A Free One for the Apologists

[Jagella]

Hold on to your halos, Christians, but I'm about to agree with you and disagree with Bart Ehrman on an issue. Bart Ehrman insists that miracles cannot be considered historical because they are the least probable of any event. I disagree with Bart's logic because a miracle, improbable as it might seem, might be considered historical if the evidence is good enough.

I think the following is a good example of a miracle we can be assured happened. Let's say Donald Trump holds a press conference (a miracle in its own right). At that press conference our dear president begins to levitate and float around the room defying gravity. The media including CNN and Fox News (bitter enemies) get all of this on camera. The resulting video is very clear and shows that Donald had no tether or any other contrivance that could have lifted him. James "the Amazing" Randi, an arch skeptic of miracles, happens to be at that press conference. He pushes his way past the Secret Service men and carefully examines the President. His face all white Randi gushes in front of the entire press corps: "It's a miracle--a true-blue jen-you-wine miracle!"

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 38 by Realworldjack]

The mainstream view is that Acts is a completely fictional novel.

See Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008); and Richard Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), for the most thorough accounting of this fact (see especially the latter, pp. 17-18), with substantial support in Thomas Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2004), esp. pp. 377-445 (on Acts specifically); Dennis MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003); and John Dominic Crossan, The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2012), pp. 196-217. See also Clare Rothschild, Luke"Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Loveday Alexander, Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts, New Testament Studies 44 (1998), pp. 380-99; and P.E. Satterthwaite, Acts against the Background of Classical Rhetoric, in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce Winter and Andrew Clarke; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 337-80.

Dennis MacDonald points out the shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul share nautical images and vocabulary, the appearance of a goddess or angel assuring safety, the riding of planks, the arrival of the hero on an island among hospitable strangers, the mistaking of the hero as a god, and the sending of him on his way. Pauls resurrection of the fallen Eutychus is based on the fallen Elpenor. The visions of Cornelius and Peter are constructed from a similar narrative about Agamemnon. Pauls farewell at Miletus is constructed from Hectors farewell to Andromache. The lottery of Matthias is constructed from the lottery of Ajax. Peters escape from prison is constructed from Priams escape from Achilles.

Randel Helms has shown that other elements are borrowed from the Book of Ezekiel: both Peter and Ezekiel see the heavens open (Acts 10.11; Ezek. 1.1); both are commanded to eat something in their vision (Acts 10.13; Ezek. 2.9); both twice respond to God, By no means, Lord! (using the exact same Greek phrase, m"dams Kurie: Acts 10.14 and 11.8; Ezek. 4.14 and 20.49); both are asked to eat unclean food, and both protest that they have never eaten anything unclean before (Acts 10.14; Ezek. 4.14).

Acts contradicts Paul's own autobiography in this letters.

For example, we know Paul was unknown by face to the churches of Judea until many years after his conversion (as he explains in Gal. 1.22-23), and after his conversion he went away to Arabia before returning to Damascus, and he didnt go to Jerusalem for at least three years (as he explains in Gal. 1.15-18).

In contrast, Acts 7"9 has him known to and interacting with the Jerusalem church continuously from the beginning, even before his conversion, and instead of going to Arabia immediately after his conversion, in Acts he goes immediately to Damascus and then back to Jerusalem just a few weeks later, and never spends a moment in Arabia.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 35 by AdHoc]

Are you suggesting that if two liars that are usually at odds with each other report the same thing they should be trusted?

If you want an answer to your question, then you should answer mine: Do you know of any instance in which a major news agency fabricated an event out of whole cloth and did so with the cooperation of another news agency that it was very much at odds with?

No I don't but I can imagine that it happens, especially during wartime. Or if they have a similar interests in a particular area.

To answer your question I would need to know what you mean by "liars." Assuming you mean that news agencies sometimes get it wrong perhaps deliberately, I'd still suggest that yes, two or more agencies reporting the same story can be trusted. Even liars probably tell the truth most of the time. Two liars are unlikely to collude to fabricate a story if they are enemies. Enemies don't normally cooperate.

Enemies cooperate all the time. USSR, UK and USA would be the most blatant example.

You didnt really answer my question I think in your hypothetical Trump didnt levitate and the report was fabricated. If I'm wrong please let me know.

OK, if you insist that I tell you if Trump's levitation really happened in my hypothetical scenario, then let's imagine that he did levitate.

It doesn't matter, though. What I asked in the OP is what do you conclude and how do you arrive at that conclusion. Do you accept the evidence presented that Trump levitated, and that the event is historical? Or do you reject the evidence and like Bart Ehrman say that a miracle is too improbable to be accepted as a historical event?

I admit I wasn't expecting you to say that... Did you change what you imagined about the scenario because when I read your OP it felt like it wasn't real but now you're saying he actually did levitate?

I'm not sure what to think about it but I'm still super suspicious of Fox news and CNN so I wouldn't believe it on their reporting alone.

[liamconnor]

Hold on to your halos, Christians, but I'm about to agree with you and disagree with Bart Ehrman on an issue. Bart Ehrman insists that miracles cannot be considered historical because they are the least probable of any event. I disagree with Bart's logic because a miracle, improbable as it might seem, might be considered historical if the evidence is good enough.

I think the following is a good example of a miracle we can be assured happened. Let's say Donald Trump holds a press conference (a miracle in its own right). At that press conference our dear president begins to levitate and float around the room defying gravity. The media including CNN and Fox News (bitter enemies) get all of this on camera. The resulting video is very clear and shows that Donald had no tether or any other contrivance that could have lifted him. James "the Amazing" Randi, an arch skeptic of miracles, happens to be at that press conference. He pushes his way past the Secret Service men and carefully examines the President. His face all white Randi gushes in front of the entire press corps: "It's a miracle--a true-blue jen-you-wine miracle!"

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

I disagree that even the best empirical evidence will convince a person who holds a philosophy that excludes the supernatural. A negative cannot be proved and therefore a skeptic can always hold that some natural explanation lies behind the phenomena.

I also think that the principle of probability is much more complex than is often admitted in discussion; we consistently fail to notice the subjective side of probabilities. For instance, given the number of men that have crossed rivers, it is highly probable that if Caesar wished to cross the Rubicon, he could do so. But how do we discover the antecedent probability of him wishing to do so? I see no way; I doubt before he decided to do so he could tell you.

This problem extends to miracles. What Bart fails to factor in is the definition of miracle: They are acts of God. That they are, by definition, rare acts of God, tells us nothing about how probable it is that he may decide to perform one. If an author wrote a series in which no one had died by the fourth book, it will seem to the characters highly improbable any one of them will die: but of course if the whole design of the series is to kill off a number of them by book six, it is thus immensely probable---indeed, it is certain, that in book six a number of characters will be removed from the plot.

If the Resurrection was always part of God's plan, it does not matter that such events are not peppered throughout history, for they were never meant to be.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 25 by Realworldjack]

...the truth is not subjective to who "accepts" it. Truth is truth whether anyone "accepts" it or not.

True! But simply having the truth isn't enough; we need to know the truth. We are very imperfect in our ability to know the truth. We need to rely on our own judgment and our own perceptions. We also tend to be biased accepting what we like and denying what we don't like. If we do have the truth, then we need to communicate that truth to others which can be as difficult as learning the truth if not more difficult.

It is impossible for the exact reasons you state. It is "biologically and physically impossible."

I never stated that a resurrection is biologically or physically impossible. I said a resurrection may be biologically or physically impossible. Merely asserting the impossibility of a resurrection does not make it impossible.

When it comes to the Resurrection, we do not have, "written stories." Rather, what we have is, "written letters" between different parties, and there is a tremendous difference!

No, we do have written stories. The Gospels are written stories as is the Book of Acts. Written letters can contain stories. Luke I believe is an example of a story in a letter. So you are posting a false difference.

This author had no intention of writing "stories" because he had no idea that anyone else would ever read his letter, and he certainly did not have any idea about what we now call the Bible, and that his letters to Theophilus would one day end up in this Bible.

I'm not sure if I follow your logic. How do you know that the author of Luke had no idea that anybody aside from Theophilus would read his letter? If he didn't think anybody aside from Theophilus would read the letter, then how does that mean he didn't write a story? I can write a story with no intention of anybody reading it. It's still a story.

The bottom line here is, you can simply dismiss these things as stories, and claim they are not evidence, but you would be in error, because not only are they evidence, they are very strong evidence.

Stories can be true, and they can be evidence. Weak evidence, perhaps, but evidence nonetheless.

No, we do have written stories. The Gospels are written stories as is the Book of Acts. Written letters can contain stories. Luke I believe is an example of a story in a letter. So you are posting a false difference.

I wonder if we are not getting hung up on semantics here? Because I am not sure what you mean by stories? What I do know is, the author of Luke did not claim to be telling stories, but rather claimed to be giving an, "orderly account."

Luke 1:3
it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account,

So then, if it is your understanding that giving an "account" of what one claims to be real historical events, are stories then we can agree. However, the word stories many times brings with it the idea that the events may not be intended to be real. In fact, many times in order to be nice, when someone may be caught telling a lie, they will be said to be, "telling a story" when in fact they are lying.

This is why I would rather stick to what the author at least claims to be doing, and he did not claim to be "telling stories", but rather giving an "orderly account" until, or unless there may be reason to doubt such a statement.

How do you know that the author of Luke had no idea that anybody aside from Theophilus would read his letter?

I guess it would be better to say, "he had no intention for anyone else to read the letter." I would also guess that anytime any of us write a personal letter, that we really have no idea if anyone else would read it or not.

My point is simply the author had no intention for anyone else to read it, and the evidence to this would be, only Theophilus is addressed. With this being the case, the author certainly seems to only have Theophilus in mind as he wrote, and he is the only one addressed in bot letters.

My main point though would be that the author certainly had no idea, the letter he was writing would one day end up in the Bible, because it would have been impossible for the author to even know of such a thing. The point here is, the author was not intending for this letter to be as widely read as it now is.

My thinking is, most people have the idea that this author, along with the rest of the authors in the NT, were intending for their letters to be read, always, and forever, when this is not the case at all.

As a real good example of this, lets consider the letter Paul wrote to Philemon. Why in the world would Paul intend anyone else to read this letter besides Philemon?

My main point in all of this is to say, these men never intended to simply be writing stories, for the world to read, as they now are, rather they were addressing different concerns, with different audiences, and we have these letters to now read, as evidence of how they lived their lives.

This is no different then how we claim to know other things from ancient history, which is by reading letters that those such as Caesar and others left behind. They never intended their letters to be read by us, but we have them, and this is the way we claim to know the things that occurred at that time. There is no difference with the things contained in the NT.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 44 by Realworldjack]

I am the one who proposed that, even for a creature with unlimited power, resurrection of the three-day dead, might be impossible:

The short version is, that, you would break more than you fix because of quantum effects.
The tweezers you use to fix one molecule, would break many others.

Though unproven: No one could come up with a mechanism why this would not be the case. Except the definition - being challenged mind you - that God can do anything.

For consideration, V/R

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 44 by Realworldjack]

I wonder if we are not getting hung up on semantics here? Because I am not sure what you mean by stories?

By "story" I mean a written or spoken series of related events. A story can be true, fictional, or a combination of truth and fiction.

What I do know is, the author of Luke did not claim to be telling stories, but rather claimed to be giving an, "orderly account."

A story can be an "orderly account." I don't then think Luke was denying that what he was writing a story when he called it an orderly account.

I guess it would be better to say, "he had no intention for anyone else to read the letter." I would also guess that anytime any of us write a personal letter, that we really have no idea if anyone else would read it or not.

I think that Luke intended that many read his letter and not just Theophilus. The Gospel of Luke seems way too elaborate and lengthy to be merely meant for the recipient. Also, the Gospel of Luke is very similar to both Mark and Matthew. If Mark and Matthew were meant for many people to read, then why conclude that Luke was merely a letter to be read by one recipient?

The point here is, the author was not intending for this letter to be as widely read as it now is.

I think I agree with you here. Probably a billion people or more have read Luke or at least parts of it. Luke maybe didn't even know what a billion is.

My thinking is, most people have the idea that this author, along with the rest of the authors in the NT, were intending for their letters to be read, always, and forever, when this is not the case at all.

At the very least Matthew indicates otherwise. In Matthew 28:19-20 we read (my emphasis):

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Here's another example from Acts 1:8 (my emphasis):

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Why in the world would Paul intend anyone else to read this letter besides Philemon?

Some of Paul's letters may have been meant for only the recipient to read. Philemon might be one of them. However, many of Paul's other letters are way too lengthy and elaborate to be meant for one person only.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 46 by Jagella]

It is pretty certain that:

1) All the gospel writers intended their works to circulate. That Luke addressed his to a single reader is irrelevant, since this was not uncommon. Theophilus may have been a dedicate, or a sponsor. The various explanations among the gospels indicate a wide audience, not to mention the distribution of the material within such a short time frame.

2) Though the gospel writers presented narratives, these were not intended as fictional 'stories'. A major problem on this site has been with connotations. One person reads 'story' and thinks, a narrative, true or false; another thinks 'a fairy-tale'.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 38 by Realworldjack]

The mainstream view is that Acts is a completely fictional novel.

See Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008); and Richard Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), for the most thorough accounting of this fact (see especially the latter, pp. 17-18), with substantial support in Thomas Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2004), esp. pp. 377-445 (on Acts specifically); Dennis MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003); and John Dominic Crossan, The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2012), pp. 196-217. See also Clare Rothschild, Luke"Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Loveday Alexander, Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts, New Testament Studies 44 (1998), pp. 380-99; and P.E. Satterthwaite, Acts against the Background of Classical Rhetoric, in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce Winter and Andrew Clarke; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 337-80.

Dennis MacDonald points out the shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul share nautical images and vocabulary, the appearance of a goddess or angel assuring safety, the riding of planks, the arrival of the hero on an island among hospitable strangers, the mistaking of the hero as a god, and the sending of him on his way. Pauls resurrection of the fallen Eutychus is based on the fallen Elpenor. The visions of Cornelius and Peter are constructed from a similar narrative about Agamemnon. Pauls farewell at Miletus is constructed from Hectors farewell to Andromache. The lottery of Matthias is constructed from the lottery of Ajax. Peters escape from prison is constructed from Priams escape from Achilles.

Randel Helms has shown that other elements are borrowed from the Book of Ezekiel: both Peter and Ezekiel see the heavens open (Acts 10.11; Ezek. 1.1); both are commanded to eat something in their vision (Acts 10.13; Ezek. 2.9); both twice respond to God, By no means, Lord! (using the exact same Greek phrase, m"dams Kurie: Acts 10.14 and 11.8; Ezek. 4.14 and 20.49); both are asked to eat unclean food, and both protest that they have never eaten anything unclean before (Acts 10.14; Ezek. 4.14).

Acts contradicts Paul's own autobiography in this letters.

For example, we know Paul was unknown by face to the churches of Judea until many years after his conversion (as he explains in Gal. 1.22-23), and after his conversion he went away to Arabia before returning to Damascus, and he didnt go to Jerusalem for at least three years (as he explains in Gal. 1.15-18).

In contrast, Acts 7"9 has him known to and interacting with the Jerusalem church continuously from the beginning, even before his conversion, and instead of going to Arabia immediately after his conversion, in Acts he goes immediately to Damascus and then back to Jerusalem just a few weeks later, and never spends a moment in Arabia.

The mainstream view is that Acts is a completely fictional novel.

Of course it is! What in the world do you think this proves? It proves nothing at all, and flies in the face of the evidence we have. And why do you suppose the "mainstream" attempts to make such a case? Well, it is because they realize they must, and have to do so. The reason they must, and have to do so, is because they realize these two letters are very strong evidence for the case for Christianity. Therefore, they have no other choice but to attempt to explain away these letters, but it is all based upon their assumptions!

But let us, (you and I) think more closely about this. "Acts is a COMPLETELY fictional novel." This would mean that the author never intended any of the events to be real, and none of it would be real.

What evidence do we have that this is the case? Well, as far as I can see, it is that the "mainstream" considers it to be, based upon their assumptions. Well then, what would be the evidence to the contrary? Quite a bit my friend as we will see.

First, who sits down in order to write a "COMPLETELY fictional novel, (not one, but two of them because let us not forget the author of Acts is also the author of Luke) and addressed them as if he was writing a letter?

Lets continue to remember Acts, "is a COMPLETELY fictional novel." Well, in this "completely fictional novel" the author, when he begins to tell the "story" of Paul, and his "fictional" journeys, (which by the way we know for a fact that Paul did make journeys) this author naturally begins to use the word "we", and "us" when telling these stories, as if he was actually there to witness the events.

This author continues to use these same words, "we" and "us" all the way, through Paul's journey to Rome, and up through the trail, all the way until Paul was said to be, under house arrest. Now we know that Paul made a journey to Rome, and we also know he ended up under house arrest, so what part of this is "COMPLETELY fictional?"

Oh, and by the way, we have a letter that Paul wrote to Timothy. Paul was under house arrest when he wrote this letter, and in this letter, Paul just so happens to tell Timothy at one point, "only Luke is with me." Now, just who do you suppose is given credit for writing both the "Gospel of Luke", along with, "The Actions of the Apostles?" Well, that would be Luke my friend.

Now, just how do you suppose these two men fabricated such things? Did they sit down together and collude such things? In other words, did they sit down and say, "hey, I am going to write a novel, and in this novel, I am going to begin to use the words, "we" and "us" as if I were there, and I want you to sit down and write a letter, as if you were writing to Timothy and say, I was with you?" Who in the world would believe such a thing? And who would they be attempting to fool, anyway?

It is much easier to believe that these two men actually wrote these letters, and these letters are the by product of their lives, as opposed to working in an attempt to explain them away.

So then, as we can clearly see, claiming, "that Acts is a completely fictional novel" is an extreme overstatement to say the very least, and flies in the face of the evidence.

For example, we know Paul was unknown by face to the churches of Judea until many years after his conversion (as he explains in Gal. 1.22-23), and after his conversion he went away to Arabia before returning to Damascus, and he didnt go to Jerusalem for at least three years (as he explains in Gal. 1.15-18).

In contrast, Acts 7"9 has him known to and interacting with the Jerusalem church continuously from the beginning, even before his conversion, and instead of going to Arabia immediately after his conversion, in Acts he goes immediately to Damascus and then back to Jerusalem just a few weeks later, and never spends a moment in Arabia.

Well, at this point I am not even going to into whether or not these two disagree with each other, because even if they do, this would not have any bearing at all upon whether "Acts" was intended to be a, "completely fictional novel", now would it?

In other words, one or the both of them could be mistaken, or they may not have had their facts exactly right, (and again, this is not conceding the fact) but this would not in any way at all demonstrate that "Acts" was a completely fictional novel.

Also, it seems sort of strange how you focus upon what may seem to you to be a disagreement between the two, while completely ignoring where they agree completely.

So please tell me! If we can come to the conclusion that "Acts" is a "completely fictional novel" because Paul and Luke disagree at one point, what do we do with the many places they happen to completely agree?

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 48 by Realworldjack]

1 and 2 Timothy are known forgeries.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 48 by Realworldjack]

1 and 2 Timothy are known forgeries.

Could you explain how this would be, "known?"