rhutchin

Of course I won't believe it. However, when your followers begin to write of your accomplishments and those on whom you have worked miracles come forward, then we must take notice.

rhutchin

Christians will allow for these events. What is absurd is to think that these men spoke for God.

Johnny Skeptic

You have attempted to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. The books of Acts makes claims. Therefore, it is a claimant. Skeptics are not obligated to disprove the book of Acts. Rather, Christians are obligated to reasonably prove that the book of Acts is truthful.

Would you ask "How do we actually determine that Deism is not truthful?" Of course you wouldn't, but yet you asked a similar question about the book of Acts? Why was that?

Some Bible scholars date the composition of the book of Acts in the last two decades of the first century. If they are right, Acts was written too late to be a reliable historical source.

How have you determined that the Bible is inerrant? Well, er, uh....... How have you determined that a global flood occured? Certainly not by studying science and history, and yet for some strange reason you are now discussing the historicity of the book of Acts.

Johnny Skeptic

Why isn't it absurd to think that the Bible writers spoke for God? For instance, it is well-established that a global flood did not occur. In addition, why would a God oppose homosexuality, but create homosexuality in hundreds of species of animals and birds, and possibly in 100% of species of primates?

Deus Ex

5:15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.5:16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

19:11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: 19:12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

These are just a couple of many extraordinary claims made in Acts. A remarkable claim demands remarkable evidence; not just hearsay accounts written in an age of superstition.

I consider the Present to be the key to the Past. Miracles are exceedingly unlikely. The honest response to these claims should be skepticism.

Why should you value Paul's opinion over mine? We are/were both just human beings.

sugarhitman

Maybe those skeptics who turned back after many years of believing will remain skeptics (as the bible says) but you cannot say those skeptics who has yet to taste of the Truth will "remain skeptics." Speak for yourself.

rhutchin

Certainly, they are extraordinary claims. That does not make them true or false claims. Unless you can go back in time and personally investigate those things which the Bible describes, there is not way for us to personally determine what happened.

I don't mind skepticism. Be skeptical. You still cannot say that it did not happen and even could not have happened. Your skepticism must allow that, if God exists, then the events are possible within the context in which they occurred.

Paul says that God spoke to him; he exercised powers of healing given to him and not to others (certainly not to you) and he was accepted by the church and acceptable to them. Paul was a very unique person (as we see him described in Acts and other letters) whereas you are pretty ordinary and undistinguished in any way.

rhutchin

Many of them performed miracles that other men could not. They were known to the people who accepted them as prophets of God. Special care was taken to record what they did and preserve those writings. I don't see any real basis to think it would absurd to conclude that these men were exactly what they claimed.

Not that I am aware.

What God originally created is not that which now currently exists because of the change that occurred when Adam/Eve sinned. God says that those who engage in homosexuality (or other sexual immorality) will be denied entry into heaven. Let a person consider the consequences of their actions and act accordingly.

rhutchin

Christians are only obligated to let you decide what you want to do with the claims made in the Bible. If you find that you do not want to believe what you read in the Bible, no amount of proof will change your mind. You should believe that which you find believable to you. If you do not want to believe, then fine. If you actually want to believe, but can't, then petition God for relief.

Let's ask the question, "How do we actually determine that Deism is not truthful?" Then, "Does it matter what we believe about Deism?" So, we cannot determine that Deism is not truthful but it doesn't matter. Does it?

Why is that? If someone writes a book today about events in the 1960's (e.g., about the quest to put a man on the moon), why would you refuse to accept it as a reliable historical source?

I accept the Bible for what it says. I find no one providing any basis for me to think that it is not trustworthy.

spamandham

Uhm, so since the Bible writers wrote that they performed miracles, and they wrote there were lots of witnesses to these miracles, therefor they really did perform miracles and what they wrote is trustworthy?

Surely you would not accept this type of bizarre circular reasoning in regard to anything else. Or would you?

Just so you know, I've performed many miracles witnessed by thousands of people. Why just this morning, there was a traffic jam, and so I called upon God to lift all the cars up off the road and allow them to fly freely in 3 dimensions so everyone could get to work on time. This was in the middle of a major metropolitan area! If you don't believe me, just go ask Luke, Peter, or Pablo. They were with me at the time. So you can rest assured that if I tell you something I wrote is the word of God, it is. This post is the word of God.