gstafleu

I don't know if it is perfectly reasonable. The gospels were written after the epistles. Going by orthodoxy (to avoid Little Red Riding Hood effects) Paul was an extremely important figure after the resurrection. So it is not unreasonable to expect some forward references to him, I would think it strange if the gospel authors hadn't heard of him.

Granted, the argument is not as strong as the one about Paul's silence. But it does show a two-way disconnect between the the two most important parts of the NT, the gospels and the epistles.

Gerard

hatsoff

When I say Luke was attempting to write an historical account, I don't mean to say he was adhering to the accepted methodology of the time period. He was certainly writing within a religious genre, which means he was probably not as critical or discerning as secular authors such as Josephus. However, he was writing a narrative which he intended to be advanced as historically true. His failure to in that volume mention events outside of the immediate scope should therefore not be taken as evidence for a mythical Paul or Jesus, especially considering he covered the topic in question in another, later volume.

Johnny Skeptic

The opening post says "Why the Gospels do not speak about Paul?" Nothing is mentioned about a mythical Jesus. I have not argued against a historical Jesus, nor do hundreds of millions if not billions of non-Christians. The main issues are Luke's claims of supernatural events. If Luke's claims regarding secular history are true or false, so what? If Jesus was an ordinary man, so what? If the Bible did not make any claims of supernatural events, few people would ever debate the Bible.

Regarding "However, he was writing a narrative which he intended to be advanced as historically true", I certainly did not assume that he intended to write a narrative that he hoped people would believe was historically false, nor do I assume that the writers of all other religious books intended to write narratives that they hoped people would believe are historically false. Intent proves nothing.

hatsoff

My second and third responses were aimed at rebutting this statement:

hatsoff

I had first wanted to clarify my initial statements within the bounds of the topic, but now I think I'll answer your questions a bit more directly...

There is no inherent reason to suppose that simply because they were writing within a religious genre, no. However, in some cases there is ample reason to suggest authors were deliberately inventing or advancing what they knew to be falsehoods. I don't think that is the case for the Canonical Gospels.

That's a little extreme, but I would agree those are some of the most important hallmarks of any work which testifies to them.

Quite possibly, sure.

No. I think it's disturbing that I can't justify any particular lifestyle or set of behaviors through logic and reason.

Johnny Skeptic

If determinism is true, everyone's own individual logic and reason are predetermined by the laws of physics. I am a determinist, but I do not find being a determinist to be enjoyable. What methods do you propose that people use to choose a worldview?

Some Scriptures definitely were intended to appeal to the logic and reason of eyewitnesses. Consider the following Scriptures from the KJV:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

Now Acts 14:3 refers to more tangible evidence that supposedly took place AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church. I find that to be quite odd considering the presence of thousands of still living eyewitnesses who saw Jesus perform miracles, the hundreds of still living eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, AND the presence of the Holy Spirit.

If the God of the Bible exists, it is a fact that it is his intent to create doubt and confusion. Even Christians frequently have disagreements regarding important issues, and many Christians have killed each other. This suggests that since God cannot even keep order among his own followers, no one should expect him to keep order among anyone else. Even fundamentalist Christians have serious squabbles over some issues. However, we SHOULD expect God to continue to create hurricanes and kill some of his most devout and faithful followers with them, and to continue to allow some people to starve to death in spite of the fact that he told believers via James that if a man refuses to feed hungry people, he is vain and his faith is dead.

hatsoff

I agree empirical evidence points toward hard determinism, but what gives me problems is that I have no logical reason to accept empiricism. Some would argue precedent gives us such a reason, but I would argue precedent is only valid if you presuppose empiricism, which of course means precedent as a basis for empiricism is circular reasoning. I myself operate under empiricism, and so practically speaking I too am a determinist. However, just because I work off of empirical evidence does not mean I espouse that worldview for others. I do so only because I am too afraid to do otherwise--not by any logical justification.

So, long story short, I do not propose any worldview at all because I do not know which is true, if any.

I don't like arguments like this, because they make critical assumptions which have no clear basis, namely that God is comparable to humans in reason, emotion and behavior. If God does exist, who are we to make judgments about his character, intentions or capabilities?

Johnny Skeptic

Then why are you making posts at this forum? How do you propose that people decide whether or not to oppose homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and physician assisted suicide?

How can person become a Christain without making any judgments about God's character, intentions or capabilities? A web definition for the word "judgment" is "an opinion formed by judging something; 'he was reluctant to make his judgment known'; 'she changed her mind'". If Jesus healed people, some people made judgments that he was loving and compassionate. It is impossible to accept or reject someone without making judgments about their character, intentions or capabilities. If no one is able to accurately judge God's character, intentions or capabilities, there is not sufficient evidence for anyone to become a Christian.

Roland

I disagree. The logical "climax" of the story is Jesus' final ascencion back into heaven. I've always found it strange that none of the four gospels end with that event.

hatsoff

I enjoy it.

Empiricism, I suppose, because most people are like me insofar as they operate thereabout.

Back when I was a Christian, I proposed the idea of special, noncommunicable knowledge. In other words, I used a variant of the same logic I use today for operating under empiricism: I was drawn to Christianity, despite evidence or logic. I realized there was no empirical reason to accept Christianity, but that didn't matter, because I operated under faith in Christ. I fancied I had a knowledge that came from God directly; I believed I couldn't convince anyone I was correct, because they had to have the same divine revelation I thought I had experienced. Eventually, though, I lost that pull, and with it the belief I was privy to any such special knowledge.

I'm glad. I think we've both been asses to eachother in the past, but I agree we're beginning to get our differences ironed out. Let's hope we can keep it up!

Sounds neat! Congrats on your success, and feel free to send me a sample if you feel so inclined. Myself, I'm just a hobbyist who's been played on a local station in Arizona and podcasted on the net. But I nevertheless enjoy myself, and I suppose that's what counts the most.