirdwave.net) joined #apologetics. [22:40] circa 300-400 A.D. [22:40] hey nomos [22:40] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/nicene.html [22:40] They based this on what scriptures? [22:41] In order to stand on Postmillenialism.....you must interrept by Allegorical Method [22:41] Triad (giveme@dialup11.newport.thirdwave.net) left #apologetics. [22:41] ok I will have to check it out [22:41] you are a complete biblical literalist then, newsong? [22:41] Sealed. It is well worth a couple of hours [22:41] sealed: I suggest also another URL [22:41] JimG (me@ left irc: [22:42] Hey Prof....can you name any Postmillenialists before Joachim of Fiore? [22:42] Well, Ican't discuss someting I don't know about...... [22:42] I do now I am literalist [22:42] sealed: hang on, getting it... [22:42] I'm sure there probably were [22:42] can't think of any off hand [22:43] Will this at all change the gospel? [22:43] thehope of Glory......Christ in us [22:43] sealed: no, not at all! [22:43] in fact, more hope than ever [22:43] I understand the "grammatical-historical" method [22:43] Nothing said by man will ever change my belief in Jesus [22:44] Then whyisthereso much about pretib, postrib, premil, post mil. [22:45] sealed: I believe the URL is http://jf.org/jflocal.htm -- look under PAPERS for "The Beast of Revelation Revealed" or something like that [22:46] Sealed. Frankly I ignore the whole prospect. He said we would not know and I don't even think about it. [22:46] sealed: the pre, mid, and post trib stuff is all premillenial. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt [22:46] So Prof....you do not see Israel...the literal nation of Israel coming into a golden age??? [22:46] technically speaking, of course, I suppose postmils are also post-tribs, since most believe the tribulation took place in A.D. 70 [22:46] newsong: I see that the Church is the Israel of God [22:46] who was the beast Prof???? [22:46] Nero [22:47] when the church become "perfected"???? [22:47] at the end of time [22:47] ???? say what??? [22:47] what??? [22:47] there, said it [22:47] hehehehe [22:47] he he [22:48] :-) [22:48] But....how can it be....that Israel....literal Israel....will not have a "time" yet tocome...she has not seen what was promised to Abraham yet..... [22:49] newsong: we can go verse-by-verse thru Revelations if you would like to question specific interpretations [22:49] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [22:49] In a everlasting Covenant [22:49] and I can show you with many and sundry verses why the Church is the Israel of God [22:49] if you have a good while [22:49] everlasting Covenant [22:49] well.....that would be tremendous....especially since Rev. says...."Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy..."""" [22:49] amen and amen [22:49] :-) [22:50] Sioux (chance@ppp26.snni.com) left #apologetics. [22:50] so give me specific verses from Rev. whose postmillenial interpretation you question [22:50] But in the Abrahamic Covenant there is specific reference to land real earth [22:51] boarders and geo landmarks [22:51] Nomos (pisteuo@kuts11p07.cc.ukans.edu) left #Apologetics. [22:51] ...you're the Professor!!!!.....i'm just a lowly layperson....only studying to enter ministry. ...(hehehehe) [22:51] heh [22:52] Seriously Isreal is promised to be a nation an evelasting covenant made by God [22:52] but Revelation is a big book, newsong... there must be some verse which you have understood to be interpreted in a premil fashion which postmils would interpret differently [22:53] how can Jesus 2nd Advent be interrpeted as "spiritual"....when His 1st Advent was Literal??? [22:53] sealed: give me chapter and verse, and I will help you to understand what I am saying [22:53] newsong: it is not interpreted that way by postmils [22:53] His second coming is going to be very literal [22:53] what is not interpreted...??? [22:53] Gen chapter 12:1-3 [22:53] then what??? [22:54] newsong: then the end shall come [22:54] (thanks) [22:54] *sigh* bot lag again [22:55] vs two....I willmakethee a great nation, and Iwill bless thee, and make thy name great [22:55] ok... [22:55] job (tmay@an21ph.tir.com) left #Apologetics. [22:56] is the Church not called a "nation" of people, God's people? [22:56] I don't think so, we are a church [22:56] where Christisthe head [22:57] a NATION of priests, no? [22:57] sorry for my typing [22:57] np [22:57] Tell me how PostM...fits the facts of history?????? Prof..G [22:58] is thatin Hebres prof [22:58] newsong: is the Church greater or lesser than it was in the first century? better off or worse off? [22:58] where is the church called a 'nation' of ppl....???? [22:58] hebrews [23:00] I don't think the church can be catagorized simply as 'better off or worse off'.... [23:00] in romans the church (we) are referred to as lambs lead tothe slaughter [23:00] I also see the church age prophetically spoken of by the 7 churches of Revelation.... [23:00] @@@ge15:19 [23:00] newsong: that is nice, but why do you see it that way? [23:00] @@@rev2:17 [23:01] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp5.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [23:01] Hi ned!! [23:01] sealed, ApoloBot is too lagged [23:01] !!!!!!ned!!!!!!! [23:01] re ned [23:01] It is a indicator of how God saw/sees the successes and failures of the church age.... [23:01] re all [23:01] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( sealed )))))))))) [23:02] Hi Sealed [23:02] hello [23:02] newsong: that is not there in the text. You have to be *taught* that. Those were real letters to real churches. [23:02] Ned....did you once go by a nick "gold"???? [23:02] whats up Sealed? [23:02] Ned my first friend on christian chat:)))))))) [23:02] noope.... [23:02] Action: NedFlndrs has allways been NedF;ndrs [23:02] NedFlndrs [23:02] Yes....Prof....but there is the law of "double Reference"....they were literal...but also spoke of prophetically [23:03] "the law of 'double reference'"? where is that law at? [23:03] oh, talking about preterist and postmil, which I am not familiarwith [23:03] Folks- all this has nothing at all to do with my belief in Christ so I'll leave you to your unlearnable prophecys. [23:03] Ned....does "tiptoe thru the tulips"....mean anything to you... [23:03] bye [23:03] bye afr [23:03] afr (arogers@p17.pm2.theriver.com) left #apologetics. [23:03] newsong....lol??...LOL [23:04] ??? [23:04] It is a system of interrpetation under historical/grammetical......not law as in the Bible.... [23:04] refresh me [23:04] hmmmmmmmmmmm....someone else is using your 'nick' [23:04] is that a reference to Calvinism, newsong? ;-> [23:04] no.....NOT Calvinism [23:04] TULIP lol [23:05] newsong....thats is the rumour I hear.....they are into some wierd stuff [23:05] rev2:17 what is your new name? [23:05] Ned...who is 'they' [23:06] whoever is using my nick [23:06] I am NED!!!!!!! [23:06] I guess...Ned [23:06] ahhhhhh!!!!! [23:06] ok, ok, ok, I believer inthe rapture preribulation, the return of Christ with the saints thenthe millin. reighn [23:07] RevWillie (wtburns@dialup0.newport.thirdwave.net) left irc: [23:07] reighn [23:07] Ican't spell tonight must be sotired [23:07] sealed: you have to be *taught* that, it is NOT plainly there, as is the postmil position [23:08] Prof...Let me spell out "double-reference" a little....your students will run into it...I would imagine....??? [23:08] sealed: the "new name" of Rev. 2:17 refers to the new character and identity of those who belong to Christ. [23:08] ProfG, does this postition afect my salvation? [23:08] sealed: you are saved by grace from God. Period. [23:09] it is an eschatological question, not a theological one. [23:09] I agree!!!!!!!! [23:09] yo...professor...what about Daniel's 70 weeks??? [23:09] it is not a point of fellowship (or disfellowship), though many premils have made it out to be one [23:09] what about them, new? [23:11] Our fellowship is in Jesus....I say Amen to that...Prof....in that we can be agreed..... [23:11] I have tiostudy this Iwill lookup what you gave me, its like duh!!!! how can I even discuss sometingwhen I do not even know, the premises, it is so frustrating to be a novice [23:11] true....the greek word for Justified is Diakaoo.....means more than mere restitution from the law....its means as if we had fufillied the law completly....God see us as if we had when are Justified through Christ [23:11] go to those URLs, sealed [23:11] How does PostM....see the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks? [23:12] Questian (serenity@slip184.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [23:12] greetings [23:12] as basically fulfilled, newsong [23:12] Action: sealed :) [23:13] but...how?????.....how did history fulfill them??? [23:13] Action: sealed got togo and duh!!!! myself tosleep... not really I will always lovethe Lord and thank God for saints to encourageme to study [23:14] the BIG question for premils is HOW one can insert a 2000 year "parenthesis" in the fulfillment of the 70 weeks [23:14] i.e., how did 'he' confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven'...in the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end of sacrifice and offering....??? [23:14] bbl [23:14] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp5.snni.com) left #apologetics. [23:15] lag [23:15] sealed (dcruden@netport-4.iu.net) left #apologetics. [23:15] Questian (serenity@slip184.UCS.ORST.EDU) left irc: RL beckons :-( [23:15] newsong: how long was Christ's ministry? [23:16] I was just trying to answer your last question......should I answer this one now? [23:17] and...aren't you interested in double-reference if you're a professor? [23:17] we are throwing questions before answers, no? [23:17] heh [23:17] oh ...oh....is it is '''us'' [23:18] questions before answers, no.....is that european phrasing? [23:18] newsong: yes, but I wanted you to *show* me the basis for double-references [23:18] what shall we discuss first? [23:18] I'm just the beginner here [23:18] newsong: no, I mean we are not answering each other, are we? [23:18] not so fast [23:19] your phrasing is interesting.... [23:19] re Q [23:19] greetings in the Name of Jesus Questian [23:19] Xpressor (kgb@slip2.worldaxes.com) joined #apologetics. [23:19] Q=Mark? [23:19] hi kids! [23:20] i'm waiting for the professor to define the question..... [23:20] new: give me specific verses so that I may answer you more easily please [23:20] sorry [23:20] hehehehe... [23:20] great....but....which one of the questions shall I use a verse for....:) [23:20] heh, take your pick [23:21] non=comittal? [23:22] heh [23:22] ok.....Daniel 9:27 [23:22] Action: Xpressor thinksits very kind of theprof and the other ops to be accessable to us for free!!! [23:23] but xp still cant type! [23:23] how does the postM...see Daniel 9:27 [23:23] are you there??? [23:23] yes [23:23] ok [23:23] VideoBlue (email@qrvlppp106.epix.net) joined #Apologetics. [23:24] just was looking it up [23:24] {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{vidio}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} [23:24] that is the "abomination of desolation"... [23:24] but...before..we discuss...you have interesting phrasing...is that european? [23:25] yep...... [23:25] agreed there [23:25] which was the surrounding of Jerusalem by the Edomites in AD 68, then the Romans in AD 70 [23:25] Well X it's kind of quiet tonight [23:25] European? No, souther ;-> [23:25] yes....that is true [23:25] southern even [23:25] really..... [23:25] coastal southern??? [23:26] NC [23:26] Mountains [23:26] :-) [23:26] hmmmmm....only been to the mountains once...rockies [23:26] can i interupt to ask what the topic is ..or is it too late? [23:26] hee-yuk [23:26] hehehehehe [23:27] so there is the postmil interpretation, new [23:27] the destruction of Jerusalem [23:27] AD 68-70 [23:27] Jesus spoke of it [23:27] re X [23:27] yes....doesn't track Prof..... [23:28] papa2two (papa2two@kit.cat.rrnet.com) joined #apologetics. [23:28] tracks exactly, new [23:28] papa :-) [23:28] Hey Prof! [23:29] How are you? [23:29] Jesus said ....so, WHEN YOU SEE...standing in the holy place the.......etc etc [23:30] if that was "IT".....his terminology was wrong [23:30] new: but crossreference to Luke 21:20-22 [23:30] heheh [23:30] I'm fine, papa :-) [23:30] and you? [23:30] how is the wife? [23:30] Better, at least a little. [23:30] what does that have to do with our discussion...doesn't track??? Prof [23:31] 1) The entire prophecy has to do with Daniel's ppl....and Daniel's city.... [23:31] Questian (serenity@slip184.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [23:31] greetings [23:31] 2)the beginning of the whole period of 70 weeks is definitely fixed.... [23:31] hey Xpressor [23:32] VideoBlue!email@qrvlppp106.epix.net kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: idle process [23:32] newsong: but Jesus refers to THAT specific prophecy in foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem - the "abomination of desolation", etc. [23:32] etc. etc...lost interesting already Prof....didn't make a very impassioned statement for your position.... [23:32] newsong: if the beginning is fixed, why isn't the end? [23:32] the end is fixed.... [23:32] newsong: not according to premils [23:32] Daniel's 70th week.....which has not been yet [23:32] we are in the "great parenthesis" according to premils [23:32] VideoBlue (email@qrvlppp106.epix.net) joined #Apologetics. [23:33] yes.. go on [23:33] the "weeks" went by like clockwork until the end of the 69th... then they mysteriously "stopped" [23:33] and we now wait for the 70th [23:33] Action: papa2two can't stay. See ya all later... [23:33] papa2two (papa2two@kit.cat.rrnet.com) left #apologetics. [23:33] hmmmmmmm [23:33] Action: ProfG waits [23:33] and waits [23:33] and waits [23:33] ;-> [23:33] X: eschatology [23:33] VideoBlue: do you know someone with the nick, masterq? [23:34] parentheses..... [23:34] Intervals....parentheses...happen all over prophetical scripture...what's the beef [23:34] newsong: name one [23:34] AND [23:35] the events of Daniel 9:26..requires a gap....because...... [23:35] newsong: name one where it was foretold that it would occur exactly in this order, but not really [23:35] 2 major events are said to take place AFTER the 69th weeks and BEFORE the 70th week [23:35] VideoBlue: hello? [23:35] 1) the cutting off of the Messiah [23:35] I wasn't ignoring you ... [23:35] 2) the destructiion of the city and temple in Jerusalem [23:35] Sorry I don't [23:35] and for.....NO. 3 [23:36] MATT 23:37-39 teaches that Israel has been set aside....until the restitution of God's dealing with them.... [23:36] Nick change: Questian -> anselm` [23:36] (are you really a professor) [23:36] Nick change: anselm` -> Questian [23:36] newsong: to ask that is not kind. I could ask you "Do you really read the Bible, or just Hal Lindsay and Dave Hunt books?" [23:37] or maybe just Scofield's notes? [23:37] I must assume VideoBlue is away. [23:37] really....let me rephrase......lots of ppl says they are preachers...or this or that...but really aren't....perhaps if we had spoke more often I would know that you are who you are....I apologize for offending you [23:37] but...anyhow...where is the Victory...the Blessing of a Post M view? [23:38] No I am here [23:38] newsong: I am Dean of Students at Miami Christian University (http://mcu.edu/). I also teach Political Science and International Relations at Florida International University, where I am presently completing my doctoral work in Int . Rel. [23:38] wow [23:38] No I am here [23:38] Glad to meet you.... [23:38] I am simply...me... [23:38] he anwered you ..question [23:38] aswered [23:38] ahh, i c [23:39] Action: Xpressor cant type or spell [23:39] new: [23:39] ya [23:39] the victory is definitive with Christ's atoning work, is progressive with the advancement of His kingdom on earth, and is final with His glorious return at the end of time. [23:39] Yes.....the atonement...Praise God.... [23:39] Dionysus (diogenes@becker2.u.washington.edu) joined #apologetics. [23:39] newsong: I was not boasting. You asked if I was really a professor. Those are my partial credentials. [23:39] Right, got it, VB, thanks [23:39] Anybody home [23:39] ? [23:40] hello Dion [23:40] partial credentials??? [23:40] glorious return...yes!!! [23:40] What is going on here? [23:40] how do you tackle....the very elect being deceived....etc. [23:40] Dionysus (diogenes@becker2.u.washington.edu) left #apologetics. [23:40] newsong: I could dcc you a complete c.v., if you wish. [23:40] just...enjoying your wit [23:40] Matt 24:24 [23:40] newsong: I must leave soon, as it is 11:20 p.m. here... [23:41] yes...glad to make your acquaintance.... [23:41] Matt: 24:24 - what about it? [23:41] but I do have a question.... [23:41] I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean by ...advancement of the kingdom...etc... [23:41] newsong: the leaven in the measure of wheat ;-> [23:42] "As surely as I live, ALL the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord!" :-) [23:42] (also preceding verses 22 & 23...from Matt 24 [23:42] newsong: find me again, we can discuss Matt. 24 in depth. :-) [23:42] Prof...that is a millenial promise that will be fulfilled only when JESUS LITERALLY reigns on earth... [23:42] newsong: so YOU say [23:42] :-) [23:42] yes...hehehehe [23:42] Matt. 24 is one of the most misinterpreted chapters in the Bible (in postmils' views, of course) [23:43] we will talk more about it [23:43] but later [23:43] of course....:) [23:43] good night all [23:43] God bless [23:43] bye prof! [23:44] thanx! [23:44] c u all l8r [23:44] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial105.fiu.edu) left irc: Leaving [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_4_19_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank