spamandham

Well, now that your are viewing things from a more objective perspective, you may want to read up on the origin of the book. If you do, you'll see that it pops on the scene in the mid 2nd century.

It has every indication if being an apologetic work of fiction, just like several other noncanonical 'acts' documents. If you keep digging, you'll begin to appreciate that the early Christian writings are all propoganda, just like the other contemporary literature. There was no such thing as objective reporting in those days.

We have to treat ancient texts even more critically than modern texts, rather than less critically - which is typical.

mg01

Half-life, this answers your question as to why Christianity spread despite the claims found in Acts. Not only did it not exist untill later, it co-existed with other books that make even more outrageous claims that were weeded out of the avalible material when the canonical list was selected. Faith and conversion was not dependent on texts, they were secondary. Christianity spread simply because it told people if you become a Christian you can live forever. There may have been other reasons for the more philosophically minded, but for the common folk that's all it was. (The same pretty much holds true today.)

temporalillusion

Yup, pretty much. The "insufficient faith" device allows them to believe that the miracles are possible while not having to really look at why those miracles don't happen for them.

Of course many claim that those kinds of miracles have happened, but it's always some 3rd party, or at some meeting in some far flung place, or some such. For some reason no one finds it odd that it's easier to get evidence that people have DIED at a Benny Hinn healing service than evidence that people have actually been healed.

andrewcriddle

There are several Biblical Herods, I think you are getting them confused.
Herod Agrippa is the one here. see Josephus Antiquities Book 19 http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hus/ant-19.htm

The account has both important similarities and important differences from that in Acts.

Andrew Criddle

juergen

The "age of apostles" would be the a perfectly convenient after-the-fact rationalization as to why miracles aren't happening the way they used to be in the old days, even though, if one considers Jesus' words to be directed towards all of his people (not just apostles) like a lot of people do, there should be no "age of apostles." There should be an "age of doing greater things than Jesus."

I've often wondered, even when a Christian, what and where are these "greater things" that people are supposed to be able to do, that Jesus wasn't already doing in the Gospels? And who decides that X (which Bob Bobbington just did) is a greater thing than Y (which Jesus did)?

Raising the dead? Curing an illness? Forgiving sins? Exorcising demons? Long-distance healing? All of these are incredibly hard to prove happening nowadays, once you start to dig deeper, and it's not my point to say they might exist or might not, but assuming they do, they seem to be pretty much the things that Jesus was said to do, so Jesus mustn't have meant those. Maybe it's the shadow-healing.

Jesus' miracles in the NT were already phantastic things to happen. It would be hard to come up with an even greater miracle that blows Jesus' ones out of the water. But the fact that things greater than the ones performed by God's only Son on earth are clearly not happening nowadays makes it easier to notice the inconsistency. Why do promises that [edit: are meant to] authenticate a certain belief over the ages always have to be so over-the-top?

When you think about the "not having enough faith," it actually works like a charm. First of all, there is no possible way to define what faith really means in this context (really really wanting it/really really knowing God can do it) and there is no way of quantifying it. How more sure of something could a person get to be, who is already absolutely sure of it, and still be found that apparently he wasn't sure of it to beging with? Then, when you find out that whatever you prayed for doesn't happen and that it's your faith that isn't big enough, what options are there for that person? He or she is already feeling guilty for not being good or strong enough, or not trusting God enough, and the only way for increasing faith is trying to get more serious and committing more. It's a system of faith's surefire way of keeping people on its side.

From the side of a particular system of belief, bases cannot not be covered, so, oftentimes, any answer will do, as long as it keeps you going. Guilt and desire for change in an area which is out of control for any ordinary human will ensure that person doesn't leave the Faith. Doesn't matter which Faith it actually is, the mechanism is the same.

Casper

You can't argue against the supernatural without giving the supernatural a forum to exist. So don't bother. You'll be happier.

mountainman

The "age of the apostles" is literary fiction for god's sake!
Why have there been no similar events on the planet since?

The field in which Christianity will be brought to account
will be the field of ancient history.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

EmpiricalGod

The explanations i have heard about the apostles being able to do all these eyeball-popping miracles, but noone is able to do them in this post-enlightment era is because it was only a temporary thing that God/Jesus provided for the apostles.

This sounds like the biggest ad hoc explanation, but that's what i heard from a christian pastor.
I am sure other christians might have slightly different explanations.
I am pretty sure if you ask those TV faith healers, they will claim all that is possible still (with abit of money obviously :P).

juergen

Exactly.

Clivedurdle

On big miracles , compare walking on water with walking on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4