See here
I respond to each question respectively, showing that skeptics can answer those questions in a way that renders their continued distrust of Acts and Luke reasonable.
Jason EngwerMarch 29 ·
Some of the reasons we have for accepting what Acts tells us about Jesus' resurrection appearance to Paul:
- There's no competing account.
Most modern day "miracles" have no competing account, yet despite their allegedly involving the Christian god, you do not automatically trust them. Or is that granting you too much?
- Luke's general reliability.No, the only reason he made sure to get the names of cities and people correct was to make his lies about miracles seem more believable. All professional liars realize the obvious truth that if you want to make a lie seem convincing, you have to surround it with nuggets of historical truth. And there is no rule of historiography that requires a person to believe a report or testimony until it can be proven false. Josh McDowell lied about Aristotle's dictum.
Engwer will carp that anti-supernaturalism is fallacious, but not even he or anybody at Triablogue would believe biblical miracle claims if they were made by people today. Suppose your single female pregnant neighbor says no man got her pregnant, it was only god, just like with Mary in the gospels. You know god-damn well you'd be immediately suspicious, would you NOT robotically remain neutral so you could gather the evidence and weigh hypotheses. Go fuck yourself, you trifling self-deceived liar.
- Why fabricate an account in which Paul's companions don't convert?It makes Paul look more special and unique. And his companions more than likely didn't convert, so saying they did carried a risk of being falsified. And the fact that the companions are utterly unknown and disappear forever from history reasonably justifies the conclusion that if they ever existed, they actually didn't convert...which means they likely did not believe Paul was telling the truth that the experience was Jesus.
- Why fabricate an account in which Paul's companions don't see the risen Christ and don't hear all that was said?See above. Why would Mel Tari fabricate tales of Christians walking on water, fire falling from heaven..."
- Why not make the physicality of the appearance more obvious, as with earlier resurrection appearances, like the earlier ones in Luke and Acts?Because Paul was an absurd mystic who liked the idea of quasi-dimensional nonsense that left him stymied as to what exactly happened and how, such as his experience of flying up in heaven, but being unable years later to tell whether it happened physically or spiritually:
1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.And of course, you know that Paul boasted of manifesting the nonsensical gift of tongues more than the Corinthian church, 1st Corinthians 14:18. So Paul thought talking to himself in a language his mind could not understand constituted his talking to 'god'. 14:14. He also thought that the time it took for all Christians to float up in the air and be with Jesus would be no longer than the time it takes to blink. 15:52.
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--
4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. (2 Cor. 12:1-4 NAU)
- Why make the events so complicated (as discussed above)?Its hard to juggle the desire to look special, along with the desire to tell a convincing story about a quasi-dimensional event. Maybe you should interview a few lying eyewitnesses, who could have lied in court in a less complex way than they did?
Finally, Engwer and all Christian apologists routinely overlook the fact that the bible itself denies that the doing of a miracle automatically means the wonder-worker's theology is approved of by God, it also says God might give a false prophet the ability to do a miracle, merely to test the people:
"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,So even if skeptics granted that Luke was telling the truth about Paul's experience of Christ on the road to Damascus, the fact of the miracle does not mean "Christians 1, Skeptics 0".
2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'
3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deut. 13:1-3 NAU)
By what criteria can a person tell when the theology of a miracle-worker is divinely approved, and when the theology of a miracle-worker is merely a test from God? Engwer cannot answer this in any objective fashion (what's he gonna say? Jesus and Paul were nice people?), and therefore, skeptics would remain reasonable to be completely apathetic toward Jesus and Paul even if the skeptics acknowledged that they did genuinely supernatural miracles.
And if Engwer came up with any such criteria, that would be stupid since, what? Are we supposed to apply that test to the wonder-workers in various Christian denominations to figure out which one is right? How could we have time to conduct our lives if we were investigating miracle claims like that?
Or will Engwer cite Matthew 19:29 and insist the only rational thing to do is to give up custody of our kids so that we can have more time to obsess about Jesus? LOL
TRIABLOGUE HAS DONE NOTHING IN 15 YEARS TO REMOTELY JUSTIFY CALLING SKEPTICS FOOLS. IF YOU THINK THEY HAVE, I'LL GLADLY DISCUSS IT WITH YOU IN ANY INTERNET FORUM OF YOUR CHOOSING. RESPOND HERE OR AT barryjoneswhat@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment