Cold Case Christianity: Wallace apparently thinks Jesus' understanding of the gospel is irrelevent

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

What Does “Gospel” Really Mean?

Posted: 15 Jan 2018 04:00 AM PST

We often describe God’s gracious offer of Salvation as “good news”, and while this makes sense, given the magnitude of God’s gift to us, there are actually good etymological reasons for describing Salvation in this way.

Why doesn't your article appeal to what Jesus thought the gospel was?

 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."    (Matt. 28:18-1:1 NAU)

Maybe you are a dispensationalist?  You know...you think the gospel Jesus preached before he died on the Cross no longer applies to the current dispensation of the modern-day church?  But the above-highlighted words of the allegedly resurrected Jesus indicate his pre-Cross teachings are what future Gentile followers ("disciples of all the nations") are required to not just 'learn' or 'believe', but to obey.  

That's a severe problem for you because nobody speaks about a saving belief in Christ's death for sin and resurrection as constituting "obeying".  You can believe in Jesus' death and resurrection without "obeying" anything.  The resurrected Jesus' choice to say "obey" therefore makes it clear that the emphasis of the true gospel is on the moral walk.

Indeed, Jesus' had a specific mission to Gentiles before he died:

12 Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee;
 13 and leaving Nazareth, He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali.
 14 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 15 "THE LAND OF ZEBULUN AND THE LAND OF NAPHTALI, BY THE WAY OF THE SEA, BEYOND THE JORDAN, GALILEE OF THE GENTILES--
 16 "THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING IN DARKNESS SAW A GREAT LIGHT, AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED."
 17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."    (Matt. 4:12-17 NAU) 

 15 But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all,
 16 and warned them not to tell who He was.
 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 18 "BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.
 19 "HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT; NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS.
 20 "A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY.
 21 "AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE." (Matt. 12:15-21 NAU) 

30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
 31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
 32 A LIGHT OF REVELATION TO THE GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel." (Lk. 2:30-32 NAU)

So you cannot escape this trap by saying Jesus didn't "really" evangelize the Gentiles before he died.  Yes, he did.

I think the reason one of Christianity's allegedly greatest apologists did not quote Jesus to answer the question of what the gospel is, because this apologist in real life likes Paul's law-free gospel much more than the legalistic method of salvation Jesus preached.  So that while you don't actually ever forthrightly assert that the gospel Jesus preached before the cross is the way of salvation, your ceaselessly focusing our attention on Paul's version and nearly never focusing our attention on Jesus' version tells us more than any media statement you might make saying you think the 4 canonical gospels are relevant today.

The word “Gospel” is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word, “godspel”, or “good story” and was substituted for the original Greek word “euaggelion” which first signified “a present given to one who brought good tidings”, or “a sacrifice offered in thanksgiving for such good tidings having come”. In later Greek uses, it was employed for the good tidings themselves. That’s exactly what God is offering us with the Gospel; “good news” about what he did for us through Jesus Christ:
 The Gospel is All About What God Did For Us
God wants us to rejoice over the good news of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Although our sin deserves death, Jesus paid the price and even defeated death so we too can live forever with God:

Sorry, Wallace, but a) your definition here still avoids Jesus' own definition of the gospel, and b) there you go again, emphasizing Jesus death as if it were somehow "more important" than other gospel matters, when in fact according to Matthew 28:20, the statement that future Gentile disciples must be taught to obey all that Jesus taught the original apostles, is most reasonably interpreted as placing all of his teachings on an equal par.

What Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount is not less important or central to the gospel than his death and resurrection.  Yet Paul always focuses on Jesus' death and resurrection and infamously doesn't give his readers jack shit about what Jesus said or did before dying on the Cross.  Jesus' earthly ministry meant nothing to Paul, and a few blurbs about how 1st Timothy 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7, or how Paul mentioned what Jesus said and did at the last supper in 1st Cor. 11:23 are not going to change the fact that Matthew and Paul have radically different ideas about what constitutes the gospel.

Matthew's own gospel contains not much more than the things that Jesus said and did, so when Matthew tells us at the end that the resurrected Jesus required future Gentiles to obey all that he had taught the original apostles (Matthew 28:20), Matthew clearly thinks the gospel consists of ALL that Jesus did and said between birth and ascension.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

So apparently what Paul received wasn't what the resurrected Jesus said in Matthew 28:20, as this Jesus didn't think the gospel was limited to his death and resurrection.

The Gospel is All About Grace
Paul devoted his life to sharing what he believed to be very “good news”. He thought it was good news because he understood God was giving us a free gift only He could offer: the gift of Salvation, given freely as an act of grace (unmerited favor):
 Acts 20:24
However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me-the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

Jesus' method of salvation was legalistic:

 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
 21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.   (Matt. 5:17-22 NAU)

In the immediate context, "your righteousness" is defined in terms of personal morality, i.e., legalism, i.e., you will go to hell for unjustly calling your brother a fool.  Again, the immediate context for Jesus' legalistic sounding requirement that his followers evince great righteousness, is his own discussion about morals and ethics.

Jesus also gave a rather legalistic answer to the rich young ruler who had asked him specifically how it is that one obtains eternal life:

  16 And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"
 17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
 18 Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;
 19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
 20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"
 21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
 23 And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
 24 "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
 25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"
 26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."    (Matt. 19:16-26 NAU)

The context is quoted so no fundie can insist that I took this out of context or ignored some important quip that puts a different spin on Jesus' words to the rich young ruler.  Nothing in the immediate context of Jesus' words to this man expresses or implies that Jesus believed the man could obtain eternal life without keeping the commandments.  Therefore

"and come, follow Me." 

doesn't mean 

"what I just said is bullshit, you don't need to follow the Law, all you need to do is follow Me". 

The Gospel is All About God’s Work and Righteousness, Not Our Own
God wants us to know it is absolutely pointless to think we could ever contribute to our salvation in even the smallest way with our own efforts (or good works). The Gospel is good news because it demonstrates God will do what it takes to apply His righteousness to us if we will only place our faith in Jesus. It is faith alone, “from first to last,” that saves us:

Fuck you, the risen Christ requires all future Gentile followers to not just learn or believe, but to obey ALL the teachings he taught the original apostles, Matthew 28:20.

Romans 1:16-17
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

It's also curious that Paul was so intent on documenting his gospel from his interpretations of the OT, if in fact we must presume he believed Jesus preached the way of salvation for at least three years to the original apostles. Common sense says God's latest light on the gospel is probably going to create less confusion, yet Paul shuns the latest light and prioritizes his own treatement of OT texts as more important than anything Jesus had to say.

A “Works” Gospel is No Gospel At All
Finally, God wants us to understand it’s our nature to slowly drift from the good news of grace and slip back into thinking our own good works are actually saving us. But a “works based” Salvation is not good news;

Then you must think Jesus' definition of the gospel was "bad news".

we offend God when we try to act like our righteousness is anything compared to His.

But God still thinks people are righteous in his own sight where they obey all of his commands, a thing that at least two 1st-century people were apparently capable of actually accomplishing:

 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
 6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years. (Lk. 1:5-7 NAU)

Luke 1:6 thus contradicts the Pauline dirge that says we can never be righteous in the sight of God.

It is hopeless to depend on our own goodness when trying to reach a perfect God. We are simply never going to be “good” enough.

Which means you would seriously argue that Luke 1:6 doesn't mean we can ever be good enough for God on the basis of our obedience to his commands.  In other words, you'd rather trifle that there's no contradiction between God viewing a person as righteous based on their efforts to obey his commands, and God telling them at the same time that their efforts to obey his commands can never made them good enough.

Probably because you care more about bible inerrancy and reconciling Paul with everything else in the NT, than you care about common sense.

Galatians 1:6-9
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

In the context of Paul's letter to the Galatians, the "men from James" are the ones who are successful in getting Peter to cease eating with Gentiles (2:12).  Your problem is that you cannot cite Acts 15:24 for the proposition that these men were imposters or otherwise misrepresenting James, since Peter knew James quite well, and would thus have known whether these "men from James" were correctly or incorrectly representing James's view on the matter.  Therefore, Peter's "fearing the circumcision" or the "men from James" only makes sense under the theory that Peter felt those men were correctly representing James, in which the anti-Gentile sentiment of the Judaizer gospel goes all the way back to James, it is not limited to an ultra-conservative faction within the Jerusalem church.  Luke the liar's representation in Acts 15 of James as relaxing circumcision requirements for Gentiles therefore appears to be a falsehood concocted to make the reader think Paul and the Jerusalem apostles were more agreed on these matters than they really were.  Otherrwise, you have to think Peter was fearful of men whom he knew were misrepresenting James, and this is the least likely of the available theories.

God wants us see his gift of grace for what it really is. God’s grace is “good news” because it solves a foundational problem all of us have as human beings. We are fallen. We are rebellious. We are far less than perfect. Beings like us simply cannot enter into a perfect realm without God’s complete and total work in our lives.

It is far from obvious that Jesus believed in original sin.  And your ridiculously intense view of God as infinitely holy so that our best efforts are never good enough, is based on more on modern systematic theology than it is based on biblical truth.  God is completely free to exempt anybody he wants from the required punishments for sin:

 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die." (2 Sam. 12:11-14 NAU)

Wallace continues:

Our faith alone saves us, and that’s good news, because any belief system which argues you can contribute to your own salvation is offensive to God, who is the only source of salvation.

So apparently you think the legalistic gospel Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17-20 was offensive to God.

God doesn’t want to merely contribute here. He wants to do it all, because He knows how incapable we truly are in this area.

So incapable, in fact, that while we might be able to be "righteous in his sight" solely through our own efforts at obeying his laws (Luke 1:6),  being righteous in God's sight isn't enough.

You know...anything to glorify bible inerrancy and systematic theology.

my post to Dr. Long on Acts 11:18 and Gentile Salvation

Over at the blog of NT scholar Dr. Phillip J. Long, I posted the following questions and concerns about why the followers of the apostles indicate in Acts 11:18 that Gentile salvation is some new shocking unexpected theological development :

Dr. Long, 

I have argued for years on the basis of Acts 11:18 that God granting to Gentiles the repentance that brings salvation, must have been some new unexpected shocking thing to the Christians listening to Peter give that speech. 

What exactly is Peter's audience discovering? 

That Gentiles can be saved? 

Or the more nuanced discovery that the Gentile salvation they already knew to be available, doesn't require two steps, but only one? 

The wording in 11:18 is, IMO, too simple to justify the latter more nuanced interpretation, so IMO this church is startled to learn that Gentiles can be saved period.
This of course is a serious problem given that these Christians are the results of the labors of the 12 apostles, who surely must have known that Jesus had a major mission to the gentiles (Mark 1:45, Matthew 4:15, 12:21, Luke 2:32). 

Indeed, the risen Christ insisted that his teachings were the basis of all future Gentile salvation/discipleship in the Great Commission, Matthew 28:20. 

So why was Gentile salvation so controversial to these followers of the apostles?
Did the apostles, after being "amazingly transformed" by seeing a resurrected Jesus ordering them to preach salvation to the Gentiles (Matthew 28:20), and after being miraculously filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), end up neglecting the Gentile aspect of the gospel to the point that their immediate followers find Gentile salvation to be this unexpected shocking theological development, as they apparently conclude in Acts 11:18? 

Can we really fix these problems with a quick "the apostles just didn't get it" ? 

If Jesus physically appeared to me and I ran around on the earth with him for three years, then saw him risen from the dead and ordering me to do certain things, it doesn't make sense that I'd be slow to obey or understand what had been drilled into my head for those prior three years.
So it would appear that the anti-Gentile sentiment was not just some questionable misunderstanding by the followers of the apostles, but went back to the apostles themselves (Galatians 2:9, limiting their evangelism to just the Jews, in contradiction to the risen Christ's direct command that they, that is, the 11 original apostles, do the work of the Gentile ministry).

Another attempt to dialogue with McLatchie and McGrew

On the YouTube video apologist Jonathan McLatchie posted, interviewing Dr. Lydia McGrew about her Six Bad Habits of New Testament Scholars, I posted the following relevant challenge to McGrew:



So I'll just have to wait and see whether she takes up that legitimate challenge, or whether McLatchie, fearsome apologist that he is, blocks the comment.

The Fearsome Warriors at Triablogue demolish the opposition by blocking their posts?

It seems the warriors are Triablogue are so confident that bible skepticism is utterly irrational, they think blocking posts from those who offer legitimate challenges, constitutes overcoming the devil.

Apologist Jonathan McLatchie hosted a webinar in which Dr. Lydia McGrew, wife of New Testament scholar Timothy McGrew, described what she thinks were Six Bad Habits of New Testament Scholars (and how to avoid them)

McLatchie, you'll recall, is one of those fearsome spiritual warriors (calls himself one of the world's leading apologists) who, when confronted by my challenge to debate any biblical or Christian issue he pleased, dishonestly ducked the challenge by pretending that my having filed civil lawsuits in the past somehow indicated any such debate would be unprofitable.

Steve Hays of Triablogue (he is an inerrantist, Lydia is not) commented on Lydia's webinar speech, and Lydia replied to Steve.

Today, January 10, 2018, I tried to post the following at Triablogue:

Steve, Lydia,  

What is your opinion of Dr.Craig Evans, an otherwise "orthodox" Christian, not a liberal or heretic, who says in his debates with Bart Ehrman that Jesus didn't ever say many of the things John's gospel puts in Jesus' mouth? 

For example, Evans says stuff like "before Abraham was, i am" was never uttered by the historical Jesus.  see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0zkTTNGJLQ, Evans gives his answer at time-code 1:00 ff 

Sure, John might be a different "genre" from the Synoptics, but I don't think you can blame a skeptic or atheist for feeling confident about the theory that the gospels often lie to us about what really happened, when you have conservative Christian scholars like Evans admitting that the historical Jesus never said many statements now credited to him by the author of John's gospel.   

If as most apologists say, the atheist bible critic is unreasonable and irrational for crediting John with fiction, then must such apologists not also, to be consistent, charge Evans with being irrational and unreasonable? 

The only way I see out of this is for one of you to assert 

a) Evans isn't qualified to make such statements, or
b) Evans is just plain wrong, implying you can demonstrate such, implying you actually will, or
c) argue that gospel statements crediting Jesus with speech he never spoke, can nevertheless be legitimately characterized as "historically reliable". 

I'm not sure if "historically reliable" can be stretched so far that it also covers cases where real life people are credited with speaking words they never actually spoke. 

I look forward to your replies.

----------------------

After clicking "post", I received the following reply, telling me in contradictory fashion that my comment was "blocked" but also "posted", thus giving the smartest inerrantists in the world one more "apparent" contradiction to "reconcile":



---------------------

I have trounced apologists before with my resurrection challenge, namely, that there are only 3 resurrection accounts in the NT which come down to us today in first-hand form, the others are hearsay, vision, or otherwise; Matthew, John, and Paul, and that's generously granting assumptions of traditional gospel authorship which I'm otherwise well-prepared to attack.

Unless somebody is willing to rebut conservative Christian scholar Craig Evans and his theory that John often attributes to Jesus words Jesus never actually spoke, it would appear that under Evans' own view, the gospel of John puts words in Jesus' mouth which Jesus never actually spoke, and thus disqualifies himself as a resurrection eyewitness.

With John gone, now there's only two first-hand witnesses left, Matthew and Paul.

I'm just pissing myself with worry about the overwhelming evidence for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

Matthew Flannagan finds it difficult to answer simple questions about the sufficiency of scripture

In reply to Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan's blog piece, wherein he tried to dispute the liberal interpretation of hell, I asked him whether he felt simply quoting the bible was sufficient to discharge his obligation as a Christian to teach and refute error.  He replied in the negative, that proof-texting was terrible error, I responded that this is exactly what several NT authors do in their own treatment of the OT.

Matt then asked me to go waste somebody else's time, and I took that as his subtle way of asking me to quit stomping him down intellectually.  Here's how it happened.

barry
Jan 5, 2018 at 10:17 am
 Matt,
 Do you believe that the biblical wording is “sufficient” for Christian faith and practice?

 Matt
Jan 5, 2018 at 12:09 pm
 Barry, sorry, but I don’t know what you mean when you say that “biblical wording” is sufficient for Christian faith and practise? 

 barry
Jan 5, 2018 at 1:19 pm
 By “biblical wording”, I meant the words of the bible. 

 Matthew Flannagan
Jan 5, 2018 at 6:37 pm
 By “biblical wording”, I meant the words of the bible.
 Sounds to me like your equivocating, when a person talks about the words of the Bible, they often mean by that what the bible teaches. But it could also be a reference to the phraseology, used by biblical authors.
 I am still unsure what you mean. 

 barry
Jan 6, 2018 at 8:41 am
 Do you believe that merely quoting Luke 16:19-31 verbatim to an Evangelical Annihilationist, without adding any commentary or argument, is ‘sufficient’ to discharge your Christian obligation to refute error?

Peter S WilliamsJan 7, 2018 at 3:27 am Please get someone to copy edit this article. There are sentences that make no grammatical sense and this is unfortunately obscuring the content.

 Matt
Jan 8, 2018 at 12:49 pm
 Barry, No, Luke 18 is a parable and it comes in a section where Jesus is discussing money and greed. So simply quoting it wouldn’t suffice, you’d have to make the case that in addition to making a point about money and greed, Jesus intended in this parable to give an accurate description of what hell is like. I think that’s dubious.
 Generally just quoting a passage without taking into account the context or Genre is a terrible method. Its known as proof-texting and is widely disparaged. 

 barry jones
Jan 10, 2018 at 12:13 pm
 If “proof-texting” is is a “terrible method” and is “widely disparaged”, then do you accuse Jesus and some NT authors of using a terrible method? 

 Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, without commentary…as if he expected his readers to just “get it”, despite the obvious fact that no surviving pre-Christian Jewish commentary describes it as messianic (i.e., there was great likelihood Matthew knew the unbelieving Jews he wrote to did not accept Isaiah 7:14 as messianic, yet he quotes it verbatim, plus nothing, as if he expected that the quotation, alone, would be sufficient. 

 And since patristic testimony on Matthew indicates he wrote also for non-Christian Jews and not just Christian Jews, this appears to be a case of a NT author expecting an unbeliever to “get it” through nothing more than “proof-texting”.
 Hebrews 1:6 quotes Psalm 97:7 as if the latter was speaking about God’s “Son”, but again, without commentary. If Clement and Eusebius can be trusted, then Eusebius at H.E. 6:14 reports that Clement explained “the name “Paul an Apostle” was very properly not pre-fixed, for, he says, that writing to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced against him and suspected, he with great wisdom did not repel them in the beginning by putting down his name.” 

 That is, Paul was addressing unbelieving Jews (i.e., who were prejudiced against him) and apparently expecting them to just “get it” without his further commentary despite how obvious it must have been that such unbelieving Jews did not understand Psalm 97 to contain any references to Jesus. So Paul’s lack of commentary when quoting the bible to unbelievers seems to constitute the exact proof-texting that you call “widely disparaged”. Paul wasn’t doing much different here than KJV Onlyists do when street-preaching.
 Paul in Hebrews 10:5-10 does even worse: Although the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6 says “my ears you have opened”, Paul here quotes the Lxx form which says “but a body you have prepared for me”. 

 Here’s the problem: Paul is speaking to unbelieving Jews (Clement, supra), and here, quotes to them not just the Lxx form they are unlikely to prefer anyway (their problem with the Lxx obscuring or corrupting the text goes back at least to Ben Sira’s grandson’s extended prologue to Sirach, saying the Greek translation doesn’t have the same force as the Hebrew original, and that such differences are “not small”) but a specific form of a verse that aligns much more closely with Paul’s thought that God prepared a body for Jesus, a thought utterly at odds with what the unbelieving Jews Paul was addressing would accept…and yet Paul does exactly nothing to justify to them his convenient preference for a controversial Greek translation that just so happens to make the incarnation of Jesus much easier to prove. 

 Worse, Paul characterizes this as what God does when he brings Jesus “into the world”, when in fact nothing close to kenosis can be found in Psalm 40. So not only is Paul refusing to justify to an unbelieving audience his preference for a controversial translation of the Hebrew, he is also refusing to justify why he thinks this Psalm has anything to say about God bringing Jesus into the world. 

 If Paul didn’t feel the need to academically justify his arguments to those who clearly didn’t agree with those arguments, why do you? 

 If Paul can be comfortable quoting to unbelieving Jews a version of Psalm 40 that they do not agree with, and feel no need to provide the academic justification for it, why can’t you be comfortable quoting Luke 16 to liberals who do not agree with you on what it means, and feel no need to provide them any academic justification for your particular understanding?
 In Luke 4:4, Jesus answers the devil by proof-texting from Deut. 8:4, again, no commentary, as if he thought the mere verbatim quotation of the scripture, alone, was sufficient to discharge the need to rebuke or correct those who are in theological error. 

 We would hardly find the NT justifying such “proof-texting” if the NT authors agreed with modern conservative Christian scholars that one’s obligation in preaching/teaching requires them to follow up their verbatim bible quotes with their own commentary. 

 It would appear then, that the NT authors find it far less needful to provide academic justification, than do modern day conservative Christians. 

 How could you go wrong making the change and imitating the NT authors’ more simplistic methodology? You quote Luke 16 verbatim to the liberals who say hell is mere metaphor, that’s it, and you allocate the job of overcoming their academic objections, to the Holy Spirit. 

 Yeah, you’d lose your standing as a Christian “scholar”, but it’s more important to you to align as close as possible to the apostolic method of teaching unbelievers/heretics, than it is for you to impress your modern peers with your ability to trifle about scholarly minutiae, amen?
  

Matt
Jan 10, 2018 at 2:21 pm
 Barry, I see you want to change the subject from the post again to ask me to exegete a swath of different passages you disagree with.
 But for the record there is a difference between proof texting of the sort you were mentioning and enthyeme.
 How could you go wrong making the change and imitating the NT authors’ more simplistic methodology? You quote Luke 16 verbatim to the liberals who say hell is mere metaphor, that’s it, and you allocate the job of overcoming their academic objections, to the Holy Spirit.
 This is mistaken on several counts, First, the phrase “hell” is a metaphor, Jesus isnt literally referring to the valley of Hinnom in Jerusalem but using a well known apocalyptic symbol almost no one conservative or liberal denies this.Theologians such as Jean Calvin and Charles Hodge acknowledge this, are they liberals? Second, as I pointed out the passage in Luke you mentioned is a parable, so your just misreading the Genre. It would be like the someone quoting Nathans story about a sheep as a teaching on shepherding.

 Yeah, you’d lose your standing as a Christian “scholar”, but it’s more important to you to align as close as possible to the apostolic method of teaching unbelievers/heretics, than it is for you to impress your modern peers with your ability to trifle about scholarly minutiae, amen?

 This is just ironic, skeptics emphasis reason and science and complain that religion is thoughtless based on faith and not reasoned, then they complain that Christian scholars use reason and complicated arguments.
 You come in and demand I respond to your arguments and then complain I engage in argument. I suggest you waste someone elses time. 

 barry jones
Jan 10, 2018 at 3:21 pm
 Matt,
 I’m not changing the subject. You impugned “proof-texting” as “terrible error”, so it was a legitimate move on my part to confront your evangelical self with passages from your own bible where biblical authors are committing the same alleged “error”. And since you didn’t do much to oppose, apparently, that strategy was correct. 

 You refuse to say which instances I quoted are a case of the bible author employing enthyeme, so I guess that means you wanted me to guess which ones were doing that. I shall not play guessing games with you. 

 When I said the liberals view hell as metaphor, I wasn’t mistaken, your problem is that you think there’s a “mistake” merely because, like a jailhouse lawyer, you can capitalize on your opponents failure to speak in detailed qualified manner. I obviously meant that the liberals view hell as ONLY metaphor, that is, they deny there’s any literal aspect to it. But because I didn’t use the word “only”, you cry “mistake!”, as if I didn’t’ know the conservative position that agrees biblical hell is metaphorical in certain aspects. Stop being so quick to leap from somebody’s failure to qualify, over to “mistake!”. 

 You say you “pointed out” that the passage is a parable, but “pointed out” is not “argument”, and as such, you did not justify disagreement with other Christian scholars who say this story is real history and not parable, such as Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Intervarsity, 2006), p. 534?

 “skeptics emphasis reason and science and complain that religion is thoughtless based on faith and not reasoned, then they complain that Christian scholars use reason and complicated arguments.”

——-But that’s your problem: Your own bible condemns any effort you make to justify your treatment of scripture to unbelievers or heretics with academic argument. Therefore, when you make such argument, you can be condemned with your own bible as not living up to the more simplistic method advocated by NT authors. When you DON’T make academic argument, you might be living up to the more simple standard of NT authors, but the consequence is that nobody is obligated to seriously consider a position that has nothing more behind it except “proof-texting”. It is not my fault if you wish to uphold two contradictory standards of proof, the academic argument approved by modern scholars, and the proof-texting employed by NT authors.

 “You come in and demand I respond to your arguments and then complain I engage in argument.”

——-You wish to look good to modern people, thus calling for scholarly level argument, but you refuse to condemn the NT authors for their more simplistic argument via proof-texting.  It is not my fault if your attempt to serve two different masters makes it easy to condemn pretty much any scriptural argument you attempt.

 “I suggest you waste someone elses time.”

——Perhaps I was also wasting my time asking you to describe and source whatever moral yardstick you were using to justify saying torturing babies solely for entertainment is objectively immoral, given that you essentially disappeared after I pressed that matter.
 That you are wrong about me wasting your time (and wrong in your implication that this was my primary motive in dialoguing with you), all anybody has to do is check out my list of challenges to you in the last post over at http://www.mandm.org.nz/2017/10/richard-carrier-on-the-moral-scepticism-objection-to-divine-command-theory.html 

 When you are prepared to defend the matters those challenges attack, you know where I blog.
 https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-challenge-to-matthew-flannagan.html
 Conversing with you was fun and educational. Fare ye well.

Demolishing Triablogue: No, Steve, there are no ghosts, and no monsters under your bed

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

Are there ghosts?

Question: "What does the Bible say about ghosts / hauntings?"

It provides contradictory and ambiguous information that has caused Christian scholars to consistently disagrees about it for centuries.  See, Charles R. Smith, "The New Testament Doctrine of Demons", Grace Journal, V10 #2:26–42—Spr 69—26

Perhaps this confusion exists in the church because Steve's Calvinistic God predestined many Christians by his secret will to disobey his revealed will that they teach doctrine correctly, and then predestined them to incorrectly feel solely personally responsible when they discovered their error.  Now isn't it obvious that the Calvinist god isn't the author of confusion (1st Cor 14:33)?

Answer: Is there such a thing as ghosts? The answer to this question depends on what precisely is meant by the term “ghosts.” If the term means “spirit beings,” the answer is a qualified “yes.”

Let's see your best case for establishing the existence of "spirit beings".

If the term means “spirits of people who have died,” the answer is “no.” The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and “haunt” the living.
 Hebrews 9:27 declares, “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” That is what happens to a person’s soul-spirit after death—judgment. The result of this judgment is heaven for the believer (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23) and hell for the unbeliever (Matthew 25:46; Luke 16:22-24). There is no in-between.

Lydia McGrew thinks there's a second chance after death for atheists who die somewhere between the apologetics lecture and the local library they are headed for in the effort to "check out" Christian claims.

There is no possibility of remaining on earth in spirit form as a “ghost.” If there are such things as ghosts, according to the Bible, they absolutely cannot be the disembodied spirits of deceased human beings.

not "absolutely". 1st Samuel 28, the witch of Endor brings up Samuel's ghost, and this ghost does not speak as a person opposed to the will of god, so the biblical author likely felt the apparition was Samuel's ghost.

The Bible teaches very clearly that there are indeed spirit beings who can connect with and appear in our physical world.

The trouble being that you couldn't prove such being exist to save your life.

The Bible identifies these beings as angels and demons. Angels are spirit beings who are faithful in serving God. Angels are righteous, good, and holy. Demons are fallen angels, angels who rebelled against God. Demons are evil, deceptive, and destructive. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, demons masquerade as “angels of light” and as “servants of righteousness.” Appearing as a “ghost” and impersonating a deceased human being definitely seem to be within the power and abilities that demons possess. https://www.gotquestions.org/ghosts-hauntings.html

But 2nd Peter 2:4 says the angels who sinned are confined in pits of darkness to be reserved for the day of Judgment, contradicting the notion that they also, somehow, are free to run around on earth possessing people.  Since you don't describe demons as any other than "fallen angels", then you leave yourself no wiggle room to speculate that maybe some of the fallen angels were spared confinement.  No such exception is expressed or implied in 2nd Peter 2:4 and the reader would never have reason to suspect an exception exists.  Peter doesn't describe them further than as angels "who sinned".  So it is reasonable to assume Peter implied no exceptions for some sinful angels...leaving you with the theological bullshit of fallen angels who are confined under the earth and reserved for judgment, but who nevertheless freely run around on earth regardless (Matthew 12:43).  Peter's reference to Tartarus, a throwback to the literal underworld where Greeks believed bad gods were imprisoned, further prohibits inerrantists from trifling that these imprisoned fallen angels might be imprisoned in a way that still allows them to run around on earth.  Early Greek theogonic stories said the Titans and Cyclops imprisoned there couldn't get out.  Snip.

i) Elijah (1 Kgs 17) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4) raise the dead. But presumably, the children they restored to life were not immortal. So they died a second time. There's also the somewhat enigmatic statement about the revived corpse in 2 Kgs 13. But that might be another case of someone who's temporally revived, only to die a second time.
 In addition, Jesus raised the dead, viz. Lazarus (Jn 11), the daughter of Jairus (Lk 8), and the widow's son (Lk 7). Likewise, Peter raised the dead (Acts 9). More ambiguous is the case of Eutychus (Acts 20).
 Presumably, although these people were revived, they were still mortal. So they died a second time.

Then your presumption is wrong.  Jesus allegedly said his raising Lazarus from the dead was to demonstrate "resurrection".

 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, (Jn. 11:25 NAU)

It is clear that Jesus is talking about a later resurrection, i.e., the type of resurrection that grants immortality.

So when he says he himself IS the resurrection, its pretty clear that he is saying he is the giver of immorality, and therefore, if he raised Lazarus to illustrate the teaching, then Lazarus' resurrection must be like the future resurrection of those who believed and died in faith, i.e., raised to immortal life, not raised to extended temporal life.

The only reason you resist saying Lazarus was resurrected in the sense the bible describes resurrected people with, is because an immortal Lazarus poses problems and inconvenience for biblical inerrancy.  But your theological convenience doesn't dictate what Jesus meant.  Snip.

v) Put another way, Heb 9:27 is not an absolute claim, but a statement about what happens to humans, all other things being equal. Yet it makes allowance for exceptions, all things considered. Like many unqualified statements in Scripture, it has an implicit ceteris paribus clause. If other conditions hold constant, if other factors remain unchanged, then that's what will happen. But in some cases, a different outcome is possible if there's a countervailing factor.

But such exceptions are not allowed by the context:

 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. (Heb. 9:24-28 NAU)

v. 28 is describing things that only happen once, absolutely; Christ's death and his 2nd coming, and describes them as an "also", linking their sense back to v. 27, thus, v. 27 is likely asserting in similarly absolute fashion that it is appointed unto man once to die, and under such absolute sense, contradicts other biblical accounts of those who managed to die twice.  Nobody said the biblical authors cared as much about bible inerrancy as you do.

13. What about the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Lk 16)?
 i) That's tricky because it's a fictional illustration, so the question is how much it is meant to illustrate. For instance, if you press the details, this would mean the damned can contact the saints. But do Christians who deny the existence of ghosts think that's generally the case? Can the denizens of hell initiate contact with the denizens of heaven whenever they feel like it? Is that realistic? Or is this an imaginary conversation between someone in "heaven" (Abraham) and someone in "hell" (the rich man) to illustrate whatever lesson(s) the parable is meant to teach?

So one of fundie Christianity's favorite eternal conscious torment passages is "tricky".  Let's just say the possibility of being tortured in hell forever is smartly dismissed as a clever way to scare gullible people into religion.  Not much more convincing than the empty threats at the end of Revelation for anybody who textually corrupts the book.   Just because you can convince a child the bogey man will "get them", doesn't mean that man exists.  It means not much more than your ability to use empty threats to frighten those who don't know better.

Demolishing Triablogue: Apparently, Steve Hays doesn't have serious answers

This is my reply (revised/updated January 5, 2018) to an article by Steve Hays entitled:

Ten questions Christians must answer!

I ran across a village atheist website with "Ten Questions a Christian Must Answer". At last count it had about 1250 comments.
 I'm going to ignore most of the questions because I've answered them or questions like them before. These are cliche questions. But there's one question I'll single out. Indeed, I've seen two variations on the same question:

How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus could appear to you, but he doesn’t. He appeared to Paul after he died, so it’s not like he hasn’t done it before. He could appear to give you advice for a tough decision, give you comfort in person like a friend would, or just assure you that he really exists.

 i) I explain the fact that Jesus never appeared to me because I never asked him to appear to me.

Perhaps as a Calvinist your answer should have been that Jesus hasn't appeared to you because he didn't want to.  Saul the Pharisee didn't ask Jesus to appear to him either, but Jesus allegedly appeared to him nonetheless.

ii) In addition, Jesus never promised to appear to every Christian, so there's no expectation that he will appear to every Christian.

But according to Mark 11, Jesus did promise fulfillment for the wishes of those who, when praying, believe that they have recieved the requested item:

 21 Being reminded, Peter said to Him, "Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered."
 22 And Jesus answered saying to them, "Have faith in God.
 23 "Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.
 24 "Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.
 25 "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions. (Mk. 11:21-25 NAU)

Since the prior verse speaks metaphorically about moving mountains, Jesus was apparently broadening his promise so that as long as what the Christian was praying for wasn't sinful, then the only reason they didn't get what they prayed for is because they didn't believe strong enough that they had received it.  Some would argue that Jesus consistent failure to personally comfort his followers constitutes a "mountain" most believers would wish to be cast into the sea.  Matthew has Jesus speak similarly:

 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
 6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
 7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
 8 "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
 9 "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?
 10 "Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?
 11 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! (Matt. 7:5-11 NAU)

Perhaps Steve will counter by saying Jesus is not good, therefore, an appearance of Jesus wouldn't be included in the list of good things God intends for his followers to receive?

iii) Moreover, I don't view Jesus as a genie whom I can summon to do my bidding.

Then you need to take a more careful look at the prosperity gospel bullshit that Jesus taught as represented above.

iv) As far as decision-making, that doesn't require private revelation. Throughout Scripture, you have people making decisions because God providentially orchestrated events in a certain way or implanted subliminal suggestions. So I can do God's will without even thinking about it.

Under your Calvinism, you are doing god's will should you rape a little girl to death.  You probably shouldn't boast about how you do god's will no matter what.

And even at the level of private revelation, that doesn't require a dominical vision.

But Jesus promised those who were sufficiently faithful that their requests would be granted.  Have fun trying to pretend that despite Jesus issuing such promises in broad terms, he expected his readers to believe that some morally good requests would never be granted even in situations where his required criteria were fulfilled.

What about an audible voice or revelatory dream? To demand a personal audience with Jesus is an arbitrary stipulation, even if we grant the general principle.

Nobody is "demanding", the challenge was why a "prayer" for Jesus to personally appear, is never fulfilled.

And if God wants believers to view him as a father in intimate terminology (Romans 8:15), then God is to be blamed for giving believers the false expectation that God is willing to personally interact with them.

v) There are many well-documented reports of Jesus appearing to people, viz.,
 https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/visions-of-jesus/

Well first, the author of the Jesus Vision book dude is quoting there, doesn't think his descriptions constitute "well-documented", since he cautions that they are merely "exploratory"



Steve isn't different from most apologists.  He will push another's testimonial evidence farther than those who supplied it wanted him to.

Let's take those miracle allegations quoted by "dude" one at a time:

Case 2: Robin Wheeler 

A google search for "miracles 'Robin Wheeler' turned up nothing to help investigate this, beyond Dude's blog piece and the google books version of the book Dude was referencing.

Attention, dude and Steve Hays:  Please provide this Robin Wheeler's true current legal name, current residence or mailing address, phone number and email address, so that I can begin my investigation. Otherwise, admit that you think criminal investigators are wrong when they are dissatisfied with the mere existence of filed affidavits, and wish to depose alleged witnesses to find out whether there are errors, deception or misunderstanding in their affidavits.

In addition, I emailed the following to the author of the book epistleofdude is referencing:

Dr. Wiebe, 

The miracle testimonies contained in your Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, are being used by Christian apologists to fend off skeptics who say miracles don't happen.  See https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/visions-of-jesus/

Steve Hays references that website, saying the cases in your book are "well-documented", see http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/01/ten-questions-christians-must-answer.html 

Can you put me in contact with the persons in that book whom you say experienced visions of Jesus?  Please provide any currently valid contact information for them.  Seems obvious that if the Christian god exists, he wouldn't want unbelievers to trust in Jesus-vision testimony that turns out to be false. 

If you cannot provide their current contact information, please specify why, and forward to them my email address, telling them that I am interested in investigating their stories as they appear in your above-referenced book. 

Thank you,
Barry

Also, neither Hays nor "dude" tell the reader that the cases they quote were placed by Dr. Wiebe under his own chosen heading "Group 1: Trance and Dreamlike Experiences"

One has to wonder whether any amount of documentation would ever be sufficient to morally compel skeptics to trust that some trance or dreamlike "experience of Jesus" was something above and beyond naturalistic human imagination.

Also, Steve Hays asserted that atheists were irrational to require interviewing miracle claimants and that we are irrational for thinking email and telephones aren't sufficient to the task:

If, however, an atheist is so irrational that he refuses to believe testimonial evidence unless he personally conducts the interview, then that's his self-imposed burden of proof.  

....ii) I'd add that his complaint is very quaint, as if he were living in the 18C, and had to interview witnesses face-to-face. Has he never heard of email or telephones? 

So perhaps Steve similarly feels Dr. Wiebe is irrational for wanting to conduct face-to-face interviews and do more research into specific claims where the claimaints refuse to participate by telephone:



Wieber also admits excluding out-of-body claims, other claims and one where the claimant said it was God but not Jesus, when in fact including these might have made the study a bit more objective (i.e., the tendency for visionaries to have theologically incorrect views of Jesus suggests "heretical" Jesus' visions arise from nothing more than the heretic's naturalistic imagination, arguing that the same is true for those claimants whom apologists think describe a theologically correct Jesus.

Wieber also said there that some of the claimants were "reticent" to speak about their experiences, which is problematic since it implies the claimant isn't so sure it was Jesus that they are willing to do with the experience what the Jesus of the NT wants them to do with it (i.e., the Jesus of the bible wants his followers to evangelize the world, and apparently wanted his original followers to use their visionary experiences to underscore their preaching).

dude continues:

Robin had very little contact with the church or with Christians for the first thirty-eight years of his life. He occasionally went to a Catholic or an Anglican church when he was young, but he had no interest in religion until neighbors moved in who were quite religious. His wife became a Christian as a result of their influence. This annoyed him greatly, especially when she prayed openly for him. One Saturday night several weeks after her conversion he had what he described as a battle with an evil creature as he was trying to sleep.

"trying to sleep"?  So was he actually asleep during this confrontation (which would initially argue it was a dream) or, did it take place before he actually nodded off (which would initially argue the event had reality outside of his own mind)?

Its face resembled a human face without skin, and it frightened him. 

Sorry, but too many people have been frightened by the likes of Freddy Kruger, to say this alleged event had serious plausibility, sounds like Wheeler saw one too many horror movies (even if this vision took place before the first Nightmare on Elm Street movie came out, it isn't like Kruger was the first time movies had ever depicted monstrous humans lacking facial skin), and while dreaming, Wheeler's unconscious mind did what it routinely does for billions of other people during sleep, and mixed up various realities in his life, here, mixing images he'd seen before, with the religious influences in his life.

He tried to fight off this creature, but he was not successful.

What was the creature doing to attack him.. Trying to bite him?  Drag him down to hell?  What exactly was the monster's act that was being interpreted as Wheeler's lack of success?

Just off to his right

Surely Jesus' standing to a person's "right" is sheer coincidence with the biblical teaching that standing on a person's "right" symbolizes agreement between the two?

stood a man wearing a brown sackcloth robe with a sash around his waist.

Jesus hasn't upgraded his wardrobe since the 1st century?

Robin never did see above the shoulders of this second figure,

And if you were on trial for murder, and the only witness against you admitted they couldn't see the upper half of the person who pulled the trigger, you'd no doubt scream your head off that the testimony is more prejudicial than probative and seek to have it thereby excluded.

but he considers it to have been Jesus.

So not even the claimant can be sure, but "considers" it to be Jesus.  Let's just say I'm not pissing myself with worry that Jesus is the least threat to anything I hold dear.  Especially given that God predestined me to think the way I do.

Robin tried to tie up the creature with the sash from Jesus, and as he did so Jesus disappeared. Again and again he would struggle with the monster, and each time Jesus would appear long enough for Robin to grab the sash, and then would disappear. 

Robin’s wife was with him while this struggle was taking place. She told me that he levitated for long periods of time that coincided with the struggles,

Please provide the full current legal name of Robin's wife and her presently valid contact information.  I'd like to do what criminal prosecutors do, and conduct a deposition to see whether or not the testimony can hold up under cross-examination.

I think this is the part where Steve argues, without actually saying so, that he thinks it is methodologically improper to peer into miracle-testimony that deep.  Of course you think that way Steve; if you were to think otherwise, it would take less than a week to debunk your bullshit fantasies.

So by pretending further investigation is not "needed", Steve also achieves his secret goal of keeping a kick to the teeth from actually reaching his teeth.  The less we investigate, the less change that Steve will endure his opponent positively discrediting the female religious fanatic who swears she saw her husband levitate while battling demons...and where positive discrediting cannot actually be achieved, the loser in the debate can always say "my theory remains a valid possibility".

One wonders whether smart guy Steve is aware that you don't stay afloat in a debate by merely correctly noting that your theory remains a possibility.  You only stay afloat where you show a) your theory is no less justified than your opponent's, or b) your theory is more justified than your opponent's.

and seemed to go in and out of consciousness. 

She says that Robin floated in midair in a horizontal position about a foot above the bed.

And Steve probably thinks only fools would automatically assume this couple's prior viewing of the "Exorcist" movie had something to do with this.

His body was in a perfectly rigid position, and all the veins in his body were bulging.

Aha!  A difference from the portrayal of levitation in the Exorcist, so obviously, that movie surely had nothing to do with this testimony.  Snip:

 COMMENT This is one of the few experiences involving a struggle with forces considered to be diabolical. Robin’s wife clearly understood the levitation she witnessed to be an intersubjectively observable concomitant, but no one else was there to see it. Their children and pets were elsewhere in the house, and slept through the bizarre events, even though Robin shouted all night long.

The children stayed asleep while Robin shouted all night long?  Give me a fucking break.

Robin and his wife said that they interpreted this deep sleep as indicative of unseen forces that were controlling the events of that night. Robin’s wife evinced no surprise at the fact that he had levitated, for she said she had witnessed levitation of other people on several occasions.

Now these miracle-claimants are claiming to have seen real levitation concerning other people.

Both said they had been involved in “occult” practices earlier in their lives.

So they were prone, beforehand, to be open to nonsense crap like dreamvisions and levitation.

I would challenge Hays, again, to produce the one Jesus-vision story in the book he thinks is the most credible and explain why, and stop pretending that the high number of the stories intellectually compels the objective person to believe that at least one of them is genuinely supernatural in origin.

By the Holy Spirit of atheism, I predict that Steve, worried sick as he obviously is that actually putting his money where his mouth is will open him up to the real possibility of being steamrolled, will fight tooth and claw like he has in the past, to avoid doing this, and instead argue that the sheer number of reports, without consideration of their respective merits, still makes a resurrected Jesus a greater likelihood than a Jesus who stayed dead.

Unfortunately, because he takes a stupid position, he can be forced into such a dilemma.  Steve clearly has no desire to open Pandora's Box by citing to the one Jesus-vision of modern times he thinks most impervious to falsification, and in normal every day life, a person doesn't run from such a challenge because they are afraid of winning, but because they are afraid of losing.

So...Steve...what exactly is unreasonable or irrational about the skeptic who asks the Christian apologist to cite the one modern-day miracle claim they think most impervious to falsification?

In what way does the challenge to produce your best case, suffer from any methodological flaw or epistemological shortcoming?

Or does there come a time when the objective reader is intellectually compelled to conclude that the reason you dance around these legitimate challenges is because you are, with very good reason, deathly afraid that once you commit to a specific case, it will, upon analysis, start falling apart at the seams?

Back to Hays:

 To say Jesus doesn't appear to people because he doesn't exist backfires, considering the many reported examples to the contrary. There's no dearth of evidence.

There's also no dearth of evidence for UFO's but they are still bullshit, lies and misunderstandings when specific cases are examined more closely.

And since you refuse to distinguish in the many reports between encounters with the real Jesus and encounters with a demon imitating Jesus, then under your logic, we need not distinguish between encounters with the real Mary and encounters with a demon imitating her, in which case your logic would require the conclusion that "to say Mary doesn't appear to people because she didn't exist, backfires, considerating the many reported examples to the contrary.  There's no dearth of evidence."

But if YOU can overcome quantity with quality (i.e., closer analysis of specific Marian apparition claims reveals misunderstanding and outright deception), then skeptics can also overcome quantity with quality (i.e., closer examination of Jesus-vision stories reveals misunderstandings and outright deception).

So apparently, Steve will have to take the position that the only time quality of investigation can trump sheer numbers of reported cases, is when Christian apologists need to employ that tactic to get rid of supernatural events they deem heretical.  Nobody else is allowed to use quality of investigation to trump sheer numbers of reported cases.

I don't title these blog pieces as "Demolishing Triablogue" for nothing.

 And if an atheist discounts these reports as tall tales or hallucinations, then his challenge was duplicitous. If, when you call his bluff, he says it doesn't matter, then he was arguing in bad faith all along.

Then I'm not with those skeptics, I've issued a clarifying challenge to help guard against fraud or misunderstanding.  Asking you to produce the one case you feel is most impervious to falsification, is rational, reasonable and legitimate.  And if your theory is true, you shouldn't have any trouble or hesitation putting your money where your mouth is and committing to any specific case.

 vi) From what I've read, reports of Jesus appearing to people typically involve situations where they didn't ask or expect Jesus to appear to them. It wasn't in response to prayer, but an unsolicited visitation.

Provide the one case you think is the most impervious to falsification.

 vii) Furthermore, when Jesus appears to people, it may be to summon them to a life of costly discipleship. So there's a tradeoff. A grueling vocation in exchange for the vision. I don't envy St. Paul's life.

It "may be".  No argument.  Atheism "may be" true.

 ix) I'm not vouching for any particular report.

Because you know that if you did, you'd get the shit kicked out of you in every way conceivable, so, being forced to become an atheist or adopt a weaker methodology making Christian claims easier to "prove", you choose the latter, no doubt through holy tears of indescribable joy.

I'm just responding to the atheist on his own grounds. I don't presume that every reported dominical apparition is legit.

And you carefully dodge the bullet thereby.  Again, Steve, pick the one vision story from these sources you think is the most "legit" and let's get started.

I can't assign percentages. But I do think that if you have enough reports by prima facie credible witnesses, that makes it likely that some reports are true.

But you cannot know the witnesses are "credible" until you submit their claims to analysis and cross-examination, since both sides agree the world is full of false miracle reports.  Yet this need to examine on a case by case basis is exactly what you so feverisly insist isn't necessary.   Well then what, Steve?  Maybe if I pray to God, God will tell me in a vision which of the modern-day miracle claimants are credible and which aren't?

Under your logic, because other religions also report tons of religions visions, some of them must be true as well.  You will say its just the devil who is responsible for non-Christian visions, but on the contrary, you don't allege merely that some Jesus visions are "supernatural", you are arguing from sheer numbers that some Jesus-visions really involve the real Jesus.

So if Mormons or whoever also report Jesus visions, then by your own logic, some of those reports are not merely real supernatural experiences, some of those reports really are Jesus, i.e., the real Jesus really is advocating Mormonism.  If you don't like that conclusion, then provide criteria by which a person can tell whether the Jesus in the vision is the real deal or a mere demonic imitation.  And when you say "the bible", prepare to agree that it is reasonable for the objective reader to take your advice, discover that "biblical Christianity" is equally as internally splintered on everything conceivable as "American politics" is, and to thereby stop giving a shit about modern day miracle claims while they take the next 50 years to make sure they've understood the biblical message correctly, since they know at present that men who have already accomplished that much learning still disagree with each other on every biblical subject imaginable...thus justifying the observer to reasonably conclude that their present kids, family, job and life deserve more attention than does that field of esoteric quantum mechanics otherwise known as Christian apologetics.

Sorry Steve, but the threat of a suffering conscious eternal torment would only compel rather stupid and gullible people to prioritize biblical truth as highly as you think it should be prioritized.

By the way Steve, can you really say it is unreasonable for skeptics to deny the miraculous?

Under your stupid Calvinism, I only deny the miraculous because God predestined me to.

What could be more reasonable than me doing what your God wants me to do?

Then again, you are comfortable with the stupidity of a doctrine that says God gets angry at people for doing what he caused them to do, so no, I don't expect that reasoning with you has the least potential to do anything more than what it does for barking Pentecostals.  You'll just tell yourself that if I'm actually in the right on the point, well, God predestined you to misunderstand me.  There's no reasoning with the idiot who thinks Allah wants him to fly a plane into a building, and there's no reasoning with an idiot who blames his inability to see reason on fatalistic determinism.

Now rattle off the names of 20 Calvinist theologians who insist it is error to equate predestination with fatalism, so people who need to work to pay the bills can just sit home on the internet worrying about all your trifling dogshit.

 x) Likewise, I don't need to personally experience something to know it's true. Secondhand information suffices for most of what we know.

No, most of what I know doesn't come from second-hand sources, but from my own personal experience of the world.  The only time I believe second-hand information is when it conforms to my prior experience of the world, or I am able by investigation to verify by other means that the secondhand sources were truthful (otherwise, you'd have to argue that we are always irrational to suspect somebody of lying before we have tangible evidence of such).

Why carve out an ad hoc exception in this instance?

Maybe because while Christians themelves cannot even agree on which single modern-day miracle claim is true, both Christians and atheists agree that plenty of them have been legitimately debunked (in which case, the exception wouldn't be ad hoc)?

Maybe we carve out an exception for the same reason you don't think every reported Jesus-vision is true. So far, you haven't told us why you doubt ANY of them.  But the fact that you don't believe all of them means you cannot criticize the atheist who says it makes more sense to deal only with the specific cases the apologists consider the most impervious to criticism, otherwise the sheer numbers would not justify believing Jesus merely lives, but that he also confirms theology that you believe is "heretical".

Since you don't have any criteria by which to decide whether a god who sends strong delusion to people would or wouldn't ever appear by vision and 'confirm' false theological beliefs of heretics, your predictable knee-jerk reaction that it is just Satan who pretends to be Jesus and confirms false theology in many modern-day vision claims, is so highly speculative and self-serving that there is no compelling reason to give two shits about it.

In that case, the more you accept that Jesus really is appearing to people today, the more you have to accept that he is confirming theology you think is false.

 meyu1/04/2018 2:42 PM☍I saw this also. What I have found on this site are atheists who just want to trip up Christians while not willing to defend their atheism.

Then come to my blog, where I trip up Christians and defend atheism.  When Steve advises you against it, just tell him that God gave you a vision of his secret will, and God's secret will is for you to come to this blog.  That'll shut him up.

Cold Case Christianity: Dear Mr. Wallace, stop trying to prove Christian crap without the bible

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Are There Any Good Reasons to Believe in Heaven 

(EvenWithout the Evidence from Scripture)?

There Are Good Reasons to Believe God Exists

If so, you have to first get over the impossible problem of incoherency.  Nothing depends so critically on the fallacy of special pleading, than the god-hypothesis.  You say God "sees" me, but he doesn't have physical eyes.  God has beliefs about me but doesn't have a physical brain.  Given there is not even one confirmed case of non-physical intelligence, your god will always remain an incoherent idea until you find a haunted house whose bumps in the night cannot be explained naturalistically.

While this may seem controversial to those who dismiss the existence of God out of hand, there are several lines of evidence supporting this reasonable conclusion. The reality of objective moral truths,

Go ahead and name whatever moral you think is binding upon all people at all times.  Let me guess:  "Don't torture babies solely for entertainment", right?  Why do you believe this to be binding on all people?  Because the bible says?  Because the Pope says?  How far in the toilet would this argument get you, if you were presenting it to somebody who thought torturing babies solely for entertainment would be morally justified in certain situations?  It's an absurdly weak argument that the only way you can establish it is if your opponent agrees with it?  And some would argue that because God is all-powerful and thus can achieve whatever purpose he wants for children without causing them to be tortured, God's torturing of the baby born to David and Bathsheba, could not have been for any other reason than God's good pleasure.  God could have killed the baby immediately, he didn't have to cause it to suffer severe illness for 7 days first:

15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.  (2 Sam. 12:15-18 NAU)

Finally, Calvinists are Christians who say God causes people to commit all the sins they actually commit, so since some people torture babies solely for entertainment, Calvinists say God is responsible for such heinous acts, which destroys any argument that baby-torture-solely-for-entertainment is objectively immoral.  Read Isaiah 13:13-18 (God causing pagan men to rape Hebrew women and beat Hebrew toddlers to death) and Ezekiel 38:4 - 39:6 (using hooks-in-your-jaws metaphor to describe the degree to which God controls the choices and actions of men, specifically in causing pagan men to attack Israel), before you insist that baby-torture is surely not something God would ever cause.

Wallace continues:

the appearance of design in biology,

But a) the design is also full of defects, yet you only wish to credit god with the design and not the design's defects, yet you have no objective reason for suppressing the latter, which means the defective design argues that whatever intelligence is responsible for them, is not perfect, and b) the argument that all complexity required design, requires your god, who must himself possess at least as much complexity in order to produce complex stuff, to have been designed by an intelligent mind.  Simply insisting that biblical monotheism forbids you from riding the logic train all the way to the end, doesn't mean the train actually stops where you need it to.  As an atheist, I love using the argument from design to falsify the biblical teaching of monotheism.  If extremely complex things like the human brain strongly imply an intelligent designer, then the infinitely more complex god who created the human brain, was even more likely the result of an intelligent creator.

the existence of a universe that has a beginning

The evidence for the beginning of the entire universe is absurdly weak.  First, the big bang doesn't prove god even if it is true.  That theory doesn't say the singularity popped into existence from nothing, but says the universe we know resulted from the pre-existing singularity exploding.  How the singularity got there, or whether it always existed, isn't answered by the Big Bang.  Second, if Hubble inferred taht red-shifted star light implies stars rushing away from the earth, then starlight at the other end of the spectrum, blue, would logically require blue stars to be rushing toward earth.  The Andromeda galaxy is blue-shifted.  But if the big bang theory be true, something must have caused that galaxy to slow down and eventually turn back toward the place where the big bang occurred.  Only gravity could cause that, but alas, there is nothing between us and the Andromeda galaxy that would create the massive amount of gravity needed to make it do a u-turn.  So redshift and blueshift likely do not speak to whether the star is moving, hence, redshift, does not support the big bang.

and the presence of transcendent laws of logic are best explained by the existence of God.

One law of logic is the law of identity ("A = A").  If God exists, he would already be subject to the law of identity, which means he could not cause, or be prior to, the logical law of identity, and therefore, at best, logic governs god, god does not govern logic.  If God is the reason the law of identity is valid, then he could conceivably exist before it and without being governed by it.  Now how reasonable is the idea of a being who is free from the law of identity?

The laws of logic are not transcendent, they are a function of language.  The logical law of identity says "A is A".  When you ask where logic came from, you may as well be asking why a thing is what it is, and why it isn't something other than itself.  If you don't see the stupidity of asking why a thing is what it is, then it is little wonder that you think asking where logic came from is just as legitimate as asking where burritos come from.  Just because this world is full of physical things that were caused by prior means, doesn't mean that just anything you can possibly put into words, needs to have a cause.

Logic, being axiomatic by being required for even the absolute starting point of all chains of reasoning, is thus itself immune from the question of its origin.  To properly ask where logic came from, you have to employ logic itself, which means the matter in question is being presumed in the question before the answer is given, otherwise known as the fallacy of begging the question.  To avoid the fallacy, whatever produced logic must not be logic itself, which means the causal mechanism can exist without being bound by logic, just like a woman exists before, and is not bound by, her child.  You would also avoid the fallacy by framing your question in a non-logical way.  But while that would protect you from begging the question, the non-logical question doesn't function as legitimate inquiry.  Nothing is more reasonable than refusing to answer questions that defy logic.

Some apologists point out that even if there were no intelligence in the universe, a square shaped rock would still be logically distinct from the other one that is shaped like a circle, so that logic seems to pervade reality even in the absence of intelligent minds.   But this rebuttal backfires, however, since if the universe had no intelligent life, then "god" wouldn't be there either, in which case one rock maintaining its logical distinction from another, despite the absence of god, would show that logic exists even in the absence of god. 

There Are Good Reasons to Believe God Is Good (In Spite of the Problem of Evil)
Skeptics sometimes point to the problem of evil (in one form or another) to argue against the existence of God (or His good, all-loving nature). But when examined closely, the presence of moral evil, natural evil, Christian evil, “theistic” evil, or pain and suffering fail to negate the existence of God, even as they fail to blemish His righteousness.

God causes pagan men to rape women and beat toddlers to death, Isaiah 13:13-18.  There's no mystery of evil, its what humans do.  If your god exists, then, by his own admission, he is responsible for all the evil.

There Are Good Reasons to Believe Humans Have Souls
In addition to this, there are many good reasons to believe humans are more than simply physical bodies. The arguments from private knowledge, first-person experiences, part-independency, physical measurements, self-existence and free-will make a powerful, cumulative circumstantial case for the existence of our souls.

Maybe for Christians for whom just any damn thing you say will be deemed a powerful argument.  But not for atheists.  Nothing could be more obvious than that mental states are entirely dependent on brain states.  If the bible hadn't alleged the existence of immaterial souls or spirits, you wouldn't be wasting anybody's time with this sophistry.

And indeed, some Christians are dichotomists (they believe the bible teaches man is only two things, body and soul) and other Christians are trichotomists (they believe the bible teaches man has a body, a soul and something different called "spirit").  Then there's the inconvenient fact that you sit around pretending the immaterial nature of the soul is just as obvious as is the existence of trees, when you don't have one single confirmed case that souls even exist.

There are Good Reasons to Believe Souls Are Not Limited to Physical Existence
While our physical bodies are obviously limited to their physical existence and cease to function at the point of material death, there is no reason to believe the immaterial soul is similarly impacted.

If the soul wasn't affected by the body, we'd expect people not to undergo the personality changes and memory lapses they do after severe head-trauma.  The injury is obviously physically affecting the mind, and only Christian apologists, crazed to defend biblical inerrancy at all costs, would trifle that "maybe" the immaterial soul seems affected by the physical, for reasons other than the soul being physical.  If the bible had said the ultimate basis of muscle-power is spiritual, you'd be insisting that just because there is a physical explanation for muscular power, doesn't necessarily prove there's no spiritual causal mechanism at work.

If we are truly “soulish” creatures, our immaterial existence can reasonably be expected to transcend our physical limitations.

And since you haven't the least bit of evidence for such a thing, I sleep well at night in my confidence that immaterial things are about as coherent as flying elephants.  The possibility of an eternal hell doesn't exactly give me insomnia.

There are Good Reasons to Believe a Good God Would Not Make Justice, Satisfaction and Joy Elusive
All of us, as humans, yearn for justice, satisfaction and joy. These are good goals and ambitions.

Such as pedophiles, who think America's current laws on sexual age of consent are unfair and need to be lowered?  That's the stupidity your argument leads to.  Not all senses of injustice justify inferring that justice is some divine thing.

A good God (if He exists) would make these expectations attainable for His beloved children.

Are you drunk?  You just made a good argument that God does NOT love any followers who have suffered for years and died due to breaches of "justice".  Preaching to your trusting audience of Christians that God will someday set justice right, doesn't answer this criticism.

There are Good Reasons to Believe Complete Justice, Satisfaction and Joy Are Elusive in Our Temporal, Material Lives
Our daily experience demonstrates a simple reality, however: justice is not always served here on Earth (bad people often get away with their crimes), and while we continually pursue satisfaction and joy, we find they are fleeting and elusive.

Irrelevant.  And a person's sense of justice changes as they age.  The young Christian get made at god for being unable to find work and the resulting homelessness.  The older Christian is more likely to conclude that being homeless is, spiritually speaking, a good thing because it works spiritual maturity and causes you to make more conscious efforts to depend on God.  So the human sense of justice/injustice is sufficiently ambivalent that there's probably not an objective standard of right and wrong sitting in back of it.

There are Good Reasons to Believe a Good God Would Provide Complete Justice, Satisfaction and Joy in the Eternal Life He Offers Beyond the Grave

Well gee, if you already presuppose that god is "good", then obviously....you could rightfully expect him to correct injustices at some point.

If these worthy desires for justice, satisfaction and joy are unattainable in our material existence, where could they ultimately be experienced?

For some people, never.  Like the Canaanites attacked by Moses and Joshua, such people were fatal victims of crass injustice.

If God has designed us as dualistic, “soulish” creatures, these innate desires could eventually be realized in our eternal lives beyond the grave. If a good God exists (and there are many sufficient reasons to believe this is the case),

And every single of one of them evaporate in light of your own bible teaching that God causes men to rape Hebrew women, Isaiah 13:13-18.   Now what?

the expectation of an afterlife is reasonable.

It is the hope of the hopeless in their god and his mud-pit profit.

Heaven is the place where God will accomplish everything we would expect from Him and everything we (as living souls) desire.

Preaching to the choir.  Dismissed.

I don’t have to be a Christian in order to take this kind of reasonable approach to the issue.

Yes you do, unless you are convinced by Isaiah 13 that the god of the bible is a piece of shit.

Maybe that’s why many non-Christians have developed similar views on the nature of the next life. Long before Christianity, ancient Egyptians believed the afterlife was a place of final satisfaction and joy for those who were able to obtain a life with the gods in the “Sekhet-Aaru of the Tuat”. The followers of Zoroastrianism believed those who died would eventually be brought back to life and judged so final justice could be served. There are many similar examples of such expectations of an afterlife throughout the history of humanity. Even those who knew nothing of the truth of God’s Word held an intuitive understanding of what the next life might be like. This is still true today.

And since those religions came before Christianity, its pretty clear who is borrowing afterlife concepts from whom.

Our non-believing friends and family have an instinctive sense there is more to this life; a sense there must be a place where justice is finally served and where joy and satisfaction will finally be found.

And that argument gets beaten down from the fact that many convicted pedophiles sincerely believe the current American laws are unjust.  So under your logic, we should seriously consider that in heaven, pedophiles will joyfully experience the righting of the wrongs they suffered under prudish American law?

Or did you suddenly discover that not all human senses of injustice imply a pie-in-the-sky wonderland where everything will be made all better like the end of a fairy tale?

They have an innate expectation of Heaven, and they are simply waiting for God to reveal the truth to them. Maybe they’re waiting to hear about Heaven from us, if only we are willing to begin a reasonable discussion.
And as usual, you have no confidence in the power of the sovereign Holy Spirit at all, since at the end of the day, you equate your apologetics dreams with his activity in your heart, when for all you know, the Holy Spirit's goals are diamentrically opposed to Christians pretending that convincing unbelievers Christianity is true need not involve the Holy Spirit's work any more than does convincing a jury that a criminal suspect is guilty.

Clearly, Wallace, you are horrifically dissatisfied with the idea that God doesn't need your help.  What will be the title of your next article?  Maybe "If you don't learn how to defend your faith forensically by purchasing my books, Jesus might go back into the tomb!"