A question to former Christians.

[Realworldjack]

I would simply like to ask any former Christians, (especially those who may have truly embraced Christianity) what was it that caused you to believe Christianity to be true?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

Listen! We have been going at this for quite some time, and seem to be getting nowhere fast? Therefore, I am simply going to attempt to take one thing at a time, in order to determine if we can at least come to some sort of agreement.

I am sure, and have no doubt that you believe you have reasons to doubt the reliability of the author of Acts, by comparing what he has to say with Paul's letters? However, there is no doubt in the least, that these 2 authors, are indeed in line with most of what they have to say.

What you need to attempt to understand is, I have no problem with the conclusions you come to as far as the author of Acts is concerned. In fact, I have no problem with you personally considering this author to be unreliable. I also have no problems with the opinions of those such as "Paulogia". In other words, I am fine with him giving us other possible explanations, which would eliminate the supernatural. However, let us not pretend that what you believe to be discrepancies as far as the author of Acts is concerned, and "Paulogia's" alternative explanations, in any way demonstrates anything at all.

The point is, while you MAY have reasons to doubt the reliability of this author, this does not negate the fact that there are very good, and I mean very good reasons to believe his reports. In the same way, simply because "Paulogia" can come up with alternative explanation which MAY explain the events without any supernatural intervention, this in no way demonstrates his explanations would be correct. In fact, I highly doubt they would be. Moreover, I have heard far better alternative explanations than "Paulogia" gives, but none of these explanations have been demonstrated to be true.

The thing is, you, and those such as "Paulogia" act as if it is just that simple? In other words, he seems to think that the explanations he gives, is all that would have to be involved. However, I really do not believe that he has actually sat down in order to think through all that would have to be involved, in order for any of his explanations to actually be facts? I mean, it is not difficult at all to think of alternative explanations. Heck! I can even do that, and have. However, when one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for that explanation to be correct, they will discover they have not eliminated the incredible, in the least.

It is not as simple as, all these reports were lies, they were deceived, mistaken, or you can put whatever you want in there, and you are still left with a most incredible tale, which has consumed the lives of millions, upon millions, for thousands of years, and this would include those such as yourself, and "Paulogia". That my friend, is incredible!

Of course, at this point, you may want to point to other religions, as many often do, but I have offered to compare Christianity to any other religion you wish, as far as the real historical evidence is concerned, and I believe we will discover, there is no comparison at all.

So then let us take just a few minutes, in order to consider what I would have to believe, in order to have doubts about the reliability of the author of Acts, understanding that this would only be a few things, since we certainly do not have time to mention all of them.

However, before we do that, I would like to just mention that there are those opposed, including some of the scholars, who tell us that what we have contained in the Bible, would have been written decades after the events they are describing. I find this quite comical, because this is exactly what we would expect. Is it not? I mean Paul could not have written most of his letters until decades later. And, if the author of Acts was indeed a traveling companion of Paul, then he could not have possibly have written Acts, until Paul would have been imprisoned, and this would have been late in the life of Paul, which would indeed have been decades. So??????? What's the point here?

Okay, for me to doubt the credibility of the author of Acts, I would have to believe one years later, and more than likely after the death of Paul, went to the trouble to sit down in order to write out not one, but two long and detailed letters as if he were addressing one individual, when he was not, and he explains to this fake individual, that he is writing out all of this information, in order for this individual to, "know the exact truth". I would also have to assume this author just so happens to tell his audience, that he had, "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" as if he would have been alive at the time, in order to do this investigation. Not only this, but I would have to believe, this author just so happens to begin to use the words, "we", and "us" to the describe the events of the travels of Paul, as if he was there to witness the events, but he really did not mean to be understood in this way, but was rather using some sort literary device. I would also have to believe, this author just so happens to begin his second letter, describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, but when Paul comes on the scene, this author begins to focus upon the actions of Paul, where he begins to use the words, "we", and "us", and does not mention the Apostles in Jerusalem again, until, or unless, Paul would have come back in contact with them again. Ergo, I would have to ignore the fact that this is what we would expect, and simply assume, this just so happened. I would have to believe, those far closer in time than we are, were incorrect when they identify this author as Luke. I would have to ignore the fact that we have letters whose author claims to have been Paul, who mentions the name of a Luke, as traveling along with him on his journeys. I would have to ignore the fact that in one of these letters, which would have clearly been written while Paul was under arrest, that he just so happens to mention, "only Luke is left with me". So then, with Paul being under arrest, and mentioning Luke would have still been with him, I would have to ignore the fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus, just so happens to end his second letter with Paul being under arrest.

You know, as I continue to type here, all of this is sounding very familiar? That's right, I believe I have said these things before, and I believe it just so happens to be one of those things you have failed to address. Therefore, allow me to post it again, and maybe you can actually address what I have to say this time?

NO! I am going to stop right here! Because, as I have already demonstrated, I do not have to, "imagine". In other words, I do not have to "imagine" the author of the letters to Theophilus, was only addressing Theophilus, because this would be a fact. What I would have to "imagine" would be, this author may have used the meaning of the name Theophilus, in order to address a wider audience. I do not have to "imagine" this author used the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul, as if he were there to witness the events, because this would be a fact. What I would have to "imagine" would be that he may have been using some sort of literary device. I do not have to "imagine", this author assured Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", as if he would have been alive at the time, in order to do this investigation, because this would be a fact. What I would have to "imagine" is, someone decades later, who would not have been around to witness any of the events he records, just so happens to claim to have been around, when you would think Theophilus would have known quite well if this would have been possible? I do not have to "imagine" that there are those a whole lot closer in time than we are, who attribute the letters to Theophilus to Luke, because this would be a fact. What I would have to "imagine" would be, these folks got it wrong, and did so in order to deceive. I do not have to "imagine" that we have letters in which the author claims to be Paul, (The Apostle) in which this author mentions the name of Luke, as being with him on his travels, because this would be a fact. What I would have to "imagine" would be one who sat down to write letters under the name of The Apostle Paul, who just so happens to mention Luke as being with him on his travels. I do not have to "imagine" we have a letter in which the author claims to be The Apostle Paul, which would have clearly been written while the author would have been under arrest, because this would be a fact. I do not have to "imagine" that in this letter, the author, just so happens to mention to his audience at the time while under arrest, "only Luke is with me", because this would be a fact. What I would have to "imagine" is, someone had the presence of mind to sit down and write a letter under the name of Paul, as if he were under arrest, and just so happens to mention in this fake letter, "only Luke is with me". I do not have to "imagine" the author of the second letter to Theophilus, just so happens to end this letter with Paul being under arrest, because this would be a fact. What I would have to imagine is, someone decades later, wrote not one, but two long and detailed letters, as if he were writing to one individual, and he just so happens to end his second letter, with Paul being under arrest.

You see, I do not have to use my "imagination" in order to know the things which would be facts, as oppose to the things I would have to use my "imagination" in order to believe. Ergo, I would have to "imagine" the letters addressed to Theophilus, are not in any way what they seem to be, but rather, somehow, some way, some author decades later, just so happens to write not one, but two long and detailed letters, as if he is addressing one individual, but he is really not addressing one individual, but is rather using the meaning of the name Theophilus, (which by the way was a common name at the time) in order to address a wider audience.

I then would have to use my "imagination" in order to believe that another author decades later, sat down to write letters under the name of Paul, and the purpose could be nothing but deceit, and somehow, some way, this author just so happens to include things which would just so happen to coincide with the things another author, decades later, just so happens to communicate to Theophilus, who is not an individual.

The whole point I am making is, I do not have to use my imagination at all, in order to believe this author may have been reporting the truth. However, in order to believe, what you would have me believe, I would have to have an enormous imagination.

Again, I want to stress, I am not insisting that you have no reasons to doubt the credibility of the author of Acts. However, I cannot imagine, in my wildest imagination, that anyone could possibly claim, there are no good reasons to believe the author of Acts, may have been reporting accurate information. I do not see how it would even be possible, for one to hold such a position?

In the end, I am "intellectually honest" enough to concede the idea that you MAY have good reasons to doubt the credibility of the author of Acts, while you do not seem to want to concede that there may indeed be good reasons to believe he may have been a creditable witness? Therefore, you seem to want to have it both ways? In other words, you seem to want to insist there MAY be reasons to doubt this author's credibility, however, you seem to concede the fact that you cannot in any way demonstrate this to be a fact. But somehow, even though you cannot demonstrate this to be a fact, you somehow seem to want to insist, there would be no way in which to believe this author may have indeed been a credible witness, when I believe I have demonstrated that one would have to use far more imagination to be under the impression that he would not have been a credible witness, as opposed to one who would not have to use any sort of imagination at all.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #179]

There is one thing I forgot to mention in my previous post. If there were no good reasons to believe the author of Acts is credible, then there would be no need in you attempting to explain to us, why he may not be? In other words, it would be completely obvious. However, since you understand there are indeed good reasons to believe he would be credible, you are forced to attempt to explain why things may not be as they seem.

This same thing would go for those such as "Paulogia". In other words, if there were not good reasons to believe the Christian claims (which Paulogia was a convinced Christian at one time) then there would be no need in him attempting to explain away these reasons, by giving us alternative explanations? In other words, the very fact that you, and "Paulogia" are having to attempt to explain away these things, sort of demonstrates, there is something that must be explained away.

[Realworldjack]

I would simply like to ask any former Christians, (especially those who may have truly embraced Christianity) what was it that caused you to believe Christianity to be true?

It was primarily fear for me. Fear and doubt: what "if" it was true, that there was an eternal Hell, etc.

I believe there is a God and there is authentic religion. But Christianity offered me a skewed picture that created much too much distress over enlightenment.

Thanks so much for the response! Is this to say, there was not a whole lot of logic, and reason involved in becoming convinced Christianity was true? Next, if you do not mind me asking, did you carry these beliefs into adulthood? If so, can you explain how long into adulthood this would be, and exactly how committed of a Christian you were?

Thanks, in advance!

[Dimmesdale]

I would simply like to ask any former Christians, (especially those who may have truly embraced Christianity) what was it that caused you to believe Christianity to be true?

It was primarily fear for me. Fear and doubt: what "if" it was true, that there was an eternal Hell, etc.

I believe there is a God and there is authentic religion. But Christianity offered me a skewed picture that created much too much distress over enlightenment.

Thanks so much for the response! Is this to say, there was not a whole lot of logic, and reason involved in becoming convinced Christianity was true? Next, if you do not mind me asking, did you carry these beliefs into adulthood? If so, can you explain how long into adulthood this would be, and exactly how committed of a Christian you were?

Thanks, in advance!

Reason played a role. It wasn't necessarily ALL emotion or ALL reason, but rather a combination of the two. Really, many different factors; but fear for me was the most prominent. Let me try to explain though how these things were related (in my mind at least).

Take the idea of sin and guilt. These things are both emotional as well as logical. We see in our daily living that there are such things as "laws" and "right" and "wrong." So naturally, if we assume there is a Creator God who is also personal and a law-giver, and we are all His disobedient children, then those categories also apply to Divine justice as well as human justice. I was raised by parents and a society that very much inculcated to me the importance of being a "good kid." I carried this sense of goodness over to the world of faith. Just as I was guilty and fearful over doing some little bad thing here on earth, I also speculated beyond this world and considered the possibility of justice in the next world.

After all, if there is only human justice, then many evil doers in this life seem to get it very easy, and this just doesn't sit right. So that assumes some kind of punishment after death - otherwise justice in general seems very superficial. In my mind I also had a strong sense of right, and this too I applied to God. If there is a punishment after death, this also assumes a punisher. And given the fact that Christianity (Catholicism) was practically the only type of religion I was exposed to, this stood out to me the most. I suppose I could have believed in Islam or Hinduism, but because I was told this, and given reasons as to why the other religions were false, I became most convinced regarding the religion I was raised in.

As I got older I changed in my views drastically, but it took a great deal of time, and only after exposure to many, many different points of view and seeing how they all differed, though with some similarities as well. As time went on I began to see the complexity of reality and how Christianity is largely just one perspective among many others, one that does not have any kind of monopoly on truth even if there are true things in it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #185]

Thanks again for the response! What sort of reason would you say was involved? Was it simply, "Christianity may be true, therefore I may need to adhere to it? Or was there some other reason involved, and would you say this reasoning would have been, good reasoning? Other than that, I am really interested in how long into your adult life you carried this belief, and exactly how committed were you to this belief? In other words, there are those who claim to have carried this belief well into adulthood, and claim they were very much convinced, to the point they spent an enormous amount of time, effort, and money to Christianity.

Thanks again!

[bluegreenearth]

Listen! We have been going at this for quite some time, and seem to be getting nowhere fast? Therefore, I am simply going to attempt to take one thing at a time, in order to determine if we can at least come to some sort of agreement.

I am sure, and have no doubt that you believe you have reasons to doubt the reliability of the author of Acts, by comparing what he has to say with Paul's letters? However, there is no doubt in the least, that these 2 authors, are indeed in line with most of what they have to say.

What you need to attempt to understand is, I have no problem with the conclusions you come to as far as the author of Acts is concerned. In fact, I have no problem with you personally considering this author to be unreliable. I also have no problems with the opinions of those such as "Paulogia". In other words, I am fine with him giving us other possible explanations, which would eliminate the supernatural. However, let us not pretend that what you believe to be discrepancies as far as the author of Acts is concerned, and "Paulogia's" alternative explanations, in any way demonstrates anything at all.

The point is, while you MAY have reasons to doubt the reliability of this author, this does not negate the fact that there are very good, and I mean very good reasons to believe his reports. In the same way, simply because "Paulogia" can come up with alternative explanation which MAY explain the events without any supernatural intervention, this in no way demonstrates his explanations would be correct. In fact, I highly doubt they would be. Moreover, I have heard far better alternative explanations than "Paulogia" gives, but none of these explanations have been demonstrated to be true.

The thing is, you, and those such as "Paulogia" act as if it is just that simple? In other words, he seems to think that the explanations he gives, is all that would have to be involved. However, I really do not believe that he has actually sat down in order to think through all that would have to be involved, in order for any of his explanations to actually be facts? I mean, it is not difficult at all to think of alternative explanations. Heck! I can even do that, and have. However, when one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for that explanation to be correct, they will discover they have not eliminated the incredible, in the least.

It is not as simple as, all these reports were lies, they were deceived, mistaken, or you can put whatever you want in there, and you are still left with a most incredible tale, which has consumed the lives of millions, upon millions, for thousands of years, and this would include those such as yourself, and "Paulogia". That my friend, is incredible!

Of course, at this point, you may want to point to other religions, as many often do, but I have offered to compare Christianity to any other religion you wish, as far as the real historical evidence is concerned, and I believe we will discover, there is no comparison at all.

I didn't ask for your commentary on other people's arguments in this thread. In fact, I explicitly asked you not to respond with a list of complaints about other people's arguments. Pointing out where other people's arguments are invalid, as you've interpreted them, does not justify acceptance of your own argument. You've claimed Christianity is true, and you need to demonstrate that your own argument is justifiable and free of logical fallacies.

So then let us take just a few minutes, in order to consider what I would have to believe, in order to have doubts about the reliability of the author of Acts, understanding that this would only be a few things, since we certainly do not have time to mention all of them.

However, before we do that, I would like to just mention that there are those opposed, including some of the scholars, who tell us that what we have contained in the Bible, would have been written decades after the events they are describing. I find this quite comical, because this is exactly what we would expect. Is it not? I mean Paul could not have written most of his letters until decades later. And, if the author of Acts was indeed a traveling companion of Paul, then he could not have possibly have written Acts, until Paul would have been imprisoned, and this would have been late in the life of Paul, which would indeed have been decades. So??????? What's the point here?

Again, your commentary on other people's arguments does not justify acceptance of your own argument.

Okay, for me to doubt the credibility of the author of Acts, I would have to believe one years later, and more than likely after the death of Paul, went to the trouble to sit down in order to write out not one, but two long and detailed letters as if he were addressing one individual, when he was not, and he explains to this fake individual, that he is writing out all of this information, in order for this individual to, "know the exact truth". I would also have to assume this author just so happens to tell his audience, that he had, "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" as if he would have been alive at the time, in order to do this investigation. Not only this, but I would have to believe, this author just so happens to begin to use the words, "we", and "us" to the describe the events of the travels of Paul, as if he was there to witness the events, but he really did not mean to be understood in this way, but was rather using some sort literary device. I would also have to believe, this author just so happens to begin his second letter, describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, but when Paul comes on the scene, this author begins to focus upon the actions of Paul, where he begins to use the words, "we", and "us", and does not mention the Apostles in Jerusalem again, until, or unless, Paul would have come back in contact with them again. Ergo, I would have to ignore the fact that this is what we would expect, and simply assume, this just so happened. I would have to believe, those far closer in time than we are, were incorrect when they identify this author as Luke. I would have to ignore the fact that we have letters whose author claims to have been Paul, who mentions the name of a Luke, as traveling along with him on his journeys. I would have to ignore the fact that in one of these letters, which would have clearly been written while Paul was under arrest, that he just so happens to mention, "only Luke is left with me". So then, with Paul being under arrest, and mentioning Luke would have still been with him, I would have to ignore the fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus, just so happens to end his second letter with Paul being under arrest.

You know, as I continue to type here, all of this is sounding very familiar? That's right, I believe I have said these things before, and I believe it just so happens to be one of those things you have failed to address. Therefore, allow me to post it again, and maybe you can actually address what I have to say this time?

For the sake of this discussion, I am not claiming Acts was written at any particular time by any particular person. Since you are making the positive claim that Acts was written at a particular time by a particular person, it is your responsibility to provide evidence supporting your claim. Your commentary on other people's arguments doesn't provide me with a justification to move from the agnostic position towards your position.

NO! I am going to stop right here! Because, as I have already demonstrated, I do not have to, "imagine". In other words, I do not have to "imagine" the author of the letters to Theophilus, was only addressing Theophilus, because this would be a fact.

Fact 1: The author of Acts was writing to "θεόφιλος" (Theophilus).

Fact 2: Acts was written in a refined Koine Greek.

Fact 3: In refined Koine Greek, "θεόφιλος" (Theophilus) is a compound word that translates to "friend of God" or "(be)loved by God" or "loving God" and can function as an honorary title for an individual or a group.

Fact 4: "θεόφιλος" (Theophilus) can be a male given name from Ancient Greek.

Fact 5: The author of Luke was writing to "κρατιστε θεόφιλος" (most excellent Theophilus).

Fact 6: κρατιστε means "most excellent" in the Latin Vulgate translation and can refer to a high ranking Roman individual.

Fact 7: There are extensive linguistic and theological similarities between the Luke and Acts as well as the preface of Acts referring the reader to the author's earlier text regarding the life of Jesus.

As far as Acts is concerned, facts 1-4 indicate that "Theophilus" could be referring to either an individual or a group. Meanwhile, it is reasonable to abductively infer from fact 3 and facts 5-6 that the anonymous author of Luke was probably using "most excellent Theophilus" as an honorary title for a high ranking but anonymous Roman individual who was sympathetic to the author's theological perspective (i.e. "most excellent friend of God"). Addressing this letter to the high ranking Roman individual by his or her name would probably have been dangerous for the recipient if the document was intercepted or discovered by forces that were hostile to the theological perspective expressed in the document. Fact 7 justifies another abductive inference indicating that Luke and Acts were probably written by the same author. From those two abductive inferences, a third abductive inference could suggest that the "Theophilus" mentioned in Acts was the same "Theophilus" mentioned in Luke. However, because three abductive inferences are required to justify belief in this claim, a little imagination is necessarily involved. Nevertheless, based on these abductive inferences, it seems reasonable to believe (i.e. imagine) that these two anonymously written letters were addressed to a single individual.

I do not have to "imagine" this author used the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul, as if he were there to witness the events, because this would be a fact.

Fact 1: The vast majority of Acts is written from the third-person point of view.

Fact 2: The third-person point of view is most commonly used by an anonymous narrator who is describing the perspectives of characters in a story where the narrator is not intended to be perceived as an active participant in the plot but doesn't necessarily prohibit that possibility.

Fact 3: The anonymous author of Acts consistently used the first-person plural pronouns "we" and "us" when describing Paul's voyages over the sea and never refers to himself in the first-person singular within that context.

Fact 4: The first-person plural point of view is most commonly used when the narrator is a member of a group of characters that are participating as a cohesive unit in the plot of the story but doesn't necessarily prohibit it from also being used as a literary device.

The facts 3-4 above could potentially provide a partial justification to abductively infer that the anonymous author may have been traveling with Paul. However, acceptance of that abductive inference requires an additional abductive inference to explain the author's sudden and noticeable shift from the third-person perspective dominating the majority of Acts to the first-person plural perspective that is only used in the context of Paul's sea voyages. Is there a reasonable abductive inference that could harmonize facts 1-2 with facts 3-4? Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be a sufficient reason to ignore or dismiss facts 1-2 for the sake of accepting the abductive inference that the author was one of Paul's traveling companions.

I do not have to "imagine", this author assured Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", as if he would have been alive at the time, in order to do this investigation, because this would be a fact.

Fact 1: The anonymous author claimed he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning."

Fact 2: It could be abductively inferred from the phrase, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning," that the person who conducted the investigation was an eyewitness to one or more of the claimed events that were investigated.

Fact 3: It could be abductively inferred from the phrase, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning," that the investigator began the investigation into the claimed events at the time the first of the claimed events had occurred but does not require the investigator to have actively participated in or directly observed the series of claimed events that were investigated.

Fact 4: It could be abductively inferred from the phrase, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning," that the investigator had carefully examined all the evidence collected since the beginning of the investigation and does not require the investigation to have begun at the time the first of the claimed events occurred or the investigator to have been an eyewitness to any of the claimed events.

Since there doesn't appear to be a sufficient justification to ignore or dismiss facts 3-4 above, I cannot rule-out the possibility that the anonymous author was not an eyewitness to the claimed events. Nevertheless, facts 1-2 could provide a partial justification to abductively infer that the anonymous author of Acts may have been an eyewitness to the claimed events. However, acceptance of that abductive inference requires an additional abductive inference to explain the anonymous author's motivation for conducting an investigation into his own account. Is there a abductive inference that could reasonably explain this unexpected and unusual decision by the author to investigate his own account? Would the combination of these two abductive inferences be more plausible than abductively inferring that the anonymous author of Acts was more likely recording hearsay evidence? I'm open to considering either possibility at this point.

I do not have to "imagine" that there are those a whole lot closer in time than we are, who attribute the letters to Theophilus to Luke, because this would be a fact.

Fact 1: The earliest partial manuscript copies of the two letters addressed to Theophilus were anonymously written during the 1st century, and the oldest partial manuscript copy of "The Gospel According To Luke" in the archives is dated to around 200 AD.

Fact 2: Being closer in time to the date when the original letters were written was not advantageous because the methods, resources, and technology available at that time to verify the authorship of anonymous letters written over 100 years earlier was unreliable.

Fact 3: Neither the anonymous author nor Theophilus would have survived into the late 2nd century to have confirmed Luke as the author of those letters such that the church's attribution of authorship to Luke around 200 AD would justify this abductive inference.

Fact 4: By the late 2nd century with the explicit rejection of Judaism and Jewish culture by Gentile Christians, attributing authorship to Luke would have been advantageous at the time because Luke was thought to have been a Gentile rather than Jewish Christian.

Since there doesn't appear to be a sufficient justification to ignore or dismiss facts 2-4 above, I cannot rule-out the abductive inference that the late 2nd century attribution of authorship to Luke by the church was an unjustified assertion designed to favor the Gentile version of Christianity. Furthermore, facts 2-4 above justify this abductive inference as being more plausible than only abductively inferring from fact 1 that the late 2nd century attribution of authorship to Luke is sufficiently reliable. However, if I am to accept the abductive inference based only on fact 1, I'll need a sufficient justification to ignore or dismiss facts 2-4. At this point, I'm open to considering any and all possible solutions.

I do not have to "imagine" that we have letters in which the author claims to be Paul, (The Apostle) in which this author mentions the name of Luke, as being with him on his travels, because this would be a fact.

Fact 1: Paul claimed someone named Luke was with him on his travels.

Fact 2: If the person Paul identified as Luke had ever documented his account in letters to anyone, they were either written anonymously or lost to history.

Since there is no justifiable reason at this point to ignore or dismiss fact 2, I cannot rule-out the possibility that Luke is not the author of the two anonymously written letters to Theophilus. Meanwhile, without any additional supporting evidence, fact 1 only allows me to abductively infer that Paul traveled with a person he identified as Luke who may or may not have written two anonymous letters to Theophilus.

I do not have to "imagine" we have a letter in which the author claims to be The Apostle Paul, which would have clearly been written while the author would have been under arrest, because this would be a fact. I do not have to "imagine" that in this letter, the author, just so happens to mention to his audience at the time while under arrest, "only Luke is with me", because this would be a fact.

Fact 1: The book of 2 Timothy is where Paul is claimed to indicate that Luke is with him while they were incarcerated.

Fact 2: In the last chapter of Acts, Paul is described as "allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him" after arriving in Rome and being placed under house arrest.

Fact 3: The language and ideas described in 2 Timothy depart significantly from the common themes featured in other letters attributed to Paul (e.g. does not focus on the unity among believers with Christ and describes an organized church hierarchy that did not exist at the time).

Fact 4: If the person identified as Luke in 2 Timothy had ever documented his account of being under arrest with Paul in letters to anyone, they were either written anonymously or lost to history.

Since there is no justifiable reason at this point to ignore or dismiss facts 2-4, I cannot rule-out the possibility that 2 Timothy was written pseudonymously under Paul's name and that Paul was under house arrest by himself (i.e. without Luke). Meanwhile, without any additional supporting evidence, fact 1 only allows me to abductively infer that Paul may have been incarcerated with a person he identified as Luke. If I accept the abductive inference that Luke was incarcerated with Paul, then an additional abductive inference is needed to explain how to reconcile this with facts 2-3. After those incongruencies are reconciled, another abductive inference will be needed to justify the belief that Luke was the author of the two letters to Theophilus. At this point, I'm open considering any and all possible solutions.

I do not have to "imagine" the author of the second letter to Theophilus, just so happens to end this letter with Paul being under arrest, because this would be a fact. What I would have to imagine is, someone decades later, wrote not one, but two long and detailed letters, as if he were writing to one individual, and he just so happens to end his second letter, with Paul being under arrest.

Fact 1: In the last chapter of Acts, Paul is described as "allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him" after arriving in Rome and being place under house arrest.

Fact 2: The existence of letters from Paul describing himself as being under arrest in Rome demonstrates that he must have been allowed or figured out a way to send letters while he was incarcerated.

Fact 3: Anyone who had access to Paul's letters or had copies of Paul's letters would have acquired knowledge of Paul's arrest in Rome without having been incarcerated with Paul.

Since there is no justifiable reason to ignore or dismiss facts 1-3, I cannot rule-out the possibility that the anonymous author of Acts was simply relaying information obtained from Paul's letters at some point after Paul was confined under house arrest in Rome. I'm unable to derive justifications for any other abductive inferences that could explain these three facts at this time.

In the end, I am "intellectually honest" enough to concede the idea that you MAY have good reasons to doubt the credibility of the author of Acts, while you do not seem to want to concede that there may indeed be good reasons to believe he may have been a creditable witness? Therefore, you seem to want to have it both ways? In other words, you seem to want to insist there MAY be reasons to doubt this author's credibility, however, you seem to concede the fact that you cannot in any way demonstrate this to be a fact. But somehow, even though you cannot demonstrate this to be a fact, you somehow seem to want to insist, there would be no way in which to believe this author may have indeed been a credible witness, when I believe I have demonstrated that one would have to use far more imagination to be under the impression that he would not have been a credible witness, as opposed to one who would not have to use any sort of imagination at all.

This is probably the fourth or fifth time you've insinuated that I am insisting there would be no way in which to believe your claim is true. How many different ways of describing my perspective will it take before you stop speculating on what my perspective is? I remain open to the possibility of there being a good reason to believe your claim. I can't help it if none of the reasons you've provided me thus far qualify as good from my perspective. When a good reason to believe your claim is provided to me, you'll be the first person I'll notify.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

I didn't ask for your commentary on other people's arguments in this thread.

I did not realize I needed permission?

Pointing out where other people's arguments are invalid, as you've interpreted them

If you believe I have misinterpreted anyone's argument, all you have to do is point this out. However, I believe what we have found is, I do a pretty good job of interpreting what is being said, while there are others who seem to be the one's having the problems.

does not justify acceptance of your own argument.

Pointing out the problems I may see with the argument of others, is not an attempt to "justify acceptance" of the arguments I am making.

You've claimed Christianity is true

And here is where you make another error! I have not in any way "claimed Christianity is true". Rather, what I have clearly, and repeatedly claimed is, there are valid reasons to believe the claims, and one can use facts, evidence, reason, and logic, to believe the claims to be true. On the other hand, I have conceded there very well may be reasons to doubt the claims, and one can use facts, evidence, reason, and logic to doubt the claims.

My objective here has nothing whatsoever to do with evangelizing. In other words, it is not my objective to convert folks to Christianity. My goal is not to get folks to be convinced in the same way I am convinced. Rather, there are folks who want to insist there are no valid reasons to believe the claims, (and we both know this to be a fact) and I am simply demonstrating this would be false. In other words, there are folks who make such claims, but they can in no way demonstrate the claim they are making. You know like, when you were under the impression I "claimed Christianity to be true" you were insisting that I needed to demonstrate what I was claiming? In the same way, the folks who are making the claim, "there are no valid reasons to believe the claims", need to demonstrate their claim.

So then, if you are conceding that one can use valid facts, evidence, reason, and logic to believe as I do, and I am conceding that you can use facts, evidence, reason, and logic, for your doubt, then I really do not see where we are in disagreement? But again, I have never made the claim, "Christianity is true".

Again, your commentary on other people's arguments does not justify acceptance of your own argument.

You are correct, and I have never insinuated that it does? However, it does sort of speak volumes that one ignores the fact that there are indeed those who make the argument that what we have contained in the Bible was written decades after the events, as if this is some sort of big deal, and in the end we discover this is exactly what we would have to expect. So then, what is the big deal?

For the sake of this discussion, I am not claiming Acts was written at any particular time by any particular person.

Okay, I understand this, but you are going to have to give us something? In other words, I have pretty good reasons to believe Acts to be authored by Luke, and I am going to need some kind of facts, evidence, and reason to believe he was not, and simply demonstrating that it is possible that he was not, is not really helping out, because I already know this.

Since you are making the positive claim that Acts was written at a particular time by a particular person, it is your responsibility to provide evidence supporting your claim.

Wrong again! I am making no such claims! I am simply claiming there are very valid reasons, facts, and evidence to support Luke as being the author, and I have more than supplied those reasons. If you are not insisting Luke was not the author of Acts, and are simply supplying facts, reason, and evidence for the reason you have for doubt, I have no problem with this. The problem will only come in, when, and if, you were to insist, "there are no valid reasons to believe Luke to be the author".

Your commentary on other people's arguments doesn't provide me with a justification to move from the agnostic position towards your position.

And you are wrong again! Because you see, I am not concerned in the least as to whether you "move towards my position". Rather, no matter your position, I am demonstrating there are valid, facts, evidence, and reason to hold the position that Luke would have been the author.

As far as Acts is concerned, facts 1-4 indicate that "Theophilus" could be referring to either an individual or a group. Meanwhile, it is reasonable to abductively infer from fact 3 and facts 5-6 that the anonymous author of Luke was probably using "most excellent Theophilus" as an honorary title for a high ranking but anonymous Roman individual who was sympathetic to the author's theological perspective (i.e. "most excellent friend of God"). Addressing this letter to the high ranking Roman individual by his or her name would probably have been dangerous for the recipient if the document was intercepted or discovered by forces that were hostile to the theological perspective expressed in the document. Fact 7 justifies another abductive inference indicating that Luke and Acts were probably written by the same author. From those two abductive inferences, a third abductive inference could suggest that the "Theophilus" mentioned in Acts was the same "Theophilus" mentioned in Luke. However, because three abductive inferences are required to justify belief in this claim, a little imagination is necessarily involved. Nevertheless, based on these abductive inferences, it seems reasonable to believe (i.e. imagine) that these two anonymously written letters were addressed to a single individual.

All you are doing here is to demonstrate what I have been saying? In other words, there are good reasons to believe that Theophilus was an individual. Notice, in this short paragraph, you use the word "probably" 3 times. But you see, I do not have to use this word in order to hold the position I have. It is a fact that the letters were addressed to Theophilus. It is a fact, Theophilus would have been a common name.

My friend, this is exactly the way in which the letter is written, and one would have to use imagination, and bring in facts, and evidence into the text which are not there. But the main question here is, why does it matter at all whether Theophilus would have been an individual? Why are there those who go to such trouble in order to almost insist that he would not have been an individual? Well, I think we all know the answer to this question?

Because you see, in the end, if what this author records is plainly false, then it would not matter as to whether he was addressing one individual? However, there are very good reasons to believe these reports. Ergo, the only real good reason I can think of for one to be concerned as to whether this author would have been addressing an individual, or not, is because it does not bode very well for the position they hold, for this author to go to the trouble, to sit down, and write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, out of concern for this individual, "knowing the exact truth"? Otherwise, I see no reason to insist Theophilus may not have been an individual?

The facts 3-4 above could potentially provide a partial justification to abductively infer that the anonymous author may have been traveling with Paul. However, acceptance of that abductive inference requires an additional abductive inference to explain the author's sudden and noticeable shift from the third-person perspective dominating the majority of Acts to the first-person plural perspective that is only used in the context of Paul's sea voyages. Is there a reasonable abductive inference that could harmonize facts 1-2 with facts 3-4? Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be a sufficient reason to ignore or dismiss facts 1-2 for the sake of accepting the abductive inference that the author was one of Paul's traveling companions.

Let us look at one of the "we" and "us' passages in order to get a better understanding.

Now when she and her household had been baptized, she urged "US"

Now, I can tell you, they are not on a sea voyage here.

saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon "US".

Now, does she have some sort of house, out in the middle of the sea? I'm not thinking so? I am assuming they are on land at this point, and if you continue reading, you will find that Paul is arrested, and it is quite some time before any sort of other sea voyage. But let's continue here.

It happened that as "WE" were going to the place of prayer

Now, is there some sort of "place of prayer" out in the middle of the sea? I don't think so?

She followed Paul and "US"

Now, are we to suppose "She, Paul, and US" were walking on water? I don't think so, because the context makes it clear they were indeed on land. It goes on to say,

and cried out repeatedly, saying, “These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you a way of salvation.”

Now, who are "these men" she is referring to? Would it be, "we", and "us"? Or, would it be Paul, and Silas? Let's continue.

Now she continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed

Now, who was "annoyed"? Was it "we", and "us"? Or, was it Paul? Let's continue,

But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was suddenly gone, they seized

Now, who did they "seize"? Was it "we" and "us" or was it Paul, and Silas? It was, Paul, and Sisal, which is why as the author continues, he begins to shift from "we" and "us" to "them", because although the author may have been there to witness what was going on, the actions did not include him. And, as you continue reading here, you can see it naturally goes from being "we", and "us", to "them" referring to Paul, and Silas, because they were the ones arrested.

The whole point is here, this author does in fact use "we", and "us" when it is NOT related to sea voyages, and he naturally begins to use the name of Paul, when Paul is the only one being referred to, along with the fact that he naturally began to use the word, "them" when it would refer to, "Paul, and Silas", and would not include, "we", and "us".

Moreover, this author also does NOT use the words, "we", and "us" every time he is describing the, sea voyages. As an example, the authors says,

When they asked him to stay for a longer time, he did not consent, but took leave of them and said, “I will return to you again if God wills,” and HE set sail from Ephesus.

Notice here, it was not "we" or "us" who "set sail" but "HE". Not only this, it goes on,

When HE had landed in Caesarea

I'm telling you, I am not getting it here? In other words, if this author was indeed using a literary device, involving sea voyages, then why does he use the words, "we", and "us" when it clearly did not involve sea voyages? Next, why would he go on to NOT use "we" an "us" when a sea voyage is involved?

You see, the more we examine this "literary device" theory, the more it smells of a desperate attempt in order to cast any sort of doubt? And again, if there are no valid reasons to consider this author as being reliable, then why in the world would it matter as to whether this author would have been a traveling companion of Paul? And again, I think we all know the answer to this question? The only real good reason to even consider this "literary device" is because it does not bode well for the position one may hold, for this author to have gone to all the trouble, to sit down to write out not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth", along with this author actually being present to witness some of the things he records. Otherwise, why would it even matter about any of these things?

In order to believe what it is you are attempting to sell, I cannot read the text, as it is naturally reads. Rather, I have to imagine the text cannot be read in the way it naturally reads, and must twist my mind into a pretzel. It makes no sense to suggest this author may have been using a "literary device concerning sea voyages, when he does not always use this device.

At any rate, I believe you have conceded there is indeed evidence to suggest the author may have in fact been present, and this is all I need. Of course you may want to argue that you have reasons to doubt this to be the case, and I am fine with that, and do not insist that you would not have these reasons. The problem would only come in, when, and if, you were to go on to insist, I have no valid reason to hold the opinion, the author would have been present.

Since there doesn't appear to be a sufficient justification to ignore or dismiss facts 3-4 above, I cannot rule-out the possibility that the anonymous author was not an eyewitness to the claimed events. Nevertheless, facts 1-2 could provide a partial justification to abductively infer that the anonymous author of Acts may have been an eyewitness to the claimed events. However, acceptance of that abductive inference requires an additional abductive inference to explain the anonymous author's motivation for conducting an investigation into his own account. Is there a abductive inference that could reasonably explain this unexpected and unusual decision by the author to investigate his own account? Would the combination of these two abductive inferences be more plausible than abductively inferring that the anonymous author of Acts was more likely recording hearsay evidence? I'm open to considering either possibility at this point.

You know, I think I forgot to mention this author in his first letter, says this at the beginning, "to compile an account of the things accomplished AMONG US". In other words, this is just another piece of evidence to suggest the author would have been alive at the time of the events.

Next, let us recall the author wrote, not one, but two letters. It is not until the second letter that he begins to use the words, "we", and "us". Therefore, no one is suggesting that he would have had to "investigate his own account". Rather, there would have been things he would have had to investigate, while there would have been other things, he witnessed himself. Let us recall, it is in his first letter that he mentions the "careful investigation", and it involved the life of Jesus. In his second letter, he actually mentions this at the beginning,

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,

So then, it very well could have been the events of the first letter he would have "investigated", and if as the evidence suggests, that he would have been a traveling companion of Paul, then he would have surely known the other Apostles, and who better to interview, than first hand eye witnesses?

Listen! This is becoming very tedious, which is why I suggest we take one point at a time. Therefore, before we move on, (and if we move on, let's go back to the top and take one thing at a time) I would like to know what it is you are attempting to accomplish? I believe you have conceded that I would have valid reasons to hold the position I have, not only concerning this author, but of the Christian claims as well. So I believe we can eliminate the possibility that you are attempting to demonstrate I do not have valid reasons to believe as I do.

So, are you attempting to demonstrate you have valid reasons for you doubt? If this is the case, then I have no problem with this in the least, and I am not going to attempt to argue that you do not have valid reasons for your doubt. I have no problem with your doubt. The problem comes in when there are those who have doubts, and go on to insist that I would have no valid reasons to hold a different position, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

So then, in order to make this more manageable, let us go back and take things one at the time, beginning with your first point, which was,

Fact 1: The author of Acts was writing to "θεόφιλος" (Theophilus).

Fact 2: Acts was written in a refined Koine Greek.

Fact 3: In refined Koine Greek, "θεόφιλος" (Theophilus) is a compound word that translates to "friend of God" or "(be)loved by God" or "loving God" and can function as an honorary title for an individual or a group.

Fact 4: "θεόφιλος" (Theophilus) can be a male given name from Ancient Greek.

Fact 5: The author of Luke was writing to "κρατιστε θεόφιλος" (most excellent Theophilus).

Fact 6: κρατιστε means "most excellent" in the Latin Vulgate translation and can refer to a high ranking Roman individual.

Fact 7: There are extensive linguistic and theological similarities between the Luke and Acts as well as the preface of Acts referring the reader to the author's earlier text regarding the life of Jesus.

As far as Acts is concerned, facts 1-4 indicate that "Theophilus" could be referring to either an individual or a group. Meanwhile, it is reasonable to abductively infer from fact 3 and facts 5-6 that the anonymous author of Luke was probably using "most excellent Theophilus" as an honorary title for a high ranking but anonymous Roman individual who was sympathetic to the author's theological perspective (i.e. "most excellent friend of God"). Addressing this letter to the high ranking Roman individual by his or her name would probably have been dangerous for the recipient if the document was intercepted or discovered by forces that were hostile to the theological perspective expressed in the document. Fact 7 justifies another abductive inference indicating that Luke and Acts were probably written by the same author. From those two abductive inferences, a third abductive inference could suggest that the "Theophilus" mentioned in Acts was the same "Theophilus" mentioned in Luke. However, because three abductive inferences are required to justify belief in this claim, a little imagination is necessarily involved. Nevertheless, based on these abductive inferences, it seems reasonable to believe (i.e. imagine) that these two anonymously written letters were addressed to a single individual.

I have already responded to this above. So again to keep this a little more manageable, let us look at these things one at the time. Of course I do not mind in the least if you want to respond to the other things I have said here, but I think at this point, I will save my response to those things, when, and if, we get to that point again.

Thanks for the conversations. It is Christmas day, so I am going to enjoy some time with family, and friends, and it is truly my hope that you, and yours are well, and that you all have a wonderful Christmas together!

[bluegreenearth]

And here is where you make another error! I have not in any way "claimed Christianity is true". Rather, what I have clearly, and repeatedly claimed is, there are valid reasons to believe the claims, and one can use facts, evidence, reason, and logic, to believe the claims to be true. On the other hand, I have conceded there very well may be reasons to doubt the claims, and one can use facts, evidence, reason, and logic to doubt the claims.

When someone argues that there are valid reasons to believe the claims of Christianity are true, I perceive this to be equivalent to claiming Christianity is true. In any case, you haven't yet demonstrated that all those reasons are valid. My analysis thus far has only determined that there appears to be a valid reason to abductively infer the anonymous author of the two letters was writing to a single individual. This is no where close to having a sufficient justification to believe all the claims of Christianity are true.

As for your acknowledgement of the valid reasons to doubt the claims are true, this only serves to reinforce the argument for agnosticism. Are you now arguing for the agnostic position?

[Clownboat]

I really would not call what you have been doing here, "debating"?

Agreed, do I need to inform you again that I have bowed out of this debate?

If or when you show that there is 'anything' supernatural, then it would be prudent to examine reasons for belief and whether or not they are good. I don't believe we are there yet...

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #189]

When someone argues that there are valid reasons to believe the claims of Christianity are true, I perceive this to be equivalent to claiming Christianity is true.

How is that? If I say, "I have valid reasons to believe a friend of mine is abusing drugs" how is that equivalent to, "my friend is indeed abusing drugs"?

My analysis thus far has only determined that there appears to be a valid reason to abductively infer the anonymous author of the two letters was writing to a single individual.

Which is because this is exactly the way in which the first letter was written, and you get to the second letter, it becomes even more clear. If it is your position, that there is still room for your doubt, then I have no problem with your position, and you can have all the doubt you wish. It is just that the reasons you give for the doubt you have, does not convince me to have the same doubt. In other words, your arguments are not convincing to me.

This is no where close to having a sufficient justification to believe all the claims of Christianity are true.

How in the world we got from, "there are valid reasons to believe these letters were addressed to one individual", to this having anything to do with, "having a sufficient justification to believe all the claims of Christianity are true", is beyond my imagination? These would be two completely different arguments, and let us keep in mind, it is not the theist who brings in this argument? Rather, it would be those who want to cast some sort of doubt upon the whole of Christianity, who realize that it does not bode well for their position for this author to be addressing one individual. Ergo, they must indeed understand that this issue would at least have some sort of bearing upon, "having sufficient justification to believe all the claims of Christianity are true"? In other words, it would be one piece of the puzzle. Otherwise, as I have pointed out in the past, there would be no reason to be concerned as to who Theophilus may have been?

As for your acknowledgement of the valid reasons to doubt the claims are true

I have not "acknowledged valid reasons to doubt the claims are true." Rather, I have acknowledged, "there very well may be", which is not the same as the acknowledgement that there indeed is. Now, I may have worded it that way in the past, because I understand doubt, and I believe I understand those who doubt, but I did not word it that way here. In other words, in the same way you do not believe my belief to be justified, I am not convinced your doubt would be justified. The difference seems to be, I am not concerned as to whether you doubt, or not, nor whether you would have valid reasons for your doubt. That is not my concern. My concern is with those who doubt, who go on to insist, there would be no valid reason to hold the position I have, when they fail to be able to demonstrate this to be the case.

this only serves to reinforce the argument for agnosticism

How in the world the argument, there are valid reasons to believe the Christian claims, "serves to reinforce the argument for agnosticism" is beyond my imagination?

Are you now arguing for the agnostic position?

I can tell you this, I am not arguing against, "the agnostic position", because I am fine with those who remain agnostic, and I am not attempting to persuade them they are in error, unless, or until, these agnostics want to insist I do not have valid reasons for the position I hold.

This seems to be the bottom line. I have no problem with the agnostics, or unbeliever, and I am not attempting to demonstrate where they are in error. The problem comes in when these folks seem to want to insist I have no valid reasons to believe as I do.