Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[brotherlylove]

Continuing the "Historical Documents! No, Really!" series, we now come to the Book of Acts.

One of the things that lept out at me when I read the Bible cover to cover was how chock full it was of overt supernatural activity, where Yahweh apparently felt neither shyness nor concern for "free will" as he demonstrated his power in ways that could not be confused with natural coincidence. Rivers turned to blood, columns of fire killed blasphemers and Yahweh once gave a speech to the entire nation of Judea (Judges, chapter 1). When I put the Bible down and looked about, the universe couldn't offer a more dramatic contrast with the alternate reality depicted in the Bible. The world we know today is one dominated by natural law, where the most Yahweh can ever seem to accomplish is to appear on a piece of toast.

(Maybe he's just gotten old and feeble or perhaps finally getting laid 2000 years ago caused him to seriously mellow out). Sorry, I digress. Ignore this paragraph.

The Book of Acts takes similar flights of fancy. It goes beyond asserting that Yahweh, Jesus, angels and demons can perform miracles or work magic. Mere mortals can do the same with just enough faith. Such acts of magic include:

1. Speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1-14, 19:6-9)
2. Cause earthquakes (4:31)
3. Cast out demons (5:16, 8:7)
4. See God (7:55)
5. Heal Palsy (9:33-34)
6. Raise the dead (9:36-end)
7. Cause blindness (13:11)
8. Heal a crippled person (14:8-10)
9. Heal the sick (19:11-12. 28:8-9)
10. Survive poisonous snake bite (28:4-5)

Did I mention that these are not angels or Jesus doing these things but mere mortals by the power of their faith? And should I mention all the verses with Yahweh, Jesus, The Holy Spirit or various angels speak to mortals? Or overtly supernaturally act on their behalf?

One more time, it bears repeating, these were the acts of MERE MORTALS

OK, so the Christian has two choices:

1. Believe that such magic is possible for mortals and that angels do get personally involved in real life, in which case you are so loony that there's no point in having a rational conversation with you.

2. Admit that the Book of Acts is kind of fanciful and shouldn't be regarded as a historical document.

And before anyone whines about my "prejudice against the supernatural", all I'm doing is operating by the same rules we all do in every day life. ECREE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since you don't lend the same credence to the supernatural claims of other religions, you should understand why I don't let such credence to yours.

So, if I understand your argument correct, if you affirm that miracles are possible, the conversation is over. Your evidence that miracles are ridiculous is that we do not see any miracles happening today.

Well, first of all, there are many reports all over the world and throughout history of miracles occuring, supernatural healings and the like, and encounters with angels. I am going to assume that you will dismiss every single one of those as delusional. If that is the case, I will remind you that personal testimony does count as evidence, especially when corroborated. Many of the things we know about history comes solely from personal testimony.

Second, it is simply fallacious to say that because you do not see any miracles today, that they couldn't have happened in the past. Your justification for this belief seems to be that because God openly revealed Himself at that time, that He should be doing so today. This just doesn't follow. First, there was no such thing as universal communication at that time. His miracles were not witnessed by so many, and were limited to a small area. So, although He was acting openly, it was not to the entire world, but in general, only to the israelites.

God could also have good reasons for not openly revealing His existence to the world. I would say, as you mentioned, that it is a free will issue. Obviously, God could reveal Himself to the world at any time. That He does not do so is to offer His creatures the free will to choose for or against Him without undue coercion. This does not imply that He does not act today with supernatural intervention. As I mentioned earlier, there are millions of reports of this kind of intervention, which I am fairly sure you will dismiss out of hand. The point is though, with the universal and instananeous communication that we have, which could provide indisputable proof to the world that He exists, when He intervenes supernaturally it must be in ways that could not provide that sort of proof to the world.

As a deist, I also don't see how you can rule out supernatural intervention. Perhaps you can explain how supernatural intervention is incompatible with your deist beliefs? Do you think it is impossible for God to do so? You use the term ECREE, yet do you have any extraordinary evidence for a deist God supernaturally creating the Universe? If not, then why do you demand it for other supernatural claims?

Also, in the Christian worldview, we accept the supernatural claims of other religions. What we reject is their explanation for these events. What scripture says is that Satan also has supernatural power, and as the bible indicates, he can disguise himself as an angel of light, and his ministers, ministers of righteousness. He has the supernatural power to create what the bible calls "lying signs and wonders". He can back up belief in a false god with supernatural evidence.