Why do we believe the story of Jesus?

God also doesn’t have to tweak the trajectory of an existing meteor with a tiny, quantum fluctuation. He can make one appear out of nothing. This would help alleviate transit time problems if He wanted something done on the spot. Neither one of you gets to tell God how to operate. You can assume how He may have operated but lacking concrete Revelation, it is nothing more than that–an assumption of how you think God might operate. I have no issues with both ways happening at God’s discretion.

Vinnie

Yes and you can proudly say God can do any despicable thing you care to mention. But I don’t believe God does anything of the kind. God made the laws of nature for a reason. So the point was that God can tweak a meteor without the inconsistency breaking any of these laws of nature He created.

You may believe in a God who inconsistently breaks His own laws just to show off, but I do not. ESPECIALLY not just to impress a bunch of ignorant savages who cannot possibly know the difference anyway.

  • Whoa!!! A three-exclamation link, IMO. Fascinating! Thanks!

Personally I don’t like to get in the middle trying to summarize a person’s opinion that requires a book length discussion when you could spend 10 minutes listening to her directly to see if what she has to say has any merit. But it is your choice if you want to ignore criticism of the critical scholarship.

1 Like

And you can define something as despicable despite it not being universally held as such. Us Christians have disagreed for centuries on what is despicable and things we find despicable are not viewed the same in other parts of the world. I am just not sure how God making a rock conjures up images of God doing something despicable. I like rocks.

Fair enough. You are free to believe what you want.

That is hardly a novel thought nor does it necessarily lead to the conclusion you think it does.

Or God made the laws of nature that us human know limit and control our actions so stringently which make it all the more profound and earth shattering when God actually does things that violate those laws as a sign of His power, sovereignty, love and control. In case you forgot, we Christians generally believe a very very very dead Jesus returned to life several days later.

You may believe I believe in a God who inconsistently breaks his own laws. I believe in a God who can break the laws of creation because He is sovereign and doesn’t have to answer to the fickle judgments of humans babbling on about what they think they know. You can also claim God is “showing off” which is just an unseemly and disparaging way of expressing a miracle. Can you not handle disagreement that you have to resort to such pejorative language? I don’t find John 20:30-31 to be Jesus “showing off” anymore than God breaking the laws of physics for any reason He chooses to would be “showing off.”

“Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his followers that are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God . Then, by believing, you may have life through his name.”

But even then, if God wanted to “show off,” He is God. He has that right. He did some boasting to Job. Sometimes we need to be put in our place. Clay meet Potter. But I get it. We all have lines we draw. Mine is generally at sanctioning rape and murdering babies. That is my deal breaker. Making a new rock in space isn’t even close to that in my view.

He loves those ignorant savages. Maybe that is why? And clearly some of them know the difference because you would not be arguing so strongly against genuine supernatural miracles. the Bible is replete with nature defying miracle after nature defying miracle. I know I have a liberal view of the Biblical text, but to deny all of them, is pretty close to just denying the totality of the Bible in my eyes. You will be the first one to chastise someone for not taking scripture seriously but claim God doesn’t violate the laws of nature? Walking on water, stilling storms at will, raising the dead, healing the blind, making the lame walk, turning a few fish into enough food to feed thousands, cleansing leprosy and skin diseases in situ, these are all supernatural miracles. Hell, Jesus healed people at a distance several times in the gospels. At a distance! He doesn’t even have to be there. Please feel free to explain this all with tiny quantum fluctuations? Maybe you can find a force carrier or new vector boson that mediates healings at a distance.

Science is not my God. Neither are the “laws of nature” as some bipedal primates (savages as you put it) lay them out in a text book. Science is wonderful for what it is and what it does. But based on Revelation, if there is any inspiration at all to the Bible and it’s not just a purely human work written by people who had spiritual experiences, and if there is any truth at all to God incarnate – the miracle working Son who rose from the dead, my God can and does defy physics when He chooses to.

God can tweak the meteor. God can make a new one. It’s all God’s prerogative. He transcends the box you limit Him to.

Vinnie

I read criticism of it all the time because critical scholars are critical. That is the whole point of peer-reviewed journals.

And I generally don’t do YouTube. I like text. I like to be able to see the arguments and break them down. I find it easier to spot fallacies and leaps in logic that way. I am not interested in rhetoric. Just give me the arguments laid out in a straightforward fashion that I can easily access and analyze.

Or maybe I should have just left this here in response:
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-New-Testament-Christian/dp/0060655186

It would have been about as helpful in stimulating discussion.

Anyone who can turn barrels of water into top quality wine gets my vote.

2 Likes

An interesting argument.

@heymike3 (and others) might approve of who wrote the foreward.

And @Vinnie, she’s a fairly prolific author:
    https://www.lydiamcgrew.com/LMCV.htm

In the New Testament, there is a wide range of healing miracles attributed to Jesus, healing various physical ailments, including blindness, deafness, paralysis, and fevers. These healings often involve him touching the person, speaking words of healing, or simply their faith in him. As someone who has worked in a medical environment, I see healing miracles in a different light.

In a society like occupied Israel, it would not be unusual to find illnesses that we may think of as modern disorders, such as depression, chronic pain, anxiety and panic disorders, trauma-related disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, adjustment disorders. Psychogenic paralysis is also a phenomenon where individuals experience loss of motor function without any apparent physical cause that has a long history. In some instances, psychological factors like extreme stress or trauma can lead to temporary blindness or deafness, often referred to as functional or psychogenic blindness or deafness.

Many of the behaviours associated with demon possession, such as altered states of consciousness, agitation, and unusual speech or movements, are seen today as indicative of various mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or dissociative disorders. These conditions have in many cases been known to be resolved when the underlying psychological issues are addressed.

Ulrich Schaffer, a German who studied German and English in Vancouver and Hamburg, writes about the more conscious life, love and how it expresses itself in solid relationships and friendships, nature and our attitude towards it and the questions of faith and hope. He wrote a little anecdote that is often quoted: “You go ahead,” said the soul to the body, “he won’t listen to me. Maybe he will listen to you.”

The body answered the soul: "Well, I’ll get sick, then he’ll have time for you!”

Today, we are continually reminded in this way to care for the soul. However, the reason that we think of the above illness as modern conditions is only because we have given them a clinical name. These conditions can all be linked to psychological factors that have been around for as long as human beings have suffered, and generally it is a holistic approach that addresses both physical and psychological aspects that is needed to provide the best care for individuals with these conditions but historically has seldom been available.

Jesus is consistently depicted as having deep compassion and empathy for those who are suffering. He is moved by their pain and suffering, which often prompts him to heal. With Jesus addressing the destitute needing something to eat and something to drink, or outsiders needing an invitation, those who are in rags that needed to be clothed, and especially the sick who needed looking after, or in prison and needing support, he is addressing what is translated as “the least” of people, signifying their estrangement and rejection in society. His parable speaks of the faithful who are spontaneously merciful and compassionate, and in so doing serving God. I see it as the first steps to healing a community, not just individuals. People with strong social support networks and a sense of community tend to fare better in terms of overall health and recovery from illness.

Of course, Jesus’ healing ministry was not limited to physical ailments. He also offered spiritual healing and forgiveness of sins, which he often emphasized as being equally or even more important than physical healing. The mind-body connection is well-documented, and negative emotions and stress can contribute to physical symptoms. We know that forgiveness can play a significant role in the recovery from various illnesses, as it is closely linked to emotional and psychological well-being. High levels of stress and anxiety are known to exacerbate psychosomatic symptoms, so forgiveness can be a valuable tool in reducing these emotional triggers.

I see Jesus’s interpretation of the Messiah in the words, “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.”

And when He stood up to read, the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. Unrolling it, He found the place where it was written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on Me,

because He has anointed Me

to preach good news to the poor.

He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives

and recovery of sight to the blind,

to release the oppressed,

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Then He rolled up the scroll, returned it to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on Him, and He began by saying, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:17-20)

1 Like

Undesigned coincidences in the gospels is not a new argument and it is generally not compelling. That is why it has been dead since the time of Paley. The other alternative is the stories were popular and existed in many forms as they were told and retold, and the obvious one of literary dependence and the synoptic problem…

I’ve read hundreds of books and thousands of journal articles and I don’t think I’ve ever seen an actual credentialed scholar argue like this.

From a review:

“Some ‘undesigned coincidences’ fade when the interests of the evangelists in the way they have compiled their sources and shaped their narratives — their ‘redactional’ interests — are considered. Take the timing of the feeding of the five thousand in Mark and John as an example. John tells us this was around Passover (6:4), which seems to be subtly corroborated by Mark’s note that ‘many were coming and going’ at that time (6:31). The difficulty with viewing this as an undesigned coincidence is that the crowd’s following Jesus is a Markan trope (3:7–9); and the Passover setting of John may simply serve to make explicit latent Passover symbolism in the early feeding accounts. McGrew and Williams note that the ‘green grass’ (6.39) also corroborates a Passover setting, since Passover falls in Nisan (March/April), after months of rainfall. Yet can facticity be so easily assumed from verisimilitude? Perhaps not. As Graham Twelftree notes, the ‘green grass’ may serve as a reminder of the fertility of the desert in the Messianic age, or allude to the good Shepherd leading his flock through green pastures, a point Mark has already made (6:34).”

“From a very long Amazon review”: “At least one of McGrew’s undesigned coincidences simply does not exist. In two Gospel accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, she believes she has found two incidental references to the Passover. In particular, she points out that Mark 6:31 speaks of the people “coming and going,” whereas John 6:4 says in passing that Passover was at hand. She interprets this to mean that thousands of people were busily “coming and going” to prepare for their pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover (pp. 63–65). However, there is a much more likely explanation that does not involve the Passover pilgrimage at all. In many passages (Mark 1:28, 32–33, 35–37, 45; 2:2–4; 3:7–12, 20, 32; 4:1, 36; 5:24, 31; 8:1; 9:14–15; 10:1), the second Gospel speaks of Jesus and the disciples being mobbed by the madding crowds. The whole point of Mark 6:31 is that “[f]or many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat.””

So one instance of an obvious Markan trope about crowds that shows up repeatedly is turned, magically into an undesigned coincidence about the Passover in John? I think not. This is shoddy scholarship and nothing more than bad evangelical apologetics. That’s why if you look at mainline commentaries, mainline Biblical journals (JBL, CBQ etc) and so forth the last 100 years by critical scholars , this argument advocated primarily by two non Biblical scholars who I think are married, is not really used. And Gary Habermas is not an actual historical biblical scholar either. Another philosopher.

Vinnie

Good find Dale, thanks for passing it on

Now my interest is more than picked to read Keener’s foreword

1 Like

It’s not healthy to latch on to a single scholar and rise or fall based on what they say. Keener is one person and has a lot of valuable information to say but will find a host of critical scholars who disagree with him in parts. I have my favorite scholars who I trust but in the end if we don’t talk the blinders off we aren’t seeing very much.

2 Likes

No doubt. I have a few I like to bounce things off of. Sadly they will disappoint you at times. Just today I learned something I wish I didn’t have to about a person I greatly admired.

2 Likes

Now that you mention it, this is why I came to appreciate Peter’s argument in Acts 2 so much. The argument is similar to what is found in 1 John with the testimony of Scripture “it is the last hour,” eyewitness testimony “which we have seen,” and the Spirit’s testimony “the anointing which you have received.”

I would guess Pervo but you are probably too conservative to admire his work. His commentary on Luke is stellar too.

Vinnie

  • It is my impression, solely based at this time on McGrew’s first four videos in defense of her book, The Mirror Or The Mask, that she holds what I would call “a very high view of the four"Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)”: higher than the men that she refutes, and that her style is very rational, i.e. reasoned.
  • Would you agree?

Actually I have kind of jumped around watching her videos but yes I would agree with you.

1 Like

Good reason not to mess with the mathematical space-time laws which make our life possible. You see… I don’t buy into all the magical Christianity which sees life as an ingredient in a spell of necromancy or a magical something added to things to make them dance like in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.” Things are alive because of what they are according to the laws of nature God designed.

Yeah that is the magical Christianity which only serves the purpose of exaggerating the importance of clergy.

I certainly don’t believe in this nonsense which equates God’s omnipotence with the ability to do anything by whatever means one cares to dictate. That is the lame omnipotence of a dreamer which any kid on my block can do. Logical coherence is what makes things real, and real omnipotence is the ability to accomplish things by the knowledge of how to make things work.

I believe what Paul taught in 1 Cor 15, which was a physical(bodily) resurrection to a spiritual body and not to a physical(natural) body. None of that is magical or a violation of the laws of nature which only governs physical(natural) things and not spiritual things.

Yeah that is the typical clergy trying to claim one-upmanship on all scientists. It only serves their attempt to make religion into a tool of power over others. Sorry but I don’t believe God breaks His laws of nature just to prop up such ambitions any more than I believe He does it to impress the ignorant who cannot possibly know the difference.

What I claim is that God made the universe for a relationship with laws of nature to support the process of life and which allow Him to interact with things without having to break everything. This do anything in any way you please is frankly the mentality of the inept or the dreamer who makes no effort at consistency because none of it is real.

It is not magical powers or violations of the laws of nature which makes something a miracle. Something is miracle because it is the work of God - including flowers and newborn infants all of which are demonstrably coming about according to the laws of nature.

God has the right to do whatever evil He chooses. That is not the point. The point is that God has no need to do evil or to show off. The only ones who need that are the men using religion for puffing themselves up.

All of which was boasting of superior knowledge not magical powers. The point was that Job understood nothing of how God accomplished such things not that Job simply didn’t have the magical powers to do them.

Yep that is the typical thinking of clergy using religion for their own power. I knew many teachers like that too. I was never impressed but only disgusted by them. The job of the teacher is to TEACH not to “put kids in their place.” Sorry but I will never accept the efforts of such teachers and clergy to remake God in their own image.

Yeah… I guess I have many more things on my list which makes a supposed “god” sound more like a devil to me. Trying to rule others by fear and threats is one of them. Running Xtianity like a mob protection racket – as a way to save ourselves from his wrath, is another. (I have a list of many more) To gods like that, I have the same response as Albert Camus in “The Myth of Sisyphus,” that I am content which the enmity of such a despicable being. I am a theist with high standards and atheism is preferable otherwise.

This looks like a strong view against the miraculous birth of Jesus… which wasn’t how you described your position a few days ago

1 Like