One Christian Thought

In part 2 of the original blog project , loaded down with embarrassing testimony, there were four claims which go to the heart of a miracle, all quoted below. Thus, if it can be shown that they really fit the criterion of dissimilarity, there is strong evidence Peter reported what actually happened and didn't make it up. Jesus's apparent ignorance " 5:30 Jesus was unaware of the woman He healed.  He asked, "Who touched my clothes?" and searched for her. But Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit (1:10) and "Jesus knew in His Spirit" when people were against Him (2:8). Later on He makes many accurate predictions (11:2-6; 14:13-16, 27 and 50; 30 and 72)." I don't think that Jesus was really unaware at all of what He had done, even as a human. I think what he was doing was trying to draw out the woman who was scared of Him, so she could grow by facing her fear and He could talk to her. But I've come up with some arguments that this could fit

C.S. Lewis once said, Muslims (other people can as well) can charge that the Trinity is too complex. But he responds, who says the truth has to be simple? I recently got to thinking about an argument against the criterion of dissimilarity, and have to point out that the truth is not necessarily the first straightforward answer. Distinguishing what claims in Mark are unlikely inventions is almost all of the argument for it.  But if Christianity is false, then embarrassing claims make sense because Mark didn't have a perfect leader. On the other hand, if it is true, then there definitely is a theological explanation to everything. Also, what are religious record keepers going to do when they bump over an embarrassing report? Ignore it? How improbable that a Gospel writer wouldn't think about what he's writing. An explanation would be crafted sooner or later.  But a good response is that even if there is so far as theological purposes behind mentioning something (as opposed to

A question I had about the Gospel of Peter is, why was it accredited to Mark's name at all? He was Peter's scribe, and Peter was far more prominent that him. My guess is, based on how Mark is significantly paralleled but not exactly the same with Peter's "rough outline" in Acts, he was named because Mark  is the author of that Gospel, and Peter was just the highest source he learned from. Peter did not and would not have styled it that way. Back in the post revisiting the internal evidence for Peter's influence, I cited how Bart Ehrman pointed out the early church father from around AD 100 said that was true. But Papias had a nasty habit of writing off theological embellishments (Ehrman's examples blew my mind). Perhaps Papias first invented this lie, and then later, the church was honest and gave it the title because of the reasoning above.  "If all the early church did was assign names to the Gospel documents in order to invest them with greater aut

You'll notice that there is no question mark ending the title, because the original post already had potential proof of miracles. It is  The Possibility of Miracles?  Then there's the old  " The Matter of an All-Loving God... and EVIL . " "It's always easy to scream 'anti-supernatural bias' when someone does not think that the miracles of one's own tradition can be historically established," (1) Bart Ehrman said in the beginning of his two chapter bit on the resurrection, explained in my extensive argument for Jesus rising from the dead. It was so true of my thinking at one point. Now I've come to soften my thoughts toward intellectually dismissing miracles, because it can be defended and it would be rude to assume someone is so biased, and especially try to intellectually shame them.   William Lane Craig, in his debate with Ehrman, used "methodological atheism." (2) I find this very fitting. It's isn't philosophical nat

If you have read at least a few of my posts, chances are you can identify who Bart Ehrman is. He is a famous agnostic New Testament scholar. Being one of the leading critics of Christianity in the world today, of course I've debated many of his claims (and welcomed his conclusions in favor of supporting Christianity). But I want to express that I am not out to attack Ehrman, he's just the best skeptical scholar I can get. I read his  Did Jesus Exist?  about two years ago, when looking for strong ammo to prove Jesus was a real person. It might have been when I came across these words for the first time I realized how confident he is. I as a Christian of course knew no one should attack him personally (even though I was a tad bit shaken; I'm not anymore), and as a reader in general I was aware everyone should check and see if what they claim will be able to stand up to scrutiny.  "I sometimes get asked, usually by supporters, why I do not make a practice of responding to

It was inevitable. It's just begging to be asked. I may be the only one who saw it but it's still there. I don't remember ever reading this argument from any unbeliever (probably for good reason shown below), but if I can assign power to God to create something He doesn't have, shouldn't it be considered that maybe the physical universe could create something without containing any of the properties? (I believe morality, consciousness, and reasoning could not possibly have arisen from the universe. Our mind is dealt with briefly below, but only as an example. Whether or not the world could demonstrably produce all that is dealt with in other posts.) The difference between God and the world From Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible , I learned the quip, "the danger is in the ditches."(1) What it means is it is unreasonable to say it is either absolutely one way or the other, to have a certain set of truths already decided

Arguing yes to the blog project title question "Are the Acts of the Apostles Accurate?" came in part 1 with two sources that give historical evidence outside of the Bible and part 2 with unlikely inventions and other significant material referenced in this post.  Inventions? Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene had some striking skeptical arguments. The next post will go into claims of contradictions between Luke and Paul (questioning Biblical inspiration), but right now I have a springboard to cement my previously written case more. In part 2 of the original argument, I argued for miraculous intervention in Acts from an unembellished account of someone being raised from the dead (Acts 20:7-12). "Yet how different is it from the account of the raising of Patroclus, a servant of the emperor Nero, who also is said to have been listening to Paul late at night, this time in a barn? He too drifts asleep, falls from the window, and dies. Word is sent off to Nero, who very much li

The blog project "Where does Jesus Get His Authority? Where do His Followers Get Theirs?" was finished two (now three) posts ago. Since then I ran into some special issues from The Fundamentals of Ethics . They were in the chapter on Kantian ethics and deontology (this wasn't an argument against God).  Do unto others...? Is the golden rule, the claim "Do unto others as you would want them to do to you," really objectively true? This is, after all, a vital component and sometimes even a name for Christianity. But one day, many months ago, I wondered about those who are self-hurting. Why would God command anyone to hurt others? "The golden rule licenses [any] extremism because it makes the morality of an action depend entirely on what you want and what you are willing to put up with." (1) But the Christian answer is obvious. "Jesus replied, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'  This is t

If you read my blog project responding to philosophical challenges against Christianity, both morally and intellectually, the topic of why God doesn't give everyone undeniable proof will probably sound familiar to you. In part 2 I cited A. J. Ayer, a prominent atheist who had a near-death experience and saw a representation of God. Yet, afterward he still denied an afterlife and God's existence. Also in the conclusion I cited Romans 1:18-20, which had God allowing people who longed to be immoral to go their own way. Here is more of a presentation of why that makes sense. I have two examples that are straight from unbelievers themselves, and others that are reported by Christians. A major appeal in this post will be to the fact that what believers can say about unbelievers makes so much sense. Here I wish to argue that just because a lot of scientists don't believe in God, doesn't mean they are probably right. "...we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door," I