Luke 1 seems to present some difficulties to those who insist that YHWH does not act or intervene in events and with people. Likewise for those who dismiss anything supernatural.
"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
We start the Gospel of Luke with the author assuring the recipient that he is compiling an account based on eyewitness testimony, which the author investigated, with the intent of giving the reader certainty about the recorded events. To me this seems to exclude the author repeating things that were not testified to be eyewitnesses or things about what the author doesn't have certainty.
"5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.
8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside."
This section set the stage in the historical context, and starts the story of Jesus with the birth narrative of John the Baptist.
"11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. 16 He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”"
Given the introduction, it would follow that the author is certain about what he is reporting. That YHWH sent an angel to speak with Zechariah and to tell him that YHWH Himself had heard the prayers of Zechariah and Elizabeth and that YHWH will intervene to answer those prayers. Also that YHWH's answer takes place outside of the normal, natural, course of events. YHWH is acting through a woman thought to be barren, in order to make a point. Further, the restrictions on John recall the restrictions of Nazarites of the OT at least in some sense. Finally, John's role is that of an OT prophet. To prepare the way for "The Lord" (referring to Jesus in terms that are usually applied to YHWH), and to turn people to righteous obedience and wisdom. Strangely enough, not one mention of any economic issues.
"18 Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.”
19 The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. 20 And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.”"
Zechariah's response to Gabriel was quite the contrast to Mary's later in the chapter. His response is doubt and he demands proof. Given the circumstances, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask but doubting an angel sent from YHWH does seem foolish. Gabriel then provided his resume, so to speak. He is clear that he stands in the presence of YHWH and the he speaks on behalf of YHWH. That there is an "appointed time" for this to happen has always interested me. It seem to indicate that these events were a part of a larger plan of YHWH and had been "appointed" long ago.
21 Meanwhile, the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed so long in the temple. 22 When he came out, he could not speak to them. They realized he had seen a vision in the temple, for he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak.
23 When his time of service was completed, he returned home. 24 After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion. 25 “The Lord has done this for me,” she said. “In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people.”
Elizabeth, however, managed to respond in a much more appropriate way.
"26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”"
Once again we see the claim that YHWH sent Gabriel to someone to tell them that YHWH was going to intervene in time and space, and that He was going to use Mary as a part of His plan. It seems germane to note that Gabriel specifies what the child's name is to be (YHWH Saves) and that Gabriel is giving Mary a glimpse of who/what Jesus really is. This seems to be a reasonably clear statement of the deity of Jesus, and of His Kingship.
"34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her."
Note Mary's response compared to Zechariah. She seems much more willing to accept what she is being told, and her questions seem to suggest sincere curiosity rather than disbelief. The final statement about the "word of YHWH" never failing is interesting.
"39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”"
Given that the author of Luke is clear that he is repeating eyewitness testimony, for the purpose of giving the reader certainty, it seems difficult to dismiss this episode as anything but accurate. That Elizabeth knew, through the Holy Spirit, who and what Jesus was to be and do, seems impossible to attribute to anything except the intervention of YHWH. Eliazbeth reiterates an unshakable confidence in the promises of YHWH.
As I read the first part of Luke 1, I am left to draw the conclusion that the author either spoke with eyewitnesses to these events and is recounting them accurately, or that the author undercuts his own claims by including events that didn't/couldn't happen because YHWH "doesn't work that way in time and space". Personally, I can't reconcile a God who doesn't intervene in the world He created with the events recorded in Scripture. Either YHWH is a trustworthy God who keeps His promises and is actively intervening in the lives of His people, or He's not. If He's not, then how can we trust anything we read in Scripture, especially the Gospels?
67 comments:
Either YHWH is a trustworthy God who keeps His promises and is actively intervening in the lives of His people, or He's not.
1. For my part, I'm not making fact claims about anything I don't know to be a fact claim. The story depicts an angel appearing to the characters in the story. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, but it literally is reported that way.
1a. Keeping in mind that the term "angel" used in these passages literally means "messenger..." without any necessary reference to a supernatural messenger. And again, I have no proof of what these angels were or who they were, nor does anyone I know. And again, I'm not going to make fact claims about things we can't prove were/are facts. I will note things like "We have no proven data about..." and THAT is a fact and if I'm mistaken when I say that, then anyone can provide proven data to correct my misunderstanding. Right?
2. On the other hand, we have no proven fact claims of God normally intervening in any pregnancies this week or last week, or really, all year or at all this century. Right? There is no proven evidence that God is directly (or through angels/mystical messengers) appearing to people today to intervene in some specific way.
2a. On the other hand, I DO believe (but can't objectively prove, anymore than anyone can) that God intervenes with messages that come in a variety of ways... God intervenes with the witness of the stars above in a turbulent time, sending a message of peace; God intervenes when good people lend a hand and welcome you in... etc.
3. In the story where the messenger identifies himself as Gabriel, who was sent from God to give a message, I'm certain the people then viewed that as a mystical angel type appearance... and maybe it was. I can't prove it one way or the other.
4. On the other hand, we have no proof that a mystical angel Gabriel has visited to intervene directly from God since then. In noting that, I'm just noting the reality as we know it. I believe in an intervening God... just that God uses people and natural earthly phenomenon to do so.
IF we had to have a wing-ed angel or mystical wall of fire to prove God, well, then we wouldn't have much to base our faith upon today, would we?
All of that to answer your question
Either YHWH is a trustworthy God who keeps His promises and is actively intervening in the lives of His people, or He's not. If He's not, then how can we trust anything we read in Scripture, especially the Gospels?
Well, as God has NOT sent a wing-ed angel or miraculous supernatural event lately, IF that's what we need, we WOULD be sorely disappointed, right? BUT if God and Grace, Welcome, love and justice are seen in God's people walking in the Way of Jesus and his teachings, then we CAN trust that, can't we?
I personally don't rely upon supernatural events to keep my faith in God, Love and Grace. You?
First of all, it's as if you were in church sitting next to me this past Sunday, as our pastor covered almost all of what you provided here (mostly Luke 1:5-20, with references to much of what came after) and highlighted most of the same points!
It's interesting how this validates our position with Scripture and how it supports our positions directly, while at my blog, Dan is again asserting that his conclusions about the usual subject is drawn from mysterious inferences not compelled by the text itself. I was just dealing with that moments ago and then to come here and see you coincidentally addressing them both amazes and astounds!
(My sympathies to you for your Chiefs. I had hoped to yank your chain, but the Mahommes injury tempered my enthusiasm, which is very high given the perfect storm of wonderfulness for my Bears...win #10, with losses for both the Packers, who also lost Micah Parson ahead of our rematch on Saturday, and the Lions, with an extra bit of joy at the lowly Vikings beating Dallas.)
1. Yet the author of Luke was clear in his intention, but I guess we can't trust the author.
1a, I guess you can define things however you choose, as long as you ignore the text.
2. Let's start with you proving the claim you made, and we'll go from there. Of course, we're talking about TWO specific incidents.
2a. An absurd and pointless aside which seems to be merely an excuse for one more irrelevant bullet point.
3&4. Who cares what you think or what hunches you might have? Given the introduction of the book of Luke, you seem to be suggesting that the author either lied in their introduction, or that the eyewitnesses lied in how they recounted the events.
Your ability to spectacularly miss the point, while attempting to make yourself sound intelligent is impressive.
Again, if you're going to make these claims, prove them.
If you want to put the majority/entirety of your trust in fallible, imperfect, sinful humans who happen to agree with you feel free.
No. But that misses the point spectacularly.
It's that time of the year for this text to show up in sermons.
I'll dig deeper later, but I'm amazed by how spectacularly Dan has missed the point of this exercise.
This season was about what I expected from the Chiefs, especially with the OL injuries. The Mahomes injury actually makes it a little easier to take as there's no reason to expect any sort of miracle finish.
The Bears have had a very good season, enjoy it while it lasts.
Craig:
you seem to be suggesting that the author either lied in their introduction, or that the eyewitnesses lied in how they recounted the events.
And yet, I am NOT suggesting that in any way whatsoever, at all. You can tell by the way I never HINTED at such a thing. Read for understanding, Craig.
People tell stories in all manner of ways and probably 99%, without any intent to lie. The Greek word used here literally means "messenger..." Not "winged supernatural being." I'm just noting what the text literally says and what it literally doesn't say. What's wrong with that?
I, of course, love Luke and his telling of the Gospel and of course do not consider Luke to be a liar. That's exactly the opposite of anything I've ever said. Nor am I saying that Mary or Zacharias were lying. Because, of course, I'm not.
Who cares what you think or what hunches you might have?
You're offering your hunches. I'm offering mine. What's wrong with that? I'm merely saying that God is not limited to acting in supernatural manner and that does not make God Less-Than. IF that were the case, given that there are no objectively proven records of God intervening in a supernatural manner throughout most of history, THAT would make such a god rather impotent and uncaring... IF God is only judged by active supernatural involvement as with a wing-ed angel or a tower of fire.
Again, if you're going to make these claims, prove them.
What claims do you think I've made? Was I not quite specific that I'm NOT making any presumptions about things that can't be proven? On the other hand, are YOU making a presumption about something that can't be proven... that these HAD to be only a supernatural angel for the story to be valid, for instance? Even though you can't prove that claim in an objective manner?
If you want to put the majority/entirety of your trust in fallible, imperfect, sinful humans who happen to agree with you feel free.
Well, I didn't say that, anywhere, did I? Are you responding to what I wrote or something else? For my part, I trust in God and in Jesus and his teachings and Way he lived... which is to say, I put my trust in Love, Grace, Welcome, the Beloved Community, Justice and Forgiveness, as those are the descriptors of God and God's Way.
And fortunately for me, I'm a part of (and suspect we ALL are parts of, to some degree) a beloved community of people who embrace this God/these Godly ideals. THAT is supernatural, to me... and it has the benefit of also being natural, observable, demonstrable.
Amen and amen!
Craig:
I'm amazed by how spectacularly Dan has missed the point of this exercise.
I'm curious: What point(s) specifically do you think I missed?
I glean from your writings (not sure if that's the exercise you speak of) that it sounds like, for you, if God didn't act exactly as you perceive the stories were written - if God didn't send an actual supernatural angel, for instance - that you would find that God untrustworthy.
Your words that made me draw this conclusion:
Personally, I can't reconcile a God who doesn't intervene in the world He created with the events recorded in Scripture.
Either YHWH is a trustworthy God who keeps His promises and is actively intervening in the lives of His people, or He's not.
I personally think that God regularly actively participates in the lives of people by the actions and messages and love and support and guidance of other humans. We can see that happening and trust that reality.
On the other hand, I don't see any proven records of God sending a supernatural being to work a supernatural miracle... certainly not in the last 2000 years, give or take.
Is it the case that you don't think God IS "actively intervening" in peoples' lives MOST of the time because we have no proof of such things? OR do you think it DOES happen fairly regularly, and you just don't have proof? Or do you think it happens and you DO have proof?
How often do you think God "actively intervenes" in peoples' lives, at a guess... like in the manner of an angel visiting to announce a baby is going to be born?
What a bizarre choice for you to impose your won hunches on what I've said.
I am unaware of anyone who is insisting that angel="winged supernatural being", that's you deflecting. As the text records the "messenger" clearly states his provenance (if you will) or his credentials as one empowered to speak on behalf of YHWH. Further, "messenger" doesn't automatically exclude supernatural beings. That's just you imposing your hunches on the text.
I'm literally pointing out what the text says, no hunches, no additions, no subtractions.
Claim #1, " we have no proven fact claims of God normally intervening in any pregnancies this week or last week, or really, all year or at all this century."
Claim #2, "as God has NOT sent a wing-ed angel or miraculous supernatural event lately,"
You made the claims, now it's on you to prove them, or make excuses.
Gotcha, you simply misspoke when you said " BUT if God and Grace, Welcome, love and justice are seen in God's people walking in the Way of Jesus and his teachings, then we CAN trust that, can't we?"
Craig:
Claim #1, " we have no proven fact claims of God normally intervening in any pregnancies this week or last week, or really, all year or at all this century."
Claim #2, "as God has NOT sent a wing-ed angel or miraculous supernatural event lately,"
You made the claims, now it's on you to prove them, or make excuses.
Well, the proof is NO ONE HAS PROVEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. You know, a miraculous angel appearance would sort of be big news. I'm merely noting the REALITY that there have been no angel-sightings reliably reported. No where at all in all the world.
NOW, if you have ANY proof of that sort of thing, I'd personally LOVE to see it. That's kind of a big deal, you know. I can't tell you how exciting that would be to learn about. PLEASE, show me the proof. MAYBE somehow I missed that, so please, show me the proof!
But, failing that, you'll have to understand that I can't operate on vague innuendo. I'm just reporting what is known.
Note: What I literally said:
" WE HAVE NO PROVEN FACT CLAIMS of God normally intervening in any pregnancies this week or last week, or really, all year or at all this century."
Where are the proven fact claims of this amazing story/these amazing stories? I want to know.
I mean, I KNOW there are stories like this one, where people saw a cloud and claimed it was an angel:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1213969670527190
Is THAT the kind of thing you're speaking of? Because that is not a proven fact claim. Right?
The point you missed is that you treat your paraphrase of the Mary's song as if your paraphrase is Scripture, yet make excuses to get around the text that precedes your proof text.
"... if God didn't act exactly as you perceive the stories were written - if God didn't send an actual supernatural angel, for instance - that you would find that God untrustworthy."
Once again, you'd be wrong.
"I personally think that God regularly actively participates in the lives of people by the actions and messages and love and support and guidance of other humans."
1. I don't care what you "personally think". It's just subjective nonsense.
2. That YHWH can and does work through humans, does not mean that He is limited to only working through humans.
"We can see that happening and trust that reality. "
By all means, provide one specific and detailed example and provide objective proof that what happened was 100% "actively participating". Bonus points if your example doesn't have YHWH contradicting scripture.
"On the other hand, I don't see any proven records..."
1. You and what you see are not the arbiter of what is "proven".
2. That you, personally, haven't seen or dismissed something doesn't mean anything with regards to the Truthfulness of the event in question.
3. In anther post I asked you if an event with (based on physics) is impossible would be sufficient "proof" for you. You ignored that.
4. I'm not sure if your god is incapable of intervening, doesn't care enough to intervene, or is the "blind watchmaker" of deism.
The problem with your questions is that they are simply a way to distract from the specific events told in Luke which are purported to be a way for the readers to be certain that the events recorded, based on careful investigation and eyewitness testimony, were trustworthy.
Craig had said:
If you want to put the majority/entirety of your trust in fallible, imperfect, sinful humans who happen to agree with you feel free.
I had responded:
Well, I didn't say that, anywhere, did I?
Craig responded:
you simply misspoke when you said " BUT if God and Grace, Welcome, love and justice are seen in God's people walking in the Way of Jesus and his teachings, then we CAN trust that, can't we?"
Well, I DO think that it's God and God's Way working IN those people, but I see what you're saying. I just associate the Way of God and the Beloved Community/Realm of God (as Jesus spoke of) as OF God.
Do you think that humans following in God's Ways of embracing love and grace... that this is HUMAN actions or God's actions (or both)? I think some of both, but the faith is in GOD and God's ways, not humans. Still, I get your point and am glad to conceded I think it's both/and.
If you took a 320 pound human adult, dropped them from over 160 feet above ground, what is the amount of force applied to that person when they encounter a solid object? What is the velocity of that person when they encounter a solid object (a large rock, perhaps)? What is the statistical probability of the person surviving the impact? What is the statistical probability of the person being virtually uninjured?
FYI, I've done the math, done the OSHA certification regarding the damage to a human body when it falls, and I know the probabilities.
I don't know the odds of surviving such a fall. I'm sure it's extremely unlikely.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3212924/
Why? Is there some proven case of an angel swooping down from the heavens above and catching your personal in question?
Do tell. Again, I would sincerely LOVE to see proof of that sort of story.
IF it happened, why not share the story?
Question for you: do you think all/most hard-to-believe events or outcomes with no explanations are proven stories of miraculous interventions by God?
Own, not won.
Well, congratulations because you "think" something. Your "think" carries no weight. Now if you can PROVE this claim, by all means do so.
That sounds like you're trying to acknowledge that you were wrong, but aren't quite willing to be up front about it.
"Well, the proof is NO ONE HAS PROVEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS"
That's not proof, it's just one more way of trying to make a claim without proving it.
Excuses, and more claims, but no proof.
FWIW, I'd argue that (given what we know about the historicity of the Gospels) that the author of Luke making claims of "certainty" based on the testimony of "eyewitnesses" is (as was demonstrated by Simon Greenleaf) proof enough to be admissible in a US court of law.
But that's just me and a few other people.
Nice dodge. I didn't expect you to do any more than you actually did in terms of doing the math.
Your resort to ridicule is also predictable. As if "an angel swooping down" is the only possibility.
Your response reassures me that my reluctance to share the story was the right choice.
If I were you, I'd simply demand that you accept my experience as reality and move on. But I'm not, and if you won't do your own homework to satisfy yourself of the physics involved, then I see no reason to waste time with you.
No, you would know this because I did not make that claim or that argument.
FYI, I'm not "sharing the story" in detail here. I can absolutely point you to objective sources that can verify the facts of the situation, as well as to witnesses. But your attitude closed that door entirely.
So, NO, we have NO PROVEN STORIES of angelic/miraculous interventions by God this year or this century. Look, that's not an insult to you or to God. I'm just pointing out that MY claim, as I made it, is exactly factually correct.
" WE HAVE NO PROVEN FACT CLAIMS of God normally intervening in any pregnancies this week or last week, or really, all year or at all this century."
That is a factually correct statement. IF there was proven data of EVEN ONE such a wild story, it would be HUGE NEWS, spread everywhere. We don't have that, do we? My claim was correct and you've just verified it. But instead of admitting that yes, my claim was factually correct, you are getting defensive and belligerent, and acting like I'M being crazy or hateful for just noting reality.
Don't be obtuse.
Your resort to ridicule is also predictable. As if "an angel swooping down" is the only possibility.
That is NOT an attempt to ridicule. This discussion began with a story of an angel, which you APPEAR to be defending as it should be taken as a literal supernatural angel (and which I haven't said it's NOT, I've just noted that we can't say it was objectively that... which is another statement of objective fact.) IF you want to suggest (which I THINK you are, but you're being vague and cagey about it, as usual) that there are regular supernatural interventions by God, then that's VERY COOL, but you should be prepared to support such a claim OR admit that it's not a proven fact.
That's ALL I'm saying. There is nothing dismissive or belittling or combative about it. I'm just asking if you're going to insist that something is an objective fact, be prepared to defend it as an objective fact OR admit it's not something that can be proven, it's just something you personally take in faith.
Again, MY "attitude" is NOT closed to the door of a miraculous intervention by God. Again, I would LOVE for you to prove that. It's a HUGE claim and it would be soooooo very cool IF you could prove it.
What I'm objecting to is insisting you should be believed when you're making incredible and hard-to-believe claims.
When I claim that the Realm of God, the Beloved Community of God daily and regularly intervenes to help save lives, to welcome and love and forgive, I can point to objective specific demonstrable events. And people can disagree as to whether or not God is involved if they want as I can't prove that part of it, but I CAN show the actions that are of Love and Grace and Welcome and Justice.
If you have proof of a miracle, please, please, please show it.
If you want me to take your word on it, well, I may not without any evidence. I'll say that it's very cool that you think that happened and let it go at that, because that's ALL we can say with objective proof. It's about honesty and intellectual honesty and not bowing down to abusive tactics of a religious human establishment.
I would just point you to my first comment on this post about what I am and am not saying:
For my part,
I'm not making fact claims about anything I don't know to be a fact claim.
The story depicts an angel appearing to the characters in the story.
Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, but it literally is reported that way.
Maybe your miracle happened as an active intervention of God. Maybe it didn't. I'm NOT saying it didn't happen. I'm just having the intellectual honesty to admit that we can't prove that. Some people may choose to believe it as an act of faith and I have not one problem with that. Some people may NOT choose to believe it and that's okay with me, too.
I DO think, though, that:
A. it's important to distinguish between proven fact claims and things we take on faith;
B. it's important to not try to bully people into believing your unproven fact claims AS a proven fact when it's just not;
C. that Jesus teaches us, quite clearly, that
“A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign!
But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."
and again:
He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.
A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”
D. For my part, I want to be specific and not claim "miracles" as a fact without objective proof - too many religious charlatans have played that card to enrich themselves to take it seriously - and I just accept Jesus' way/teachings in faith and based on common sense and moral reason and I don't need any miracles or signs to convince me of their right-ness.
If there were Christian miracle workers, why would they not show up at hospitals and in war zones rather than only in the shadows and "church services" and other unproven places?
And again I'd ask: How often are you guessing that God "actively intervenes" in some miraculous way in the world today?
Do you think it's sufficient if it happens every 100 years... is that "actively intervening..."? Because that seems to mock God, not support God.
"BUT if God and Grace, Welcome, love and justice are seen in God's people walking in the Way of Jesus and his teachings, then we CAN trust that, can't we?"
None of which matters if the Book which teaches all of that in as unreliable as you need it to be in order to maintain your heretical notions as true. You're going to trust random behaviors of ordinary people as proof of the God revealed to you in the Scripture containing so much you can't believe, won't believe or of which you demand proof.
It's how closely your post mirrored the actual sermon which amazed me. The coincidental aspect was striking.
Doesn't he always?
Given I don't follow them as you do, I have no idea what's different this year than last for them.
I am enjoying it, and have been doing so wondering how far they can go. They're now at the limit of what I had originally hoped for but couldn't believe they'd reach...given their recent history.
For Dan, Scripture is proof of nothing...until he needs it to be. And even then, he rarely cites it accurately or appropriately.
Good point. If the primary source for the teachings that Dan chooses to venerate is unreliable and untrustworthy, how could he possibly know which behaviors he should venerate.
Not to denigrate either of the pastors involved, but there is a pretty obvious thread throughout the first chapter of Luke.
Not always, but often.
I think that injuries, and the fact that they've played the equivalent of a full season's worth of games over the last three years, and some uninspired coaching are all parts of the problem. They're also getting older at some key positions. It might take another year to get back, but they'll be fine.
Hopefully they will get a playoff win or two.
Art,
Again, a good point. The fact that he rarely quotes Scripture, but relies on (presumably his own) paraphrases isn't a good look either.
No, your claim is unproven. You have offered zero proof of your claim, and the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As you haven't the capability to do the research needed to make your claim, it remains, unproven.
FYI, your insistence on "angels" being a necessary component of divine intervention is something you invented and has no relationship to anything I've said.
No, my post began with the author of Luke's claims about the nature of his work.
I'm not insisting anything. Insisting things is your game, not mine.
"I can point to objective specific demonstrable events."
You make this claim, yet fail to do so. I wonder why.
The opportunity has passed, due to your response to my questions. You had your shot and you chose to waste it.
Blah, blah, blah, look at Dan and his self justification. It's tiresome, and old.
A. Making demands about "fact claims" coming from you is hilarious.
B. The only one who regularly engages in bullying at this blog is you. If asking you questions to determine your willingness to investigate the improbability of what I described is "bullying", you have a bizarre definition of "bullying".
C. What exactly was the "sign of the prophet Jonah"?
What were the "signs of the times"? How is this relevant to this conversation?
D. I don't care about "your part". That you only need yourself to convince yourself that your are right is self evident.
To answer your idiotic question, (which I do not have the information to answer) I'd say- Less often than I would hope, but more often than you would acknowledge.
As I do not have the breadth of knowledge that you seem to be claiming, and cannot monitor everything that has happened over the last few hundred years, I have no basis to answer your question.
I can say that when you make your "seems" statements, that I usually ignore them as "seems to you" isn't of any value, beyond you.
I hope Mahommes comes out OK. I prefer hating on opponents when they're at the top of their game, and this is the kind of injury which has the potential to mitigate his well above average talent.
To that last aspect, Bears Nation was disappointed when Aaron Rodgers was unable to take the field when the two teams met earlier. It was likely Rodgers' last visit to Soldier Field, where he proclaimed he owned the Bears while still a Packer. It was perfect trash talk as it was true as well as rude. Of course, it's not a hard argument to make that he's well past his prime, but we still wanted the opportunity.
It will likely affect Mahomes to some degree, although the surgery is much better than in the past and he's a beast when it comes to training and rehab. My biggest concern is that he'll push to come back too soon.
There is always a sense of disappointment when not facing the A team so to speak. All you can do is play who's on the other side of the field.
Let's look at some DATA that Dan could have found on his own, but was too lazy, unmotivated, or simply uninterested in finding on his own.
Speed at impact for a fall of 164 feet, 102.6 MPH
Peak force at impact 320 lb person falling 164 feet is a range between 10,800, and 1,000,000 pounds depending on the surface impacted. For the purposes of this conversation the surface was either shallow water over rock or rock which raises the force at impact.
% chance of survival 320 lb human, 164 feet, solid surfact "Virtually zero", "Almost certainly fatal".
Mortality rate ate 39' is 50%, 59' 100%.
If the fall is survived, the likely injuries are as follows.
Catastrophic head and brain trauma
Spinal cord trauma
Multiple bone fractures
Internal organ trauma
Major vascular trauma
Extensive soft tissue damage
So given the DATA, it seems like we can draw some conclusions about the likely outcome of a fall from 164 feet.
So, it seems reasonable to conclude that the most likely outcome of such a fall would be death, but if the fall was survived massive injuries are highly likely.
FYI, I got the height from the Sheriff's office because they were astounded at the outcome because no one had ever survived a fall in this location.
So, at this point we're talking about hard DATA and third party testimony. Nothing, thus far is based on myself or my experiences.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Miracles-Journalist-Investigates-Supernatural/dp/0310259185
If I thought Dan would bother to read this with an open mind, I'd buy it for him as a Christmas gift. Given his response to other similar resources, I believe that it is highly unlikely that he would read it with an open mind or respond with anything but derision, mockery, and demands for unreasonable standards of proof.
Dan has also indicated an aversion to reading, especially things that he's likely to approach with a closed mind. He's indicated a preference for more audio and visual media. He's in luck, as the movie based on the book is coming out soon.
Being convinced that one is right, makes it difficult to consider evidence or DATA for things that one has already dismissed as impossible.
Dan has also indicated an aversion to reading, especially things that he's likely to approach with a closed mind. He's indicated a preference for more audio and visual media.
Neither of these are based on reality. I PREFER reading and am glad to do it. FWIW.
given the DATA, it seems like we can draw some conclusions about the likely outcome of a fall from 164 feet.
? Are you thinking that I would object to the notion that falling 164 feet would be deadly? I've noted three things: 1. Such a fall would be either deadly or extremely damaging to a human body under normal circumstances and 2. Some people have survived such falls and 3. Someone surviving an incredible fall is not definitive, objective proof of a Godly intervention.
There should be nothing extreme or strange about my position on these points. Normal rational adults should be able to agree to these rational observations. I'm not at all sure of why you're going on about it. The question you've raised is NOT "Do hard to explain/unexplained phenomena happen...?" That is an observable reality. The question that YOU have raised is, "Are some/all of hard to explain phenomena demand a supernatural explanation as a conclusion?" THAT is the question you've raised and I'm just asking.
So, unless your "sheriff" saw God intervene, that "data" does not demand the explanation you appear to want to give it. Although, even THAT is hard to say, given your vague, obtuse sort of half-claims and unexplained phrases.
You know, communication is not that difficult.
IF I were to have seen God physically intervene and save someone's life, I would say it like this: "MAN, I have SEEN GOD physically intervene and save someone's life!!" I would be clear about it, because, why be shy and vague about such an experience?
I said:
"When I claim that the Realm of God, the Beloved Community of God daily and regularly intervenes to help save lives, to welcome and love and forgive, I can point to objective specific demonstrable events."
Craig responded:
You make this claim, yet fail to do so. I wonder why.
? Are you kidding me? Are YOU not aware of times and places where God's Beloved Community, the Realm of God, the Church of God, the Body of Christ... have intervened to save lives? My wife, in her role as a social worker has regularly found homes for people living on the streets, saving their lives. My pastors have welcomed and loved LGBTQ folks and unhoused people - people suicidal because they were hated and abused and kicked out of their families - and let them KNOW they are loved and thus, help save their lives. Our Beloved Community (GOD's beloved community) have welcomed in abused women escaping their abusers, thus saving lives. Our Beloved Community (GOD's beloved community) have adopted children with no homes and raised them in a loving, nurturing homes, thus saving their lives.
I mean, just church folks being church folks (at their best) regular help save lives by being loving, welcoming, nurturing and supportive. This was true of my conservative church growing up and it's true of most good churches I know today, and certainly of my church community.
Do you think this is not the case? Do you need me to point to case studies? News stories? This is just observable common sense, is it not? What are you arguing against, here? Why do you kick against the goads?
Re: "Lee Strobel," that hard-driving, data-based science whiz. (Actually, a journalism and law student, fyi). I'm pretty sure he's amongst the many conservative authors I've read in the past, but there have been so many of them, I could be wrong. But how about this? He's out there on the youtubes, telling his amazing miracle stories, right? Why not find and share his MOST AMAZING, most certainly objectively proven case of an actual "God did this" miracle of a supernatural nature (angels or not, your call). Share that video or written story and I'll read it/listen to it with an entirely open mind.
But know this, I just looked through some of his stories and they ALL appear to be similar to this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3VSIWHZtOI
Where he tells a story (his first story on the video) of a coincidence of a magic water bottle and dolly showing up and then he asks "Is this coincidence best explained by GOD doing it, or just as a coincidence or other more natural explanation. Right? And that's fine. If you want to read/listen to AN INCREDIBLE STORY and ASSUME in faith that "That musta been a God-thang," no problem whatsoever. I've certainly said things like that in the past.
But even IF one wants to assume it's supernatural, the story itself is NOT objective, data-driven proof of God intervening.
In the story I share above, can we agree that this is the case?
Can we agree that, indeed, coincidences DO happen? Or do you not believe in coincidences?
But as a journalism major, can you acknowledge that he's telling the story much more like a folk storyteller looking for good affect rather than a scientist, which of course, he's not?
If you heard someone telling a similar story in a similar manner and said, "SEE! It's the New Venusians of the Planet N'Eep that sent that little dolly and water bottle..." that you would be skeptical? Can you concede it's a folksy story told for affect moreso than an actual journalistic report told in an objective manner?
But of course, maybe that's not his most compelling story. Go ahead and cite his most convincing/compelling story.
But let me just make a prediction: This man does not provide any peer-reviewed, objective data that skeptics and believers alike would have to concede, "Yup, that was God..." - that he tells stories from true believers' points of view, not from a skeptic or scientists' POV? Is that a fair prediction?
And again, no judgment. I'm not mocking his (or you or anyone) accepting such things in faith. I'm noting the reality that stories of coincidences - or even AMAZING coincidences - do not make for objective proof.
Craig:
Being convinced that one is right, makes it difficult to consider evidence or DATA for things
I'm merely noting the reality of what is KNOWN at this point. I've seen NO STORIES of documented miracles, objectively proven. As I've been abundantly clear: IF THERE IS EVIDENCE, I would absolutely LOVE to see it. I'd be delighted to know that there was proven data of God actively, personally intervening in some supernatural way. I'd be tickled and joyous. I WOULD LOVE IT. My mind is open, but it's not open to simply blindly accept a personal account, without data as if that subjective opinion and story is objective proof. My mind is open to be convinced BY DATA.
There are too many documented charlatans out there for me to simply accept stories with no proof as if they were proven. This is simply adult reasoning.
So given the DATA, it seems like we can draw some conclusions about the likely outcome of a fall from 164 feet.
YES, of course we could.
So, it seems reasonable to conclude that the most likely outcome of such a fall would be death, but if the fall was survived massive injuries are highly likely.
Yes, those would be two reasonable conclusions to reach, given the evidence. But a space monkey or an angelic being or the literal hand of God catching and slowing the fall is NOT a conclusion we can reach, given the evidence we have so far. MAYBE that's what happened (in such cases where people survived relatively unscathed), it's just that we have no evidence for that.
See the distinction?
Yes, I see the distinction very clearly.
Thank you for wasting so many words to acknowledge that you are convinced because of your vaunted "adult Reasoning" that you are correct.
Like a typical atheist or fake Christian too fearful of the push back by the "sophisticated" dare he affirm a belief in the miraculous, Dan makes every effort to explain away that for which science cannot resolve. Dan's is always a "science of the gaps" perspective, as if it makes him sound less the rube.
"Are you kidding me?"
No, I'm simply applying the same standards to your unproven claims that you apply to others. I'm adopting your excessively skeptical approach and asking you for the same type of proof you demand of others.
What you seem to be doing is assuming that these actions of which you are so proud must be assumed to be YHWH directly intervening simply because you say so. That's hardly proof, hell it's not really much more than vague anecdotes.
It's interesting that when you approach things with extreme skepticism and demands for absolute proof your arrogance sees that as you're right, yet when others demand the same things you demand you offer vague, non specific, anecdotes and demand that we accept your self serving anecdotes as "proof" of your claims.
I'm attempting to proceed logically through the DATA, in order to move on to more detail. Your dismissive and condescending attitude makes me realize what a complete waste of time that is.
It is always refreshing when Dan reverts to type, and regurgitates the same old tropes as excuses for dismissing things based on random criteria unrelated to the accuracy or Truth presented.
"But know this, I just looked through some of his stories and they ALL appear to be similar to this one:"
Interesting, yet arrogant, notion. That you looking through "some" allows you to dismiss "all". Impressive. Equally impressive is your ability to dismiss his conclusions without considering his entire case. I'd guess that actually considering the entirety of something before passing judgement is much harder than simply dismissing things based on shallow reasons.
So Strobel tells "stories" much as you do, although he includes much more specificity and detail than you do, and we're supposed to automatically dismiss Strobel's "stories", while blindly accepting your "stories"? Yours don't even rise to the level of stories as much as they are just a bunch of vague, random, nonspecific, general, unproven claims.
He never claimed to be a scientist, why would you demand that he must be one? He's been a reporter (a profession you revere) and a lawyer, both professions involve evaluating claims and evidence without being an "expert" in the specific field that the evidence covers.
Ahhh, the "Peer reviewed" trope. I guess the vast number of examples (including the one I posted in an adjacent post) of how badly screwed up the "peer review" process is and the thousands of deeply flawed papers that get through "peer review" with no mention of those flaws isn't enough to shake you faith.
Again, it's easier and lazier to make "predictions" based on bias and prejudice than it is to simply read the book. It's almost like you seem afraid that there might be something compelling hidden in the book.
What a bizarre demand, you have access to every single example he gives. You have the resources of the internet to independently check the accuracy of his reporting. Yet you demand that I do the research that you demand that I do instead of doing it yourself.
Yet you demand that we accept your "stories" (vague anecdotes with no specifics or details) and your conclusions without "objective proof".
The double standard is back.
Craig...
Thank you for wasting so many words to acknowledge that you are convinced because of your vaunted "adult Reasoning" that you are correct.
? What is it you're thinking I'm convinced of?
What I'm talking about is simply the observable reality that we have no objectively proven stories of God's own Self has intervened in some supernatural manner to work a miracle. Again, if such a case study existed, it would be famously known. We have no such objectively proven stories, right? I mean, do YOU think you have such a proven story?
It seems that the problem you have when you dismiss things as "coincidences" is that your dismissal ignore the concept of likelihood or statistical probability.
If the statistical probability of an event happening, based on empirical DATA, is virtually zero, then it seems bizarre to call it a "coincidence".
If you have an event that is Truly unprecedented, that has literally never happened before, it seems absurd to dismiss it as coincidence.
If, for example, a statistically significant number of people had engaged in the same activity and all had the same outcome, "coincidence" seems inadequate to describe the 1 instance with a rascally different outcome.
It it makes you feel superior to pull out these absurd, idiotic, "space monkey" fantasies and directly compare them to real world events, cool.
The only reason you don't have more information about the situation I personally experienced, is because of the choices you made based (apparently) on your biases and prejudices. Once again, your own choices are the cause of your frustration and anger.
That is a good observation. What's interesting is how far Dan has strayed from the point of this post.
That it is impossible (logically or Reasonably) to demand that parts of Luke 1 be blindly accepted as 100% accurate and treated as such, while not applying the same standard to all of Luke 1.
Dan is big on demanding that lived experience, anecdotes, and his vague claims, be blindly accepted because he says so, while applying a completely different standard to others.
I'm thinking that you are convinced that you are right based solely on your vaunted Reason.
I know that I have personal, lived experience, of an event that has literally a zero% chance of having happened. I know that you've chosen to engage in actions that have caused me to stop walking you through the improbability.
I know you you are making all sorts of claims about YHWH acting, with absolutely zero detail, evidence, proof, or specificity, and demanding that those be accepted.
I get it, a God who intervenes directly (or indirectly) in specific and possibly supernatural ways doesn't fit in your box.
I'm done with this line of conversation/diversion.
One thing I've learned today is that I would not want Dan on a jury if I was being tried.
His willingness to judge evidence based on his biases against the source of the evidence,
His willingness to judge "all" of the evidence based on "some" of the evidence.
His insistence on the only possible validation of facts being a process which is increasingly demonstrated to be corrupt and incompetent.
His unwillingness to give as much credence to eyewitnesses that aren't him.
His basing judgement of individuals on the the group he decides that those individuals are part of.
Yeah, Dan on a jury seems like a less than optimal outcome.
No, I get it. You can "point to objective specific demonstrable events", but you don't you make vague, unsupported, general, anecdotal claims with not even the hint of proof.
"I can point, objectively, factually, observably, to the acts that were literally done by humans acting in a community. "
You claim that you "can" do these things, but you don't do them. Further, you can't prove that YHWH is 100% responsible for these alleged good deeds.
Unfortunately, that's all I'm responding to as your comment is being aborted.
As to "you can't prove that God is 100% responsible..." NO. No, I can't. As I've endlessly clearly have stated. Nor can you. THAT is the point. These are subjective and unproven claims, not objective fact claims.
The difference then is that I'm willing to admit reality and you appear reluctant to do so or to even take a stand as to whether you will or not, instead opting to make vague casually insulting insinuations of me doing... SOMETHING wrong... of me making SOME claim (which I haven't) or some vague and unspecified fault in what I've done, as opposed to simply acknowledging, "No, we don't have objective proof for these claims I'm making..."
Craig:
His willingness to judge evidence based on his biases against the source of the evidence,
I don't know if you've ever served in a jury, but surely you've seen them on TV: It is a vital part of the process for the jury to assess the credibility and accurateness of any witnesses and any evidence they produce... especially when it's a subjective opinion claim as opposed to a distinct fact claim backed by actual data. We SHOULD judge evidence, both in juries and in adult life. As to any "bias against a source..." well, since you have produced no support for me having any bias against a source, just the vague and unsupported accusation, THAT would be precisely the sort of testimony a wise jury or adult would take for what it's worth - an unsupported claim and an ad hom attack.
Thanks for the object lesson to undermine the point you appear to be trying to sort of vaguely make.
His willingness to judge "all" of the evidence based on "some" of the evidence.
An unsupported fact claim, an ad hom attack with no support or basis.
On the other hand, when someone is making a claim that strains credulity - a claim that lies outside of known data - and that person makes multiple outlier claims of this sort, all without support, then the rational adult will weigh that reality, as well. A responsible jury may well ask such a witness, "What is your BEST evidence, because what you've provided thus far is speculative and unproven...?"
If the witness in question has made hundreds of claims but only produces four or five and they're all unproven and unsupported claims, then that may well weigh against a jury or rational adult finding ALL that witnesses' claims suspect.
Again, this is a rather amazing claim that your witness appears to be making and you appear to have confidence in him and familiarity with his testimony. By all means, PRODUCE HIS BEST, most air-tight testimony. But failing that, you can't reasonably expect the JURY to wade through hundreds of hours of testimony to find support for YOUR position. That would be the attorney's responsibility.
His insistence on the only possible validation of facts being a process which is increasingly demonstrated to be corrupt and incompetent.
Another unsupported claim.
Mind you: NOT that the Peer-reviewed process has always been done perfectly, but the process itself, WHEN done correctly, is a pillar of scientific process and adult reasoning. Do you understand the distinction?
etc. At this point it is clear: You do NOT have a proven case for God objectively intervening. You have testimony that you're willing to take on faith, but not objective proof.
Two different things.
More empty claims that would be objected to in a court of law:
His unwillingness to give as much credence to eyewitnesses that aren't him.
A false and unsupported claim. IF I have a heart/lung doctor giving testimony as to the harmful effects of pollution or smoking on the human heart/lungs, then that testimony (if the doctor is a legitimate doctor, uninfluenced by, say, the Pollution companies or the Cigarette companies involved), of course, is way more influential than my mere opinion as a non-expert.
His basing judgement of individuals on the the group he decides that those individuals are part of.
Again, unsupported. Although, not unreasonable. IF I have a testimony coming from a klan member or a Nazi, assuring me that it wasn't the fault of the Klan or Nazis, then THEIR being a part of that group DOES and should weigh on my assessment of their testimony.
And it isn't about my decision ("he decides"), it's about whether or not they are part of a group and what that means in the case in question: IF a doctor is a member of the AMA and the doctor is giving testimony on medical questions, that's going to influence me one way. IF that same doctor was a klan member testifying to the soundness of the "black men are dangerous and a threat to white women" kind of racist tropes, that is going to influence me another way. Such input and considerations are important for juries and for rational adults in general.
Have you not seen ANY courtroom dramas? (fyi: I've served on a jury, for what it's worth.)
Yet you continue to claim that YHWH is working through your mystery group of people allegedly engaging in the Kingdom of YHWH.
Yes, I am aware of how the jury process works, which is why I'd hate to see you on a jury for the reasons I've given. I could go back and copy paste your exact words, but I'm not that motivated. It's clear that you are biased against "conservatives" in general and Strobel in particular while providing no specific reason for your attitude.
Coming from someone who's stock in trade is ad hom attacks, and vague generalities, it's funny as hell to hear your bitching about this.
"I just looked through some of his stories and they ALL appear to be similar to this one:"
You're the one who was quite clear that you judged "all" of Strobel's "stories" based on your perusal of "some" of them. Your words, not mine. Supported, and not ad hom. Just quoting you.
"By all means, PRODUCE HIS BEST, most air-tight testimony. But failing that, you can't reasonably expect the JURY to wade through hundreds of hours of testimony to find support for YOUR position."
I offered to buy you the book, and you declined. You watched one clip on You Tube and passed judgement. You have access to everything, you're the skeptic, you do your own homework.
What's unsupported? That the "peer review" process is corrupt? Or that you demand only "peer reviewed" evidence when it suits you?
I've never claimed to. Maybe read what I've written.
Now you're claiming expertise in what evidence is allowed in a court of law? But good job taking off on this tangent.
Thank you for supporting what I said and saving me the trouble of finding quotes elsewhere to do so.
Well done, you've managed to take a tangential point and turned it into another diversion.
I'm simply taking your words at face value.
I regard the testimonies in Scripture given by the various Biblical authors as objective proofs of that which Scripture says. I do this only because of their relationship to God/Christ/actual witnesses to events described therein, with no reason to suspect any of them as being liars or not fully guided by the Holy Spirit in relating whatever it is being related.
Dan sides with the atheists who write off Scripture as just stories written by men and subject to their personal patriarchal biases and intent to control others.
Craig, showing HE'd be a horrible member of a jury or just an adult conversation, said:
You're the one who was quite clear that you judged "all" of Strobel's "stories" based on your perusal of "some" of them. Your words, not mine.
MY words were (summarized correctly here), "IN the few I found, he didn't present objectively proven facts. BUT," I continued, "MAYBE he has better examples... MAYBE he has stories he HAS objectively proven as God's miraculous intervention. BY ALL MEANS, SHOW me the ones where he HAS proven his claims objectively."
You have to read for understanding, sir.
That is NOT a bias against conservatives. It was ME pleading to YOU to support your claims IF you can. It was me telling you that I'd LOVE for you to prove God objective intervened. That's me being serious and asking you to support your claims IF you can. It was even me chasing down your person you recommended as a good source for proof.
And, as I've been in and around this conservative "we proved it!" world for 60+ years, I'm also aware enough that in all those decades, I've not seen anyone actually objectively prove their claims. And once again, this is NOT some obscure little claim that would be hard to find. IF someone ANYWHERE has objective proof of a literal God literally intervening and causing a literal supernatural miracle, that would be HUGE news. It would be objective proof NOT just of a one-off miracle. It'd be proof of an almighty God.
Are you suggesting that people are keeping this huge news secret somehow? HOW would anyone even do that?!
Come on, be better, Craig. This is not an unreasonable ask.
And the answer is obvious that you don't have any such proof but you've backed yourself into a corner and you're being too proud or cowardly or just embarrassed to admit that, "No, I can't prove these claims OBJECTIVELY... and no one ever has..." But it's okay to admit you've made a mistake.
Craig:
Yet you continue to claim that YHWH is working through your mystery group of people allegedly engaging in the Kingdom of YHWH.
Sue at my church literally adopted two orphaned children and raised them and saved their lives. Along the way, she also all-but-adopted an out-of-control young man failing in school and in life, along with his mother with intellectual limitations, and raised THEM, too, saving their lives.
My wife, Donna, has helped find homes for, I don't know, hundreds of unhoused families over the last 30+ years.
These are REAL stories of good people living good lives as evidenced by their doing of good things. I can point to hundreds if not thousands more such examples.
Now, JESUS who said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized, said that THOSE who fed the hungry, housed the homeless, etc, were literally engaging with Jesus, with the Realm of God.
Are you suggesting that the countless acts similar to these are NOT engaging in the work of the realm of God?
I literally quoted what you literally said.
Given that you won't support the claims you've made, and I haven't made any claims, why would you demand I support claims I haven't made while you won''t support the claims you have made.
How could I "make a mistake" when I haven't made a specific claim to be mistaken about?
It's not my job to spoon feed you (despite offering to buy you the book) information that you can find on your own.
I'm "suggesting" that you making a couple of more specific, but still vague, anecdotal claims isn't proving the other claims you've made.
You claim these stories are "REAL" as if you simply making the claim somehow magically absolves you from proving your claim, or that we should blindly accept your claim just because you said so.
First, I'll say that I stand with Greenleaf who concluded that the testimonies in the Gospels met the standard of proof required to be admitted into evidence in a US court of law.
Second, and more specifically, I cannot fathom how it is possible to divorce the prelude to Luke from the rest of the book of Luke. Either the author was telling the Truth about the reader being able to have certainty because the author verified everything from the "eyewitnesses", in which case the entire book must be accepted in the exact same way. Or the author was lying, in which case the entire book must be met with skepticism.
There is no logical metric for taking Mary's Magnificat or Zechariah's song as being literally accurate and True, while dismissing the rest of chapter one as less accurate.
Further, Dan tries to diminish the angel by defining them as "messengers", fine. What Dan fails to take into account is who sent the messenger. If a messenger is sent from Schlomo at the granary, the import of the message and the messenger is small. If the messenger is sent from YHWH the God who created all that exists and who has chosen Mary and Zechariah for specific and special tasks as part of His redemptive plan, then that makes the messenger a bit more important.
But in general I agree that I would consider the contents of Scripture to be authoritative for the same reasons you do.
I really dislike the anecdotal stories, unproven as they are or actually proven (which means they're no longer merely "anecdotal") in lieu of an actual fact-based, evidence supported argument for one's position. Just know that I dismiss anecdotal stories and claims as irrelevant fictions not worthy of taking seriously. That's how little they matter in supporting a position.
Craig:
You claim these stories are "REAL" as if you simply making the claim somehow magically absolves you from proving your claim, or that we should blindly accept your claim just because you said so.
I'm talking about something commonplace, observable to all, not really in any serious question. IF I were visiting a pristine wilderness and I said, "Man! The weather has been beautiful and the air just pristine in this trip to the wilderness countryside. The temperature has been in the 60s nearly every day... we're out away from the pollution of the city and factories... the water runs pure and clean... it's truly beautiful here!" then there's nothing really to prove to the people around me (assuming that the temperature was in the 60s) because they've noticed it, too. There isn't really anything to object to. It's observable to all around. It's self-evident.
Good people are like good weather in a beautiful setting. They're just there. Almost certainly, this is not unique to the people in my orbit. Certainly, even you are surrounded by noticeably good people doing noticeably good things. Which is not to say that everyone is perfect, just that many are good people by all the evidence we have on hand. NOT that they are secretly bad people only doing good actions for evil reasons, just observably good people.
Do you disagree with that? Are you saying something like, "In MY circles, I do NOT regularly see ANY good people around me... not in any noticeable way..."? Because that would explain this difference we're having. Maybe you're surrounded by cruel, selfish, mean people who are not interested in helping out. You tell me.
I can say for a certainty that even when I was in ultra-conservative world, by and large, I was surrounded by good people, living good lives for the joy of living a good life and because it's just the right thing to do... so I'm not guessing or saying at all that this is a difference between "good liberals" and "bad conservatives." But maybe that IS your experience. You tell me.
Another question: Given that we are created in the image of a perfectly good, loving, gracious and awesome God, given that we were created "a little lower than God..." created to do good works in Christ... given that the Prophets, Jesus, the Apostles and God's own self are recorded as calling us to righteousness, to holiness, set apart for kindness and love and solidarity, especially/specifically for the poor and marginalized... given that common theme throughout biblical texts, do you think it could be dismissive of God, of the teachings of Jesus to emphasize the drudgery of sin and the awfulness of humanity and your own beloved community? Do you think it could even be considered a false humility - even one based in pride and hubris - one that insults the gracious God of love and welcome, to keep insisting how depraved we all are?
That, as opposed to how wonderful it is to be a part of God's beloved community, the realm of God?
It certainly strikes me that way.
Anecdotes have their place. However that place is not as the sole proffer of proof of one's claims.
I'm suggesting that people do "good" things for all sorts of reasons. I seriously doubt that Atheists are interested in advancing YHWH's Kingdom when they do "good" things. Even Christians can do "good" things for reasons that are not "good".
You applying a subjective, comparison based, standard of "good" solely because you observe isolated actions isn't objective proof. Insisting that things just are, because you say so, isn't proof. You've literally been alluding to people that you know engaging in "good works" as part of your "beloved community", and asserted that the Kingdom of YHWH is their motivation, and now you spew this garbage.
Your problem is that you've leaped from "good works" to "good people" with no proof. You base your conclusion on your limited observation, applying your subjective criteria to that limited observation, and then offer "Well I see things." as the entirety of your "proof".
In my circles, I see hundreds of flawed, sinful, broken, imperfect, humans, redeemed by the work of Christ who do "good things" as a response to their salvation.
I can say for a certainty, than when you project your biases and prejudices on others, that you are wrong.
It's amusing when you use "creation" language.
Yes, we were created in the image of YHWH. Then we had the little hiccup referred to as The Fall, where sin entered the world and where the relationship between Creator and creation became distorted from YHWH's intention.
You keep pretending like this "little lower than God" quote is actually a quote from scripture.
Yes, we ARE called to holiness (which has nothing to do with your hunches about the gospel), but not based on our own efforts or "good works". "Good" is not Holy.
No, I do not think that placing the appropriate amount of emphasis on our sinful condition, and need for a Savior, is "dismissive" at all of the narrative throughout Scripture. Your problem is assuming that we focus on the sinfulness of humanity, when we focus on Christ and the redemption from sin possible through His finished work. No, acknowledgement that without Christ and His redeeming work that we are "dead in Sin" is the opposite of "arrogance and hubris". Yet basing one's "goodness" solely on something as subjective and transitory as "good works" is somehow magically not about arrogance?
If you think that doing some "good works" makes you a "good person" and that being a "good person" magically makes you a part of the Kingdom of YHWH, I can't help you.
Because "It certainly strikes me..." isn't proof. The arrogance and hubris to think that simply because something "strikes you" a certain way that it magically becomes reality, or even likely, is astounding. Much like the arrogance of "Look at what "good people" we are because we do some "good works" and that gets us into some vague/undefined thing that Dan calls the "beloved community".
"You keep pretending like this "little lower than God" quote is actually a quote from scripture."
I believe it is, but it's just another Dan appropriates for his foul purpose. He corrupts it or stupidly misunderstands to whom it applies. Worse, Dan uses it to pretend he's a good dude. That we're made "good" and thus are without a sin nature.
Everything Dan puts forth as Biblical truth about the nature of man makes Christ's birth and life on earth meaningless, for all He taught about being "Christian" was already known...even if perverted as Dan perverts it now. If we're "good", then what need have we of a Savior. From what does Jesus save us?
I have no problem labeling anyone as "good" as compared to other people...."good" on human terms. I have less problem accepting the truth that on God's terms, there are none who are good. No, not one.
Despite repeated examples of Dan being called on this made up "scripture", he continues to spout it without sourcing it or change his paraphrase.
Dan's insistence on reducing angels to mere "messengers" ignore the reality that a "messenger" delivers the message under the authority of the author of the message. In this case, this mere "messenger" is operating directly under the authority of YHWH as is delivering a message directly from YHWH. It's like conflating the Door Dash "messenger" with a messenger sent directly from POTUS. It's all about the authority under which the "messenger" operates.
Dan seems determined to preserve his absolute, woodenly literal, interpretation of sections of the first few chapters of Luke while simultaneously stripping others of anything outside of his preconceived narrative.
Yes, what do we need saving from if we're already "good" based on our "good works"? Why would YHWH tell Mary to name her son Jesus, if His name did not carry great significance?
I absolutely have no problem labeling people as comparatively "good", while acknowledging that they are not ontologically "good".
Post a Comment