Answered prayer or coincidence?

[Trailblazer]

@ Tony Bristow-Stagg

I like your new shirt.
I have more than one necklace with the Ringstone symbol on it, my mother gave me several of those necklaces before she died.
The necklace I wear 24/7 is one with a black background. The chain has broken several times but I keep repairing it so the chain just keeps getting shorter but I am not giving up on it.... you know me.

I wear no other jewelry except my wedding band.... We never had any engagement of wedding rings since we did not have time for such things given we got married 3 weeks after we met, so my mother gave us both a simple wedding band for our 5 year anniversary and I have never taken that off.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My only statement was that it is a collection of claims. How is that unsubstantiated? Your next sentence appears to agree with me.



You could say the same about Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. Does having lots of adherents and existing a long time make a belief system true?



Cool. When any peer-reviewed archaeological evidence confirms any of the Bible's miracle claims, let me know.

I see what you are saying, "There are thousands of archaeology finds showing the Bible is a reliable, historical document, 99% of which is non-supernatural, but until scientists bow down to admit God does miracles, I will deny the 99% of people who say He does just that and more!"

 

[Left Coast]

I see what you are saying, "There are thousands of archaeology finds showing the Bible is a reliable, historical document, 99% of which is non-supernatural, but until scientists bow down to admit God does miracles, I will deny the 99% of people who say He does just that and more!"

1) 99% of people don't say your god does miracles.

2) The fact that the Bible's stories are colored with some historical details that we can confirm (hey, Jerusalem is a real city! Herod was a real person!) does not mean we have any reason to believe in the Bible's unique claims of things happening that are totally implausible as history and contradict everything we know about how the world works.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) 99% of people don't say your god does miracles.

2) The fact that the Bible's stories are colored with some historical details that we can confirm (hey, Jerusalem is a real city! Herod was a real person!) does not mean we have any reason to believe in the Bible's unique claims of things happening that are totally implausible as history and contradict everything we know about how the world works.

But the Bible's historical details are nowhere near the general vagueness you claim. For example:

Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke’s accuracy in the book of Acts verse
by verse. With painstaking detail, Hemer identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have
been confirmed by historical and archaeological research.1 As you read the following list, keep in
mind that Luke did not have access to modern-day maps or nautical charts. Luke accurately records:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)
2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)
3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)
5. the correct language spoken in Lystra—Lycaonian (14:11)
6. two gods known to be so associated—Zeus and Hermes (14:12)
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1; cf. 15:41)
9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace (16:11)
11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12)
12. the right location for the river (Gangites) near Philippi (16:13)
13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing (16:14)
14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony (16:22)
15. the proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive nights
on this journey (17:1)
16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1)
17. the proper term (“politarchs”) used of the magistrates there (17:6)
18. the correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the
favoring east winds of summer sailing (17:14-15)
19. the abundant presence of images in Athens (17:16)
20. the reference to a synagogue in Athens (17:17)
21. the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (17:17)
22. the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul (sper-mologos, 17:18) as well as for the court
(Areios pagos, 17:19)
23. the proper characterization of the Athenian character (17:21)
24. an altar to an “unknown god” (17:23)
25. the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection (17:32)
26. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (17:34)
27. a Corinthian synagogue (18:4)
28. the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12)
29. the bema (judgment seat), which overlooks Corinth’s forum (18:16ff.)
30. the name Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions (19:9)
31. well-known shrines and images of Artemis (19:24)
32. the well-attested “great goddess Artemis” (19:27)
33. that the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city (19:29)
34. the correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35)
35. the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans (19:35)
36. the correct name to designate the goddess (19:37)
37. the proper term for those holding court (19:38)
38. use of plural anthupatoi, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly
exercising the functions of proconsul at this time (19:38)
39. the “regular” assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere (19:39)
40. use of precise ethnic designation, beroiaios (20:4)
41. employment of the ethnic term Asianos (20:4)
42. the implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to this city of Troas (20:7ff.)
43. the danger of the coastal trip in this location (20:13) 44. the correct sequence of places (20:14-
15)
45. the correct name of the city as a neuter plural (Patara) (21:1)
46. the appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northwest
winds (21:3)
47. the suitable distance between these cities (21:8)
48. a characteristically Jewish act of piety (21:24)
49. the Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area (21:28) (Archaeological discoveries and
quotations from Josephus confirm that Gentiles could be executed for entering the temple area. One
inscription reads: “Let no Gentile enter within the balustrade and enclosure surrounding the
sanctuary. Whoever is caught will be personally responsible for his consequent death.”2
50. the permanent stationing of a Roman cohort (chiliarch) at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at
festival times (21:31)
51. the flight of steps used by the guards (21:31, 35)
52. the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time (22:28)
53. the tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship (22:29)
54. Ananias being high priest at this time (23:2)
55. Felix being governor at this time (23:34)
56. the natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea (23:31)
57. whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time (23:34)
58. the provincial penal procedure of the time (24:1-9)
59. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)
60. the right of appeal for Roman citizens (25:11)
61. the correct legal formula (25:18)
62. the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time (25:26)
63. the best shipping lanes at the time (27:5)
64. the common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia (27:4)
65. the principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy (27:5-6)
66. the slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical northwest wind (27:7)
67. the right route to sail, in view of the winds (27:7)
68. the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea (27:8)
69. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead (27:12)
70. a noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly to a violent northeaster, the
well-known gregale (27:13)
71. the nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale (27:15)
72. the precise place and name of this island (27:16)
73. the appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight (27:16)
74. the fourteenth night—a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates
and probabilities, confirmed in the judgment of experienced Mediterranean navigators (27:27)
75. the proper term of the time for the Adriatic (27:27)
76. the precise term (Bolisantes) for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta
(27:28)
77. a position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before an easterly
wind (27:39)
78. the severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape (27:42)
79. the local people and superstitions of the day (28:4-6)
80. the proper title protos tÓs nÓsou (28:7)
81. Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the strait (28:13)
82. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way (28:15)
83. appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers (28:16)
84. the conditions of imprisonment, living “at his own expense” (8:30-31)

Is there any doubt that Luke was an eyewitness to these events or at least had access to reliable
eyewitness testimony? What more could he have done to prove his authenticity as a historian?

Source: Norman Geisler

 

[Left Coast]

But the Bible's historical details are nowhere near the general vagueness you claim. For example:

Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke’s accuracy in the book of Acts verse
by verse. With painstaking detail, Hemer identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have
been confirmed by historical and archaeological research.1 As you read the following list, keep in
mind that Luke did not have access to modern-day maps or nautical charts. Luke accurately records:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)
2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)
3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)
5. the correct language spoken in Lystra—Lycaonian (14:11)
6. two gods known to be so associated—Zeus and Hermes (14:12)
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1; cf. 15:41)
9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace (16:11)
11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12)
12. the right location for the river (Gangites) near Philippi (16:13)
13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing (16:14)
14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony (16:22)
15. the proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive nights
on this journey (17:1)
16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1)
17. the proper term (“politarchs”) used of the magistrates there (17:6)
18. the correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the
favoring east winds of summer sailing (17:14-15)
19. the abundant presence of images in Athens (17:16)
20. the reference to a synagogue in Athens (17:17)
21. the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (17:17)
22. the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul (sper-mologos, 17:18) as well as for the court
(Areios pagos, 17:19)
23. the proper characterization of the Athenian character (17:21)
24. an altar to an “unknown god” (17:23)
25. the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection (17:32)
26. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (17:34)
27. a Corinthian synagogue (18:4)
28. the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12)
29. the bema (judgment seat), which overlooks Corinth’s forum (18:16ff.)
30. the name Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions (19:9)
31. well-known shrines and images of Artemis (19:24)
32. the well-attested “great goddess Artemis” (19:27)
33. that the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city (19:29)
34. the correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35)
35. the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans (19:35)
36. the correct name to designate the goddess (19:37)
37. the proper term for those holding court (19:38)
38. use of plural anthupatoi, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly
exercising the functions of proconsul at this time (19:38)
39. the “regular” assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere (19:39)
40. use of precise ethnic designation, beroiaios (20:4)
41. employment of the ethnic term Asianos (20:4)
42. the implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to this city of Troas (20:7ff.)
43. the danger of the coastal trip in this location (20:13) 44. the correct sequence of places (20:14-
15)
45. the correct name of the city as a neuter plural (Patara) (21:1)
46. the appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northwest
winds (21:3)
47. the suitable distance between these cities (21:8)
48. a characteristically Jewish act of piety (21:24)
49. the Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area (21:28) (Archaeological discoveries and
quotations from Josephus confirm that Gentiles could be executed for entering the temple area. One
inscription reads: “Let no Gentile enter within the balustrade and enclosure surrounding the
sanctuary. Whoever is caught will be personally responsible for his consequent death.”2
50. the permanent stationing of a Roman cohort (chiliarch) at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at
festival times (21:31)
51. the flight of steps used by the guards (21:31, 35)
52. the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time (22:28)
53. the tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship (22:29)
54. Ananias being high priest at this time (23:2)
55. Felix being governor at this time (23:34)
56. the natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea (23:31)
57. whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time (23:34)
58. the provincial penal procedure of the time (24:1-9)
59. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)
60. the right of appeal for Roman citizens (25:11)
61. the correct legal formula (25:18)
62. the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time (25:26)
63. the best shipping lanes at the time (27:5)
64. the common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia (27:4)
65. the principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy (27:5-6)
66. the slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical northwest wind (27:7)
67. the right route to sail, in view of the winds (27:7)
68. the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea (27:8)
69. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead (27:12)
70. a noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly to a violent northeaster, the
well-known gregale (27:13)
71. the nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale (27:15)
72. the precise place and name of this island (27:16)
73. the appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight (27:16)
74. the fourteenth night—a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates
and probabilities, confirmed in the judgment of experienced Mediterranean navigators (27:27)
75. the proper term of the time for the Adriatic (27:27)
76. the precise term (Bolisantes) for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta
(27:28)
77. a position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before an easterly
wind (27:39)
78. the severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape (27:42)
79. the local people and superstitions of the day (28:4-6)
80. the proper title protos tÓs nÓsou (28:7)
81. Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the strait (28:13)
82. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way (28:15)
83. appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers (28:16)
84. the conditions of imprisonment, living “at his own expense” (8:30-31)

Is there any doubt that Luke was an eyewitness to these events or at least had access to reliable
eyewitness testimony? What more could he have done to prove his authenticity as a historian?

Source: Norman Geisler

1) Norman Geisler is a well-known fundamentalist Christian apologist, whose paid job (when he was alive) was to convince you Christianity is true.

2) Colin Hemer died in 1987, and his opus defending Acts (which I assume is the source of this laundry list) was published in 1977. If you're not aware, Biblical studies have advanced since the 70s. I would recommend some more recent peer-reviewed literature on the subject, e.g. Thomas Brodie's work showing how Luke-Acts was modeled after 1 and 2 Kings (The Birthing of the New Testament) and Dennis R. MacDonald's work showing that it borrowed from Homer (Does the New Testament Imitate Homer?: Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles).

3) To answer your/Norm's question directly: no, not one thing on this laundry list requires us to assume that the author was an eyewitness or used eyewitness testimony. All they require us to assume is that the author was highly educated.

4) When you get past the literary style and details of the setting (again, a function of the author's education), Acts is completely implausible as history. Starting in chapter 13 (I don't know why Norm wants us to start there, but okay), here's the highlights:

- Barnabus and Paul get sent by the Holy Spirit (!) to preach in Cyprus, who speaks (!) to the Apostles and tells them to do this.

- Once they get to Cyprus, they start preaching, and eventually run into a Jewish magician/sorcerer (!) named Bar-Jesus (!). Paul magically curses Bar-Jesus with blindness (!), and thereby insta-converts the fence-sitting proconsul (!).

- Paul and Barnabus move on to Antioch, where they go into a synagogue and Paul gives a big long sermon regurgitating the Old Testament, including the Exodus story (!), of course culminating in the claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead (!) and afterwards hung out with his disciples in his resurrected zombie body for "many days." (!)

- Paul's speech was so good that he got insta-famous and was invited back to speak the next week, where "almost the whole city" (!) came to hear him talk and "the word of the Lord spread throughout the region." (!)

- Some of the Jews got mad and ran Paul and Barnabus out of town, and the disciples were, "filled with joy and the Holy Spirit." (!)

Now, that's just chapter 13. Would you really like to go through the rest of it? How Peter's shadow magically heals people? How Paul's handkerchiefs magically heal people? How Paul magically heals a crippled guy? How he magically exorcizes a "spirit of divination" from a girl? How casually it mentions "the Spirit did x" as though that's as ordinary as a human going to the market?

This is a clear work of hagiography modeled on myth. No modern, secular scholar takes it seriously as history. Please read some peer-reviewed work on this, not just apologetics.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Norman Geisler is a well-known fundamentalist Christian apologist, whose paid job (when he was alive) was to convince you Christianity is true.

2) Colin Hemer died in 1987, and his opus defending Acts (which I assume is the source of this laundry list) was published in 1977. If you're not aware, Biblical studies have advanced since the 70s. I would recommend some more recent peer-reviewed literature on the subject, e.g. Thomas Brodie's work showing how Luke-Acts was modeled after 1 and 2 Kings (The Birthing of the New Testament) and Dennis R. MacDonald's work showing that it borrowed from Homer (Does the New Testament Imitate Homer?: Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles).

3) To answer your/Norm's question directly: no, not one thing on this laundry list requires us to assume that the author was an eyewitness or used eyewitness testimony. All they require us to assume is that the author was highly educated.

4) When you get past the literary style and details of the setting (again, a function of the author's education), Acts is completely implausible as history. Starting in chapter 13 (I don't know why Norm wants us to start there, but okay), here's the highlights:

- Barnabus and Paul get sent by the Holy Spirit (!) to preach in Cyprus, who speaks (!) to the Apostles and tells them to do this.

- Once they get to Cyprus, they start preaching, and eventually run into a Jewish magician/sorcerer (!) named Bar-Jesus (!). Paul magically curses Bar-Jesus with blindness (!), and thereby insta-converts the fence-sitting proconsul (!).

- Paul and Barnabus move on to Antioch, where they go into a synagogue and Paul gives a big long sermon regurgitating the Old Testament, including the Exodus story (!), of course culminating in the claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead (!) and afterwards hung out with his disciples in his resurrected zombie body for "many days." (!)

- Paul's speech was so good that he got insta-famous and was invited back to speak the next week, where "almost the whole city" (!) came to hear him talk and "the word of the Lord spread throughout the region." (!)

- Some of the Jews got mad and ran Paul and Barnabus out of town, and the disciples were, "filled with joy and the Holy Spirit." (!)

Now, that's just chapter 13. Would you really like to go through the rest of it? How Peter's shadow magically heals people? How Paul's handkerchiefs magically heal people? How Paul magically heals a crippled guy? How he magically exorcizes a "spirit of divination" from a girl? How casually it mentions "the Spirit did x" as though that's as ordinary as a human going to the market?

This is a clear work of hagiography modeled on myth. No modern, secular scholar takes it seriously as history. Please read some peer-reviewed work on this, not just apologetics.

You have some biases showing, for example, "... sent by the Holy Spirit (!)".

Here are my biases:

* I'm a Jewish Christian fundamentalist
* I have a Bachelor's in Religion from a secular university, focused on Bible studies, with faculty who hated the Bible
* I read peer-review pieces, not just apologetics, and still teach annually when I chair academic panels--I have a meeting today with a museum in a major city to propose new projects, including a new academic symposium

Summed, I love Jesus but know how academics think. You are writing with a materialist/scientism bias.

"To answer your/Norm's question directly: no, not one thing on this laundry list requires us to assume that the author was an eyewitness or used eyewitness testimony. All they require us to assume is that the author was highly educated."

NO, they require someone highly educated, who was highly gifted in dispensing medical advice (Luke gives us more advice than Hippocrates the "father of medicine"), who traveled to eyewitness-record history. I know the Holy Spirit and have seen miracles, you are simply coming to the text with an anti-supernatural bias, and you're missing out on much of what life has to offer IMHO.

Look at your biases, I urge you, for example, "No modern, secular scholar takes it seriously as history." Is that supposed to be as compelling as saying "No modern, secular atheist takes it seriously as history." After all, you inserted the qualifier "secular" so you can avoid the tens of thousands of religious scholars who take the Bible VERY VERY VERY seriously.

 

[Left Coast]

You have some biases showing, for example, "... sent by the Holy Spirit (!)".

Yes, I have a bias for noting when people write matter-of-factly about things that are completely unproven. Guilty.

Here are my biases:

* I'm a Jewish Christian fundamentalist
* I have a Bachelor's in Religion from a secular university, focused on Bible studies, with faculty who hated the Bible
* I read peer-review pieces, not just apologetics, and still teach annually when I chair academic panels--I have a meeting today with a museum in a major city to propose new projects, including a new academic symposium

Great, so what peer-reviewed work have you seen that establishes that the "Holy Spirit" exists?

Summed, I love Jesus but know how academics think. You are writing with a materialist/scientism bias.

I write with a bias for objective, demonstrable reality. Guilty. Science can never and will never establish the existence of anything beyond nature. So how can you?

"To answer your/Norm's question directly: no, not one thing on this laundry list requires us to assume that the author was an eyewitness or used eyewitness testimony. All they require us to assume is that the author was highly educated."

NO, they require someone highly educated, who was highly gifted in dispensing medical advice (Luke gives us more advice than Hippocrates the "father of medicine"), who traveled to eyewitness-record history.

Claims, not evidence. Which item on the laundry list requires the author of Luke-Acts to be an eyewitness?

I know the Holy Spirit and have seen miracles

Really? I'd love to hear about it.

Look at your biases, I urge you, for example, "No modern, secular scholar takes it seriously as history." Is that supposed to be as compelling as saying "No modern, secular atheist takes it seriously as history." After all, you inserted the qualifier "secular" so you can avoid the tens of thousands of religious scholars who take the Bible VERY VERY VERY seriously.

It simply means that people using empirical evidence as the guide for their beliefs don't take the Bible seriously as history. It's thoroughly mythological and a work of apologetic propaganda. The religious scholars who take it seriously are generally either a) trained in fields like philosophy and theology, not history, often from fundamentalist seminaries and Bible colleges that prohibit staff from teaching anything that contradicts their dogmas, or b) if they're trained in history, they know they can't establish their faith-based beliefs using rigorous scientific methods, so they don't try, and often abandon the fundamentalist version of their faith because they see it doesn't stand up to the facts.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I mean, because Stan Lee accurately talks about New York City, does that mean Spider Man is a real, historical person?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, I have a bias for noting when people write matter-of-factly about things that are completely unproven. Guilty.[trim]

Does Dark Matter exist? Dark energy? The Oort Cloud? Gravity? Your conscience? Do you exist objectively? Do I exist? Am I a Poe?

Bear in mind your quotation above when responding, please.

Thanks.

 

[Left Coast]

Does Dark Matter exist? Dark energy?

I don't know, I don't have a strong opinion about them.

The Oort Cloud?

I think so? My astronomy is rusty.

Gravity?

That one's pretty settled, yep.

Your conscience?

Depending how that's defined, yes.

Do you exist objectively? Do I exist?

Again, depends how they're defined. "The self" is a whole conundrum in philosophy. Certainly our bodies/brains do, which we tend to casually identify with.

Am I a Poe?

No clue.

Bear in mind your quotation above when responding, please.

Thanks.

Is the point of this exercise to catch me in some hypocrisy? Because you realize that even if I am engaged in some flagrant hypocrisy, that doesn't actually make my preference for objectivity wrong or your belief in a "Holy Spirit" any more justified. You know that, right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't know, I don't have a strong opinion about them.



I think so? My astronomy is rusty.



That one's pretty settled, yep.



Depending how that's defined, yes.



Again, depends how they're defined. "The self" is a whole conundrum in philosophy. Certainly our bodies/brains do, which we tend to casually identify with.



No clue.



Is the point of this exercise to catch me in some hypocrisy? Because you realize that even if I am engaged in some flagrant hypocrisy, that doesn't actually make my preference for objectivity wrong or your belief in a "Holy Spirit" any more justified. You know that, right?

Not trying to catch you in hypocrisy or a double standard, but rather, pointing to your firm belief in non-Christian intangibles, assumptions, etc. Not everything is empirical, like love, justice or Spirit.

If you are indeed seeking for empirical proof for God, He'll share it with you.

 

[Left Coast]

Not trying to catch you in hypocrisy or a double standard, but rather, pointing to your firm belief in non-Christian intangibles, assumptions, etc. Not everything is empirical, like love, justice or Spirit.

If you are indeed seeking for empirical proof for God, He'll share it with you.

Love and justice are both labels for empirical phenomena. "Spirit" in a religious context usually refers to some supernatural, immaterial being, which we have no (good) evidence for.

God has had literally thousands of years to empirically demonstrate he exists. What's taking him so long?

 

[Audie]

1) 99% of people don't say your god does miracles.

2) The fact that the Bible's stories are colored with some historical details that we can confirm (hey, Jerusalem is a real city! Herod was a real person!) does not mean we have any reason to believe in the Bible's unique claims of things happening that are totally implausible as history and contradict everything we know about how the world works.

Historical novels will be sprinkled with
real and verifiable facts. Likewise
the stories of con men.

Heck American history has some magical
realism mixed in. G Washington's mighty
dollar-across-the Potomac throw.

And Davey Crockett who killed a bear before he was
three years old

 

[Audie]

I mean, because Stan Lee accurately talks about New York City, does that mean Spider Man is a real, historical person?

I did fist-bump Spiderman on W 79th three years ago.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Love and justice are both labels for empirical phenomena. "Spirit" in a religious context usually refers to some supernatural, immaterial being, which we have no (good) evidence for.

God has had literally thousands of years to empirically demonstrate he exists. What's taking him so long?

How do you measure love and justice? Using which empirical tools?

"Spirit" and the numinous is believed almost universally by humans. There are other things that truly exist without empirical evidence, for some examples, truth, math, logic. Several of which you are employing in our discussion!!

God has demonstrated His existence to me numerous times recently. Jesus said, "You don't have, since you don't ask." Surely I'm not the first theists you've heard that from?

 

[Left Coast]

How do you measure love and justice? Using which empirical tools?

Depending on your definition, love can either mean a feeling, or a type of action. Ultimately, feelings can be, and are, measured neuroscientifically. If we define love as an action, we simply observe the interaction of individuals and compare what they do with our definition till we find a match. If we find a match, we label it, love.

Justice is a certain state of affairs between parties or individuals. We need simply to define what the characteristics of that state are, and then, like love, observe conditions in the world. When we find conditions that match, we label it a just situation.

"Spirit" and the numinous is believed almost universally by humans.

As we've already covered, the fact that lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.

There are other things that truly exist without empirical evidence, for some examples, truth, math, logic. Several of which you are employing in our discussion!!

Truth is another label like love and justice that describes empirically identifiable conditions. Math and logic are abstract concepts we invented to analyze and quantify empirical things in our experience.

God has demonstrated His existence to me numerous times recently. Jesus said, "You don't have, since you don't ask." Surely I'm not the first theists you've heard that from?

Oh trust me, I hear lots of things from lots of theists. I'm still waiting for one of then to actually demonstrate the truth of their claims about their god(s), though. How did your god demonstrate his existence to you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Depending on your definition, love can either mean a feeling, or a type of action. Ultimately, feelings can be, and are, measured neuroscientifically. If we define love as an action, we simply observe the interaction of individuals and compare what they do with our definition till we find a match. If we find a match, we label it, love.

Justice is a certain state of affairs between parties or individuals. We need simply to define what the characteristics of that state are, and then, like love, observe conditions in the world. When we find conditions that match, we label it a just situation.



As we've already covered, the fact that lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.



Truth is another label like love and justice that describes empirically identifiable conditions. Math and logic are abstract concepts we invented to analyze and quantify empirical things in our experience.



Oh trust me, I hear lots of things from lots of theists. I'm still waiting for one of then to actually demonstrate the truth of their claims about their god(s), though. How did your god demonstrate his existence to you?

A good question, thanks.

God pledges to Christians in the scriptures how it is that (unlike the more random life paths of skeptics who aren’t “tuned in”) when born agains sin, there is punishment, and if they do something righteous, there is reward.

If I sin once daily and suffer, and do righteously daily and am blessed, after 10 years (over 7,000 iterations) I've achieved supreme statistical significance (2^7000).

Seeing God do His Word many thousands of times in my life means it’s not my apophenia or pareidolia but God. It’s not my clustering illusion, not my cognitive dissociation or cognitive biases, but God. I know God (testimony) and witness to you that I know Jesus, and that Jesus is God, King, Savior.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the Bible's historical details are nowhere near the general vagueness you claim. For example:

Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke’s accuracy in the book of Acts verse
by verse. With painstaking detail, Hemer identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have
been confirmed by historical and archaeological research.1 As you read the following list, keep in
mind that Luke did not have access to modern-day maps or nautical charts. Luke accurately records:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)
2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)
3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)
5. the correct language spoken in Lystra—Lycaonian (14:11)
6. two gods known to be so associated—Zeus and Hermes (14:12)
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1; cf. 15:41)
9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace (16:11)
11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12)
12. the right location for the river (Gangites) near Philippi (16:13)
13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing (16:14)
14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony (16:22)
15. the proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive nights
on this journey (17:1)
16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1)
17. the proper term (“politarchs”) used of the magistrates there (17:6)
18. the correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the
favoring east winds of summer sailing (17:14-15)
19. the abundant presence of images in Athens (17:16)
20. the reference to a synagogue in Athens (17:17)
21. the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (17:17)
22. the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul (sper-mologos, 17:18) as well as for the court
(Areios pagos, 17:19)
23. the proper characterization of the Athenian character (17:21)
24. an altar to an “unknown god” (17:23)
25. the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection (17:32)
26. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (17:34)
27. a Corinthian synagogue (18:4)
28. the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12)
29. the bema (judgment seat), which overlooks Corinth’s forum (18:16ff.)
30. the name Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions (19:9)
31. well-known shrines and images of Artemis (19:24)
32. the well-attested “great goddess Artemis” (19:27)
33. that the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city (19:29)
34. the correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35)
35. the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans (19:35)
36. the correct name to designate the goddess (19:37)
37. the proper term for those holding court (19:38)
38. use of plural anthupatoi, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly
exercising the functions of proconsul at this time (19:38)
39. the “regular” assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere (19:39)
40. use of precise ethnic designation, beroiaios (20:4)
41. employment of the ethnic term Asianos (20:4)
42. the implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to this city of Troas (20:7ff.)
43. the danger of the coastal trip in this location (20:13) 44. the correct sequence of places (20:14-
15)
45. the correct name of the city as a neuter plural (Patara) (21:1)
46. the appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northwest
winds (21:3)
47. the suitable distance between these cities (21:8)
48. a characteristically Jewish act of piety (21:24)
49. the Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area (21:28) (Archaeological discoveries and
quotations from Josephus confirm that Gentiles could be executed for entering the temple area. One
inscription reads: “Let no Gentile enter within the balustrade and enclosure surrounding the
sanctuary. Whoever is caught will be personally responsible for his consequent death.”2
50. the permanent stationing of a Roman cohort (chiliarch) at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at
festival times (21:31)
51. the flight of steps used by the guards (21:31, 35)
52. the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time (22:28)
53. the tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship (22:29)
54. Ananias being high priest at this time (23:2)
55. Felix being governor at this time (23:34)
56. the natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea (23:31)
57. whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time (23:34)
58. the provincial penal procedure of the time (24:1-9)
59. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)
60. the right of appeal for Roman citizens (25:11)
61. the correct legal formula (25:18)
62. the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time (25:26)
63. the best shipping lanes at the time (27:5)
64. the common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia (27:4)
65. the principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy (27:5-6)
66. the slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical northwest wind (27:7)
67. the right route to sail, in view of the winds (27:7)
68. the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea (27:8)
69. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead (27:12)
70. a noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly to a violent northeaster, the
well-known gregale (27:13)
71. the nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale (27:15)
72. the precise place and name of this island (27:16)
73. the appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight (27:16)
74. the fourteenth night—a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates
and probabilities, confirmed in the judgment of experienced Mediterranean navigators (27:27)
75. the proper term of the time for the Adriatic (27:27)
76. the precise term (Bolisantes) for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta
(27:28)
77. a position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before an easterly
wind (27:39)
78. the severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape (27:42)
79. the local people and superstitions of the day (28:4-6)
80. the proper title protos tÓs nÓsou (28:7)
81. Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the strait (28:13)
82. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way (28:15)
83. appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers (28:16)
84. the conditions of imprisonment, living “at his own expense” (8:30-31)

Is there any doubt that Luke was an eyewitness to these events or at least had access to reliable
eyewitness testimony? What more could he have done to prove his authenticity as a historian?

Source: Norman Geisler

Nobody is arguing that it wasn't written by someone familiar with the region or with the customs of the time.

 

[Left Coast]

A good question, thanks.

God pledges to Christians in the scriptures how it is that (unlike the more random life paths of skeptics who aren’t “tuned in”) when born agains sin, there is punishment, and if they do something righteous, there is reward.

If I sin once daily and suffer, and do righteously daily and am blessed, after 10 years (over 7,000 iterations) I've achieved supreme statistical significance (2^7000).

Seeing God do His Word many thousands of times in my life means it’s not my apophenia or pareidolia but God. It’s not my clustering illusion, not my cognitive dissociation or cognitive biases, but God. I know God (testimony) and witness to you that I know Jesus, and that Jesus is God, King, Savior.

How did you rule out confounding variables in your analysis? It's not surprising to me that many thousands of times in your life you may have observed, "I do x, then y happens." I've observed something similar, about many different things in my life. But how did you determine that it is God, and not something else, causing that chain of events to occur?

Telling me that your holy book says God is what causes it is not really an answer. That's just another claim. How did you determine that claim is actually correct, and there's not another explanation?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nobody is arguing that it wasn't written by someone familiar with the region or with the customs of the time.

I'm arguing INTIMATELY familiar, having traveled the breadth of the known Roman world. Pilgrims who knew leaders, customs and people from gospel witnessing. Travel was fraught with peril compared today.