Topic: Comments and Questions

Date: 01/29/2016

By: David Johnson

Subject: Existence of God

There are a number of things on this website that are very interesting, but the articles Apologetics: Copleston-Russell Debate (1948) - Part 1 The Argument from Contingency and Apologetics: Copleston-Russell Debate (1948) - Part 2 The Religious Experience and Moral Argument are distinctively unenlightening and boring. It seems that the best argument for the existence of God would be to simply point out the different people who have seen God, spoken to God and were spoken to by God; as well as the testimonies that when people do or live as God has commanded, it works just as He says it will. I suppose this is too obvious for the intellectual approach. However, if living the gospel in mortality works as advertised, it is much easier to have faith that it will work as advertised after this life.

—————

Date: 04/09/2017

By: Dan

Subject: Re: Existence of God

I am going to agree and disagree with you. That is not as fence-sitting as it may sound. I do agree that we do not need to prove empirically the existence of God. I believe (by the testimony of Paul in Romans and other places) that God reveals himself to everyone. Therefore, it is the denial of that revelation that marks the unsaved. Further then, testimony and life experience should have persuasive influence. However, the unregenerate mind thinks it holds to a higher standard when demanding a reasoned proof rather than testimonial proof. That's where Copleston and others shine. What the reasoned debate proves is not necessarily the existence of God, but rather the futility of the unsaved claiming a higher standard in reason. Even the best of non-Christian reasoned arguments cannot destroy the reasoned understanding of belief in God (or Christianity for that matter). To knock out a pillar upon which the unsaved mind is resting forces that non-Christian to grapple further with the idea of God. And that further grappling is what often leads to surrender and acceptance of God (e.g., C.S. Lewis).

—————

Date: 03/01/2011

By: Brenda

Subject: Acts 29

Will you be commenting on the Acts 29 guys--a group of preachers--at some point?

—————

Date: 03/02/2011

By: Dan

Subject: Re: Acts 29

Yes, I believe I will. Not sure yet when that will be though.

—————

Date: 03/01/2011

By: Brenda

Subject: Saul/Paul

I find it odd that I've lived this long before anyone (teacher, preacher, etc.) has pointed out that Saul was an Aramaic name and Paul a Greek name. It's that simple. I've heard the two names linked to the two sides of his conversion.

—————

Date: 03/02/2011

By: Dan

Subject: Re: Saul/Paul

Well...maybe it's not exactly that simple. The names don't mean exactly the same thing. First, many think that Paul derives from the Latin Paulus. In Latin, the name means "small." But actually Paul's use of the name probably derived from the Greek Paulos, which means "at rest" or "one who is at rest (or at peace)." Saul means "prayed for." So while the two names are from Hebrew/Aramaic (Saul) and Greek (Paul), they are not simply the same name in different languages.

My guess is that Saul took on the name Paul as he went to the Gentiles because of a compilation of reasons: (1) the name Saul was distinctly Hebrew/Aramaic, and he didn't want that to define him, (2) the name Paul sounded a lot like Saul, and (3) the dramatic change of his conversion did transform him from someone who needed to be "prayed for" to someone who was "at peace (rest)."

So, then, more than Luke swapping names because one was used while he was dealing with the Jerusalem church and the other as Paul went to the Gentiles, it is actually Paul himself who probably thought up and instituted the name change.

—————

Date: 03/04/2011

By: Brenda

Subject: Re: Re: Saul/Paul

Well, then I sort of misunderstood--not knowing Aramaic or Greek trips me up sometimes. Not two versions of the same name, but definitely an Aramaic/Hebrew name and a Greek name. Still, I don't think I'd ever had anyone explain it like that. Makes sense, though.

I wonder who started the conversion story--that Paul changed his name because he was converted. Well, I guess he did, though--it wouldn't have mattered, having an Aramaic/Hebrew name, if he hadn't been converted. Thanks for the details!

—————

Date: 06/08/2014

By: Smithe554

Subject: John

Hey esto es un gran poste. Puedo utilizar una porcin en ella en mi sitio? Por supuesto ligara a su sitio as que la gente podra leer el artculo completo si ella quiso a. Agradece cualquier manera. dddfdgagdbeddkde

—————

Date: 08/15/2014

By: Smitha233

Subject: John

Great article post.Really thank you! Fantastic. fkabfffaaeadakcf

—————

Date: 10/14/2014

By: Smithd843

Subject: John

Pretty portion of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to assert that I acquire actually enjoyed account your blog posts. Any way I will be subscribing in your augment or even I fulfillment you access constantly quickly. ffdfdfdckbedaega

—————