Let’s begin with a true story and then an analogy related to Christian apologists.
A bank teller once told me of a customer who had a checking account demanded to know why her checks were being returned to her with an overdraft service charge. The teller explained to the lady that her bank account was overdrawn. The customer demanded to know how such a huge mistake could have happened due to the fact she still had an entire checkbook full of checks!
Ironically, all apologists must finally use circular reasoning since their God has been objectively mute for two-thousand years. Thus, the Bible is God’s revelation to humanity. How do we know? Because the Bible tells us it’s God’s revelation to humanity. How do we know God is mute, because God's last recorded statement was at The Transfiguration: “This is my beloved Son: hear him.” is nothing but a worthless statement of theology to sell Jesus to the Jews.
When pushed into a corner debating a moral, ethical or scientific question, Christians like Luke Breuer will hunker-down and draw the line of defense by quoting verses from their source of absolute truth; the Bible checkbook.
So what do we need to defeat if Christian apologists are to be cut off from their theological foundation of truth? The Bible, period! Shut down the Bible, and you've shut down the theological mouth of God. For, without the Bible, Christian apologists are now lost in the vast theology of the world’s religions. That is, to continue to argue divine truth is now anathema or even blasphemy to the exclusiveness of the Biblical God and its savior, Jesus Christ. It also renders useless is the entire missionary theme of the Bible and negates the work all current and past Christian missions. Let’s once more continue with our bank analogy and see how the Bible falls apart.
Sadly for both Marshall and Breuer, they have written apologetic checks on a bogus bank (Heaven) which has a negative balance in historical Biblical facts that neither have taken the time to verify. For all apologists, both their Bible bank’s routing number (textual origins) and checking account numbers (theology) are totally bogus! By bogus I referring to the fact that any historical trail of the Bible’s Old Testament totally vanishes into thin air as the Bible textual trail is traced back past the 200 BCE time line.
Neither Breuer nor Marshall are able to explain how such detailed Biblical conversations have not only been recorded, but preserved for up to 4,000 years between God and humanity. How such detail conversations any different from the rest of the 295 forged Biblical texts which also have detailed conversations between God and angles, God and humanity and finally, humans with humans. Finally, when placed in its historical context, just how these canonized texts differ from non-canonized text and why canonized Bible books chosen due to theology are nothing more than works of pure fiction.
This can’t be presented any clearer than the fact that I have now raised the offer to $100.00 to anyone who can provide me with proof (dated textually meaning a verse written on baked clay, stone, plaster, potshards, papyri or vellum) preserving a single verse (out of the Old Testaments 23,145 verses) dated before 200 BCE. So what is the response from Christian apologists (especially from Breuer and Marshall)? Crickets!
Made aware that their Bible checkbook's routing number (the historical base for the Old Testament) is bogus, they want to then shift the debate to the fact that at least Bible’s checking account (the New Testament), is genuine. Yet when pressed again for the funds (textual and historical facts) that any of the New Testament can be placed with certainty before 200 CE, or that any of the New Testament texts can be directly linked to Roman Palestine, or that any of the Gospels can be proven to have been composed in Aramaic or Hebrew; again: Crickets!
Ironically for both Breuer and Marshall (like all the other Christian apologists who come to DC hoping to prove theological “truth”), they need the debate to at least begin at a historical point where the Bible’s routing and checking account numbers will be accepted at face value. Again, when pressed for historical facts , apologists (especially Breuer) comes out swinging . . . quoting Bible verses like circular reasoning was the salvation of all logic.
To get around this glaring fact of vanishing textual history, both Breuer and Marshall must argue from theology. That is, they do what I term fishing (much like phone scammers, but (ironically) Breuer and Marshall appear to be totally unaware or more likely in denial about their Bible’s textual reality. Ironically also, many of the atheists and agnostics who take Breuer and Marshall on seem to be totally unaware that these two Christian apologists are writing apologetic challenges to their secular critics from their bogus Bible checkbook. Even though Breuer and Marshall are just as sincere as the lady I described in the opening of this post, their checkbook of Bible truths is historically bankrupt and forged! If apologists want to disagree, then let's see your textual proof!
Neither Breuer or Marshall have faced the fact that their Bible has not only lied about its own textual past, but the fact that Christian apologists (like them) have been running around the internet waving their forged Biblical checks as real while apologetically threatening to write that big $100,000 check of truth that will sink all secular logic. Yet neither of these crusading apologists has ever taken the time to find out who created their checkbook of eternal truths, though many have accepted their theological Bible bank totally on faith hoping to demand payment in full upon death.
Explanations for Luke Breuer and David Marshall (or Any Christian Apologist) to Answer:
A. Apart from myth and superstition, please name at least one scientific discovery the Bible has given humanity.
B. Please explain how theology is a valid approach to logic, especially in making the world a better place.
C. Based on medieval monasteries, please explain why books in these libraries were organized by monks based on truth and knowledge of the time and why in our scientific age, this order is totally reversed: 1. The Bible 2. Theology 3. Philosophy 4. Medicine Is now: 1. Medicine 2. Philosophy 3. Theology 4. The Bible
D. Please explain how any theology that justifies “C” above can ever be taken seriously.
E. Please explain why human knowledge is condemned in Genesis 3 with humanity eternally punished, yet the very same knowledge (gained by eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge) now must be used by Christian apologists to defend the very God who has cursed humanity forever.
F. Please explain how the Bible is any different from the mythological world of other false religions or why the Bible can’t objectively face itself in the historical religious mirror without denying reality.
G. Please explain why the Bible (The Word of God), which reveals absolute truth must be constantly defended especially in societies (such as the United States and modern Europe) that have freedom from religion.
H. Please explain why God, outside of the Bible, is seen functioning only though subjective interpretations and why the words faith, theology, or God are NOT found in Black’s Law Dictionary and why such words so vital to theology and doctrine as constantly argued by apologist would never hold up in a modern court of law.
I. Please explain why no other field of objective inquiry is fixed on unproven dogma for 2,000 plus years, especially dogmatic religious faith that continually fails to provide advancement in stopping human suffering.
J J. Please explained why a self professed ancient work known to Christianity as the Old Testament claiming to record at least 4,000 years of world history directed by God vanishes into thin air before 200 BCE.
K. Please explain why, apart from the New Testament’s Gospels, a Historical Jesus fails to have left any mark in Roman Palestine apart from the dubious comment of Josephus.
L L. Please tell us, apart from theology, how you KNOW the Bible is objectively true.
M. Based on the above answers, please explain why any future apologetic objections should be taken with little more than a grain of salt.