Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[Ziploc Surprise]

Min, I prefer it when Robert Tilton talks out his ass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEN5BzwJGI

As for the other stuff: Religious people used to say that the reason why miracles like those in the book of acts don't happen today is that (and there are several versions of this) the special anointing that Jesus put on the disciples was never passed down to later generations. The power of the miracle producing magic spell (as I would call it) ended with the disciples. Another version of this belief is that "those miracles aren't for us today" because the purpose for them was to get the glorious church of god started (kind of like a push start).

A more modern explanation is that the miracles died out when the church lost their first love so to speak. This belief assumes that Christianity didn't evolve at all. It was perfect (with a few flaws) in the time of Paul, then it went a bit haywire during the reign of the Catholics (note my sarcasm) and then it started it's way back to it's original state of near perfection after the reformation. To "Prove" this they claim that when the church rose in power it had some sort of inverse relationship with miracle producing power. They believe that the more Christians "get back to god" the more miracles will happen. To "prove" this they cite the increase in modern day miracles (BTW I realize that these aren't actual miracles) and they claim that Christians are more devoted to god now than in the past. Therefore, based on the "evidence", the solution to this problem is for everyone to return to God, find their first love so to speak, raid congress and the U.N. and put in Christian leaders (I'm exaggerating a bit here) blah, blah blah.

Finally, if you really want to get twisted off some Christians believe that the supposed increase in miracles (something that has not been proven) is proof that god is pooing out his spirit on all men. Why is god doing this? Because these are the last days; the proof that miracles are increasing (which I mentioned before isn't proof at all) is proof that Jesus is coming soon. Do you have a headache yet?

This latter bit is a bit serious. People actually believe that if the world becomes some sort of Christian theocracy then the miracles that happened in the stories of the Bible will be an every day occurrance.

*my disclaimer* I realize that the above beliefs are pure batshittershittery. I realize that it's some seriously amended history. I just posted it because this is what they preach (with some variation) in charismatic fundy churches. Next question: Why did I bother to post the above bullshit? A: because there aren't enough Christians posting on this forum to make these discussions as lively as they could be. If they aren't going to provide such input I guess I'll have to.

[Minimalist]

So again I ask why did you not use the other verses in the Book of Acts.

This is an interesting theory you are developing, G-C. Apparently you think that dumping more bullshit on an existing pile of bullshit will make it smell less like bullshit?

Only a xtian could be so twisted.






I love Pastor Gas.

[Justtristo]

German scholar Hermann Detering in his "essay" THE FALSIFIED PAUL. EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN THE TWILIGHT. Discusses in some details the problems of the Book of Acts being reliable history.

The Jesus Never Existed website is not a bad start, however it is useful (especially when debating others) to check out the sources which the website relied on. The essay I quoted is available for free online, just search it on Google. Although I am increasingly of the opinion that the Book of Acts in noway whatsoever is a reliable history concerning the Early Christian Church. In my opinion it is clearly 2nd Century "Catholic" propaganda, however that kind of view is pretty marginal even among Non-Christian New Testament scholars.

[Minimalist]

the Book of Acts in noway whatsoever is a reliable history

Nope.


No more than Snow White.

[KichigaiNeko]

German scholar Hermann Detering in his "essay" THE FALSIFIED PAUL. EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN THE TWILIGHT. Discusses in some details the problems of the Book of Acts being reliable history.

The Jesus Never Existed website is not a bad start, however it is useful (especially when debating others) to check out the sources which the website relied on. The essay I quoted is available for free online, just search it on Google. Although I am increasingly of the opinion that the Book of Acts in noway whatsoever is a reliable history concerning the Early Christian Church. In my opinion it is clearly 2nd Century "Catholic" propaganda, however that kind of view is pretty marginal even among Non-Christian New Testament scholars.

I do like that site..... mainly for the reasons you quoted Trist

[Justtristo]

the Book of Acts in noway whatsoever is a reliable history

Nope.


No more than Snow White.

I prefer more Gone with the Wind, it features some characters who were historical figures. However it is still fictional.

[DeistPaladin]

We likely will never again see the fundamental breaking of symmetry as happened following the big bang. That we do not observe it today is no evidence against it having occurred in the past.

But there is evidence that it happened in the past.

It is weak induction at best, a sort of "No black swans" argument that because it impinges on your subjective sense of the credibility of the text you want to raise it to the level of an objective criticism. Please cite the law or rule which allows you to deduce - not infer, but deduce - that the absence of a class of events in the present implies a lack of events of that class in the past. (And no, there is no uniformitarianism which holds for all classes of events, even if you could demonstrate that it is a law.)

That wasn't my point, that if it's not happening today it could never have happened. My point was we live in a natural universe. If faith healings or speaking in tongues are a part of our universe, that is if they really happen today, we see no evidence of it. My challenge to the Christians is to either go out on that limb and state that they believe such supernatural events as described in Acts really do go on under the radar or else admit that Acts is depicting a fanciful world that is not our own.

The only other option is to suggest that "that was then, this is now". In the world of Acts (and other parts of the Bible), it is not just angels and demons that work their magic but mortals, both faithful to Jesus and blasphemers like "BarJesus". If that was then and this is now, what has changed? Have sorcerers like BarJesus gone extinct? Has Yahweh gotten sleepy? Did Jesus decide "OK, enough of that, hands off now"?

The juxtaposition between the world of Acts and our own couldn't be more stark. It is not up to me to prove that we live in a natural universe and all the woo isn't real. This is demanding that I prove a negative. It is up to the Christians to explain either why such things happened back then (and left not a trace of evidence) and not now, or, alternatively, why such supernatural events, conversations with angels and sorcery can be going on today without our notice.

At this point, the ball is in the Christians' court.

[Angrboda]

We likely will never again see the fundamental breaking of symmetry as happened following the big bang. That we do not observe it today is no evidence against it having occurred in the past.

But there is evidence that it happened in the past.

I'm not sure the physics supports you on this point, but not being well versed on the physics myself, I'll pass on it. I'll just note in passing that a) physics is incomplete, b) the cosmological model is a mess, at best, and c) probing the various breakings of symmetry require energy levels which we are not likely to reach under laboratory conditions for a long time; until then, it's at best, one explanation of the data.

It is weak induction at best, a sort of "No black swans" argument that because it impinges on your subjective sense of the credibility of the text you want to raise it to the level of an objective criticism.

That wasn't my point, that if it's not happening today it could never have happened. My point was we live in a natural universe.

If this was your point, then you've lost round one. The Christian can simply assert that we do not live in a naturalistic universe (perhaps cosmos would be a better term), and you're left proving a negative to prosecute your case. Good luck with that.

The only other option is to suggest that "that was then, this is now". In the world of Acts (and other parts of the Bible), it is not just angels and demons that work their magic but mortals, both faithful to Jesus and blasphemers like "BarJesus". If that was then and this is now, what has changed? Have sorcerers like BarJesus gone extinct? Has Yahweh gotten sleepy? Did Jesus decide "OK, enough of that, hands off now"?

And what if he has? This is a point that trips up both Christians and non-Christians alike. A miracle by definition is a suspension of the ordinary course of events caused by God. If you can't demonstrate that God has no possible reason for the change in affairs, you're left with nothing but a silly look on your face.

"God is mysterious." QED. Cue the fat lady.

[DeistPaladin]

If this was your point, then you've lost round one. The Christian can simply assert that we do not live in a naturalistic universe (perhaps cosmos would be a better term), and you're left proving a negative to prosecute your case. Good luck with that.

Well either it looks like a natural universe because it is
...or...
there's really all this sorcery, angelic activity faith healing and other such going on under the radar and somehow it's all been kept under wraps thanks to a monomaniacal god who likes to remain hidden.

Occam's Razor. I win.

If you can't demonstrate that God has no possible reason for the change in affairs, you're left with nothing but a silly look on your face.

Or I can say, "Burden of proof. I win."

"God is mysterious." QED. Cue the fat lady.

The Occam's Razor card trumps the "Mysterious and stuff" card.

I think we may be close to the point of we agree to disagree. I think that having a holy book that depicts a universe which is radically different from the one that clearly exists all around us is a seriously problem. You don't. There you are.

[Godscreated]

(a bunch of stuff that dodges the question)

So your answer to my question is...?

I haven't finished reading the Book of Acts and your answer to my question is.