Cold Case Christianity: Yes, the resurrection is possibly a late legend

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

Quarantine Questionnaire: Is the Resurrection Account a Late Legend?

J. Warner April 3, 2020

Two answers from an atheist:

No, and the rumor about Paul, held by "thousands" of Jewish Christians, that he flouted Mosaic law, also wasn't a late legend.  Acts 21:18-24.  As long as you say that rumor was false, you agree that falsity can exist in the early church, without being "legend" or "late".

Yes...it is reasonable to say the resurrection appearance stories in the gospels are late legends for two reasons:  a) it is reasonable to agree with most Christian scholars that Mark is the earliest published gospel, and b) it is reaosnable to agree with most Christian scholars that the long ending of Mark was a later interpolation.  If both premises are reasonable, then it is reasonable to draw the inference that the earliest form of the resurrectin story was limited to the women hearing about Jesus' resurrection solely from some unidentified man at the suspiciously opened tomb.

Certain dickhead apologists will scream that Mark's resurrection appearance ending would have been necessarily implied due to the oral preaching behind that gospel, is foolish:  the other three gospel authors give plenty of resurrection appearance detail, so it is far from obvious that the reason a gospel author leaves out a detail is because he is expecting the originally intended reader to rely on the oral preaching to fill in the blanks left by the written account.

And now a point by point reply to Wallace:

How can we be sure that the story of Jesus wasn’t changed over time?

You can't:  reconstructing history from ancient sources only supplies probabilities, especially in cases where the ancient assertions are by no means "obvious" and not corroborated by other verifiable details. No, you aren't proving John's resurrection testimony reliable by nothing that archaeologists have found the Pool of Siloam.  What are you?  6?  What are you gonna say next?  Mommy loves you because she took you to McDonalds? Grow the fuck up and quit committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

How do we know that the virgin conception, the miracles and the Resurrection weren’t added to the story late?

First, your question is irrelevant.  Jesus made clear that christian discipleship depended on generations of Christian leaders passing on for posterity all the things which he had taught the original apostles (see the part of the Great Commission nost people miss, Matthew 28:20).  Not only did Jesus never say one damn thing about his virgin birth, he castigated another person who's comment to him had created the perfect justification for him to mention it (Luke 11:27-28).

Second, given that most Christian scholars agree Mark's gospel is the earliest and lacks the virgin birth narrative despite how its content would have strongly supported Mark's "Son of God" theme, it's reasonable to infer either a) Mark never heard of the VB (justifying the inference it was late) or b) Mark knew of it but considered it fiction (justifying the inference that it is fiction).  The third option screamed about by apologists, c) Mark knew the VB story was true but "chose to exclude" it for his own reasons, cannot be demonstrated with any degree of probability.  Since the inference that Mark never heard of the VB or had rejected it as fiction does rest upon a probability argument, the skeptic has a probability and the apologist has only possibility.  So skeptics are reasonable to draw the negative inference even if there's always that trifling "possibility" that the VB was true.

Similar arguments could be made on the basis of John the latest gospel.  He too doesn't mention the virgin birth, despite how it would have strongly supported his high Christology.  That makes the skeptical hypothesis reasonable, and our reasonableness therein doesn't require that we bat out of the ballpark every stupid trifle any apologist could possibly conjure up. 

Beasley-Murray refuses to decide the matter:

The external evidence for the pl. is overwhelming, and most adopt it without hesitation…The decision is more difficult than is generally acknowledged, and we leave it open.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 2). Dallas: Word, Incorporated

Inerrantist Christian scholar Borchert does not understand why some scholars, despite knowing the plural is the correct reading, still insist the passage is about the virgin birth:

Some scholars have argued that the verse is describing the virginal conception of Jesus, and they have chosen to read the singular form instead of the plural (haimatōn) “bloods.” But the textual evidence for such a reading is virtually nonexistent, and the logic of the text definitely argues against such a view. 

No Greek MSS support the singular reading, yet M. Ē. Boismard, in St. John’s Prologue (Westminster: Newman, 1957), s.v., and others have argued for such a view. Cf. D. M. Crossan, “Mary’s Virginity in St. John—An Exegetical Study,” Marianum 19.1 (1957): 115–26, and “Mary and the Church in John 1:13, ” Bible Today 1.20 (1965): 1318–24. Beasley-Murray (John, 13) relying on E. C. Hoskyns and F. N. Davey (The Fourth Gospel [London: Faber & Faber, 1947], 164–65), thinks that even though the plural is clearly the correct reading and even though the virgin birth may not be in mind, the incarnation could have been in view here. I find this argument difficult to accept.

Borchert, G. L. (2001, c1996). Vol. 25A: John 1-11 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 118). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Bruce Metzger, otherwise considered by conservative Christian apologists to be the last word on NT textual variation, dashes cold water on the hopes of those fools who insist John 1:13 is talking about Jesus' virgin birth:

Although a number of modern scholars (including Zahn, Resch, Blass, Loisy, R. Seeburg, Burney, Büchsel, Boismard, Dupont, and F. M. Braun)³ have argued for the originality of the singular number, it appeared to the Committee that, on the basis of the overwhelming consensus of all Greek manuscripts, the plural must be adopted, a reading, moreover, that is in accord with the characteristic teaching of John. The singular number may have arisen either from a desire to make the Fourth Gospel allude explicitly to the virgin birth or from the influence of the singular number of the immediately preceding auvtou/.
--------Metzger, Textual Commentary, Page 169

Furthermore, most English translations don't use the singular, they use the plural, so that 1:13 is referring to Christians, not Jesus:

 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn. 1:12-13 NAU) 

 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God,
 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. (Jn. 1:12-13 NRS) 

 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (Jn. 1:12-13 NIV) 

 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn. 1:12-13 NKJ)

But no, I'm sure that because fundie Chrstianity is dogmatic by nature, fundies who are frightened at the prospect of not being able to harmonize all NT statements with all NT statements, will insist skeptics are "dumb" or "morons" for adopting the plural in harmony with many conservative evangelical Christian scholars.

I wake up in cold sweats in the middle of the night, shivering with fear, wondering whether my above-cited arguments are sound.  I'm also a millionaire.

Furthermore, given that out of 27 NT books, only two even mention the virgin birth, it is perfectly reasonable to infer that the earliest Christians did not think that part of Jesus' life was too important. 

Why would Paul think the resurrection proved Jesus to be the Son of God, but the VB wasn't worth discussing?  If we are to presume Paul was a modern-day inerrantist who trusted Joseph's and Mary's stories about portents during her pregnancy as necessarily true, wouldn't it follow that Paul would find the VB story equally as supportive of his view of Christ as the resurrection?  And given that Christianity had major obstacles to getting started, wouldn't shameless promoter like Paul insist on using ALL of his guns?

And don't forget, Paul asserted that Jesus' flesh came from David's "seed" (Romans 1:3, neither genealogy of Jesus makes Mary a descendant of David, but they specify Joseph was a descendant of David, Luke 2:4), and further, that Jesus' divine sonship was declared due to his rising from the dead (v. 4).  Had Paul approved of the VB stories, he would likely would have cited the VB and not just Jesus' resurrection as the basis for Jesus' divine sonship.  That naturalistic problem looms large also in Acts 13:33, Jesus was divinely begotten at his resurrection...how many times was he begotten? Another sign that the speaker (Paul) did not think Jesus recieved such divine titles any earlier.

I'm quite aware of the stupid trifles of internet apologists concerning Mark 6:3 and have answered them here.  Since Christians themselves cannot even agree on whether the VB story is true, or if so, whether it qualifies as essential or non-essential doctrine, the skeptic is certainly reasonable to consider it nothing more than trifling about the details of fairy tales.  You don't know the credibililty of Matthew or Luke, you have no fucking clue how they gained thier material.  Your hypothesis that they asked eyewitnesses is no less conjectural than the skeptic's theory that many gospel stories are just made up

Brandon failed to establish objective morals

I responded to him here, but in case the comments get deleted, here's what I argued:

This is why I believe in God.

Submitted by Brandon Neifert on April 10, 2020 - 3:47pm

"This is why I believe in God."
----that's a non-starter.  "god" might have a dictionary definition, but it refers to nothing empirically detectable, and therefore takes its place among fairy tales, worm holes, time travel, and fairies.  You are never going to show that an atheist is "unreasonable" to reject anything they cannot empirically detect.

" It is objectively moral to not harm someone."
-----that's the fallacy of argument by assertion.  What you stated shoudl be the conclusion to your argument, not the argument itself.

"Just as it's objectively moral to feed and help other people."
-----But unless you'd admit to feed and help terrorists, then there's an exception to the popular moral belief that we should feed and help other people.  Answer wrong, and expect the NSA to take a second look at you.  Expect everybody else to wonder whether hanging out with you is actually worth the trouble.

"The fact that it's psychologically built in us proves volumes on the evidence for God's existence."
------It is psychologically built into a male cat's brain to rape a female cat.  What are you gonna do now, argue that whether rape is morally good or bad depends on the context?  If so, that would constitute "situational ethics", the very relativism you are trying to avoid.

"There are naturalists---the Nazis for example---who would disagree with this psychological definition, but we often know them to be objectively bad."
-------"we know" is quite a relative standard, as you are simply excluding the Nazi opinioin as if it was inherently and obviously defective.  You haven't shown the Nazi opinion to be contrary to any objective moral, probably because you haven't shown us where this objective standard is.  Once again, all you are doing is appealing to popular moral sentiment.  But that critiera can be used to sandbag you if you aren't careful.

"Though, if given the framework for Darwinian Evolution, the Nazis would be correct in their assumption that improving the human race would be our only moral goal."
-----No, if darwinian evolution is true, there is no objective moral, hence nobody's moral opinion can
be 'correct', it is just a world full of animals competing for resources, period.  "Should" questions are necessarily unresolvable and do nothing more than enable some animals to form groups and otherwise attack each other.  That's all.

"But, the psychological foundation of human virtues is something written within us. It's why every culture, just about, had laws and systems of Crime and Punishment."
------Gorillas and apes also abide by certain virtues.  Were apes made in the image of god?  try that one on a bible-belileving Christian, and discover how belief in God does little more than give other theists a reason to hate you.

"I can find no better proof for the existence of God than morality."
---------A pedophile could say the same thing, while believing it is good to molest kids.

"Freedom is good."
--------But completely unrestrained freedom (i.e., no laws beyond what any person decides for himself to follow) leads to anarchy and social breakdown, which you would probably classify as objectively bad.  So what you really meant was that the right balance of freedom and law is "good".  But that's hardly useful to argument, your own best friend would probably argue with you for hours, or for life, about how these two concerns should be balanced.  Welcome to the world of moral relativity.

"It's because there is a God."
---------A word that has a dictionary definition, but by referring to nothing empirically detectable, thus refers to nothing important, and is on the level of the Big Bang, dark energy, fairies and the Bermuda Triangle.  you are never going to show that the atheist is "unreasonable" for doing what everybody does every second of every day, and prioritizing what their 5 senses detect, over things their 5 senses cannot detect.  That's how you undo all the philosophical resistance to "empiricism" in less than a paragraph.  Those who deny empiricism's truth are complete hypocrites, as they had to depend on their senses of sight and sound in order to formulate their stupid theory that the 5 senses are not as reliable as we'd wish. Sure is funny how reliable they are when one wishes to refute empiricism!

"Sometimes war is necessary."
------Then you just contradicted your first premise that it is moral not to harm someone.  If war is an exception, then whether harming someone is morally good or bad is not subject to absolute determination, but depends on context.  Once again, welcome to the world of relativity.

"It's because there is a God."
--------A word with a dictionary definition, but referring to nothing empirically demonstrable.  When something is not empirically demonstrable, it is reasonable to kick it to the curb.  Just ask any girl what she does when her boyfriend always says he loves her, but she notices that he never actually proves it.  These days, she kicks his ass to the curb...unless she has a pyschologial problem and finds "comfort" in submitting to morally inconsistent men?

"If men get to defining the moral absolutes---we find in this article it's impossible. Because there will always be conflicting opinions. But, if given the context that morals are being discovered, and are discovered by multiple religions and sages, we understand that in fact morality is present, and it is very substantive proof of there being a truth that is beyond our observation."
--------If it was beyond your observation, you wouldn't know enough about it to say "morals are being discovered."  But either way, all you are doing is crediting God with the fact that most human beings think rape and murder are wrong.  But there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for the fact that this opinion-pattern exhibits itself in humanity:  enhancing survival and thriving requires we observe such morals.  But then we could ask whether survival and thriving is objectively good, and the first answer is "no, because there is no such thing as objective morals".
The second answer is "you have never demonstrated that any moral code exists outside the brain".

"That truth existing beyond our observation implies intrinsically that there is a God."
-------That's a violation of Occam's Razor, since yoru solution (god) is infinitely complex, when in fact a much less complex and much more likely explanation for morality is available:  Certain actions must be done to enhance survival and thriving.  If you want to have a nice life in the USA, you must avoid disobeying the popular morality in that country, which has been codified into criminal and civil laws.
Once again, you haven't demonstrated that any human moral code exists independently of human brains. 

You also need to be careful.  It's also true that most men desire to have sex with multiple females.  Are you going to be consistent, and say that beacuse this is a popular moral, it must be from God?

"Because once you prove that there is truths beyond our observation"
----------Which is logically impossible....If you can't observe it, you are never going to prove it.


"you move into the realm of Metaphysics, and once you enter into that realm, the existence of God becomes manifest."
----------Atheist explanations for popular moral sentiment down through human history are sufficient. God?  I have no need of that hypothesis.

"The question is, which God is the true God?"
--------nope, you havn't established god's existence yet.  Try again.  And tell Frank Turek he ain't doing so great trying to prove god from morality.

"And only one in history has ever shown Himself. That is Jesus Christ. Only one had ever taught a perfect moral law."
--------If you believe Jesus was God, then you believe Jesus created that perfect moral law.  But even the bible says God's law was imperfect and needed replacing, See Hebrews 8:13.  if the first covenant had been morally perfect, no place would have been sought for the Second.

God also admits he gives laws that are 'not good', Ezekiel 20:25.

And if Jesus is God, then it was Jesus who authored the moral law that says a preteen girl shoud be burned to death if she has pre-marital sex in her father's house.  Leviticus 21:9. 

Moses was far closer to God than you'll ever be, and yet assumed sex within adult-child marriages
was morally acceptable.  Numbers 31:18.  I've extensively researched that verse, and the conservative christians who carp that this is just saying the girls can be used as house-servants, are high on crack.

God also gave the law that allows the soldier who recently killed the female war-captive's parents, to marry her...a law that nowhere expresses or implies he needed her consent.

"That's Christ. It's why I believe. And when people ask me, "How do you know it's perfect?" I tell them to just read Matthew Chapters 5 - 8. Those chapters, if you can disagree with them, it proves you're not right morally speaking."

Try obeying Matthew 5:19, which praises those who obey even the least of the OT commands.
Try obeying Matthew 5:23-24, since the temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. and never rebuilt.
And read Luke 1:6 before you insist we cannot get right with God through the merit of our obedience to Law.

"The chapters demonstrate moral perfection, as the article would say, the 1 + 1 = 2 of morality. Of course, Morality is much more complicated than that. It's, as I've often said, like Quantum physics."
---------Right, several schools of thought which compete with and contradict each other.  Once again, welcom to moral relativism.

"But Jesus' Sermon tells us the basic form of it that we can all agree on."
No, you don't agree that Matthew 5:23-24 applies today, and you certainly don't think the animal sacrifices that were part and parcel of the Temple, have any spiritual significance.

"That's why the rest of the Bible has to be taken on faith."
--------Which means you disagree with Normn Geisler, Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, Frank Turek and most other conservative Christian 'apologists' who think the divine inspiration of the bible can be "proved".

"If God on Earth could come to so perfect a moral law,"
-------You think burning preteen girls to death (Leviticus 21:9) is a perfect moral law?  You think kidnapping little girls, killing their parents, then making the girls slave in your house for the rest of their lives (Numbers 31:18, your interpretation) is a perfect moral law?  Most Christians would disagree with you.

"it proves to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the rest of the Bible must be true."
-------What bible?  The Catholic one with the Apocrypha?  The Ethiopian coptic?

Or were you just talking about the plain ol' American bible we've come to know and love, which can be found in motel rooms and placed there by the Gideons?

"Even when I'm questioning why that is, I have faith that the groundwork Jesus laid in those chapters is sufficient evidence enough for me to believe. Even when everything else might seem difficult or questionable."
-----------What you DON'T do is show that the atheist is "unreasonable". 

Rebuttal to Frank Turek on Morality

Frank Turek "explains" why God allows natural disasters. See here. I responded first with Deuteronomy 28:15-63 to remind Christians that their "biblical" god is a far cry from the concerned empathizing Jesus they've invented in their heads.

I then responded with my own argument as follows (this was deleted by unknown person about 5 minutes after I posted it, hence, you no longer wonder why I cross post to my blog here).



Barry Jones1 second ago
Turek's "ripple-effect" argument is not convincing to anybody except the predominantly Christian audiences that are already desperately searching for anything that will help them feel better about their own faith.

Furthermore, the ripple-effect could be used to justify immorality. How do you know that God didn't want my stealing a car yesterday to play an integral role in the reason why African Bush tribes will hear the Christian gospel next year? 

You can tell yourself that the evil act remains evil even if God can use it for a greater good, but since many allegedly "evil" acts also produce morally good effects (the morally bad murder of a family member caused the good of the surviving family becoming Christian in faith), then how the hell do you know which effect determines the moral status of the act and which effect doesn't? 

Is rape evil because it hurts the woman, or good because by ripple-effect it causes Eskimos 5,000 miles away to hear the gospel for the first time 5 years later? 

Is rape bad because it hurts the woman, or good because it taught her to be more careful about walking home late at night? 

Is pedophilia bad because it hurt the child, or good because it came to the attention of a vigilante who later gunned down that pervert before he could molest more kids?

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

You will say "the ends don't justify the means", but I really have to wonder how many tears you'd cry if you found out the local pedophile who was recently released on parole was gunned down by unknown person.  Gee, that murder wasn't in conformity to American legal ideals, so you just won't be able to come in to work for a few days while you "get over" it, eh?  NOT.

my reply to Hank Hanegraaff on James Patrick Holding and origins of morality

Bible Answer Man26K subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
On the Bible Answer Man broadcast, host Hank Hanegraaff relates a conversation he had with his daughter who is attending college. While explaining that morality is not dependent on God, one of her liberal professors invoked the Euthyphro dilemma. Not knowing how to deal with this conundrum, she went to Hank's book, The Complete Bible Answer Book Collector’s Edition and was able to answer this objection, and in doing so, stressed the need for apologetics on college campuses. Read our JOURNAL article "Out of the Nest and Off to College: A Time for Exploration" for FREE on our website https://www.equip.org/article/out-of-...

Barry Jones13 seconds ago (edited)
Morality obviously comes from a person's environmental conditioning, and how they react to their environment is governed by their genetic predisposition. The idea that atheists cannot explain morality without borrowing "capital" from Christianity or theism, is absurd. Frank Turek pushes this criticism the most, and I steamroll him at my own blog: https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/08/frank-tureks-absurd-belief-in-objective.html I'm so skeptical of the Holy Spirit "moving through argument" that I think conversion to Christianity on the basis of argument has nothing more spiritual to it than becoming convinced by the evidence that a criminal defendant is guilty. While the Christian will insist on leaving room for the biblical "necessity" of the Holy Spirit to move in the heart of the unbeliever, the Holy Spirit is more likely nothing more than a gratuitous afterthought. Thousands of heretical Christians also insist the only reason they converted to the "truth" was the HOly Spirit's prompting, so apparently, this highly esoteric view does not lend itself very well to the cause of truth-discovery, it is merely a Christian refusal to close the door on a "biblical" truth for which there is precisely ZERO evidence.



Barry Jones40 seconds ago (edited)
Hank should also worry about taking the log out of his own eye before he judges others. Hank allows James Patrick Holding to author CRI Journal articles, yet Mr. Holding is a closet homosexual and has been sued multiple times for libel, and has never answered those charges on the merits.

Holding is currently being sued for libel by me. 

It is very reasonable to say that if one's spiritual walk with Christ is more important than 'argument', then Hank needs to fire Mr. Holding until Holding repents of his 20-year long intentional disobedience to Ephesians 5:4, Colossians 3:8, etc. 

Until Hank cuts off fellowship from Mr. Holding, Hank will be guilty of disobeying 1st Cor. 5:11-13, because Holding is a full-time "reviler" and thus is living in sin, not merely having a few spiritual hiccups along the way. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that while Hank's morals are conservative and Evangelical, Mr. Holding is a closet homosexual, or at least he was for most of his "apologetics" career, and if he gave up that sin, he certainly has never evinced the slightest repentance over it, nor any repentance for his ceaseless sins of reviling and slander.  If conservative evangelicals first ask "are you walking in the light of Christ?" before they allow some "teacher" to teach, then CRI needs to fire Holding and repent of their ever having known him.

So, has Hank ever heard of the Matthew 18 process? Or does he disagree with apostle Paul and say "reviling" is not a sin? https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/10/my-new-warning-to-another-follower-of.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/01/james-patrick-holding-unconscionable.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/06/james-patrick-holding-disqualified-by.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/05/james-patrick-holding-formerly-robert.html

My reply to to Evan Vansickle

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYZXj6LmRT8

EVAN VANSICKLE2 subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
An introduction to apologetics, especially prepared for Mountainside Church of Christ's series on "Reasons to Believe" the Christian faith. This presentation makes a case for the practice of apologetics, exposes today's unique need for apologetics, highlights the basic attitude toward defending the faith, and shares one foundational strategy for apologetics.

Barry Jones1 minute ago (edited)
The "need" for apologetics strongly argues that conversion to Christianity is not a spiritual but a psychological thing. You can say the Holy Spirit chooses to move "through" apologetics arguments, but that is quite esoteric and unconvincing, and appears geared only to impress those who already believe that way, which then means the response is not an argument or a defense. God everywhere in the bible is getting people to do what he wants without needing to "move through" the arguments of other human beings. For this reason, the more apologetics is "needed", the more the Holy Spirit becomes a completely gratuitous afterthought.

The Patheos Christians are quietly deleting challenges again

I made a perfectly valid criticism and reply to a Patheos article "Has Christian Apologetics Failed?
March 2, 2019 BY ESTHER O’REILLY".

The reply was:




The reply was deleted.  See here


Esther O'Reilly's bio:

About Esther O’Reilly
I am a teacher and doctoral student of mathematics, but a lifelong student of human nature. I seek to understand what is good and what is sad and what is true. When I’m not mathing or teaching, I enjoy writing about faith and culture, researching film and music history, reading great literature and philosophy, pretending to play the piano like Bruce Hornsby, writing the occasional poem, and editing the occasional film project. My interest in Pop Culture Things tends to be inversely proportional to the level of interest they generate among other people of my generation. I am, after all, a Young Fogey. I occasionally write theological reflections too—in a bad Anglican, high-Church Baptist sort of vein. You’ve all been warned. My opinions can be curiously strong, but I am always learning how to express them better. Though I retain little patience for post-modernists. Thanks for reading. You can find my freelance social commentary at The Stream and The Federalist, or sample some of my film criticism at Tyler Smith’s More Than One Lesson. Follow me on Facebook or Twitter, @EstherOfReilly. Send questions, comments or snark to estherioreilly@gmail.com.

See here.   I emailed her about it, and will update.

Here's the email Esther sent me March 10:

Hi Barry. This is something Patheos does automatically on occasion for reasons unknown, not something I do. I don't keep up with or monitor my comment threads one way or the other. Later I can have a look and see if I can just check a box that lets this through. But I wasn't holding it back deliberately.

my miracle-challenge to Zachary Cawley

Zachary Cawley describes himself thus:

Joined Jun 26, 2016 Description
Zachary Cawley, here! I am a Christian apologist that also delves into anarcho-capitalism (the anarchist variant of Libertariansim). I aim for accuracy, which means the diseased fundammentalism espoused by a great many atheists and fellow Christians is out of the question!  

If you like what I create, you can support me by donating crypto! If this is a good enough success, A MakerSupport and (maybe) a Patreon will be justifiable! Ask me for the BTC, ETC, ETH BTCP, LTC addresses! YOu can help me obtain TUBES for Bittube by registering on the Airtime/Bittube plugin with this referring link: https://bittubeapp.com?ref#!undefined

See here. 

Concerning the issue of whether miracles can happen, Cawley went to James Patrick Holding's YouTube channel and defiantly joined in Holding's mockery of the skeptical view, by saying

Erggo the Magnificent2 weeks ago

Seems like Jesus could have also filled them in later. Gospel of John has several encounters between Jesus and his disciples after the Resurrection with plenty of opportunity for conversation and teaching.

tektontv2 weeks ago"But that assoomes mirakles happin durrrrrr...."
9Zachary Cawley2 weeks ago@tektontv Oh! But, James! Simply saying miracles are improbable makes it so! Dun'cha know!? Lol

See here.

So I did what I do best, and challenged this individual to put his money where his mouth is, by sending the following message to his "discussion" forum at his own YouTube Account.  My message was:

I noticed the following comment you posted over at tektontv:

Zachary Cawley2 weeks ago

@tektontv Oh! But, James! Simply saying miracles are improbable makes it so! Dun'cha know!? Lol------------------

I'm an atheist, and I'm willing to discuss with you my defense that the skeptical view of miracles is more reasonable and academically justifiable than the Christian view 

You can contact me at my blog by responding to articles I've already posted challenging Craig Keener and others, see https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/12/my-questions-to-dr-craig-keener.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/06/craig-keener-failing-again-to-take.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-faces-of-miracles-serialized-ebook.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/07/demolishing-triablogue-part-4-steve.html 

Or you can respond to me by email.  barryjoneswhat@gmail.com 

Here is the screenshot:



I've preserved the challenge like that since there is a chance it will be quietly deleted, as quiet deletions are usually what happen to my challenges.  See here for the original post.

So I guess only time will tell:  Did Mr. Cawley mock the naturalistic view because he has sufficient education about the philosophy of miracles to actually back up with robust argument his obvious belief that miracle-skeptics are unreasonable? 

Or was there a reason the bible warned people to watch out for "Christians" whose zeal exceeded their knowledge?  If converted Christians could maintain stupidity despite their zeal back in the 1st century (Acts 18:26), then apparently, being zealous to the point of talking all bold, does NOT place the skeptic under an intellectual obligation to either believe the  message or admit their own stupidity. 

Something more than high-strung polemics must be engaged before there can be any game in play for the skeptic to "lose".

Yes, I'm pretty sure Christian apologists will take this challenge as a sign that I just run away from arguments and cry whenever it looks like somebody might challenge me.

YEAH.

Cold Case Christianity: No, The Existence and Nature of Hell Cannot Be Defended

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

Cold Case Christianity: Can The Existence and Nature of Hell Be Defended? (Free Bible Insert)

Posted: 03 Feb 2020 01:34 AM PST 

While the Bible clearly describes Hell as a reality,

No, not "clearly", otherwise you wouldn't have 7th day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and other assorted "Annihiliationists" denying your view of hell as literal eternal conscious torment. 

many of our non-believing friends and family members are unsurprisingly repulsed by the idea. Why would God create such a place, and what would ever provoke Him to send people there?

Those of us who can tell that there is no such place, are not bothered by the stupidity involved in speculating about what an "infinite being" might desire.

As Christians, we know our ultimate authority is God’s Word, so it’s tempting to simply trust what God has revealed without any further philosophical investigation. But we can prepare ourselves for those who reject the authority or teaching of the Bible by examining the evidence from Scripture along with the rational explanations and philosophical foundations supporting the Biblical claims. God has commanded us to be ready to defend the tough truths of the Christian worldview as we share our hope in Jesus:
 1 Peter 3:15-16
…but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence

But Jesus never commanded any such "defense", and you will have an extrarodinarily difficult time pretending that the NT canon is equally as authoritative as Jesus' own words.  That canon testifies to the bumbling stupidity of the disciples, how the fuck would you know whether they understood correctly 30 years later any more than you can assume any Christian understands any biblical thing more correctly after 30 years?

BLIND FAITH, that's how.  Nothing which places skeptics under the least bit of intellectual compulsion.

So let’s take a look at some common objections to the existence and nature of Hell as we defend the truth of the Christian Worldview.

No, as you defend one particular interpretation of the bible, one among many within Christianity.

Objection One
Why Would A Good God Create Hell in the First Place?
The idea anything as vile and repulsive as Hell could come from a good God is a stumbling block for many people. In fact, Christian claims related to Hell are enough for some to reject the Christian God altogether. How could a supposedly good God create such a place?

It really doesn't do a lot of good to affirm god is morally 'good' but then to turn around and insist that what we identify as morally 'good' does not apply to God because of his infinitely mysterious ways.  Christians will blindly answer that the bible assures them God is good, but little girls also think fairy princesses are good. 

Mercy Requires Justice
The answer here is directly connected to the nature of God. The Christian God of the Bible is the perfect balance of mercy and justice.

Not when he threatens to cause men to rape women (Deuteronomy 28:30, Isaiah 13:15-17).  Not when he threatens to cause such rabid hunger as to force people into parental cannibalism (Deut. 28:56-57).  Such a god sounds more like a disgruntled Iron Age barbarian than an infinite creator who can cause everybody to have the same physiology as an elderly person, so that they still have freewill but have far less inclination to commit most of the popular "sins".

The Bible repeatedly describes God with these characteristics:

Why should that matter to a skeptic?  Would you quote the book of Mormon to a Oneness Pentecostal?

The Merciful Nature of God
The Bible describes God’s loving, merciful nature. God is loving (1 John 4:8), gracious (Exodus 33:19, 1 Peter 2:1-3), and merciful (Exodus 34:6, James 5:11)

Which mean precisely nothing once you insist "mercy" be redefined because God's ways are mysterious.  If 'mercy" isn't supposed to mean what it normally means in normal every day discourse, then using that word with people who are not already brainwashed into your cult constitutes deception.  You all use the same words, but the Christians supply then with quite different defintiions...because God's ways are mysterious.

The Just Nature of God
The Bible also describes God’s holy, just nature. God is holy (Psalms 77:130), just (Nehemiah 9:33, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-7), hates sin (Psalms 5:5-6), and punishes sinners (Matthew 25:45-46)

It also says he desires to burn to death underage girls who engage in premarital sex in their father's homes.  Leviticus 21:9.  If they married early back then, then the likely reason she is having illicit sex "in her father's house" is because she isn't old enough to move out or get married yet.  If the daughter of a priest was old enough to be married or otherwise had her own house, there would be little reason for her to conduct illicit sex in her father's house.  So it is certainly reasonable, even if not infallible, to interpret the sinful girl in Leviticus 21:9, who must be burned to death, as prepubescent.

The God of the Bible is described as loving, gracious and merciful. At the same time, however, He is described as holy and just; hating sin and punishing sinners. While we might prefer to focus only on the merciful aspects of God’s nature, doing so would completely ignore God’s just nature.

But we learn to ignore god's need to impose justice from God himself, who is capable of ignoring his own need for justice:

 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. 12:13-14 NAU)

Gee, can your god seriously "take away" sin (here, the more heinous types like adultery and murder, which require the death penalty) with such a wave of his magic wand as this?  You will screech that God killed David's baby in an act of justice, but that would make God unjust because he previously said David's sin had been "taken away", hence, there was no justifiable "need" to impose a death-penalty on anybody.

And if you insist God killed David's baby to satisfy the divine need for 'justice' against David's sins, then congratulations, you just accused God of accepting child sacrifice as atonement for sin, the very thing you find so detestable among the Canaanites.

Mercy without justice is not mercy.

That's right, I cannot mercifully forgive you for stealing my bike, I'd also have to punch you in the face.

Mercy requires justice to have any meaning, and justice requires mercy to have any power. A loving God (if He is truly loving) would offer love tempered by justice.

And your god's love comes with the condition that he might kill your kids and spare you, if you commit adultery and murder.  No thank you.

A loving God would not allow injustice to go unpunished;

Then apparently a crime scene detective like you thinks there is no such thing as children who are kidnapped, killed and never found.

He would create both a Heaven and a Hell.

Then you could not possibly accuse a human being of being unjust if they imitated such a holy spectacle within the limits of their capabilities.

A loving God offers a path to relationship but the possibility of judgment should we refuse this relationship. One without the other is meaningless:

Nah, Jesus appears to have required next to nothing from his Gentile followers, his interaction with specific Gentile was very short, and Matthew 25:31-46 seems to support the conclusion that even people who have no faith will be saved solely by their good humanitarian deeds.

Objection:
Why Would A Good God Create Hell in the First Place?

I don't object that way.

Response:
A loving God would not be loving if He did not punish evil. Mercy would have no meaning if it was not applied with justice.

Well God isn't punishing most of the evil in world history, so what are you gonna do now, invoke eschatology? Someday god will make everything better?  You sound like one of the people trapped below deck on the sinking Titantic, the hope of the hopeless.

Objection Two
Why Doesn’t a Loving God Make Sure Everyone Goes to Heaven?
The idea everyone is eventually reunited with a loving God in Heaven (regardless of what they believe or how they behave in this life) is called “Universalism”. It is certainly an attractive idea (for obvious reasons), and in a world of increasing relativism, it’s not surprising this kind of objection would be raised. After all, we are living in a culture where people increasingly believe “all paths lead to Heaven”. As Christians, we know this cannot be reconciled with the teaching of the Bible, and there are also good philosophical reasons to reject such an idea:
 A Compulsory Heaven Eliminates Free Will

That's right, and all those Christians called "5-Point Calvinists", such as Steve Hays of Triablogue, heartily agree.

People who want to go to Heaven (in spite of their free will choice to deny the existence of God), are true champions of the concept of free will.

Then count me out, I don't desire to be stuck for eternity with a moral monster.

After all, they want to express their freedom to deny there is any one exclusive truth about the nature of God (and the nature of Heaven). But these same people fail to realize the concept of Universalism actually denies free will altogether. If Heaven is the only destination waiting for us (based on the assumption everyone eventually ends up there) then Heaven is actually compulsory.

Given that I think compulsory heaven is better than "freewill" (sort of like it is better to force an adult out of the way of a speeding drunk than to just stand there and allow him to expereince the results of his "freewill choice"), I don't suffer from your reply.

In this view of Heaven, we have no choice about where we end up. Everyone is reunited with God. A compulsory Heaven actually denies the existence of free will, the very thing they cherish.

That's a weak argument as freewill doesn't exist anyway.

By offering (but not forcing) Heaven to those who freely choose to love Him, God is actually honoring and respecting the free will choices of all of us. He is treating us with the utmost respect and dignity.

Just like if you allow your stubborn child to drink bleach despite her knowing you have forbidden it, you'd be just as loving as god to just stand there doing nothing while the child chugs.  After all, you'd simply be honoring and respecting the child's freewill.  If you think kids don't have freewill, ask yourself why juvenile detention centers exist, and why parents impose punishment on disobedience kids.  Otherwise change the analogy from kids/bleach to "teen holding pistol to her head".  If your teen daughter was that far along in contemplating suicide, would you "respect and honor her freewill choice"? 

Then stop pretending that respecting and honoring another's freewill is a show-stopping argument for God's fairness and love, genius.

A Compulsory Heaven Would Include the “Unsuited”
Most of us would agree a holy place of eternal reward is simply not suited for people with a certain kind of character or for people with certain kinds of desires.

Which is irrelevant since the bible teaches in 1st Corinthians 15 that everybody who is saved shall undergo a major transformation of their "body" hence also their physiology and will thus never choose to sin agian, so if God imposed such resurrection-transformation on even those who don't believe, they too could be saved, and they would remain holy and suitable to heaven forever afterward.

Now we may not all agree on who should or shouldn’t be included in such a place, but most of us would hesitate while pondering the possibility people like Hitler (or lifelong pedophiles with murderous desires) should be rewarded eternally in Heaven. If there is a Heaven, it is surely unsuited for certain kinds of people.

But since God has no trouble literally blinding people with overwhelming experiences despite their concentrated hatred for Christainity (Paul's experience on the road to Damascus), God is quite capable of convincing obstinate truth-deniers to see and act in conformity with Christian doctrine.

A loving God would make Heaven possible for all of us while respecting the free will desire of some of us.

But as shown above, it can be unloving to respect another's freewill.

A loving God would reward those of us who have decided to choose Him while dealing justly with those of us who have decided to choose against Him. This is exactly the kind of God we worship:

But Calvinist Christians deny that "reward" is sensible, since you are not allowed to take credit for any good Christian thing you do.  Hence God is only "rewarding" himself for having caused a puppet like you to do whatever he wants.

Objection:
Why Doesn’t a Loving God Make Sure Everyone Goes to Heaven?
 Response:
A loving God honors our free will and our desire to choose Him, while dealing justly with those who have rejected Him.

No, Calvinists think you are a heretic.

Objection Three
Why Would A Loving God Punish Finite Sin With Infinite Torture?
For many people, the idea our finite, temporal choices here should merit an eternal punishment of infinite torment in Hell ellHellseems rather inequitable. The punishment doesn’t seem to fit the crime. In fact, the punishment seems extraordinarily excessive. Why would God torture eternally those who have sinned temporally? Why would God torture infinitely those who have only sinned finitely?

Did you ever read the Pentateuch? In Mosaic law God's wrath against sin is continually and fully satisfied by less than infinite sacrifice.  Such as the blood of bulls and goats, Leviticus 16.

See also 2nd Samuel 12:13, where God can "just" get rid of somebody's sin by apparently no other means than the wave of a magic wand.  See something similar in Isaiah 6:6-7.  Not sure how stupid it is to think one's crack-induced hallcunation of heaven provides reliable data on doctrine.

Torment Is Not Torture
Part of the problem is the way we are using language here. The Bible says those who are delivered into Hell will be tormented, and the degree to which they suffer is described in illustrative language.

Not worried, those parts of the bible are metaphorical, and regardless a) you aren't going to show them to be the least bit divniely authoritative despite your belief that the NT canon is "inspired", and b) Jesus didn't give the impression that he thought Gentiles needed to be the least bit concerned about him.  His few interactions with specific Gentiles show he wasn't willing for them to tag along the way today's Christians would become his shadow if they could go back in time.

The torment is compared to an unquenchable fire. But the scripture never describes Hell as a place where God or His angels are actively torturing the souls of the rebellious. It is accurate to describe Hell as a place of separation from God where souls will be in ongoing conscious torment, but Hell is never described as a place of active torture at the hands of God or His agents.

 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. (Rev. 14:10 NAU)

 But your point is moot anyway, since whatever you think you gain by trifling that God doesn't "actively" torment anybody in hell, you lose in Deuteronomy 28:15-63, where God DOES actively torment, for centuries, anybody who dares disobey him.

Instead, Hell is always described as a state of torment coming as the result of a choice on the part of the person who finds himself there. There is a difference between torture and torment. I can be continually tormented over a decision I made in the past, without being actively tortured by anyone.

Only of concern to fools who are worried the bible has the least bit of authority about it.  Not for me.

Duration of the Punishment is Not Based on Duration of the Crime
The torment experienced in Hell is eternal, and for some, this still seems inequitable compared to the finite and limited sins that we might commit here on earth.

It also seems ungodly in light of the OT which shows God continually being FULLY satisfied when a sin was atoned for by some temporal means.  For example the master who rapes a slave girl despite her being previously betrothed to another man, gains complete atonement by nothing more than giving a ram to the priest for sacrifice:

 20 'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.
 21 'He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering.
 22 'The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed will be forgiven him.
 (Lev. 19:20-22 NAU)

Your trifle that the forgiveness wasn't "total" is total bullshit.  The original recipients of the Law would never have had any reason to suspect that these assurances of divine atonement were less than fully expitatory:

 27 "But the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn their hides, their flesh, and their refuse in the fire.
 28 "Then the one who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water, then afterward he shall come into the camp.
 29 "This shall be a permanent statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls and not do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you;
 30 for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you will be clean from all your sins before the LORD. (Lev. 16:27-30 NAU)

So let’s address the issue of the duration of the punishment. First, it’s important for us to remember the severity of a crime does not always have anything to do with the amount of time it takes to commit it. If I embezzle five dollars a day from my boss over the course of five years, I might eventually get caught and pay the penalty for embezzling $32,500.00. In the State of California, this violates California Penal Code 503PC and the punishment might be anything from probation to a 5 year state prison sentence. But if I become enraged at a coworker and in the blink of an eye I lose my temper and kill him, the crime is now murder (187PC). This crime took much less than five years to commit. It only took five seconds. Yet the penalty for this crime is far greater. I will be serving at least 25 years to life, and I may even be put to death.

Only because the human authorities aren't able to resurrect the victim.  If they could, then murdering people would be about as criminal as messing up the covers on the bed.  It can be easily fixed.

The penalties for these two crimes are very different, and they have nothing to do with the duration of the actual criminal act. Instead, the severity of the crime is the key to determining its punishment. It’s the same way with God. The duration of the crime has little to do with the duration of the penalty. It’s all about the severity of the crime. “But are you trying to tell me that my disbelief alone is severe enough for me to deserve an eternal hell?” That question will be addressed in the next section. For now, it’s enough to simply point out that the duration of the crime is not what determines the punishment of the crime.
 Punishment is Based on the Source of the Law
In addition to this, it’s important to remember the punishment for any crime is not determined by the criminal, but by the authority who is responsible for upholding the standard. Justice is not determined by the law breaker, but by the law giver. Justice and punishment are established based on the nature of the source of the law, not the nature of the source of the offense. Since God is the source of justice and the law, His nature determines the punishment. Since God is eternal and conscious, all rewards and punishments must also be eternal and conscious.

And since God was willing to overwhelm the freewill of Saul the violent anti-Christian on the road to Damascus, it cannot be denied that, if God really wanted to, he could MAKE an obstinate skeptic become willing to believe and obey Christian doctrine.  Once again, God has no need to inflict justice, he can simply make people do whatever he wants. Ezra 1:1. 

The Crime is Worse Than You Think
Finally, it’s important to remember the nature of the crime eventually leading one into Hell. It is not the fact you kicked your dog in 1992. It’s not the fact you had evil thoughts about your teacher in 1983. The crime earning us a place in Hell is our rejection of the true and living eternal God.

But then it could be argued under Matthew 25:31-46 that when modern day faithless Gentiles do humanitarian works, they are earning their Christian salvation whether they know it or not.

This rejection is not finite. People who reject God have rejected Him completely.

No, we can reject another human being, but not completely, such as not wanting to talk to a spiteful brother, but not willing to see him get killed.

They have rejected Him to their death, to the very end. They have rejected Him as an ultimate and final decision. God then has the right and obligation to judge them with an ultimate punishment. To argue God’s punishment does not fit our crime is to underestimate our crime.
 There are several good reasons to expect an eternal punishment even though our earthly crimes may seem finite. Our approach to this objection may require us to give a robust and cumulative response:
 Objection:
Why Would A Loving God Punish Finite Sin With Infinite Torture?
 Response:
A Loving God simply allows us to suffer the anguish and torment resulting as a consequence of our bad choices. There is a difference between self-inflicted torment and active torture at the hands of another. The duration of the crime has nothing to do with the duration of the punishment (even in this life). The source of the law determines the degree of the punishment, and God is a perfect eternal, conscious being. Don’t be surprised to find we often underestimate the eternal consequence of our own sinful and ultimate choice to reject God.
 The source of the law determines the degree of the punishment, and God is a perfect eternal, conscious being.
Click To Tweet
 Objection Four
Why Is the Penalty of Hell the Same, Even Though People Are So Different?
For some skeptics, the inequitable nature of Hell is seen in the way God punishes. Isn’t it unfair to send someone like Gandhi to Hell (simply because he was not a Christian) alongside someone like Hitler (who committed unspeakable atrocities)? A reasonable and just God would not be the source of such inequitable punishment, would He? In one sense, it is true: All sin has the same consequence when measured against God’s perfection.

But many Christians are open-theists, and insist the bible texts that express or imply imperfection in god were intended to be taken as literally as everything else in their respective contexts.  Your presupposition of God as "perfect" is dogshit.

Lying is just as significant as murder when it comes to assessing our imperfection relative to the perfection of God.

That's right.  If I tell a small child the boegy man will get them and they better go home, that lie makes me deserving of eternal torment.  If I don't think my wife is beautiful but I say she is anyway, I deserve to be tormented in the presence of holy angels and the lamb and whatever other fanciful apocalyptic bullshit 1st Enoch says will happen.

Even the slightest sin demonstrates our inadequacy and need for a Savior.

Jesus didn't seem to make too big of a deal of the sins of the Gentiles.  When specific individuals tried to interact with him, we learn how quickly he was willing to forgive them and move on to other people.  This constantly hanging around Jesus like a fanatic is not what Jesus required of future Gentile followers, apparently, though its probably unwise to trust the gospels to the point of drawing confident conclusions and inferences from them, shit who knows how much of that crap is merely the later view of the authors and how much is words Jesus actually mouthed.

But make no mistake about it; some sins are clearly more heinous than others in the eyes of God (John 19:11-12). As a result, the God of the Bible equitably prescribes punishments for wrongdoing on earth and in the next life:

Maybe that explains how easy he finds it to wave his magic wand and get rid of sin.

There Are Degrees of Punishment on Earth
When God gave the Law to Moses, He made one thing very clear: Some sins are more punishable than others. God assigned different penalties to different crimes, based on the offensive or heinous nature of the sin itself. The Mosaic Law is filled with measured responses to sin. God prescribed punishments appropriate to the crimes in question (Exodus 21:23-25). In fact, the Mosaic Law carefully assured that each offender would be punished “according to his guilt” and no more (Deuteronomy 25:2-3). The Mosaic Law is evidence of two things. First, while any sin may separate us from the perfection of God, some sins are unmistakably more offensive than others. Second, God prescribes different punishments for different crimes based on the severity of each crime.

Maybe that explains why he drowned all those kids in that flood. 

There Are Degrees of Punishment in Hell
In a similar way, God applies this principle to the next life, prescribing a variety of punishments in eternity corresponding to the crimes committed in this life (Revelation 20:12-13).

How the fuck would you know whether that was intended literally, and whether or not the book even speaks for God?  How are you going to utilize that book with a skeptic who thinks its pages are not even worthy of use as tissue paper?

This is most apparent in Jesus’ teaching on the “Wicked Servant” (Luke 12:42-48). In a straight forward interpretation of this parable, those who reject the teaching and calling of God will be harshly punished, but those who have less clarity on what can be known about God (“the one who did not know it”) will be punished with less severity. There are degrees of punishment in Hell; God is equitable and fair when it comes to the destiny of those who have rejected Him.

"fair" meaning "according to God", sort of like "fair according to Bill who runs the show and makes his own rules."  I'm less than convinced.

snip Objection Five
Why Would A Loving God Send Good People to Hell?
Some skeptics think it is unfair for God to penalize people who are otherwise good, just because they haven’t heard about Jesus. How many times have your non-believing friends said something like, “Hey, I’m a good person. If there is a Heaven, I know I’ll be there, because I’ve never done anything to deserve Hell”? I hear this all the time. It is almost as if they believe the Christian God simply sends people to Hell because they haven’t heard about Jesus or because they didn’t believe in Jesus. But this is simply not the case.
 There Are No Innocent People
God sends people to Hell because we deserve it. God assigns people to Hell because we are guilty:
 Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
 And what are the “works” of human beings? Remember what Paul quoted and described when outlining the true nature of humans:
 Romans 3:10-18
There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one. Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving, The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; Their feet are swift to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
 Humans are not actually as “good” as we would like to think we are. We are continually “missing the mark”. We are continually sinning. And this sin is worthy of punishment:
 Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death…
 This is the Biblical description of humanity and the consequence of our supposed “goodness”. The Bible says none of us are good to begin with. But for those of us who might not want to accept the truth of the Bible, let’s look at it from a more philosophical perspective.

Very sad that your doctrine of sin doesn't come from Jesus, probably because you know that Jesus didn't teach that everybody was a "sinner".

snip irrelevant arguments.

Objection Six
Why Doesn’t God Reform People Rather Than Punish Them in Hell?
If God is all-loving, why doesn’t He simply “reform” people rather than allow them to continue in their sin and eventually punish them in Hell? Even human prison systems understand the value of reform; isn’t a God who punishes his children in Hell a sadistic and vengeful God? We expect a loving God would care enough about us to offer a chance to change rather than simply punish us vindictively for something we’ve done in the past. As it turns out, God (as he is described in the Bible) understands the difference between discipline and punishment, and He is incredibly patient with us, allowing us an entire lifetime to change our minds and reform our lives. This is easier to understand when we think carefully about the definitions of “discipline” and “punishment”:
 Discipline Looks Forward
All of us understand the occasional necessity of disciplining our children. When we discipline, we are motivated by love rather than vengeance. We hope to change the future behavior of our kids by nudging them in a new direction with a little discomfort. God also loves His children in this way and allows them the opportunity to reform under his discipline.

or maybe we are very naughty kids who will only destroy ourselves if we aren't parented more strictly, like the  case of the stubborn child who refuses to quit playing near the hot stove, sometimes parental love requires that you decrease the probability that the child will hurt themselves.

This takes place during our mortal lifetime; God disciplines those He loves in this life because He is concerned with eternity.

You don't have any evidence "god" does any such thing.  The rain falls on the just and the unjust.

Discipline, by its very definition, is “forward-looking” and must therefore occur in this world with an eye toward our eternal destiny:

No, heaven is also time-bound, there is no biblical justification for the modern view that God lives in an ever-present "now" where past and future subsumed into a single plane of existence.  That's just sophistry run amok.

Hebrews 12:9-11
Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

But you cannot demonstrate this anonymous NT book is inspired by God, so you are about as threatening to skepticism as a KJV Onlyist or Josh McDowell.

Punishment Looks Backward
There are times as a parent, however, when our loving efforts to discipline and reform are unsuccessful; our kids are sometimes rebellious to the point of exhaustion. In these times, our love requires us to deliver on our repeated warnings. Our loving sense of justice requires us to be firm, even when it hurts us to do so. Our other children are watching us as well, and our future acts of mercy will be meaningless if we fail to act justly on wrongdoing. In times like these, we have no alternative but to punish acts occurring in the past. Punishment need not be vindictive or vengeful. It is simply the sad (but deserved) consequence awaiting those who are unwilling to be reformed in this life.
 Hebrews 10:28-29
Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
 God is patient. He’s given each of us a lifetime to respond to His discipline and change our mind. It cannot be said God failed to give us the opportunity to repent. When we are rebellious to the point of exhaustion, however, God has no choice but to deliver on His warnings:
 Objection:
Why Doesn’t God Reform People Rather Than Punish Them in Hell?
 Response:
A loving God carefully disciplines and reluctantly punishes.

No, god says he will be just as "delighted" to inflict horrific atrocities on disobedient people as he is delighted to give prosperity to those who obey:

 63 "It shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it. (Deut. 28:63 NAU)

God has given us many opportunities to acknowledge His existence and accept His offer of forgiveness. No one has an excuse.

Paul didn't have an excuse either, but he still views his ignorance and unbelief as the basis upon which God showed that blinding mercy to him:

 12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
 14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.   (1 Tim. 1:12-14 NAU)

snip

The Grace Offered to Children
It is God’s desire for all to be saved, but clearly some will not choose to be saved.

God thinks overwhelming a person with proof of his existence is capable of causing them to respond in genuine faith and repentance.  Acts 9, 22, 26.

Children however, may not even have the chance to choose. What will God do with young children who have not had the opportunity to be taught about the forgiveness offered through Jesus? Well, the Bible never describes Hell as a place for children.

But it never specifies they are exempt from hell either.  Paul taught that children remain unclean unless the product of a biblically valid marriage:

 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:14 NAU)

You will not find a single description of Hell in which children are present.

You also wont find Jesus telling anybody that they had to believe he died for their sins and rose from the dead, before they can be saved. 

In fact, there may be good Biblical reason to infer God offers a special grace to young children. King David, for example, had a young baby with Uriah’s widow. This child died while still an infant, yet the Scripture affirms the notion the baby’s soul was present with the Lord after his death, in spite of the fact he was far too young to even hear about God at all:
 2 Samuel 12:22-23
And he said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

What you omitted was how the child died.  God killed it:

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."
 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. 12:13-18 NAU)

You don't think this is a proof that god is unloving because you arbitrarily broaden "loving" to encompass just whatever the bible says God does.

We have good reason to believe David’s soul also is present with the Lord today, and David tells us his son preceded him. God appears to offer special grace to children who are not yet able to hear about Him or understand the message of Salvation. This seems consistent with the idea that God shows special mercy to those who are not yet even capable of understanding right from wrong:
 Isaiah 7:14-15
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. “He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.”
 In this passage, Isaiah affirms there is a point at which young people “know enough to refuse evil and choose good”. Perhaps this is why God demonstrates his mercy with children. Young children simply cannot understand (and do not have the capacity to choose) good over evil. While all of us have a sin nature rebellious toward God, His special revelation has been given to those of us who have the ability to understand it. This also seems consistent with other Biblical passages that depict God’s Law as targeting those who were capable of understanding:
 Nehemiah 8:1-3
And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in front of the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women and all who could listen with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. He read from it before the square which was in front of the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, those who could understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law.
 All of us are born as sinners. No one is righteous. We are all sinners from birth. But it does appear God shows special mercy toward those who simply do not have the capacity to understand. This may include those who are mentally handicapped and it may also include those children who are too young to understand the truth of God’s offer of Salvation through Jesus Christ.

What would be a more reliable example of God's feelings toward children, the real world, full of pedophiles and kidnapping, or the highly idealistic bible whose unrealistic hopes have tormented Christians for centuries?

Is this the part where the Christian apologist tries to argue that it is wrong to be "realistic"?

As you can see, J. Warner Wallace's blind proof-texting cannot seriously be geared toward "convincing skeptics", he instead intends only Christians to benefit from such preaching to the choir.

Did Jesus' family see any of his miracles? A study of John 2.

At another forum (see here), I posted the following challenge:

In the flurry of debate that was spawned by my arguments from Mark 3:21 and John 7:5, one objection was that we really don't know whether Jesus' family ever saw his magic shows. The point of that stupid trifle was to give the Christian apologist a little wiggle room so that the unbelief toward Jesus by his own family could be explained in a way not opening the door to justifying a skeptical conclusion (i.e., maybe they thought him insane or didn't believe him because they never saw his magic shows).

Ok, let's discuss that. Specifically, let's discuss whether my skeptical theory (i,e., that it is highly likely that Jesus' family saw at least a few of Jesus' magic shows) deserves to be labeled "reasonable".

In John 2:11, Jesus' changing water to wine is called the first of his miracles.

In John 2:1, Jesus' mother was present when this miracle took place.

The Greek word for "sign" is "semeion", and is the same word used to describe Jesus' healing a ruler's son at a distance (John 4:54), the feeding of the 5,000 (6:14), and the resurrection of Lazarus (12:18), So apologists are ill-advised to pretend "sign" means something less than a genuinely supernatural act. Therefore, if Jesus' mother was present at the wedding in Cana, she was present when a genuinely supernatural miracle happened, not merely present when some clever trick was performed. And what bible-believing Christian would dare muse that maybe Jesus engaged in purely naturalistic "tricks"?

Let us remember that Mary urged the wedding hosts to do whatever Jesus might ask them (2:5), almost as if she had already arrived at the conclusion that Jesus was of such high authority that he should be obeyed without hesitancy....almost as if she had seen him do miracles previously.

What Mary would have thought about the water-into-wine miracle, begs the question of what her prior experience with Jesus was like. Did she experience him as a clever trickster, or something a bit more serious?

The inerrantist or conservative will have a difficult time resisting my argument here, given that they think the Nativity stories are true, thus it must be historically true that Mary experienced in real life, before and after Jesus' birth, several divine conformations that her son was divine...so that with such history, she likely would view the water-into-wine "sign" as a genuinely supernatural act.

Joseph had a vision that Jesus was conceived divinely, (Matthew 1:20 ff), and it is surely reasonable to assume he shared such vision with Mary.
Mary was present when the Magic arrived to worship Jesus (Matthew 2:11).
Joseph then has another angelic dream confirming the divine status of the baby Jesus (Matthew 2:13-14) and it is most reasonable to assume that because he fled with her in the middle of the night, he likely told her the basis for his urgency in departing, just like any husband would if he roused the family and insisted they are pile into the car and take off in the middle of the night to another country. Epsecially given that such dreams afforded them "good news" and ended up saving their lives and the life of their Son.
Joseph then has another similar dream (Matthew 2:19 ff).
Joseph then has another similar dream (Matthew 2:22).

In Luke 1:26, an angel, apparently physically, comes to Mary and announces that her son shall be divine (vv. 31-32).
Mary is specifically informed about how god will cause this without involving a male sperm donor, v. 35.
Mary then apparently believes this message, v. 38.
Mary and Elizabeth then share a divine experience, v. 39-45.
Mary then shows her trust that such things are true by reciting the Magnificat, v. 46-55
Elizabeth's neighbors and relatives believed the same things, v. 58
This became a topic of popular concern, v. 65
An angel appears to shepherds who then go looking for and find Jesus, Luke 2:9 ff
Joseph and Mary were amazed at Simeon's testimony in favor of Jesus, Luke 2:33
A female prophet similarly testified, Luke 2:38

And of course, if we indulge the fundamentalist assumption that Jesus was god, then in addition to the above, Jesus' family must surely have recognized, likely to their amazement, for the first 30 years of his life, that Jesus never sinned. What would YOU think of a brother who never sinned? Luck?

First question; is it reasonable to assume that Mary, after this wedding at Cana, would have held the opinion that this changing of water into wine was genuinely supernatural, yes or no? If you answer "no", then provide the reasons for saying such an assumption is unreasonable.

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