James Patrick Holding doesn't specialize in a Christian's "authority"

In the comment section to one of James Patrick Holding's videos, somebody brought up an unrelated question that one would figure Mr. Holding would be able to provide some guidance on:

Primitive Cash2 weeks ago (edited)I’ve an unrelated question about Priesthood authority in this day vs in the times of the New Testament: Is it relevant to have authority from God in this age? If so, How does one know without question that a faith genuinely has said authority? I was LDS, and I once believed I had authority from Him to heal the sick, give blessings, and cast out demons, but I have found evidence that makes such assertions questionable at best.
tektontv2 weeks agoThat kind of question is not my bailiwick. Anyone else want to try?
Logician_Bones1 week agoWell, not sure what you mean by "authority" but the last bit reminds me of the findings I've mentioned before on here reported through CMI re: Alien Intrusion with modern evidence that Christians who call on Jesus to stop experiences faked by demons are indeed freed from the experience (evidently demons masquerading as alien abductors). The Bible does suggest this sort of thing. I don't see much else if you mean in the miraculous category and have talked about why miracles are normally reserved for credentialing authorship of new Scripture and the canon is now closed. The protection from demons makes sense as possibly a nearly sole exception since demons aren't supposed to be intervening in the first place so aren't part of the normal way the world works that God normally lets happen in the fallen world so that miracles can be reserved for credentials of the Bible. This doesn't necessarily include all healings; it's only publicly proveable miracles that have to be reserved normally, but I wouldn't say "authority." We request things of God; it's up to him, since he alone is omniscient, which to actually say yes to. (And be very careful with claims that a yes answer HAS been given in the sense of miracles of intervention versus timing; most humans aren't good at judging that kind of thing.) If you mean authority in some other sense not sure but you suggested the answer yourself; go by evidence.
Primitive Cash1 week agoLogician_Bones Thank you.
Leonel Huicho1 week agoBy Authority I Guess You mean authority to Interpret Scripture, It was always something Inherited, In Earlier Judaism for Example, God allowed scribes to modify certain passages as long as their teachings weren't altered. Regarding if Certain Religious Institution has the authority, It depends on a lot of factors, But One of them that I would be on how much they hold to the teachings of Christ, The early Apostles and the early Church.
Primitive Cash1 week ago (edited)Leonel Huicho By ‘authority’, I mean having genuine access to abilities that would be seen as supernatural and therefore only accessible to God, such as spiritual healing, casting out devils, the ability to speak a language you didn’t know previously, et cetera. The LDS faith appears to exhibit many factors that reflect what is shown in the Bible, yet I see evidence that they are NOT the religion with His authority.
Primitive Cash1 week agoStrange, no one has answered my leading question about the relevancy of having God’s authority this day.

Logician_Bones6 days ago​@Primitive Cash Not sure you've defined it clearly enough to see how my answer doesn't apply to your leading question. Why would it be relevant to have access in a sense called "authority" (versus requests and there being good reasons those requests probably normally shouldn't be granted today) to miracles? I would suggest that unbiblical religious views may go for that idea because they're sharing a bit of the concept of humanism -- wanting to be gods to some extent themselves, rather than admitting we're purely created by God and he has all the "authority" in the normal sense of the word). He gives us delegated authority with constraints and consequences if we behave immorally, but not inherently for miracles; why single out miracles? The only reason I can think of is for evidential purposes, but my answer covers this already. We already have sufficient evidence from the miraculous historical support for the Bible which stands for all time and all people. We shouldn't need more more more; that's actually a kind of mental unhealthiness to constantly need something new when the old is sufficient (along the lines of what James said about failing to do what the Bible says being like a person who looks in the mirror and walks away and immediately forgets what he looks like). It probably turns into a sort of circular-reasoning trap where they are so used to pushing the supposed importance of authority for no obvious reason other than self-serving ones that then all else becomes judged by this, kind of like "sovereignty" for Calvinists or "reason" (falsely so-called) for atheists or fundamentalism for fundies. I think it's reasonable simply to ask that those claiming such things are necessary provide sound, independant support for this claim, and if they can't, then we don't really need to disprove it per se, but have no reason to accept it either. (And it should also be enough that we do have sound support for the Bible!)

Since Holding claimed the question about priesthood authority did not implicate his "bailwick" (area of expertise) he didn't comment on it.  However, we can take PrimtiveCash's concerns one point at a time and provide what would qualify as a biblically justified response.  In doing so, we'll uncover certain bases for skepticism and therefore infer the real reason Mr. Holding retreated from what is otherwise a straightforward question with biblically straightforward answers:  You start trying to 'explain' why the authority of 1st centuy christians cannot be detected among 21st century Christians, and you run the risk of convincing yourself that the NT promises are nothing but empty idealism, and are accordingly reasonably rejected by non-Christians.

Primitive Cash2 weeks ago (edited)I’ve an unrelated question about Priesthood authority in this day vs in the times of the New Testament:

That's probably why Holding backed off...you are doomed to a land of necessary subjectivity if you try to "prove" that any biblical truth about 1st century Christians is applicable to 21st century Christians.  Jesus not coming back for 2,000 years doesn't sound like "quickly".  Holding will reply that he is a preterist and thus isn't bothered by the failure of Christ to float down from the clouds in literal fashion as expected by billions of Christians today. But the one bible verse that nukes Preterism is Acts 1:11...a verse that completely forbids spiritualizing the 2nd Coming the way Preterists necessarily do:

 6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
 7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
 9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them.
 11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."
 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.   (Acts 1:6-12 NAU)

By the words "in just the same way", the angels validate the traditional Christian view that Jesus would literally float down out of the clouds "in just the same way" that he allegeldy ascended into them.  There is no way to reconcile Acts 1:11 with the spiritualized interpretation of the 2nd Coming that Preterists hold.

Anyway, back to Primitive Cash:

Is it relevant to have authority from God in this age?

As long as you believe Matthew the apostle authored the gospel now bearing his name, the answer is "yes":

First,  in Matthew 10, Jesus authorizes the original disciples to go around doing miracles, vv. 1-16.

Second, Jesus then follows up immediately with statements that apply to equally well to future generations of Christians, vv. 16-28.

Third, Jesus follows up with statements that most Christians today apply to their own modern situation vv 29-42

Fourth, the allegedly risen Christ specifies that his disciples are to take ALL the teachings they received and pass them on to future Gentile converts.  It's the part of the Great Commission most people miss:

 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. 28:18-20 NAU)

Since Matthew 10 is clearly part of the "all that I commanded you", this Great Commission was also telling the apostles to convey to future Gentile converts those comments Jesus made in Matthew 10...which would mean commissioning and exhorting new Gentile converts to perform miracles by the authority of God:

1 Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. (Matt. 10:1 NAU)

Since it is only dispentationalists who have any prayer of trying to delimit the "all" of Matthew 28:20, I suppose Mr. Holding will, upon reading this, suddenly discover the blessed assurance of dispensationalism, then protect his pride by the childish thing he does best...hurling insulting epithets at anybody who differs.  As if to disagree with Holding's bible bullshit placed one on the level of those who deny the existence of trees.

The gospels have more of the same.  For example, all scholars are agreed that John is the latest of the 4 gospels, which means he wrote likely around 80 a.d. when the original apostles had mostly died off, yet as long as you insist it was apostle John who wrote it, then it must have been apostle John who was encouraging just any reader to not only believe upon the basis of his words (20:31), but that Christians in future generations would do even greater miracles than Christ did:

 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
 11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.
 12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.
 13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
 14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
 15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
 16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;   (Jn. 14:10-16 NAU)

If John was writing these things around 80 or 90 a.d., its pretty clear that he was assuring even the new Christians of the same decades that they could do 'greater' works than what Jesus himself did. 

Holding will try to escape the obvious falsehood of the promise by spiritualizing "greater works" and then pretend that these only refer to canonizing the NT, or successfully evangelizing Gentiles, or anything else that can easily escape positive falsification, but the immediate context requires the "greater works" to be "anything" the converts ask (v. 14).  Later NT authors did not allow any exegetical room for the possibility that god might not want to heal the person you ask god to heal:

 13 Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises.
 14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
 15 and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.
 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.   (Jas. 5:13-16 NAU)

Holding will say God's sovereign right to say "no" to such prayers is assured by other bible verses, but

a) bible inerrancy is an obviously false doctrine that not even inerrantists can agree on, despite more than 50 years of trying. Just ask Holding how stupid and obstinate people like Norman Geisler are.  Then watch him change his tune when you ask whether Mike Licona's openeness to error in the bible make him worthy of equally insulting invective.  Therefore, the doctrine does not deserve to be exalted in anybody's mind to the status of governing hermeneutic, forcing the reader to believe that the only interpretation of a bible verse that can be correct is one that can be harmonized with the rest of the bible, and;

b) because bible inerrancy is so unsettled and controversial, we can only do good things by refusing to use it as a check on the accuracy of an interpretation of a bible verse, remain open to the possibility that the NT author spoke in contradiction to something else in the bible, and demand that one's interpretation be based on the author's own assertions.  As soon as you start using outside data (bible inerrancy, social sciences, whatever) to help interpret the bile verse, you are imposing things on the text that could just as easily be wrong as right.

Therefore, we have a reasonable rational basis to say "fuck you" to bible inerrancy, reject using it as a hermeneutic, and insist that limiting ourselves to the text as much as possible is probably going to yield a more objective interpretation. Thus it cannot be unreasonable to say James intended this promise to be unqualified, and therefore, to charge him with error since the promise is obviously empty.  Therefore, we are not "ureasonable" to say that Jesus and others in the NT promised the unqualified future generations of Christians the authority to do miraculous healings, etc.  The fact that such things obviously never happen today, does not mean this interpretation is false, it means the NT authors were giving the readers empty promises. 

 Back to Primitive Cash:

If so, How does one know without question that a faith genuinely has said authority?

That's a good question since there is no particular denomination or group in the history of Christianity that can show they have any more ability than the others to fulfill Jesus' promise to effect miracle healings.

I was LDS, and I once believed I had authority from Him to heal the sick, give blessings, and cast out demons, but I have found evidence that makes such assertions questionable at best.

The dilemma here is whether Christian apologists can convincingly mitigate the failure of such biblical promises by pretending that such promises were so limited to certain early groups that the apologist can reconcile the "truth" of such promises with the obvious fact that the promises do not hold up for today's Christians.

For the fuckhead who thinks I blindly presume the biblical promise of miraculous healing never happens when I cannot possibly claim to have such extensive knowledge of world history, they are advised that I posted a direct challenge to Craig Keener to back up his claim that ANY miracle has happened within the last 100 years.  He has never responded to the challenge.  See here and here.

Then let such fuckhead Christians remember that many of their own are "cessationists" who are Christian in faith, but who insist the age of miracles died out with the apostles, and thus such Christians are no more impressed by "modern accounts of miracles"  than I am.  Richard B. Gaffin writes such an article for the Christian apologetics site "whitehoseinn", see here.  He is a Calvinist, which means he disagrees with Calvinist Steve Hays of Triablogue, who believes miracles still happen today.  Apparently, not even joining the right church and believing the right theology does anything to guard against your falling into error. 

It's almost as if there's no god guiding this bullshit, where people end up after serious bible study is determined by nothing more than their ability to learn and their circumstances.  The idea that god is "guiding" them is total dogshit.

Let's continue responding.  Next item up for bids is LogicianBones, who seems to think excess verbiage might hoodwink the more gullible into thinking he has anything to say that remotely scares off skeptics:

Logician_Bones1 week agoWell, not sure what you mean by "authority"

The right or power from God to cause miraculous healing.

but the last bit reminds me of the findings I've mentioned before on here reported through CMI re: Alien Intrusion with modern evidence that Christians who call on Jesus to stop experiences faked by demons are indeed freed from the experience (evidently demons masquerading as alien abductors).

But this avoids the real question. The issue is not whether demons take form as space aliens to divert Christians away from important subjects, but how we can know which Christians today have authority from god to perform any type of miracle. 

The Bible does suggest this sort of thing.

hence, the problem created for you and your inability to point to any miracle in the last 100 years that you think is the most impervious to falsification.  You don't dare suggest an example without running the risk of having it shoved back in your face with empirically justified contempt. 

I don't see much else if you mean in the miraculous category and have talked about why miracles are normally reserved for credentialing authorship of new Scripture and the canon is now closed.

Sorry, I've never heard of any "miracles" being done to "credential" any scripture authorship, whether the bible or otherwise, nor am I aware of any "miracle" done to demonstrate that the "canon" ever became "closed"...unless you equate mere historical happenstance and unwillingness of some of the church to expand on the canon after the 4th century, to be a "miracle"?

The protection from demons makes sense as possibly a nearly sole exception since demons aren't supposed to be intervening in the first place so aren't part of the normal way the world works that God normally lets happen in the fallen world so that miracles can be reserved for credentials of the Bible.

Hurry up and give us one modern-day miracle that you think is the most impervious to falsification.

This doesn't necessarily include all healings; it's only publicly proveable miracles that have to be reserved normally, but I wouldn't say "authority."

Oh, name a "publicly provable" miracle.

We request things of God; it's up to him, since he alone is omniscient, which to actually say yes to.

No, you simply mistake systematic theology for the Holy Spirit, and then you use the rest of the bible as the rose-colored glasses by which to interpret otherwise unqualified biblical promises that believers will do miracles.  Read James 5:15, the context does not permit reading a "but maybe God for sovereign reasons might not do a particular healing" into it.  And I already showed the reasonableness of skeptics and others to reject using bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic.  So you are stuck with an interpretation of a biblical promise in James 5 that normative and non-controversial rules of interpretation shows to be reasonable, despite the fact that the promise thus proves to be empty.  That is, the bible's assurances of how "authority" manifests itself in the life of Christians, are nothing but unrealistic idealism gone to seed.  FUCK YOU.

(And be very careful with claims that a yes answer HAS been given in the sense of miracles of intervention versus timing; most humans aren't good at judging that kind of thing.) If you mean authority in some other sense not sure but you suggested the answer yourself; go by evidence.
Primitive Cash1 week agoLogician_Bones Thank you.
Leonel Huicho1 week agoBy Authority I Guess You mean authority to Interpret Scripture, It was always something Inherited, In Earlier Judaism for Example, God allowed scribes to modify certain passages as long as their teachings weren't altered. Regarding if Certain Religious Institution has the authority, It depends on a lot of factors, But One of them that I would be on how much they hold to the teachings of Christ, The early Apostles and the early Church.

But the dichotomy between one's interpretations and the "teachings of Christ" is false, as you don't know any teaching of Christ apart from interpretation.  Fundies are constantly talking about how something in the bible doesn't need interpretation, but they are sadly mistaken, the very act of discerning what the text means, constitutes "interpretation".  Even if reading the front page of yesterdays New York Times headline involves using less controversial assumptions in the interpretive process.

Primitive Cash1 week ago (edited)Leonel Huicho By ‘authority’, I mean having genuine access to abilities that would be seen as supernatural and therefore only accessible to God, such as spiritual healing, casting out devils, the ability to speak a language you didn’t know previously, et cetera.

Thanks for clarifying.  Might be nice if the Christian believers in modern-day miracles actually produced the one they think most impervious to falsification, and accordingly stick their necks out, instead of ceaselessly hiding behind a subterfuge of methodological disagreement.  See how I steamrolled Steve Hays and his attempt to pretend that skepticism of miracles is unreasonable, here.  How does Hays keep the door open to miracles happening to day?  By using absurdly low standards of evidence, then accusing skeptics of being unreasonable when they demand that such miracle evidence meet the same level of criteria used in most criminal investigations.

The LDS faith appears to exhibit many factors that reflect what is shown in the Bible, yet I see evidence that they are NOT the religion with His authority.
Primitive Cash1 week agoStrange, no one has answered my leading question about the relevancy of having God’s authority this day.

From what I wrote above, you can see why:  They start trying to answer your question in any serious way, and a brick wall of "why is there no serious evidence for the perpetuity of any spiritual gift today" will hit them at about 184 mph.  So by pretending "that's not my bailwick" one can escape such certain embarrassment.  Now leave Mr. Holding alone so he can fly 1000 miles to give his next "bible doesn't teach a flat earth" lecture to the next group of 25 people.

Logician_Bones6 days ago​@Primitive Cash Not sure you've defined it clearly enough to see how my answer doesn't apply to your leading question. Why would it be relevant to have access in a sense called "authority" (versus requests and there being good reasons those requests probably normally shouldn't be granted today) to miracles?

Because the bible promises all believers the ability to work miracles, which means it sucks to be you, an inerrantist who never sees any contradiction between bible promises and reality.  you aren't going to make a reasonable case that spiritual gifts were restricted to the 1st century, so if they fail to manifest today, its because the bible promises otherwise are empty.

I would suggest that unbiblical religious views may go for that idea because they're sharing a bit of the concept of humanism -- wanting to be gods to some extent themselves, rather than admitting we're purely created by God and he has all the "authority" in the normal sense of the word). He gives us delegated authority with constraints and consequences if we behave immorally, but not inherently for miracles; why single out miracles?

Ahhh, you are backtracking already.  You BETTER try to think of some way to exempt the miraculous from this discussion, otherwise, you'll have to explain why modern Christians cannot produce any evidence that they ever perform any of the healings or miracles which the NT promises to all future generations of believers.

The only reason I can think of is for evidential purposes, but my answer covers this already. We already have sufficient evidence from the miraculous historical support for the Bible which stands for all time and all people.

You are also high on crack:  I've been asking apologists to hit me with whatever argument for Christianity they think the most impervious to falsification, whether historicity of Jesus' resurrection, of fulfillment of messianic prophecy, or proof of bible inerrancy, or whatever.  So far, nobody from Mr. Holding's gang has dared confront me with any such thing.  Getting their ass kicked all over hell and back probably doesn't help promote their agenda of confident dogmatism, so naturally, they bow out.  This is true also for Hays, Engwer and the fools at Triablogue, who clearly know about my challenges, but don't do jack shit about it.

We shouldn't need more more more; that's actually a kind of mental unhealthiness to constantly need something new when the old is sufficient (along the lines of what James said about failing to do what the Bible says being like a person who looks in the mirror and walks away and immediately forgets what he looks like).

Then count me out: i'm only asking for one solid pro-Christian argument that actually works.  So far, you lose.   I've already answered the Josh McDowell' bullshit, and I constantly answer Triablogue and other apologists.  If you think you have anything more powerful than they have, feel free to drop by, and let's get started with the one argument you think is most impervious to falsification.  Otherwise, take your confident rhetorical posturing and shove it up your loquacious ass.

It probably turns into a sort of circular-reasoning trap where they are so used to pushing the supposed importance of authority for no obvious reason other than self-serving ones that then all else becomes judged by this, kind of like "sovereignty" for Calvinists or "reason" (falsely so-called) for atheists or fundamentalism for fundies.

Wow, you mean even after you accept christ, there's no guarantee of being transformed into Christ's image?  Then apparently the promise of salvation is empty, since any change you made to your sinful self since you "got saved" can just as easily be explained in purely naturalistic terms. 

I think it's reasonable simply to ask that those claiming such things are necessary provide sound, independant support for this claim,

Ok, I see nothing in the present world that indicates ANY part of the NT is still valid today.  Any truths about today's Christians are easily explainable in purely naturalistic terms, which means it is reasonable for the skeptic to reject the notion that today's Christians have experienced ANY type of "miracle". For the last time, if you think that's wrong, take the one miracle you believe is most impervious to falsification, and let's get started.

and if they can't, then we don't really need to disprove it per se, but have no reason to accept it either. (And it should also be enough that we do have sound support for the Bible!)

Since you are preaching to the choir, I no more need to "refute" this than I "need" to refute the Brownsville Revival.

Cold Case Christianity: Biblical “Faith”: Trusting What Can’t Be Seen on the Basis of What Can

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

Cold Case Christianity: Biblical “Faith”: Trusting What Can’t Be Seen on the Basis of What Can
Posted: 16 Dec 2019 01:50 AM PST  

The Christian concept of “faith” is often either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented by skeptics and critics of Christianity.

It's also misunderstood by Christians, which makes it more difficult for atheists to define such monster "objectively".

Christians are not called to believe blindly.

Bullshit, in two places the NT praises the kind of faith that is unable to "see":

 29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." (Jn. 20:29 NAU) 

 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. (Rom. 8:24-25 NAU)

Wallace continues:

In fact, the Christian worldview is an evidential worldview grounded in the eyewitness testimony of those who saw Jesus provide evidence of His Deity.

It's also grounded on a view that cannot account for eyewitnesses who thought Jesus' miracles were total bullshit, such as his immediate family, see Mark 3:21, 6:4 and John 7:5.  In that honor/shame society, they would not lightly dismiss Jesus' claims, they would more than likely have investigated/observed them, since in that culture dishonoring Jesus was to dishonor his family too.  They would not deny Jesus' claims unless they had good reasons to consider his miracles fake.

Sometimes Christians contribute to the misunderstanding by failing to see the evidential nature of Christianity and the reasonable nature of “faith”.

Probably because they are new creatures in Christ who have the mind of the Holy Spirit.

As I teach on this topic around the country, Christians often offer this passage in the Book of Hebrews to defend a definition of blind faith:
 Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval.
 Is the writer of Hebrews commending a form of blind faith in which we simply hope for “things not seen”? No. The author is encouraging his readers to continue to trust in the promises of God, in spite of the fact they haven’t yet been fulfilled (and might not even be fulfilled in their lifetimes). This trust in “things not seen” is not unwarranted, however. The promises of God are grounded in what God has already done. In other words, the author of Hebrews is asking his readers to trust what can’t be (or hasn’t yet been) seen, on the basis of what can be (or has been) seen.

Then Christian faith is not really different from skeptical faith, as everybody is using what they believe is already settled to draw inferences about what remains unsettled.

To make this point clear, the writer of Hebrews offers a short list of historic believers who trusted God’s promises for the future on the basis of what God had done in the past: Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are described as believers who “died in faith, without receiving the promises” (verse 13).

Included in this faith hall of fame was Abraham, and the reason was his quick trust that whatever voice was telling him to kill his son was from God (!?)

Abe did not have faith that God would stop the knife from being plunged into the boy, but he had faith that God was able to raise the boy from the dead:

 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;
 18 it was he to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED."
 19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. (Heb. 11:17-19 NAU)

The blindless of such faith may be inferred frm the fact that nothing is stated about how Abraham knew this "kill your kid" voice was coming from "god", yet Abe's obedience to it was instant:

 1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
 2 He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
 3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. (Gen. 22:1-3 NAU)

The NT will also label Lot as godly, which means his offering his virgin daughters to a sexually violent mob was an act consistent with men who deserve the title of "righteous" in the New Testament sense of the word, compare:

 4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,
 7 and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
 8 "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." (Gen. 19:4-8 NAU) 

 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),
 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, (2 Pet. 2:7-9 NAU)

Neo-fundamentalists will trifle that Lot's offering of his daughters was merely a case of Semitic exaggeration, that is, ancient Semitic peoples were always overstating facts and beliefs.  But if so, one wonders how many Christian doctrines about god's nature, derived as they are from a literal interpretation of the bible, are in fact a case of misrepresentation of the bible?  When the bible says God has been god from eternity into eternity (Psalm 90:2) is that literal, or Semitic exaggeration? 

And of course, neo-fundamentalists provide no criteria for distinguishing biblical claims that are meant literally from biblical claims that are mere Semitic exaggeration.

The promises of God were yet “things not seen”.

True, but that's not an exhaustive list of what qualifies under 11:1.  Blind faith would also qualify. 

And we have to ask...if an adult DOES have authentically "blind" faith due to some stirring sermon and ends up believing Christian claims on the basis of nothing more than biblical quotations, does THAT kind of faith "save", yes or no?  In other words, what can we deduce about you and your god if your god honors faith that is truly "blind"?  Will god withhold salvation from the sincere sinner until the sinner reads a few books about apologetics?

Or maybe we should worry about certain dogshit fundamentalists who think like Catholics, and say salvation is not certain until death?   Gee, how long must the skeptic trifle wth fundies about "already but not yet" crap before they become justified to start drawing conclusions about these scriptural 'tensions' that nobody wants to call actual contradictions?

In spite of this, these believers held firm to the promises of God on the basis of what they had seen.

And yet you despise skeptics who hold firm to the promises of science on the basis of what they have seen.

The author of Hebrews demonstrates this point with perhaps the best example of a believer who possessed a reasonable, evidential faith: Moses.

Nobody said the author of Hebrews was logically consistent.  11:1 is a blind faith by definition.  Whether the author cares, whether the author supports the point properly or uses evidence-based faith examples to support the point, is another question.

Hebrews 11:24-27
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen.
 Moses repeatedly responded obediently (albeit sometimes reluctantly) to the yet unseen promises of God on the basis of what he had already seen God do in his life. In fact, years later when the Israelites complained or expressed doubt, Moses told them to move forward toward promises yet unseen on the basis of the evidence God had already given them:
 Exodus 13:3
Moses said to the people, “Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the Lord brought you out from this place.
 Deuteronomy 5:15
You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.
 Deuteronomy 7:18
You shall not be afraid of them; you shall well remember what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt:
 Deuteronomy 15:15
You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.
 Deuteronomy 24:18
But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.
 Moses was the supreme example of a man who had a deep, reasonable trust based on the evidence God had provided him. His faith wasn’t blind, it was evidentially reasonable.

Maybe that's why he ordered babies to be slaughtered in Numbers 31:17.  Sure is funny that fundamentalists never think baby slaughter is morally good...unless it is ordered by god or a biblical character alleged to be in the will of God. Then suddenly, the magic of the bible soaks their brain and prevents them from giving a shit about being consistent.

He had seen God in the burning bush, watched how God used him in front of pharaoh, saw miracle after miracle, and witnessed the power of God. On the basis of this evidence, his confidence grew and Moses was ultimately transformed from a coward to a champion.

It's a great story.  And we also know that you have no interest in defeating skeptical arguments, rather, you only say what you think will suffice to keep Christians in the faith.

Christianity is grounded in the evidence of the eyewitness gospel accounts.

No, "Christianity" has become an infinitely splintered religion whose advocates contradict each other's interpretation of the bible on nearly every subject except perhaps Jesus' gender.   Even NT "Christianity" is contradictory, compare Jesus' requirement of works for salvation (Matthew 5:17-21) with the antinomianism of Paul in Romans 4:4-5 (salvation even for those who do not work).

These documents make claims about the history of the First Century and the birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. As such, these claims are both verifiable and falsifiable. As we grow in our confidence related to the reliability of the Gospels, our reasoned trust in what they claim (and what they promise) will also grow. The gospels describe many “things not seen”. God is immaterial and invisible, and many of the promises of God are yet unfulfilled. But we can trust the things we can’t see on the basis of the things we can. We can move in faith toward the future on the basis of what God has demonstrated in the past.

Leaving skeptics wondering why you chide them for having faith in the unseen naturalistic explanations for phenomena which science cannot yet explain, when in fact inferring "god did it" violates Occam's Razor far more.

My response to THE BEAT by Allen Parr

Allen Parr encourages the reader to engage in discussion:

Biblical Encouragement And Truth (The B.E.A.T) is an online video ministry dedicated to communicating God's word in a creative, practical and easy-to-watch format. These short 5-minutes-or-less videos seek to address questions most Christians have and to provide a forum for people to discuss various theological concepts and ideas. This channel also encourages people by challenging them to live out their true calling as a Christian. We release a new video EVERY TUESDAY and FRIDAY. I hope you'll enjoy these videos, share them and engage in the discussion! (see here)

He tries to give superficial Christian apologetics arguments a shot in the arm with displays of confidence and the kind of posturing one normally sees in videos entitled "Fast Food Freakouts" (i.e., he is pandering to a younger crowd, who cannot be expected, despite their "new creature in Christ" status (2nd Cor. 5:17) to act like new creatures in Christ.  See here.

-----------Here is the reply I posted, just in case it gets deleted.

Well first, there is not the least bit of intellectual obligation upon anybody today to grant the benefit of the doubt to an ancient historical document. Christians don’t care what we do with Lucian of Samosata, so whether we are ‘required’ to believe ancient documents is apparently decided merely based on the personal preferences of whatever person happens to be doing the preaching.

Furthermore, since the OT came first, and the NT doctrine of hell-fire positively contradicts the sense of divine justice in the OT, I have the perfect right to label the NT as heresy, that god’s wrath upon me will never consist of more than permanent extinction of consciousness, and therefore, my rejection of Jesus is not in any way “dangerous”.

Second, Christian scholars routinely try to get rid of early church father beliefs they don't like by saying the father was biased or writing with apologetic tone, but then these Christians turn around and pretend as if the gospel of Matthew is the equal of video tape. This guy in the video is acting like there’s just no way Matthew might be biased or writing with apologetic tone.

Third, nobody manifests a concern the disciples might steal the body, until a full day after the Romans gave up custody of the body to Joseph of Arimathea, plenty of head-start for the disciples to commit foul play. Matthew 27:58-64.

Fourth, if the guards could be so easily bribed to tell a shockingly unbelievable story (they were asleep when the disciples stole the body...but if asleep, how would they know?, Matthew 28:13), the guards could just as easily be bribed by Joseph of Arimathea to lie and say they rolled back the stone to visually verify the corpse was still inside before they stationed the guard. Did Joseph have enough money to achieve such a bribe? Yes, he was “rich” (28:57). And by being rich, the claim that he was a “secret” disciple of Jesus (John 19:38) makes it sound like he only preferred some of what Jesus taught, and wasn’t a true disciple...which increases the probability that Joseph was willing to engage in some foul play in effort to help the disciples concoct a lie in accord with their “visions”.

Fifth, if the guards sealed the tomb then later claimed the disciples stole the body, they would be obligated to have broken their own seal so as to fabricate evidence of grave robbery. But this guy in the video says if any unauthorized person broke the seal, they were subject to the death penalty, so the guards had to have been very stupid and corrupt to accept the Jewish bribe and actually report such story...which makes such guards even more likely to be subject to a bribe from the rich Joseph of Arimathea, a bribe asking them to falsely testify that they visually verified the corpse was still in the tomb before they sealed it.

Sixth, Joseph wrapped Jesus' corpse in a new cloth (27:59), so even if we are to believe the guards rolled away the stone to check that the body was still there, that only requires they would have seen a new linen cloth wrapped around the outline of a body. Given the tremendous significance of laws against grave robbery, the trifle that the guards would also have peeled back the cloth to visually verify there was a real body underneath or to look at Jesus' death face, is not very likely. If they looked inside, all they likely did was view the shape of a body wrapped in this cloth, and conclude this was the body of Jesus. Their hasty generalization fallacy is more likely if they were sufficiently corrupt as to accept bribes to motivate them to engage in dereliction of duty and straight up lying.

Seventh, this guy in the video is blindly assuming that unless skeptics can positively contradict the gospel accounts, then those accounts "must" be entitled a presumption of truth. There is no such presumption, and since the fates of most apostles are unknown, the legends late and contradictory, you cannot even pretend that they willingly gave up their livesa martyrs. In the case of specifically Matthew, some legends say he merely died. Skeptics don't really care if this or that historian says the benefit of the doubt must be granted to the document. That's about as stupid as saying you should believe every claim you hear until you can positively disprove it. You don’t do that, especially when the claim is one that contradicts your experience of how the world works.

Eighth, the alleged "fearfulness" of the disciples is not consistent with their having seen Jesus raise people from the dead (Lazarus, John 11) and their own ability to raise the dead (Matthew 10:8). Since these miracles aren't really "lesser" than Jesus' own resurrection, we have a right to expect either that the disciples stand their ground when jesus was on the cross and openly confess they were Jesus followers even if this meant death...or that the "miracles" of Jesus the disciples experienced were not very convincing, and so they acted scared exactly the way any followers would when their leader is proven to be a liar. Add to this the ceaseless reports of Jesus' other miracles (what did that loaf of bread look like as Jesus caused it to produce a twin of identical volume?), and the notion that the disciples remained so thickheaded as to remain "scared" after Jesus died, is about as believable as Pharaoh driving his chariot in between the columns of water to chase the Israelites through the parted Red Sea. Sorry, we are entitled to say some stories are just too unlikely to deserve trust.

Ninth, the post-crucifixion faith of the disciples does not mean they saw Jesus with their physical eyes, as religious fanatics can gain a desire for martyrdom solely on the basis of visions. Paul's experience of Christ on the road to Damascus was a 'vision' (Acts 26:19). Visions get rid of the "why would they die for what they knew was a lie?" apologetic: they didn't know it was a lie, like every other religious visionary.

Tenth, the guy in the video quotes Acts 1:3 as if this was one of the most convincing "proofs", but the comment that the risen Christ spoke about the kingdom of God to the disciples over a period of 40 days probably implies something more than 15 seconds of speech...yet Matthew 28 provides no more speech from the risen Christ than what can be mouthed in 15 seconds. Given Matthew obvious love for quoting Jesus extensively, and his love for the "kingdom of God" sayings in particular, it is highly unlikely Matthew would merely "chose to exclude" most of the risen Christ-sayings. It is also highly unlikely, given Matthew's tendency to quote extensively, that he would "chose to condense" the risen Christ's kingdom of God statements to a mere 15 second summary. Matthew’s risen Christ gives us only 15 seconds of speech because that’s all the speech such author believed Jesus spoke. It’s not “excluding” and it’s not “condensation”. If Matthew wrote in 55 a.d., which is a date much earlier than what most fundamentalist dare argue for, this Matthew is still writing at least 20 years after the apostle Paul started all the mess about Gentile salvation, so it is highly unlikely Matthew would chose to deprive the reader of most of the risen Christ's kingdom of God sayings, it is more likely he would have found the risen Christ's specific statements about the kingdom of God much needed to balance out the fact that Paul is running around trying to prove everything about the subject without ever quoting Jesus.

Eleventh, Galatians 2:9 asserts that the leaders among the original Jewish disciples chose to stay away from the Gentile mission field and allocate the entire business to Paul...which means they were then collectively disobeying the risen Christ's command that THEY evangelize the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20).

Twelfth, the Great Commission, which requires the original 11 apostles to evangelize Gentiles, specifies that such teachings shall consist of their telling new Gentile converts to obey all the things Jesus had previously taught the disciples. That means these original Jewish disciples had a greater responsibility to conduct the Gentile mission than Paul, whose johnny-come-lately status, and dislike for basing doctrine on Jesus’ words, positively disqualify him from obeying the Great Commission. See Matthew 28:20, and compare with Paul's own statement that he didn't get his gospel from any person, but only by divine telepathy(Galatians 1:1, 11-12). Clearly Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles was NOT “teaching them everything Jesus taught the original apostles” (Matthew 28:20).

Thirteenth, Jesus’ alleged appearance to 500 brothers all at once is suspect since it only comes from Paul, and he leaves it ambiguous whether or not Paul was with them at the time, so that the reader cannot be reasonably certain whether this alleged appearance allegation is coming from hearsay or a first-hand source.

Fourteenth, as an example of what “visions” were like for the original Christians, you might ask yourself how believable you’d find the fool who says that, 14 years ago he flew up into the sky without any mechanical means, but that when he thinks about it now, he still cannot tell whether such flying was physical or spiritual. That’s not a credible witness, yet it precisely what apostle Paul claimed (2nd Corinthians 12:1-4, using the same Greek word optasia that he used in Acts 26:19 to describe his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus as a “vision”).

Fifteenth, Josephus' claim about Jesus is a textual corruption, and the likely recoverable form of the original merely reports that the disciples said they saw Jesus alive after he died. Josephus’ refusal to grant more attention to Christianity makes it all but certain he was not a Christian, therefore, the basis for his reporting what Jesus’ disciples believed, is likely nothing more than popular rumor, rumors he did not himself find very convincing.

Sixteenth, Thomas Arnold of Rome is an 18th century historian, which the guy in the video seems to have confused with a 1st century Roman historian who allegedly mentions Christ, such as Tacitus.

Seventeenth, I am not affected by lesser works by Morrison, Strobel and McDowell, because I have already extensively critiqued the latest arguments given by actual genuine Christian scholars such as Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig. The guy in the video appears to be pandering to a younger crowd of emotionalist juveniles who find more significance in posturing than in scholarly-level investigation. Any person who converts to Christianity on the basis of this video is a fool indeed.

Eighteenth, the guy in the video can find atheists who eventually became Christian? Exactly how hard would it be to find fundamentalist Christians who eventually became atheists? Why don’t stories of ex-fundamentalists’ apostasy mean as much as stories of an atheists’ coming to Christian faith?

Nineteenth, the fact that the missing body of Christ was never found, is hardly relevant. First, Christians who said Jesus rose from the dead had a motive to conveniently forget where the real corpse was. Second, the honor/shame dialect would require the second generation Christians to uphold the beliefs of their teachers/parents, which is sort of like kids today who continue hanging onto the faith taught them by parents and youth pastors despite not knowing dick about how to refute skeptical arguments that are easily found with two google clicks. Moreover, the fact that crucifixion was normative in Jesus’ time means there were others who were also crucified, helping increase the complexity of any but the original Christians being able to verify that any particular body was that of Jesus.

Twentieth, the guy in the video makes a big deal about how easy it would be, if Jesus didn’t rise, for the Jews or Romans to simply exhume the body and wheel it around Jerusalem to disprove the resurrection claims. But the problem is that the disciples didn’t start talking that shit until 40 days after he was crucified (Acts 2:1 ff), by which time the corpse would have decomposed enough to become unrecognizable. But it is probably more important to point out that the guy in the video is fallaciously presuming the original Christian claims would have worried the authorities sufficiently to motivate them to violate grave-robbing laws merely to prove wrong the new claim of yet another religious cult in Palestine. The only people who think Christianity made a powerful impact on unbelievers within one year after Jesus died, are those who do little more than blindly trust the book of Acts. Likely because they only obey the falsely alleged “granting the benefit of the doubt to the document” rule whenever expediency dictates.

This “beat” guy’s argument and demeanor indicate he either doesn’t know what the rules of historiography are, or he doesn’t care.  If he is willing to engage in actual scholarship, as opposed to simply giving us a Christian preaching version of  "How Homies in da' hood resurrect failed arguments", I’ll be delighted to have a formal debate with him.  

See https://turchisrong.blogspot.com for more scholarly articles refuting Christian "apologetics" arguments.

================

Demolishing Triablogue: Hume's abject failure, even if real, does not hurt skeptics in the slightest

Triablogue's Steve Hays posts a link to a discussion with a Christian author James N. Anderson, who wrote a book called "David Hume", wherein he argues the standard Christian apologist party line that Hume's famous argument against the credibility of miracle-reports involves fallacious reasoning, therefore, skeptics lose, and there cannot be any reasonableness to one's a pirori dismissal of any particular miracle claim.

John Frame's Amazon.com review of the book boasts:

But James Anderson's book shows that it is the followers of Hume who should be frightened. Anderson presents an account of Hume that is accurate and comprehensive, yet concise. It is easy to follow. And it shows clearly where Hume went wrong, and how his errors illumine the biblical alternative. Hume fell into skepticism because he failed to think God's thoughts after him." --John M. Frame

See here

Before we even start, the whole "hume-bashing" thing is irrational for Christian apologists, because their own bible leaves the distinct impression that the unbelievers go to eternal conscious misery at death.  So since unbelievers cannot know when they will die, and the stakes are ostensibly this high, the bible appears intended to foster the belief that the unbeliever does not have 5 minutes from now or 5 weeks from now to 'get saved'.  If they are always one mere heartbeat away from the gates of hell, such extremely urgent danger means the only possible rational choice is to "get saved" now, right now.

But getting saved as quickly as possible necessarily means getting saved upon the basis of the limited biblical knowledge the sinner has at the point of decision, thus increasing the risk that "getting saved" might end up causing the new Christian to join the wrong denomination or hold the wrong theology, leading to a risk that they will go the rest of their natural lives never appreciating that they just heaped even more divine curse on themselves than they did as unbelievers (Galatians 1:8-9).

If the same bible counsels that unbelievers take the time to study, that is no more significant than the Christian apologist of today who encourages the same:  If the unbeliever really is in such horrifically urgent danger of eternal damnation, then the reasonableness of speeding oneself toward salvation is going to remain, whether or not the bible elsewhere counsels any amount of prepartory "study".  If you really are hanging over the edge of a cliff by a thread, how could "take your time to think about it to make sure you make an informed decision!" coming from the person offering help, possibly "prove" that you can safely delay accepting that help?  So if the bible teaches both the terrible urgent danger that unbelievers are in, but elsewhere teaches that it is reasonable for the unbeliever to take the time to study up on the subject, then the bible is simply contradicting its own message of urgent danger.

The point is that the apologist's own bible would make it "reasonable" for the skeptic to scream in horror at his own spiritual peril and "get saved" in the quickest manner possible...which means the bible is making a person reasonable to engage in an impulsive sort of conduct that is decidedly anti-intellectual, not to mention spiritually dangerous given that the act occurs without any serious prior study, thus increasing the risk the unbeliever will join the wrong church and forever be blinded to their own ensuring perdition.

So because the bible's pretense that the unbeliever is in horrifically urgent danger, is likely to set the unbeliever on the very course of hell the bible allegedly wants the unbeliever to be rescued from, this is such a colossal violation of common sense and self-consistency as to alone justify the skeptic who chooses to use the bible for little more than practicing kicking 80-yard field goals.

Furthermore, I have already extensively examined the pro-resurrection arguments of Licona, Habermas, and William Lane Craig, and have forceful reasons to disagree with their conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.  Thereore, even assuming some miracles are real and atheism is false, so what?  that's not going to render resurrection-skepticism the least bit unreasonable, and if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, the mere basic existence of 'god' will always be insufficient to pretend that this god is angry at those who deny his existence. 

Finally, Triablogue will inevitably default to the OT YHWH in case Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but in light of Deut. 13's requirement that the false prophet who works true miracles be put to death, the OT is clearer about YHWH's anger at those who misrepresent him, than toward those who simply deny his basic existence.  So not even the reality of miracles and god can do what Triablogue wants, and render one's apathy toward Christian claims unreasonable.

So let's get started with the more specific rebuttals:

(I attack mostly the hypercalvinist Steve Hays in this post, since he pipes up so much about the fallaciousness of naturalism and how atheists cannot account for some miracle claims.  So the Christian reader should remember that I have tapered my attack here to Hays' CALVINISM.  That is, I often use Hays' Calvinism against him in the rest of this article.  I'm quite aware that Arminians would not feel threatened by an attack on Calvinism, but it is the plight of every atheist that Christians contradict each other so much, that a rebuttal to one style of Christianity does nothing to affect the others.  Don't take this article to mean I can only demolish miracle claims by bashing Calvinism. That might indicate you don't know how to read English.  The vast majority of my miracle research criticisms herein are reasonable and epistemically warranted regardless of which exact form of Christianity is true).

First, no Christian apologist has ever asserted how long or intensively a person confronted with a miracle claim "should" investigate it before they became reasonable to start drawing ultimate conclusions about its truth or falsity.  Would the reasonable person surely always spend more than one day researching any particular miracle claim?  Might the possible danger in joining the wrong church (Galatians 1:8-9) make it reasonable to avoid drawing conclusions about the miracle of Jesus resurrection until one has studied the matter for at least 25 years?  What's 25 years compared to eternity, right?  So apologists have no moral or intellectual justification to condemn skeptics who don't spend as much time bothering with miracle claims as the apologists subjectively wish.

Second, rejecting miracle claims a pirori can certainly be justified by appeal to past experience, just like the Christian Trinitarian at Triablogue do not automatically go into objective-robot-mode whenever they meet a Jehovah Witness.  They have already determined that the Trinity is a real thing and truely biblical doctrine  hence, when the JW says "the trinity is unbiblical", Triablogue dismisses the criticism a priori.  Deciding that you already know enough to know that another claim is false, is otherwise called "learning".  You'd never learn, if you forbade yourself from automatically dismissing claims.  What good does it do to learn?  After all, if somebody else comes down the pike and argues in favor of something you deny, you wont' be objevtive unless you respond to their contentions on the merits.

The problem here is that the bible does not allow apologists to be that objective.  You are supposed to be beyond any possibility of changing your mind when you become a Christian:

 39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul. (Heb. 10:39 NAU) 

 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (1 Jn. 2:19 NAU) 

 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:38-39 NAU) 

 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, (2 Cor. 10:5 NAU) 

 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. (Rom. 4:21 NAU) 

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Heb. 11:1 NAU)

Therefore, Christian apologists are hypocrites for characterizing the skeptic's similarly confident certitude as fallacious.

If the girlfriend knows from prior experience that her boyfriend is abusive, you cannot really blame her if she a priori dismisses his latest claim to have changed for the better.  Common sense does not always counsel that you objectively examine the merits of every possibly true claim that comes down the pike.

And a priori does not apply to my own skepticism, since I do not dismiss anything without analysis.   So if other skeptics committ this error, the apologist errs by broadbrushing these amateurs as if they represent what all skeptics do.  Count me out.  If you are honest.  The vast majority of us are willing to review any miracle-claim you pretend is the most convincing, so we can no more be lumped in with the few stupid skeptics than you can be lumped in with Pentecostal snake-handlers.

Third, Hume's allegedly "abject failure" is irrelevant, I myself have been challenging Christian apologists for years to produce the one single biblical or non-biblical miracle claim that they believe is the most impervious to falsification, including direct requests to Craig Keener (i.e., author of the two-volume work "Miracles", which does little more than merely catalog thousands of reported miracle claims).  See here.  I issued the same challenge to Steve Hays of Triablogue, who constantly rants and raves about the alleged fallacies of miracle-skepticism, who also thinks Keener's "Miracles" work is a "game-changer". See here.  As expected, in both cases, I've gotten zero response. 

So skeptics like me lose precisely NOTHING even if we admit Hume's particular argument against the credibility of third-party miracle claims was less than perfect.

Fourth, Anderson falsely charges Hume with arguing that no amount of evidence could possibly be good enough:

Anderson:I think it is, and I think most commentators on Hume’s argument say that it does stack the deck in advance. Hume acts like it doesn’t; he acts like he is just applying general principles of evidence to the particular case of miracles, but when you look closely at it, what it means is that no amount of evidence could possibly weigh in favor of a miracle. This is, in a sense, how absurd it gets: even if you witnessed a miracle with your own eyes, right in front of you, you shouldn’t believe your own eyes, according to Hume’s argument.
Zaspel:It’s just gratuitous.
Anderson:You can’t win. When it’s set up like that, you can’t win.

That's false, because Hume was talking about what basis we have to believe miracle reports from other people.  He was not talking about what one should conclude if one witnesses the miracle with their own eyes.  He in fact made clear that he was prioritizing how much a person should trust their own senses:

Our evidence, then, for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses; because, even in the first authors of our religion, it was no greater; and it is evident it must diminish in passing from them to their disciples; nor can any one rest such confidence in their testimony, as in the immediate object of his senses.

...To apply these principles to a particular instance; we may observe, that there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men, and the reports of eye-witnesses and spectators. 

Third, Christian apologists have never supplied sufficiently indisputable criteria for evaluating miracle claims.  Mike Licona says the claim must occur in a context charged with religious significance (here), but he only demands this because he knows that the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is charged with religious significance.  What he is doing to trying to give the reader a reason to avoid any paranormal claims made in absence of a religious context, so that the reader will be more likely to narrow their focus to just "religious" miracles.  But if mircales be concluded to occur in non-religious contexts, that opens the possibility that miracles can be real for purely naturalistic reasons.  You run the risk of discovering an explanation for miracles that needs no "god" or "Jesus".  That's contrary to the purposes of Christian apologetics, of course.

Fourth, Christian apologists routinely remind us that Jesus' miracle of resurrection, if true, automatically justifies concluding that the debate is over and Christianity is true.  Starting with Licona:

However, if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true and Islam is false.

If Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he alone must know what is on the other side.

WHAT IF JESUS REALLY DID RISE FROM THE DEAD?This would have profound implications for our understanding of the universe, existence, morality, God, and everything else

If Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true and any worldview or religion that contradicts Christianity is false.

But the bible says some prophets who work genuinely supernatural miracles deserve the death penalty:

 1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,
 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.
 4 "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.
 5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God  (Deut. 13:1-5 NAU)

Paul apparently believed it was a real possibility for an angel from heaven to give somebody a false gospel:

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Gal. 1:6-9 NAU)

Indeed, the boys at Triablogue are all about "The catholic miracles at Fatima can be genuinely supernatural but also performed by demonic power", which is the absurd trifle they are forced to make, since otherwise they are proven hypocrites by automatially discounting non-Protestant miracle claims.

When Steve Hays pretends that Catholic miracles don't validate the Catholic faith, what he forgets to do is tell the reader how they can tell which cases of genuinely supernatural miracles are "from god" and which are "from the devil", if that distinction even means anything to such a hyperCalvinist as Steve.  See here.  

He also fails to answer the same concern in his similar article here.  Steve will trifle that he was only dealing with cessationist objections, but if that be the case, then why hasn't Steve Hays ever provided the world with a biblical criteria for knowing when real miracles come from "god" and which come from "the devil"?

Did he write an article somewhere that says "If the person doing the miracle insists that Calvinism is biblical, you can be sure the miracle is being done by holy power"?

Or maybe Steve is open to the possibility that god does miracles for non-Calvinists in contexts that do not motivate people to worry about 'biblical theology' probably because God doesn't find theological accuracy to be as important as Triablogue does?  Gee, dogmatic, asshole know-it-all Christian sinners have never misunderstood god's will or the bible, have they?  Gee, when you learn to mistake your blog for an actual life, all you can do is discover more and more divine truth, amen?

So us skeptics are smart to reject the knee-jerk conclusions of Christian apologists.  If Jesus really did rise from the dead, that does not justify an automatic inference that he correctly represented YHWH.

But if so, then what more must a person do to help decide whether the miracle came from god or satan?

Would it be smart for the unbeliever who recognizes the legitimacy of that question, to put it on a back shelf until some Christian apologist answers it?  After all, Steve Hays thinks unbelievers are incapable of understanding spiritual truth, therefore, he can do nothing but support me as I wait for a spiritual person to figure it out.

What if the miracle doesn't provide any guidance as to what theology is true? Might we justifiably infer the supernatural entity doing the miracle fails to provide such answers because it thinks simple obedience to what one already knows is more important than "orthodoxy"? Oh, of course not.  Isn't it clear that when Jesus preached to Gentiles, he drew up a clear list of 'essential' doctrines and warned that failure to understand the Trinity and salvation by grace was a sign of the anti-Christ?

And in light of orthodox Jews condemning the NT and Jesus for the last 2,000 years, skeptics have more than sufficient justification to first study the Jewish objections to Jesus and the Christian responses, before making a decision on which person has the more robust position.  Unfortunately, that could take months or years...while the unbeliever is also supposed to believe that the longer they delay accepting Jesus, the more they put themselves at risk of eternal damnation.  LOL. 

For me personally, I've already read Justin's Dialogue with Trypho and have evaluated the arguments of Dr. Michael Brown and found them wanting, along with about 20 years of responding to Christian attempts to extract Jesus out of Micah 5:2, Daniel 9, Isaiah 53 and Psalms 16 and 22.  I just haven't set forth my criticisms of such matters in this blog very systematically.  Steve Hays cannot really say whether I need to do "more", so he has no moral basis to condemn me or any other skeptic for thinking the paucity of Brown's arguments justifies concluding that getting Jesus out of the OT requires wild stretches.  I'll take the NT methods of exegesis of the OT as my first case in point.  There's a very good reason Gleason Archer spent significant time trying to warn Christians away from adopting the methods of exegesis used by the NT authors:  you do that, and you wind up in stupidville real quick, and mistaking mere typology for actual substance.

Fifth, Hume's argument was basically sound even if one could trifle that he overstated a few things or otherwise erred.  Nothing in the New Testament qualifies as meeting Hume's common sense test:






The undeniable truth is that 

• It violates common sense to believe every miracle report you hear

• If you are going to avoid being gullible, you have to already have in place criteria to distinguish likely true from likely false miracle claims

• According to Steve Hays, the miracle investigator msut also have criteria for being able to distinguish genuinely supernatural miracles done by god, and genuinely supernatural miracles done by demonic power.  Yet Hays is a presuppositionalist and Calvinist, and thinks the unbeliever cannot possibly understand such spiritual things...yet he pretends as if they are under some type of intellectual obligation to go research something he says they cannot possibly understand.

• Hays is stupid because hsi logic would require that unbelievers first become spiritual (born again) so they can understand spiritual things enough to figure out which mriacles are godly and which are satanic, but if that happens, no miracle investigation will be necessary, DUH

• Hays never say how we can recognize the point where we can be justified to start drawing ultimate conclusions about such criteria and move on to evaluating actual claims?  5 minutes?  3 weeks? 

• No Christian apologist can provide usefully specific criteria for how long one must study miracle claims before being justified to start drawing ultimate conclusions.  Will one day of 8 hours of googling be sufficient?  They simply ask you to "check it out", as if you should just cover your eyes, reach into the bag, and begin your research in all the intenteional blindness of the way people win the lottery.  Well gee, with so many dogshit miracle claims in history and in the present world, where shall I start?  Fatima?  Benny Hinn?  Mel Tari and his "Like a Mighty Wind" book?  Or must I hold back and first develop criteria for knowing when a certain alleged miracle worker is too likely unreliable to deserve any serious consideration?  

• Does the fact that god also does miracles through non-believers complicate the process?

• No apologist, including the fools at Triablogue, has any criteria by which a person can tell how much time, money and resources they "should" (DING!  moral claim!) expend in researching miracle claims.  If an internet search shows a potentially viable claim, but no further information is available, how much intellectual obligation does god think is upon the unbeliever to pursue that lead with his own money? 

• If the bible doesn't say, isn't it true there is a substantial risk your own recommendation might disagree with god's own personal opinion?  you are a sinner, correct?  Your recommendations don't carry canonical authority, correct?  And yet what do you tell yourself about drawing conclusions about god that can possibly be true, but which cannot be supported from the bible?

• If the skeptic locates contact information for one alleged miracle witness, how much should he pursue contacting them?  Is shooting off one email to their last known email address sufficient?  or must he followup any silence with a paper letter to their last known mailing address?  If Calvinism is true, wouldn't that mean that whatever degree of laziness the unbeliever exudes in any miracle investigation, this was infallibly predestined by God, so that the unbeliever never had the ability to do more than what he ended up actually doing?  What then, will you fault a person for fulfilling God's secret will exactly as God intended?  "Shame on you: you obeyed me in the exact way I expected!" LOL

• Suppose an internet search yields a website of miracle claims that provides working links to downloads of testimony and medical files, is it enough to read all such material and then start drawing conclusions about likely truth/falsehood?  Or is the skeptic being too skeptical by delaying belief until they can authenticate such downloaded testimonies and medical files?  Gee, are courts of law just stupid for demanding "authentication"?  Of course they are, isn't it obvious that miracle-frauds never happen, so that automatically trusting anything from the internet claiming to be testimony or medical evidence is the more objective way to proceed?

• I kicked Steve Hays' theological ass all over hell and back in a debate years ago on the precise topic of how the skeptic is supposed to know when the evidence they uncovered has become sufficient to justify drawing ultimate conclusions, or even whether there is any intellectual obligation upon them to give one holy fuck about any such claims in the first place.  See here.  The smartest Calvinist in the world wisely refused to engage after posting his one single criticism, for reasons that will be obvious to anybody who reads the debate.

• Christian apologists cannot agree on where to "start" the miracle investigation (i.e., the resurrection of Jesus?  Or the fallacies of empiricism?  Would Steve Hays suggest that the methodological errors in naturalism make it reasonable for the naturalist to focus first on Christain critiques of naturalism?  What about the non-Calvinist Christians who take the parable of the Sower seriously, and conclude that there's more "magic in the air" by hitting the unbeliever with the straight gospel dope, as opposed to reading presuppositionalist rebuttals to certain philosophical beliefs?  

• If both should be pursued, which one should be first, how do you know, and how long should the unbeliever put forth effort to see whether or not your recommendation is sufficiently robust as to likely lead to useful conclusions?  Therefore Christian apologists have no moral or intellectual ground to chide a skeptic who makes their own subjective decision about precisely what subtopic of miracle investigation they should look into first, if any.  If the skeptic thinks seeing rebuttals to naturalism is the logical place to start since it will kick out their naturalistic foundation and motivate them to be more open to a supernaturalist foundation, there won't be any way to "prove" that he "should" have started with the resurrection of Jesus.  

• After Steve Hays makes all of his presuppositionalist Van Tilian-esque recommendations, how long should the skeptic compare this with the recommendations of other Christians who oppose presuppositionalism, before he can be rationally warranted to draw ultimate conclusions about whether Hays's recommendations were a prudent and smart starting point?  How long must i listen to the presuppositionalist Steve Hays and the evidentialist William Lane Craig give me contradictory advice on the "best" place to start, before i become justified to start drawing my own conclusions about the matter?  Must I first become a scholar of John Calvin and memorize all the ways that John Frame and Van Til disagree with each other before I dare make a judgment call?  After all, if I don't do that level of research, there will be enough questionable holes for Hays to come back in a blog article and say "he didn't cover this subject, he avoided that topic, he overlooked that over there..."  But if Hays is not god, then eventually he has to admit that common sense is going to require I reach a point at which I start making my own decisions.

• If you try to research some miracle claim, whether healings at Fatima or Jesus' resurrection, you are just choosing to do something else with your time than actually repent and believe the gospel.  If you are still an unbeliever as you go to the library to check out a book Steve Hays recommended, and you die in a car crash along the way, you go to a hell of eternal misery even if not "flames, according to Hays, because Hays does not believe the bible teaches there is any third option in the afterworld for "sincere" unbelievers who died while in the process of checking out apologetics claims, but before arriving at actual faith.  So, how long "should" the unbeliever "check out" why Lydia McGrew believes there is a special third place for just such people despite the obvious lack of biblical justification?  Should the unbeliever consider that McGrew has a Holy Spirit witness that must be as seriously considered as the bible?  If so, how long should that investigation take place?  Isn't it true that for every second the unbeliever spends investigating some Christian bullshit, the more they delay the day of their repentance, and therefore, the more they risk dying before repentance and ending up in hell?

• Hopefully neither Hays nor any Christian thinks unbelievers need to give up their spouse, kids, job and home and just sit on the internet all day homeless in a coffee shop googling miracle claims like crazy, all worried that the longer they delay repenting, the more they risk going to hell 9while yet knowing that to hurry up and repent requires them to limit their study, and possibly repent in a way that is not sufficient, or believe in a false Jesus which will then blind them the rest of their lives to the fact that they remain unsaved).  Yet Christians are forced to insist that the more you ignore Christ and pay attention to anything else (job, family, life) the more you DO increase the risk you'll die before getting saved (and thus go to hell).  Perhaps Jesus in Matthew 19:29 was being just a bit more consistent with his fanatical message of salvation-urgency, than are his modern-day defenders?

For all these reasons, skeptics need not have the slightest worry whether or not that Christian apologist over there accused Hume of violating common sense.  We have more than sufficient reason and justification to ignore bible and miracle claims until we start seeing biblical-style "miracles".  Especially in the mind of Steve Hays, who is a hyperCalvinist, who says every error unbelievers engage in, was infallibly predestined by God, so that the unbeliever could not possibly have done anything other than commit those errors.  Yet his god still bitches at human puppets for moving in the same direction this god had pulled their strings.  LOL.

Gee, how many miracle-claims did I ignore in the effort to write this blog piece?

How many Arminian YouTube videos did Steve Hays ignore when writing any of his Triablogue bullshit?