Thomas did see Jesus, and he believed as a result. How does it follow that Jesus wouldn't give us anything like the Shroud of Turin to see or that we shouldn't believe or be strengthened in our faith as a result of such things? Thomas was given something to see. That wasn't the problem. Nor was Thomas' desire for evidence. Rather, the problem was his irrational rejection of the evidence he already had, which was more than sufficient (fulfilled prophecy, Jesus' other miracles, his prediction of his resurrection, etc.). John 20 isn't opposing a desire for evidence. It's not opposing Jesus' visibility in the world, whether through the body Thomas saw or something like the Shroud. Rather, John 20 is opposing the sort of irrationality that mishandles evidence that's already been provided. Thomas' problem wasn't that he was too rational or too concerned about evidence. His problem was that he was irrational and mishandling the evidence he already had.
The people John was writing to wouldn't see the risen Jesus the way Thomas did. But they would have a lot of evidence, such as the document John was writing to them. That's why John is so careful to cite evidence along the way, such as prophecies Jesus fulfilled and the eyewitness nature of his (John's) testimony. John incorporates some of the historiographical standards of his day in his gospel - he writes in the genre of Greco-Roman biography, he appeals to eyewitness testimony, he appeals to witnesses who were present "from the beginning" (a significant phrase in ancient historiography), etc. - because he was concerned about evidence and wanted his readers to be.
Much more could be added to my comments above. For example, the apostles performed miracles to verify their authority claims. People would often see evidence of those miracles (a crippled man walking, a blind man gaining sight, etc.). For these and other reasons, it doesn't make sense to read John 20:29 as some sort of condemnation of any belief based on sight or a condemnation of any desire for evidence, for example. Faith isn't the same as sight, and it doesn't always result from sight. But it often does involve sight, as well as other forms of evidence. God can convert people or strengthen their faith independent of historical arguments and other evidential means, but he also provides us with evidence and often uses that evidence to work in people's lives.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteas I read what you wrote above these words came to mind that didn't occur to me before or after I cited in the other blog article on the Shroud, John 20:29:
1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life--
1Jn 1:2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--
1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
As you know in a court of law in order for evidence to be admitted there has to be someone to attest to it's veracity as the real thing.
What your articles regarding the Shroud do these days is to set aside that reality leaving only current science and speculations to consider and as you must know there is other science that establishes that cloth around the 14th century if I remember correctly when this subject was being hotly debated awhile ago?
What we obviously lack as a benefit to attesting to that image as what Christ indeed looked like and attesting to the fact that this shroud is that shroud that left the image as the likeness of Christ's image are those in the First Century who actually saw Him and handled him as John writes there in 1 John.
There is no one living today who was living back then that can corroborate under oath the veracity of the image as evidence of this Shroud capturing Christ's image after leaving or coming back into His corpse after it was wrapped up by Joseph. Was His Presence and Power in His state of resurrection life that left that image?
I'm doubtful it is for the reasons I have stated just now and before on the other blog.
Thank you in any event for being courteous to my point of view!
Michael wrote:
Delete"What we obviously lack as a benefit to attesting to that image as what Christ indeed looked like and attesting to the fact that this shroud is that shroud that left the image as the likeness of Christ's image are those in the First Century who actually saw Him and handled him as John writes there in 1 John."
How would you know that John wrote 1 John? Largely through the testimony of post-Biblical sources. A lot of our conclusions about the canon of scripture, the meaning of the Biblical languages, the historical context of the documents, etc. is derived from extra-Biblical and post-Biblical sources. And much of what we know in those contexts is derived from modern scholarship, such as modern textual studies and archeology. We don't limit ourselves to what eyewitnesses of Jesus tell us. In order to identify somebody as an eyewitness of Jesus, you'd have to rely on evidence coming from a source other than such an eyewitness. The eyewitness testimony to Jesus is mediated to us by means of other sources.
Besides, much of what we use to identify the Shroud figure does come from eyewitnesses. Matthew tells us about the crown of thorns, which seems to be reflected in head wounds on the Shroud. John tells us about the spear wound, which seems to be depicted in the Shroud. Etc.
If you're suggesting that we can't sufficiently demonstrate that the man in the Shroud image is Jesus, then you're mistaken. I won't go into all of the details here, but there are many lines of evidence that identify the Shroud figure for us: his apparent age range, indications of his ethnicity, indications of when he lived, the means by which he died, etc. The apparent spear wound in the side is unusual for a crucifixion victim. The puncture wounds in the head are consistent with a crown of thorns, which would be highly unusual. How many crucifixion victims have a crown of thorns placed on their head or experience something comparable? Given the state of the body, the image seems to have been formed shortly after death. Who, other than Jesus, died in a manner consistent with these and all of the other relevant details and had something happen shortly after his death (the resurrection) that would explain the Shroud image so well? Do you think somebody other than Jesus happened to have so many characteristics similar to those of Jesus, then had his burial shroud preserved and mistaken for Jesus' burial shroud? Why is that scenario supposed to be equal to or better than the alternative?
Do you apply the same sort of reasoning to other contexts? For example, if a first-century manuscript is found that's reported to be a fragment of Mark's gospel, do you conclude that it's probably some other document instead? Or that the odds are 50/50? Do you conclude that since there might have been some other document that had the same text as that portion of Mark's gospel, then we can't conclude that the manuscript probably is a first-century fragment of Mark? With the Shroud, we have something that's even more distinctive than a fragment of Mark's gospel. Yet, at the time I'm writing this post, all of us are awaiting the latest news about an alleged first-century fragment of Mark (the one Dan Wallace mentioned in his debate with Bart Ehrman last year, which was followed by some news stories on the subject). Even though it's possible that some document we're unaware of contained the same text as any fragment of Mark that may have been discovered, we conclude that a document we're already aware of (Mark) is a better explanation of such a fragment than a hypothetical similar document that nobody knows to exist, one that would be unlikely in principle to duplicate Mark's text.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou refer to the carbon dating of the Shroud. That's already been addressed. Check the Triablogue archives. Check the archives of Dan Porter's blog, which I linked in the previous thread. Not only have advocates of the Shroud presented their own arguments about the carbon dating, but they've also offered independent arguments for the Shroud's earlier dating. You aren’t interacting with any of those arguments.
You also aren't interacting with what I said about John 20:29. You keep changing the subject.
If fulfilled prophecy, reliable eye-witness accounts of miracles, the prediction and accomplishment of The Lord's own resurrection should have been enough for Thomas, then why shouldn't it be enough for us? I wonder if it was the irrationality of Thomas' rejection of the evidence at hand that was the problem or if perhaps it was the unethical, arrogant demands He placed on God before he would humbly believe, that was the problem.
ReplyDeleteI am not persuaded that John's point was to praise Thomas for seeking rational proofs in order to believe. This seems to be the logical conclusion of your premise. I do think John was concerned to present the story of Jesus as historical fact. He demonstrated that we are not making these things up. The story of Thomas's unethical demands, and Jesus's rebuke of his criterion for faith and His subsequent praise and honor for those who will believe without Thomas's kind of evidence point up to the fact that John included this episode as further proof of the historicity of his account. One also has to consider the threat of dualism and Gnositicism at the time of John's writing.
Ed Dingess wrote:
Delete"If fulfilled prophecy, reliable eye-witness accounts of miracles, the prediction and accomplishment of The Lord's own resurrection should have been enough for Thomas, then why shouldn't it be enough for us?"
Thomas had more evidence than we have in many contexts. He saw Jesus perform miracles rather than just reading what others said about the subject, he saw many events not recorded in the gospels or anywhere else in scripture, etc.
Besides, sufficiency isn't what determines whether we should be interested in something. Even if evidence A, B, and C are sufficient, adding evidence D might be beneficial in some way: a person we're interacting with might understand evidence D more easily, he may have rejected evidence A for some bad reason while being more reasonable about D, etc.
You write:
"I am not persuaded that John's point was to praise Thomas for seeking rational proofs in order to believe. This seems to be the logical conclusion of your premise."
No, it's not the logical conclusion to what I said. I said that Jesus was addressing a problem, and I provided an argument as to what that problem was. I didn't suggest that Jesus was "praising Thomas". Rather, I argued that Jesus was rebuking Thomas for a different reason than people often suggest.
I am not concerned that anyone may be interested in the Shroud. It is a fascination piece of archeology. Getting wrapped around it's significance can be a waste of time if one is not careful. After all, the answer you seek is beyond our grasp. Science will never be able to show that it belonged to Christ and not to the man crucificed three weeks earlier, or later, or a thousand years later. From a Christian's standpoint, it does nothing to add to or detract from faith, and it contributes nothing the reliability of the historical record that is not already well-established.
DeleteIf our faith is so weak that archeological evidence like the Shroud shore it up, I think you are missing my point. That is your implication. The historical account of Christ is well attested. No one's faith should be shaken by archeology, nor should it be stregnthened. We have the Word of God that has proven itself to be unwavering in its fidelity and historical reliability. What more do we seek? Christians should be encouraged away from demanding more "physical" evidence for Christianity and encouraged more to understand and embrace the sufficiency and self-attesting nature of Scripture. Is the Shroud of Turin a higher quality of evidence than the testimony of the Word of God? Given your response, I am not seeing your point. I agree the Shroud is interesting. There is nothing wrong with discussing it. While I think it is beyond our grasp to reach a consensus.
Once more, to be clear: I agree it is interesting. I agree it may be intriguing to discuss. I deny that consensus is a possibilty. I deny that it adds significance to the faith of a believer. Would it stop the mouth of some skeptics who are still freakishly irrational enough to deny the historicity of the crucifixion? Maybe. But since consensus is impossible, that is a pipe dream.
While John was concerned with presenting the historical record of the deeds and words of Christ so that men would believe, that fact does not translate into a view that men are justified in their demand for rational proofs. Evidence, after all, is not neutral. It too, like everything else, is subject to the interpreter. And my experience is that unbelievers and skeptics have higher demands for evidence supporting Christianity than they do for any other kind of evidence. The art of interpreting evidence has a strong ethical component attached to it the same as every other human behavior
Ed Dingess
Delete“Science will never be able to show that it belonged to Christ and not to the man crucificed three weeks earlier, or later, or a thousand years later. From a Christian's standpoint, it does nothing to add to or detract from faith, and it contributes nothing the reliability of the historical record that is not already well-established. If our faith is so weak that archeological evidence like the Shroud shore it up, I think you are missing my point. That is your implication. The historical account of Christ is well attested. No one's faith should be shaken by archeology, nor should it be stregnthened. We have the Word of God that has proven itself to be unwavering in its fidelity and historical reliability. What more do we seek? Christians should be encouraged away from demanding more "physical" evidence for Christianity and encouraged more to understand and embrace the sufficiency and self-attesting nature of Scripture. Is the Shroud of Turin a higher quality of evidence than the testimony of the Word of God? Given your response, I am not seeing your point.”
You’re bundling two different objections into one. On the one hand, you object to the evidential value of the Shroud because you claim the Shroud is ambiguous.
On the other hand, when you appeal to the self-attesting nature of Scripture, you seem to be objecting to the Shroud *even if* the Shroud supplied unambiguous supporting evidence for the Resurrection. You appear to be rejecting the apologetic value of *any* extrabiblical corroborative evidence for Bible history. If that’s your position, then your claims about the alleged ambiguity of the Shroud are moot.
By the same token, it’s unclear how you correlate “the self-attesting nature of Scripture” with other statements like “The historical account of Christ is well attested…We have the Word of God that has proven itself to be unwavering in its fidelity and historical reliability.”
What is attesting the “well-attested” character of Scripture. By what standard of comparison has Scripture “proven” itself to be “historically reliable”? Are you appealing to extrabiblical evidence? If not, what are you alluding to?
“If fulfilled prophecy, reliable eye-witness accounts of miracles, the prediction and accomplishment of The Lord's own resurrection should have been enough for Thomas, then why shouldn't it be enough for us?”
Prophetic fulfillment generally assumes that predictions were made prior to the predicted event. But liberals date Bible books after the fact, then reclassify the prophecies as vaticina ex eventu.
What about conservative scholars or apologists who cite extrabiblical evidence to defend the traditional dating schemes. Doesn’t that aid the argument from prophecy?
The intended distinction is not between believing the Resurrection without evidence in contrast to believing the Resurrection because of evidence, but between believing the Resurrection without seeing the Risen Lord in contrast to believing the Resurrection because you saw the risen Lord.
DeleteChrist’s distinction is clearly spoken with a view to posterity. Most folks won’t be in a position to see what Thomas saw. Their faith in the Resurrection can’t be predicated on their firsthand observation of the Resurrection. Christ is making the point that you can’t reasonable demand that you must see it for yourself before you believe it. History won’t repeat itself for the benefit of every doubter.
Ed wrote:
Delete"Science will never be able to show that it belonged to Christ and not to the man crucificed three weeks earlier, or later, or a thousand years later."
See my comments in response to Michael above, regarding how we can identify the man depicted on the Shroud.
You write:
"From a Christian's standpoint, it does nothing to add to or detract from faith, and it contributes nothing the reliability of the historical record that is not already well-established."
The Shroud increases the probability of Christian claims, as do many other artifacts, non-Christian documents of antiquity, etc. Again, see my response to Michael above. As I said there, we rely on many extra-Biblical sources in order to identify who the eyewitnesses of Jesus were, the meaning of what they wrote, etc. You depend on extra-Biblical sources to reach your conclusions about the Bible. We all do.
And the Shroud does give us information we're not given in scripture, such as information about Jesus' appearance, the nature of his wounds, and the nature of his burial shroud.
You write:
"If our faith is so weak that archeological evidence like the Shroud shore it up, I think you are missing my point."
I don't know what you mean by "shore it up". But there's nothing wrong with having your faith increased by means of evidence. Why wouldn't evidence increase your faith? Luke wanted to increase Theophilus' confidence in what he'd already been taught, and he used historical investigation and reporting to do it (Luke 1:1-4). Other Biblical authors likewise appeal to the evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness testimony, etc., both when they're attempting to lead people to faith and when they're addressing people who already believe. Jesus tells people to reach conclusions about his predictions based on seeing extra-Biblical evidence that the events are coming to pass (Matthew 24:33). Paul appeals to his performance of miracles, which was an appeal to extra-Biblical evidence. Etc.
You write:
"Is the Shroud of Turin a higher quality of evidence than the testimony of the Word of God?"
In some ways, yes. Scripture is only meant to be and accomplish particular things. It's not meant to be everything or accomplish all that it does maximally. If the Shroud gives us more information about Jesus' appearance than scripture does, or tells us more about what his burial shroud looked like than scripture does, for example, why would that be problematic? Similarly, video footage of Israel is better at giving us an idea of what the land looks like than scripture is. Josephus gives us more information about Herod the Great than the Bible does. In that sense, Josephus is of higher quality than the Bible. I'd rather eat a steak than a Bible. I'd rather bathe with soap than scripture. So what?
There is no possibility that the Shroud could ever be scientifically linked to Christ. To claim that it is highly probable that it belonged to Christ is more than an overstatement. The possibility of proof is unattainable. At best it supplies overactive imaginations speculative fodder. At worse, it lends itself to the silly notion that it may be able to firm up the faith of believers by vindicating the biblical record.
DeleteIt is highly doubtful that men would believe in a resurrected Savior even if he showed up in person. Thomas rejected the eye-witness accounts of his cloest and most trusted friends. Sin is like that.
Scripture needs no external, or extrabiblical corroboration. This is what I mean by self-attesting. It depends on nothing outside of itself in order to obligate belief. In other words, my belief in the content of Scripture is ipso facto justified without anything outside of Scripture to corroborate it. I would say, self-attesting, self-vindicating, and yes, self-justifying.
My point is that I do not need the Babylonian Talmud or the testimony of Pliny or Tacitus in order to justify belief in the historical record of Scripture. We have a number of external references, and yet men refuse to believe. The answer for why men refuse to believe is found in the text, not in apologetic method.
John 6:36-37 informs us that men do not believe, even if they see Christ, not because the evidence is bad, or insufficient, and not because the answers are irrational, but because the Father has not given them to Christ. Evaluating the evidence is as much an act of faith and prior commitments as is exegesis or approaching the table.
Jason,
DeleteYour comments are beyond disturbing. I absolutely do not depend on extrabiblical sources to form my views about Scripture. Christ did not, the apostles did not, and nor do Christians. Placing reason of evidence over Scripture and faith is an error of radical autonomy.
If the claims of Scripture are not enough for you, then perhaps you need to evaluate your view of the text. Let me understand this: what fallen, sinful men claim happened is more weighty than the testimony of eye-witnesses who recorded their testimony as God Himself moved them? I respectfully disagree.
Do you not understand that we can only use the Shroud as a signifier if we have a previous description of Christ is that is actually reliable?
I must confess that your view of Scripture is baffling.
Ed Dingess
Delete“There is no possibility that the Shroud could ever be scientifically linked to Christ. To claim that it is highly probable that it belonged to Christ is more than an overstatement. The possibility of proof is unattainable.”
Since, by your own admission, you think Shroud research is a waste of time, I seriously doubt you’ve invested enough time investigating the relevant literature to render an informed opinion.
“It is highly doubtful that men would believe in a resurrected Savior even if he showed up in person.”
So why did Jesus even bother appearing to anyone at all after he rose from the dead? Are you saying nobody in Mt 28, Lk 24, Jn 20, Acts 9, or 1 Cor 15:5-9 believed in the Resurrection as a result of his showing up in person?
“Scripture needs no external, or extrabiblical corroboration. This is what I mean by self-attesting. It depends on nothing outside of itself in order to obligate belief. In other words, my belief in the content of Scripture is ipso facto justified without anything outside of Scripture to corroborate it. I would say, self-attesting, self-vindicating, and yes, self-justifying.”
The question at issue is not what Scripture needs, but what people (or at least some people) need.
“We have a number of external references, and yet men refuse to believe.”
That’s one of your hasty generalizations. Some believe and some disbelieve.
“My point is that I do not need the Babylonian Talmud or the testimony of Pliny or Tacitus in order to justify belief in the historical record of Scripture.”
Yet you earlier appealed to the argument from prophecy. How do you know that Christ’s prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem was fulfilled? How do you know that Jerusalem fell? Don’t you need to know some history to know that?
How do you know that prophecy was made before the fall of Jerusalem? The Synoptic Gospels don’t give us their publication dates. Don’t you need to know something about history to date them?
What about OT and NT prophecies about postbiblical events? Won’t it require extrabiblical information to know when they are finally fulfilled? Scripture doesn’t tell you that, for these will be fulfilled long after the ink was dry in the NT.
"Since, by your own admission, you think Shroud research is a waste of time, I seriously doubt you’ve invested enough time investigating the relevant literature to render an informed opinion."
DeleteI am informed well enough to know that we are missing necessary components to conclude with any certainty that the Shroud, fascinating though it be, belonged to Jesus Christ Himself.
"So why did Jesus even bother appearing to anyone at all after he rose from the dead? Are you saying nobody in Mt 28, Lk 24, Jn 20, Acts 9, or 1 Cor 15:5-9 believed in the Resurrection as a result of his showing up in person?"
To fulfill Scripture and display the power and fidility of His Father. Jesus proved He was Messiah and demonstrated that He was the Son of God with power by His resurrection. It is one thing to say that Christ appeared to men who believed. It is another to say that "I must see him" if I am to believe. Thomas remains a perfect example. His demand for a certain type of evidence garnered a strong and embarrassing rebuke. Faith does not come by seeing, as is clearly stated in Scripture. Faith comes as a gift of God! There are men who believe Jesus rose from the dead but still deny His divinity. They search for other explanations for what happened. One might say that there were several resurrections during this one week period and Christ was only one of them. Something strange happened that we do not understand. And since Christ was one of many, His resurrection proves nothing, it was not unique.
"The question at issue is not what Scripture needs, but what people (or at least some people) need. "
I think it has more to do with what you think people need and not what they actually need. God has given them what they require. Yet they refuse to believe.
"That’s one of your hasty generalizations. Some believe and some disbelieve."
Time will tell. Faith founded on extrabiblical evidence is not faith founded on Christ. Faith produced by sinful human reason is not biblical faith.
"Yet you earlier appealed to the argument from prophecy. How do you know that Christ’s prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem was fulfilled? How do you know that Jerusalem fell? Don’t you need to know some history to know that?"
If Jerusalem had not fallen, then that means it has not fallen YET! It will. Christ said it would. I believe Him.
"How do you know that prophecy was made before the fall of Jerusalem? The Synoptic Gospels don’t give us their publication dates. Don’t you need to know something about history to date them?"
I know that it was given before the fall of Jerusalem because the city was still standing when Christ made it. The NT documents are reliable.
"What about OT and NT prophecies about postbiblical events? Won’t it require extrabiblical information to know when they are finally fulfilled? Scripture doesn’t tell you that, for these will be fulfilled long after the ink was dry in the NT."
Are you saying that I should not believe prophecies until they are fulfilled and I have something by which to prove them? Do you really believe we should not take God at His word? How will you convince a skeptic that future prophecy will be fulfilled apart from faith in God and His word? My approach to apologetics is presuppositional. Events that happen as a result of biblical prophecy would be classified as extrabiblical. Scripture predicted x would happen, and x happened. I believed it before it happened. I believe Christ will come again. I am certain of it. This world will end. I know this like I know the doors of my study are shut presently.
Edit: Events that happen as a result of biblical prophecy would not be classified as extrabiblical.
DeleteEd,
DeleteYou keep ignoring counterarguments that have already been offered. I've explained how the man on the Shroud would be identified. I've explained how God could work in people's lives by means of extra-Biblical evidence, and I've provided Biblical examples of his doing so.
You write:
"I absolutely do not depend on extrabiblical sources to form my views about Scripture."
The Bibles you read are produced by extra-Biblical sources. Translators are extra-Biblical. And they rely on manuscripts that aren't equivalent to the originals. They make judgments about the text based on what they find in extra-Biblical documents, archeological artifacts, etc. We make judgments about the meaning of the Bible based on its historical context, and we learn about that context from extra-Biblical sources. When you read an English translation of the Bible, you're relying on what other people have taught you about the English language. And so on.
Ed Dingess
Delete“I am informed well enough to know that we are missing necessary components to conclude with any certainty that the Shroud, fascinating though it be, belonged to Jesus Christ Himself.”
What Shroud research have you studied?
“To fulfill Scripture and display the power and fidility of His Father. Jesus proved He was Messiah and demonstrated that He was the Son of God with power by His resurrection. It is one thing to say that Christ appeared to men who believed.”
You’re equivocating. The question at issue is not the Resurrection, but the post-Resurrection appearances. Are you saying he had to rise from the dead to fulfill prophecy and prove his Messianship, or are you saying he had to *appear* to the disciples (and many others) to fulfill prophecy and prove his Messiahship?
Why do you think he appeared to so many people after he rose from the dead if, according to you, that’s unnecessary at best and spiritually counterproductive at worst?
“Thomas remains a perfect example. His demand for a certain type of evidence garnered a strong and embarrassing rebuke.”
That’s not necessarily a rebuke. After all, according to the very same account, the other disciples believed in the Resurrection based on the evidence they saw (20:8,20). Likewise, John grounds the apostolic witness on the fact that the disciples had firsthand knowledge of what they report (1 Jn 1:1-3).
The point is that readers of the Gospel should believe in the Resurrection based on the eyewitness testimony of the disciples. You, however, are taking the position that eyewitness testimony to the Resurrection is unnecessary. That the risen Lord didn’t need to show up in person to *any* of the disciples. Your position cuts against the grain of the text.
“Faith does not come by seeing, as is clearly stated in Scripture. Faith comes as a gift of God!”
That’s simplistic, Ed. According to the NT, faith in testimonial evidence is a necessary component of Christian faith.
“Faith founded on extrabiblical evidence is not faith founded on Christ.”
The disciples didn’t believe Jesus rose from the dead because they read it in Scripture. Rather, they believed it because they saw the risen Lord. So their faith in the Resurrection was founded on extrabiblical evidence. Based on the *event* of the Resurrection, not the *record* of the Resurrection.
“If Jerusalem had not fallen, then that means it has not fallen YET! It will. Christ said it would. I believe Him.”
You’re missing the point. Whether past or future, how do you know when Jerusalem has fallen? That requires some extrabiblical knowledge.
“I know that it was given before the fall of Jerusalem because the city was still standing when Christ made it. The NT documents are reliable.”
You’re dodging the issue, Ed. How do you know when the Gospels were written? Dating the Gospels requires you to place the Gospels in a chronology of the ancient world. That requires some extrabiblical information. Even if Matthew was written prior to 70 AD, you’re not getting that date from Matthew.
Cont. “Are you saying that I should not believe prophecies until they are fulfilled and I have something by which to prove them?”
DeleteYou’re equivocating, Ed. The question is how you know when certain prophecies will be fulfilled. If they weren’t fulfilled in Bible times, then it will require some extrabiblical information to know when they come to pass.
“Events that happen as a result of biblical prophecy would not be classified as extrabiblical.”
You’re equivocating, Ed. the prophecy is Biblical, but the future referent is extrabiblical. You’re confusing words with events.
For instance, if Jeremiah predicts a 70-year exile, and postexilic writers tell us that the exile ended, the Bible writers tell us when it was fulfilled (although they don’t give a date). Bible writers tell us what specific historical event represents the fulfillment.
However, in the case of Bible prophecies concerning postbiblical events, Bible writers don’t tell us when that will happen. They don’t give a date. And they don’t say what particular event in modern times represents the fulfillment.
Take the Antichrist. You think that’s future. Very well. The Bible doesn’t tell you who he is, when he will be born, where he will be born. That requires you to match general descriptions in Scripture with topical, extrabiblical information.
“I think it has more to do with what you think people need and not what they actually need.”
Frankly, Ed, you engage in a certain amount of pious posturing. There are men with the same theological background you have who later become apostates. There are men who made the same self-confident statements you make who later became apostates. Your rhetorical posture doesn’t shield anyone from losing his faith.
Jason,
DeleteThere is a remarkable difference between one's view of Scripture and one's understand or interpretation of what Scripture teaches. Moving to issues of exegesis, which is where you now go, is a separate matter altogether.
Secondly, when I say Scripture, I refer to the autograph, given directly by God for the purpose of bring men to saving faith and dependence on Christ.
Extrabiblical evidence does not serve to elevate our confidence in God's word even if it aids the interpretive process. In other words, I can be completely ignorant of the historical setting of God's Word while still believing it to be fully trustworthy, authoritative and reliable in all it says. And that belief can be completely justified without any reference to extrabiblical evidence. Extrabiblical evidence is collaborative, never foundational.
I am not saying there is nothing valuable in collaborative evidence. I am saying there is nothing of value for faith in collaborative evidence. Take for example, the most honest man in the world. He never lies, and has never been known to lie, and is actually incapable of lying. This man is also the most intelligent man in the world. He never gets anything wrong. In fact, he is incapable of getting anything wrong. Now, suppose this man told you that his neighbor was killed in a car accident two hours ago in front of his very eyes. Given this man's character and credibility, you would have no rational justification for not believing his report. None! You accept his word and get on with it. A person died in a car accident right outside his house. Why would you set out to find the car? Why would you investigate the accident to determine if the neighbor was driving? Why would you verify that someone had died down at the morgue? In addition, how would it increase your belief in the man's report if you saw the car with your own eyes? You already have impeccable testimony and eye-witness reports in front of you.
Now, the issue that emerges only should emerge when you go to share this report with someone who does not know this amazing friend of yours. Romans one tells us that there no one like that exists. So why bother with your investigation? Why would you go through the trouble of looking at the details and events surrounding your friend's story? Maybe you work for an automobile manufacturer in the area of saftey and your job is to understand how people are killed in auto accidents. Then an investigation of these matters would be very helpful in your understanding of these issues. The investigation has nothing to do with your faith or even the faith of others. It has another purpose altogether. The inductive research is important, but only for the right reasons. Anyways, that is how I look at it. I would never discourage you from investigating the Shroud. I would only discourage you if you were looking at it from, what I think could be the wrong perspective.
Ed Dingess
Delete"My approach to apologetics is presuppositional."
On what definition? Van Tilian presuppositionalism doesn't reject extrabiblical evidence or rational arguments.
You're not doing presuppositional apologetics. You're just preaching at people. If you think that's adequate, so be it, but don't call it apologetics.
So far as I can tell, we need DNA evidence in order to test whether or not the Shroud belongs to Christ. We have none. You might say it was from the same time period, even the same location, even the same week. But you will not be able to say is that it was Christ’s.
DeleteResurrection appearance:
The resurrection appearances take place within the drama of revelation. This is divine evidence, not to be trifled with or dismissed. It is infallible and we are perfectly justified in taking it as it is. We need no other corroborating proofs apart from biblical evidence in order to accept the event. You seem to be missing my point. Why over 500? Why not 100 or 1000? It is an odd question Steve.
Thomas Rebuked:
So now, in order to hang on to your position, the rebuke of Thomas was not necessarily a rebuke. You could not be more wrong Steve. It was a scathing rebuke and to argue otherwise is without exegetical warrant.
I am unaware of anyone else who counts an event recorded in Scripture as extrabiblical. Your statement is absurd. Any record of Scripture is by nature, not extrabiblical. The unfolding drama of revelation as it happens in the record cannot be classed as outside the record.
Dating
Your missing the point Steve. I do not need to know when Matthew was written in order to believe Christ’s prophecy was fulfilled. All I need to know is that the prophecy was antecedent to the event, whether it happened in AD 70 or 1930. Knowing when a book was written helps for exegetical purposes, but not for instilling faith. If Christ had predicted the fall of Jerusalem after the fact, well, then, that would be problematic. The skeptic claims Matthew was written after the fall of Jerusalem. So what. Matthew’s account is not any less trustworthy, unless you value fallen human reason more than you trust the text. I trust that Matthew recorded the events of Christ accurately, regardless of when he wrote it down or when Jerusalem fell.
What I am saying Steve is that dating the gospels aids in exegesis, but not in bringing someone to faith. It can serve to correct idiotic claims against the Scripture, but it will not serve to bring men to Christ. I am not opposed to the use of evidence in a negative sense, to criticize false claims about the historical events of Scripture. If you think that I what I am saying, you are misunderstanding me. I have repeatedly linked evidence to believing and faith.
Puzzling:
I must admit that I do not understand your warning about apostasy. There are men from every theological background who have apostatized. There are men from every apologetical school who have denied the faith as well. What does that have to do with the subject at hand. I would prefer to keep our focus and attention on the discussion rather than resorting to unkind remarks about pious rhetoric. Those comments add not even an iota to the learning process and they do nothing to further the discussion or to encourage believers. This is one of my beefs with apologetic and theological dialogues. We can engage in just about every topic under the sun and that is a good thing. But we often left charity at the door. And that is not so good.
Ed Dingess
Delete“So far as I can tell, we need DNA evidence in order to test whether or not the Shroud belongs to Christ. We have none. You might say it was from the same time period, even the same location, even the same week. But you will not be able to say is that it was Christ’s.”
First off, it would be better for Jason to field that question rather than me, since he’s the one arguing for the authenticity of the Shroud, and he’s researched the issue more than I have.
That said, I imagine the argument goes something like this: There is no known or plausible technology back then which could produce the image by natural means. Therefore, all available evidence points to miraculous production. Why would God miraculously produce an image of a crucified man other than Jesus?
“The resurrection appearances take place within the drama of revelation. This is divine evidence, not to be trifled with or dismissed. It is infallible and we are perfectly justified in taking it as it is. We need no other corroborating proofs apart from biblical evidence in order to accept the event.”
When the Apostle John (to take one example) cites eyewitness testimony to the Resurrection (including his own firsthand observation), he isn’t invoking infallibility or his apostolic authority to prove the point. Rather, he’s appealing to the fact that he and others witnessed the event. That’s the reason we should accept it. John as a witness, not John as an apostle.
“So now, in order to hang on to your position, the rebuke of Thomas was not necessarily a rebuke. You could not be more wrong Steve. It was a scathing rebuke and to argue otherwise is without exegetical warrant.”
Actually, I presented exegetical arguments for my interpretation. You respond by huffing and stamping your feet. That’s no substitute for reasoned argument.
BTW, I’m not the only one who reads it that way. Michaels, in his magisterial commentary on John, interprets the verse the same way I do, and for the same reasons.
“I am unaware of anyone else who counts an event recorded in Scripture as extrabiblical. Your statement is absurd. Any record of Scripture is by nature, not extrabiblical. The unfolding drama of revelation as it happens in the record cannot be classed as outside the record.”
Are you going out of your way to misunderstand, so that you can duck the argument (since you have no counterargument)?
There’s an elementary difference between Biblically predicted events which were fulfilled in OT times or NT times, whose fulfillment was duly recorded in Scripture, and events predicted in Scripture which will only be fulfilled long after the Bible was written, whose fulfillment isn’t recorded in Scripture. Bible writers can predict extrabiblical events. In the nature of the case, they can’t record the fulfillment of extrabiblical events, for their fulfillment falls outside the time of public revelation. It requires extrabiblical knowledge to identify extrabiblical events referred to in some Biblical oracles.
Cont. “Your missing the point Steve. I do not need to know when Matthew was written in order to believe Christ’s prophecy was fulfilled. All I need to know is that the prophecy was antecedent to the event, whether it happened in AD 70 or 1930. Knowing when a book was written helps for exegetical purposes, but not for instilling faith. If Christ had predicted the fall of Jerusalem after the fact, well, then, that would be problematic. The skeptic claims Matthew was written after the fall of Jerusalem. So what. Matthew’s account is not any less trustworthy, unless you value fallen human reason more than you trust the text. I trust that Matthew recorded the events of Christ accurately, regardless of when he wrote it down or when Jerusalem fell.”
DeleteThe argument from prophecy doesn’t make any prior assumptions about the inspiration of Scripture, the person of Christ, or even the reliability of Scripture. Rather, the argument from prophecy is an argument *for* the inspiration of Scripture. That’s a conclusion, not a presumption, of the argument from prophecy.
Pursuant to that goal, the argument from prophecy will also make use of subsidiary arguments regarding the dates of recorded prophecies, their textual originality, &c.
If you stipulate the inspiration of Scripture at the outset, then the argument from prophecy is superfluous. You can’t use the argument from prophecy as a reason to believe in Scripture if you must first believe in Scripture to use the argument from prophecy.
“What I am saying Steve is that dating the gospels aids in exegesis, but not in bringing someone to faith.”
Are you saying no one was brought to faith in Christ by finding messianic prophecies convincing?
“I would prefer to keep our focus and attention on the discussion rather than resorting to unkind remarks about pious rhetoric. Those comments add not even an iota to the learning process and they do nothing to further the discussion or to encourage believers. This is one of my beefs with apologetic and theological dialogues. We can engage in just about every topic under the sun and that is a good thing. But we often left charity at the door. And that is not so good.”
You’ve made uncharitable comments about Jason, as well as uncharitable comments about those who feel the need of supporting evidence. So you’re not entitled to be offended if I don’t treat you any more charitably than you treat others.
Ed wrote:
Delete"There is a remarkable difference between one's view of Scripture and one's understand or interpretation of what Scripture teaches. Moving to issues of exegesis, which is where you now go, is a separate matter altogether."
I referred to how scripture came to you, through translators and such, not just exegesis. Would you explain how you supposedly form a view of scripture without the involvement of anything extra-Biblical?
We were discussing faith. Biblical faith involves various doctrines, like monotheism and Jesus' saving work. How would scripture lead you to a faith that involves such doctrines without exegesis? And you've suggested that something like the Shroud of Turin not only shouldn't lead us to faith, but also shouldn't even strengthen us in a faith we already have. Since you've suggested that exegesis of scripture does involve extra-Biblical factors, it seems to follow, under your view, that exegesis of scripture should neither lead us to faith nor strengthen our faith. You're implying that people can't come to faith or be strengthened in faith by reading the Bible. Yet, you refer to people believing through the word of God. Your position seems nonsensical and inconsistent.
You write:
"Now, the issue that emerges only should emerge when you go to share this report with someone who does not know this amazing friend of yours. Romans one tells us that there no one like that exists."
How do you know that the friend in your analogy never uses evidence in order to lead people to believe that he has the traits you assign to him? How do you know that your friend has the traits in question to begin with? Your appeal to Romans 1 is insufficient. Christian faith involves more than the existence of God and the attributes of God referred to in Romans 1. You don't arrive at conclusions like Jesus' deity and resurrection by observing nature.
Missed this from Steve above:
DeleteThat said, I imagine the argument goes something like this: There is no known or plausible technology back then which could produce the image by natural means. Therefore, all available evidence points to miraculous production. Why would God miraculously produce an image of a crucified man other than Jesus?
Really?
One I didn't think the argument was for a miraculous production of the image but rather just an unusual production, because if we are talking miraculous we are in CtC territory/Raiders of the Lost Ark camp.
Two, if the Second Commandment forbids images of any person in the Godhead, why would God produce or allow to be produced an image other than to try the faith of the elect?
IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism. My bad. I merely thought it was more of a reformed site.
Thank you.
RPV
Delete"Really? One I didn't think the argument was for a miraculous production of the image but rather just an unusual production, because if we are talking miraculous we are in CtC territory/Raiders of the Lost Ark camp."
Do you also think the miraculous inscription by a hand that materializes out of thin air (Dan 5:5) is CtC territory/Raiders of the Lost Ark camp?
"Two, if the Second Commandment forbids images of any person in the Godhead, why would God produce or allow to be produced an image other than to try the faith of the elect?"
Why don't you come up with an objection I hadn't dealt with before?
"IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism."
You need to learn the difference between evidence and evidentialism.
Oh, and I've critiqued Lutheranism on many occasions.
"My bad. I merely thought it was more of a reformed site."
I don't need to prove myself to you. Don't delude yourself into thinking I measure myself by you.
RPV
Delete"IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism. My bad. I merely thought it was more of a reformed site."
Calvinism doesn't select for a particular school of apologetics. Warfield's apologetic is quite different from Van Til's.
Moreover, when Van Til was teaching at Westminster, he didn't normally defend the Bible. He left that to his colleagues in the OT and NT departments. When Young and Stonehouse defend the Bible, there's nothing especially presuppositional about their approach.
RPV
Delete"IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism. My bad. I merely thought it was more of a reformed site."
What makes you think Lutheranism pairs off with evidentialism?
1. Distinguish between miracles recorded in Scripture and those that aren't.
Delete2. in a nutshell what is the SoT defeater to the 2nd?
If God may appear to set aside the 6th as with Abraham and Isaac in Scripture, he may do likewise with the SoT extra biblically?
3. Everybody has something to learn (see 1.), so what is the distinction between evidence and evidentialism?
4. Nobody needs to prove anything to anybody. I assumed this was a reformed site. If it is not, fine.
5. Never said lutheranism and evidentialism are necessarily a pair.
thanks,
RPV
Delete"1. Distinguish between miracles recorded in Scripture and those that aren't."
And after you've drawn that distinction, what then?
It’s not as if Jason went looking for the Shroud. Rather, the Shroud found him. That’s to say, we happen to live in a time and place when the Shroud is a highly publicized artifact. We didn’t ask for the Shroud. It exists. It is known.
ReplyDeleteSo this isn’t an a priori question, but an a posteriori question. Given the Shroud, how do we asses the Shroud? Do we judge it to be authentic or inauthentic? The question is forced upon us by the artifact itself. A real artifact.
In principle, we could also withhold judgment. Of course, withholding judgment may be a prejudgment regarding the relative importance or unimportance of the artifact.
Since this is after the fact, there’s no point raising purely hypothetical objections to the antecedent propriety of this type of evidence. It’s too late for that. We have an actual, concrete artifact to assess.
That is a good point. My emphasis concerns the relationship between rational proofs and faith, not to mention the ethical nature of demands for rational proofs and the standards required of such proofs.
DeleteFine. Go for it.
DeleteBut when all is said and done, WCF 1:4 is still operative:
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
Evidence is frosting. It's not a deal closer. That's why it's called faith.
Thanks you.
Bob S.
We have an actual, concrete artifact to assess.
DeleteMy comment is responding to this remark.
Jason
ReplyDeletenot ignoring you just catching up on a little more reading on the Shroud seeing I hadn't thought about it or read about is since a few years ago.
First to the question of interacting with you on your personal interpretation of John 20:29. What is there to interact to? You have laid out what you believe the intent was for John to write that verse and Ed Dingess weighed in on it too. His is equally pausible.
My view is as I stated when I made the citation of the verse that was the opening of this blog article. I see that verse simply as a message to me that the Faith I have been given is sufficient for me to hold to to rely upon and believe Jesus' message as well as John's and all the New Testament messages even the hard to understand ones that He is the Christ the son of the Living God and flesh and blood didn't reveal that to me.
Blessed, the Scripture says, are those, unlike Thomas and I suppose now you, and in no way by making that inference am I intending on impugning your integrity, who would be strengthened by this additional artifact of supernatural occurrence, if indeed that is what is the cause of that image which some including yourself believe, that captures Christ's countenance after His death on a cross for the sins of His people? The image is that of a crucified corpse with parallels to wounds Christ clearly suffered before He breathed His last in that body until He came back into it and began breathing again breath!
Reading last night and this morning I found articles with scientists of the same or similar caliber as the ones you put forward as experts who believe that the Shroud of Turin cannot be of the dates proposed as a shroud made at the same time or earlier to the time of the death of Jesus. Here's one caption quote under the highly maginfied photo taken of a shroud found in a tomb of a man buried at the time or near the time of Christ's death: " The simple weave of a textile found in a first-century A.D. Jerusalem tomb adds to evidence that the Shroud of Turin isn't from Jesus' time, experts say. "
I have a book written many years ago that underscores your contention of the Shroud of Turin. I haven't read it as of late as it is in storage.
break
continuing:::>
ReplyDeleteI did read up on the STURP studies and downloaded a very long PDF file produced by the Colorado group that supports the science your scientists put forth for our consideration. I have read both sides now and most likely not to an depth as you?
Having said that there is this more basic and fundamental bock in my spirit based in the Scripture that leads me to be doubtful to the origins and image captured by some means either artful or supernatural on that shroud?
My reasons for doubt are Biblically these following verses; the one I first quoted, the 2nd Commandment, that we are not to make any likeness of God for the purposes of worship, too. This shroud in the custody of the RCC at Turin, Italy, was given as you must know, by a man from then Constantinople, present day Istanbul, to a pope in the 14th Century purporting this artifact of history is indeed the Shroud Jesus was buried with and the speculation that goes with that purporting the image as Christ is all science can leave us with not being able to reproduce such an image scientifically, or explain its reason for its existence on that fabric?
The next verse was the subject of this blog post of yours where you wonder why I did not interact with you on your subperb exegesis of it. I gave a much less indepth understanding of the verse as has been reiterated.
Next I want to point to one additional verse from 1 Peter and a couple from the Old Testament and as I do there may be quickened to me other verses and if so I will cite them too as I finish up these comments now?
That verse from 1 Peter: 1Pe 1:8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory,
The context as you know is Peter was dealing with people with weak Faith and apparently he was moved upon by the Holy Spirit to address it in that epistle writing those words that are now apart of the closed canon all True Faithful are to embrace?
break
continuing:::>
ReplyDeleteFrom Isaiah comes this: Isa 40:18 To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? Isaiah goes on and answers the question about "what likeness compare with him?"
Then there's Habakkuk 2 and this verse: Hab 2:2 And the LORD answered me: "Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it. Here Habakkuk is being moved upon by the Holy Spirit to deal with the way we run with vision that comes "only" by His Faith, a Faith once delivered to the Saints. And as you read down near to the end of the chapter the matter of idols is raised and the question about the object speaking. No one as far as I know has as yet come out and said a voice came from this Shroud of Turin, but as things go on in this crazy out of control world I suppose someone could make that claim as some have made of statues of Jesus bleeding or Mary crying or or or?
In those Old Testament verses I am more informed as to the meaning of the 2nd Commandmant and why I don't need to make any image or likeness of God to strengthen my Faith as we see millions the curator of the Shroud says come every year to see it in Italy and "pray" when standing there looking at the Shroud!
For me I just am content to live with the doubt about it's authenticity.
I have a question for you. Let me side with you temporarily and ask, let's say this was authenticated to be the supernatural image of Christ? Then what? What would we do with such knowledge? How would that affect your walk with Christ knowing now you know what His corpse's image looked like from your studies of this Shroud?
Oh yeah I thought of another New Testament verse from Acts 17.
Act 17:29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
"an image formed by the art and imagination of man"!
Science as yet has not been able to replicate this phenomenon and until they do all their science does is leave us with open speculations to it's creation and why God would do such a thing keeping this shroud hidden until the 14th Century and create the phenomenon as witnessed historically that draws millions of people to see this thing and wonder in amazement at the image without a sense that this is indeed the image of Christ that Christ left as an additional testament to His invisible existence by another testimony of His visible one!
Michael,
DeleteWhether the Shroud is referenced in sources prior to the fourteenth century is one of the issues that's disputed. You're assuming something that's in dispute. Besides, artifacts often turn up in some way or another after having been buried or otherwise concealed for a long time, even centuries or millennia. Even if we assumed that every alleged reference to the Shroud between the first and fourteenth centuries is actually referring to something else, that fact alone wouldn't justify a rejection of the Shroud. It would weaken the case for the Shroud, but wouldn't overturn it.
You asked what effect the Shroud has on me. I view it as I would other extra-Biblical sources, like an archeological artifact that gives me additional information about how the Romans crucified people or an extra-Biblical document that gives me further information about how to interpret a word that's used in the Bible. All of us are influenced by extra-Biblical sources in many ways. An extra-Biblical hymn moves us to appreciate and love God more. An extra-Biblical answer to prayer increases our faith and gratitude. A passage in Tacitus gives us more of an understanding of the historical context of scripture. Etc.
Jason,
Deleteyou almost had me convinced except when you wrote something in response to Ed.
ED:"Is the Shroud of Turin a higher quality of evidence than the testimony of the Word of God?"
Jason: In some ways, yes. Scripture is only meant to be and accomplish particular things. It's not meant to be everything or accomplish all that it does maximally.
Ooops I go when I read that! Here is what God, a Personal Loving God Who's purpose it was in giving us the "Gift of Eternal Life" is so that we would foresake all others and have no other gods but HIM said about this relationship with Him, with Jesus and the Holy Spirit and with the "Word of His Grace"! Nowhere is there is any indication for a place for the need for anything more.
I understand your point about "extra"biblical sources. That is a powerful argument. The One source, though, that is not "extra" Biblicaal is God Himself as I just indicated myself being as another extra biblical source doing so, myself and my own personal testimony to all those I can influence and touch that God gave to Jesus to save from their wretched selves that they too will be saved by the "gift" and there need not be anything else.
Can there be? Yes of course there can be as this debate demonstrates about this additional extra biblical source, the Shroud of Turin, that you point to?
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Act 20:33 I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel.
Act 20:34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.
Act 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
We see here that God said through Paul that He is and that personal relationship we are being brought into by Grace to have with Him "and" the Word of His Grace, the closed canon that we Reformed Protestants hold to is all we need and is sufficient for us, the sufficiency of Scripture, sola scriptura. to live with Him in Glory. We don't need any additional extra biblical graces for that to occur.
break
You got me thinking about the "why" question for the emergence of this Shroud.
DeleteThe one powerful thing that affects my conscience when looking at that image is myself and my sins, too, did that to Him if that indeed, which I lean against and not in favor of accepting, is Him.
What purpose does it serve to have captured an image of the "corpse" of Christ but to give us a keener convicting sense of our own total depravity?
The counter weight to that is all the idolatrous worship that goes on as millions of people go to Turin, not that the travel bureaus are unhappy or the chamber of commerce, or the hotel and restraurant owners, and stand there and look at that image and pray! I would hope a deep seated conviction of their own total depravity would come upon them as they do?
That image captures the brutality of the way one is tortured and put to death, no doubt about it. And the first instance of this sort of death means is in the book of Ester. According to what I have read the Persians were the ones that taught the Romans this fanciful way of killing the condemned no doubt inspired by Satan himself and permitted by God so God's Word would be fulfilled? I guess some blame lies with Christ Himself?
In any event, this had been a wake up call to me in two ways. One, my own depravity caused that if that image is the image of Our Dear Beloved Husband's corpse! And two, just how weak humanity is to idolatry as history proves by the millions of people who have flocked to Turin to go do a look see of a morbid image like we do so easily when driving by an accident on the roadways and slow down and look see the carnage of the wreck!
Oh yeah there was one more thing I wanted to share in this regard. When in college one day as I was leaving, you go down a steep hill and at the bottom is an four way intersection with controlling lights, stop, yeild and go.
DeleteAs I was heading down this steep hill a bicyclist sped passed me very fast. Don't know if he lost his brakes or what just that when he got to the bottom he was entering into a red light and ran it and got clipped at the rear by a passing car which caused him to lose control and he went flying and impacted the road knocking him out! As I as well as others stopped and rendered aid to this now unconscious man in speedos with no helmet. When I got to him he was laying there so sublime and still as a stone. His face rested on the roadway and if I am not mistaken it was the right side of his face you could see clearly, a perfect face in appearance. But when we rolled him over the left side of his face which impacted the road was smashed and marred beyond recognition so there were no human facial features at all just a red gooey mass!
When I for the very first time read about Jesus being marred so that His face was not recognizable with facial features I immediately started thinking about what I saw about this man's face that day! That's another reason why this image haunts me so. What the Bible describes about Christ's face looking like after being bruised and marred to being irrecognizable by any human that the Romans did to Christ's face and what this face looks like with clear human features gives my doubt.
Isa 52:14 As many were astonished at you-- his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind--
DeleteIsa 52:15 so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.
Michael,
DeleteI responded to your appeal to Isaiah 52 in our exchange at TurretinFan's blog last year. You aren't interacting with what I said there. I don't see any need to respond further.
Jason,
Deleteyou will have to refresh my recollections here as I am not following you? Did we have a debate or discussion with each other already about the Shroud over at TurretinFan's blog last year?
I recall being involved in a discussion about caricatures and that drawing someone posted on the internet of what someone artfully made of features of what Jesus might have looked like having some discussion with someone or others in a drawing. TurretinFan does not agree saying that is a violation of the 2nd Commandment. I respect his views although I took a different position because of the painting I saw at a friend's house hanging on the wall of a featured piece of a man in long hair and a long robe on talking to a little boy holding a model airplane and a little girl holding a rag doll with the caption about becoming as a child to enter the Kingdom. That struck me and stayed with me for several years until the Lord opened my eyes to understand Him to be the Way, the Truth and the Life.
If you can put the link up to what you are referring to I would greatly appreciate it?
Michael,
DeleteHere's the thread I was referring to.
Jason,
Deletethanks for doing that and putting up that link as it would have taken me a month of Sundays and confessions of angry responses before I would have found that article.
I am more refreshed now about it especially the part about Jesus' clothes raising the question to you where were they kept and who brought them to Him seeing the Bible is clear the clothes He was wearing before the scourging the Romans made off with after they stripped off Him them. Before He was tortured with the cat of nine tails Psa 22:18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.
As for the video I referenced I watched about the atrocities of the civil war in Sierra Leone. It is a real video that captures the torture and execution of these Sierra Leonians, both women and men and some of them were not a part of the strife just mistaken as such by the Nigerian Mercenaries so they suffered being at the wrong place at the wrong time! There are public videos available and by googling the Civil War atrocities of that decade, the 1990's or Samuel Doe, you can see portions of that video I have in my possession. I know because my copy is in storage and it would probably take me two months of Sunday's and a lot more confessions of anger to find it to send it to you as proof of what I have. I wanted to recall something from it awhile ago and because of it not being readily available I googled what was in the public's domain and was surprised to see portions of the copy of the video I have. It is available and substantiates my claims which refute yours that there is no outside proof of what I claim I saw. So I want to set the record straight that what I represented in my exchange with you then about the faces of both men and women looked like being marred by the thrashing they got before their brutal executions can be seen via a google search if one cares to do it?
Finally, as for the verse I proffer that I believe nullifies your contention that the Shroud captures Christ's corpse's facial features after death, Isaiah 52:14, it seems to me when you weigh both the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew words of the verse you get an accurate sense as the one I come away with that Christ's facial features looked like no human man's face after the hitting and torture His face suffered by these men.
Adding to that there's Turrentinfan's execellent observation, which I forgot about, too, of the Biblical record that there was more than one burial cloth Joseph used and the description indicates something so much different that a one piece shroud as the Shroud of Turin is!
Anyway, Jason, this has been a healthy continuation of that early debate as to whether or not the Shroud of Turin captures the likeness of the Corpse of Our Husband Christ the Lord after His death and burial.
No doubt there is high speculations as to who that image is. I more now am doubtful it is Christ's.
Bless you nevertheless for the work you contribute in here at Triablogue and as you said, I believe it was you who said it to Ed Dingess, it is the work of some ministers of Christ to bring health to the minds of men which your posts certainly do to my mind as does Steve's who I enjoy not only for the perpiscaciousness and sharpness of his intelligence but also for the many new words I learn reading his posts!
I want again to reiterate also I was refreshed by the subperb analysis TurrentinFan put forward too. I forgot what he wrote so going back and rereading it was enlightening and reassuring to me that raises the doubt I have been saying I have about the Shroud of Turin that it ain't Jesus' face on it. It does reflect the face of a corpse of someone crucified and wrapped in a shroud in any event.
Michael,
DeleteI appreciate the encouragement. But I still disagree with much of what you're saying.
You still aren't interacting with what I said about Isaiah 52 in our previous discussion. Repeating your previous claims, or telling us about a video of a person's damaged face, doesn't address the points I made previously.
You raise the issue of the number of burial cloths Jesus had. Again, you're repeating an argument I've already addressed. Both here and at TurretinFan's blog, I've explained how the Shroud is consistent with multiple burial cloths.
You tell us, apparently, that the Shroud does accurately depict a crucifixion victim. But its accurate portrayal of a crucifixion victim is problematic for Shroud theories involving medieval forgery, for reasons I've explained before, both here and at TurretinFan's blog.
Jason,
DeleteI went to both the Septuagint and looked at the Greek words of the verse from Isaiah 52 and then the Hebrew words used by the translators of the KJV and both indicate there is quite a bit of difference between a person who was pummeled by a fist or hand slapped or struck with a stick and what happened to Christ's face. If He gave up the Ghost very soon after this brutal beating and crucifixion as Scripture records, there would be no major change to the facial expression at that point as all life would cease so that facial expression would have been frozen in time and that's what one would expect to see as that image captured on the Shroud not the image we clearly see. Or the only other plausible facial expression would be the pristine Face of Christ Mary saw when looking at what she thought was a gardener, either extreme not what the Shroud of Turin captured which clearly shows a man's face with wounds on it that appear to have been caused by thorn pricks and tears and hitting.
The Scriptures point to the wounds in His hands and side not face when He is having that encounter with Thomas.
My definition and yours of interacting with you is different, I guess, because I thought I was interacting with you in regard to Isaiah 52? But maybe it isn't on your terms. Well ok then.
As for reiterating the video, you were the one who repeatedly raised the issue that what I represented wasn't verifiable so I merely was establishing that yes it was if you cared to dig into the archives of Google you would see what multiple men and women looked like after the Nigerians gave them a brutal thrashing with long thin bendable strong stems of bushes. Watching that brutality was a way of judging the difference between that and Christ's face as Isaiah recorded it. There is quite a difference in the effects after the brutality. You could see clearly a semblance of human features yet torn facial flesh and welts bulging didn't wipe away their human features. That contrasted with Isaiah 52 where the Spirit of the Lord describes something far more brutal and devastating done to Our Dear Husband's tortureous brutalitiy suffered by the hands of godless men.
If you would like me to photo copy my passports so you can see the dates of entry to Sierra Leone and Liberia and many other West African countries I can do that to also verify my presence in those countries?
I would leave off with one final group of verses that point to nothing about a Shroud in the work of the Gospel being completed and every creature reached so the end shall then finally come. And by doing that I mean to say I want to be informed about my basis and daily Life in Christianity by the Scriptural records first and then by evidentiary and scientific means after that:
Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
I happen to believe there may be slight usefulness to this Shroud of Turin if it impacts one who sees it in Turin, Italy like I was impacted seeing that painting on the wall of my friend's house that morning where there is an artful depiction of two periods of time, one supposedly the at the time of Christ by what He was wearing, long hair and a robe and two children at the time of World War 2. When I looked at that painting I kept questioning that that this Artist I suppose intended to impress upon those who would look at his artful depiction. That seems to me to be the only value and benefit that could come from this Shroud, not that the image was the real corpse of Christ's face after burial and resurrection.
Michael,
DeletePointing me to videos of beaten individuals, or telling me about an experience you had seeing somebody's face damaged in an accident, doesn’t' refute anything I said in our previous discussion. I disputed your interpretation of Isaiah 52. Nothing you've written since then has refuted what I said.
In my opinion this is the fundamental issue:
ReplyDeleteJesus did not say let your intellectual argument be heard before all men so that they will hear the power of your reasoning and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Paul did not say that faith comes by rational proofs and prestine scientific and extrabiblical evidence. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, not by testimony outside the word of God. That does not mean that such testimony is utterly useless. It is absolutely useful for many things, just not for instilling or even inspiring faith.
Good works produced by the gospel coupled with the inspired words of the gospel are what is most important if the Church is to honor God by being, well, the Church.
If we find that fact boring, or too simple, or anti-intellectual or even intellectually boring, I would suggest we search our hearts to make sure we have the right aim.
Ed writes:
Delete" So far as I can tell, we need DNA evidence in order to test whether or not the Shroud belongs to Christ."
You offer no justification for your conclusion. Why would DNA evidence be needed? For example, explain why my method of identifying the Shroud figure, described earlier in this thread, is insufficient. Do archeologists require DNA evidence in order to conclude that an object was associated with a particular historical figure in some way?
You write:
" Jesus did not say let your intellectual argument be heard before all men so that they will hear the power of your reasoning and glorify your Father who is in heaven."
That doesn't prevent you from posting your arguments in forums like this one.
When Jesus refers to being salt and light, he's referring to the Christian life in general. That includes the intellectual dimension of life. That's why Jesus and the Biblical authors frequently appeal to eyewitness testimony, fulfilled prophecy, and other forms of evidence. Read passages like Isaiah 44-46 and Acts 17-19, where men like Isaiah and Paul reason with both believers and unbelievers, seeking to persuade them with evidential arguments. I've given other examples throughout this thread, and you keep ignoring them.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou write:
"Paul did not say that faith comes by rational proofs and prestine scientific and extrabiblical evidence."
It's not as though the word of God has to remain alone, accompanied by nothing. The word of God is often communicated alongside and through evidential arguments, as we see in passages of scripture like the ones I keep citing, which you keep ignoring. For example, Romans 15:18-19 refers to extra-Biblical miracles that accompanied the preaching of the gospel and resulted in conversions.
And what about other passages? It's not as though Romans 10, which you've cited, is all we have to go by. Jesus tells us that not only his words, but also his works are means by which we can have faith (John 10:38). The New Testament authors repeatedly appeal to extra-Biblical miracles as reasons to believe in the authority claims of the apostles (2 Corinthians 12:12, Hebrews 2:3-4). As Steve has noted, the Bible repeatedly refers to people believing when they saw the risen Jesus, not just when they read about the risen Jesus in scripture. Similarly, the gospels and Acts, as well as other portions of scripture, refer to people coming to faith or being strengthened in their faith when they witnessed a miracle. They weren't converted or strengthened in faith through reading Biblical accounts of the miracles. Rather, they were converted or strengthened through the extra-Biblical means of witnessing the miracle or hearing of it outside of scripture.
You write:
"Good works produced by the gospel coupled with the inspired words of the gospel are what is most important if the Church is to honor God by being, well, the Church."
Caring for people's minds is a good work. And it's one that's become increasingly important in this information age, with the growing influence of democracies, television, the web, and other factors that make intellectual depth more important than before.
You offer no justification for your conclusion. Why would DNA evidence be needed? For example, explain why my method of identifying the Shroud figure, described earlier in this thread, is insufficient. Do archeologists require DNA evidence in order to conclude that an object was associated with a particular historical figure in some way?
DeleteBecause we are not archaelogists, but Christians. We require infallible proof. And in that appeal was made science and evidence it was reasonable for Ed to make the DNA comment reductio ad absurdum.
It's not as though the word of God has to remain alone, accompanied by nothing. The word of God is often communicated alongside and through evidential arguments, as we see in passages of scripture like the ones I keep citing, which you keep ignoring. For example, Romans 15:18-19 refers to extra-Biblical miracles that accompanied the preaching of the gospel and resulted in conversions.
No. The signs and wonders only attested to the previously preached word or called people's attention to the preaching of the word. Deut. 13:1-3. They never stood on their own as proof of anything. Further with the completion of the canon of Scripture, they fell away as a necessary seal of an apostle's message.
If not, we all need to join the Apostolic Pentecostal Brotherhood pronto because they are the only ones truly faithful to Scripture.
And just as the sacraments accompany the word of God and are for our strengthening in the faith, they do not engender faith or convert anyone. Rom. 10:17
Thank you.
[It would sure be nice if TB switched to a commenting system like over at Green Baggins. This one is a little unwieldy.]
RPV wrote:
Delete"Because we are not archaelogists, but Christians. We require infallible proof. "
That's an assertion, not an argument. Why are we supposed to agree with you?
When people mentioned in the Bible believed on the basis of miracles they had witnessed, their eyesight, hearing, and other faculties weren't infallible. Similarly, when we today trust a Bible translation we're reading, we don't trust that translation on the basis of infallible proof. We trust it on the basis of common standards of evidence. Similarly, when Josephus, Tacitus, and other sources give us information about the context of the Bible and the meaning of its terminology, they're giving us probable information, not infallible proof. When you rely on your eyesight to read the Bible, your eyesight isn't infallible. There are many things Christians believe, whether closely related to Christianity or more distantly related, based on fallible means.
If you're saying that the object of faith is infallible or that the source of something needs to be infallible, then so what? If God produced the image on the Shroud of Turin by means of the resurrection, then the source of the Shroud image is infallible. If I argue that the Shroud leads to faith in the God of scripture, that God is infallible. What do you mean when you say "We require infallible proof"? Judging from your posts, I doubt that you've given the issue much thought.
You write:
"The signs and wonders only attested to the previously preached word or called people's attention to the preaching of the word. Deut. 13:1-3. They never stood on their own as proof of anything."
Who argued that the Shroud of Turin "stands on its own"? What's argued is that it points to Jesus, his death, his resurrection, etc.
You write:
"Further with the completion of the canon of Scripture, they fell away as a necessary seal of an apostle's message."
This is now the fourth time I've had to correct you on this point (in this thread and another one). The issue isn't what's "necessary". I haven't argued that the Shroud is "a necessary seal". You keep burning straw men.
You write:
"And just as the sacraments accompany the word of God and are for our strengthening in the faith, they do not engender faith or convert anyone."
You need to interact with what I've already said on that subject.
Steve says,
ReplyDelete"On what definition? Van Tilian presuppositionalism doesn't reject extrabiblical evidence or rational arguments."
"You're not doing presuppositional apologetics. You're just preaching at people. If you think that's adequate, so be it, but don't call it apologetics."
Response:
Van Til would reject your perspective on the relationship between faith and extrabiblical evidence. He would also disagree about where you stand in terms of human reason. Van Til would argue that one cannot possibly interpret evidence correcly unless he presupposes the truth of the Christian worldview. He would say that human reason, apart from faith, is woefully inadequate to the task of producing believers. Evidence without faith and unregenerated reason is subject to all kinds of misinterpretations. Faith is the necessary prerequisite in order to arrive at an adaquate interpretation of the evidences. Man willingly and sinfully treats God's evidence unethically. Paul was unambiguous on this point in Romans one.
While historical and scientific evidences may indeed be edifying to one's faith, they can never serve as the basis for faith or the basis for accepting the testimony of Scripture. In other words, the Bible is not reliable because there is good extrabiblical support for it. There is good extrabiblical support for it because it is true. I do not deny evidence a place in evangelism or in apoologetics. I merely insist that we make sure it is located in its proper place.
Some evidences that should convince men of the truth of Christianity are as follows: the existence of the Church; observation of miraculous changes in Christian converts; the testimony of conscience and creation; the historical facts of the risen Christ recorded in Scripture; the ministry of the Holy Spirit convincing the world of sin. These evidences are more than enough justication for accepting the truth-claims of the Christian worldview. Moreover, these evidences do not stop at the place where we can say that Christianity is probably true, or that it is highly probable that God exists, or that the Christ event probably happened, or that the Bible is very likely the Word of God. As a presuppositionalist, and a biblical fideist, I claim with certainty that these things are absolutely true. Moreover, I claim that all the evidence I need is that evidence that is directly contained within Scripture, to include those outward manifestations produced directly by Scripture. In other words, all my evidence is indissolubly attached to Scripture.
I will say it one more time: historical, scientific, and archeological evidence is edifying to the faith. It is useful for exegesis. It can correct misinformation. Evidence is a very good thing so long as we use it ethically, so long as we use it faithfully, and keep it in its proper place.
I hope this clarifies my position.
Ed Dingess
Delete“Van Til would reject your perspective on the relationship between faith and extrabiblical evidence. He would also disagree about where you stand in terms of human reason.”
You need to expound and document what you think my position is on those issues.
“Van Til would argue that one cannot possibly interpret evidence correcly unless he presupposes the truth of the Christian worldview. He would say that human reason, apart from faith, is woefully inadequate to the task of producing believers. Evidence without faith and unregenerated reason is subject to all kinds of misinterpretations. Faith is the necessary prerequisite in order to arrive at an adaquate interpretation of the evidences.”
Van Til had a doctrine of common grace. Unbelievers are inconsistent. They can be inconsistently right as well as inconsistently wrong. Indeed, it’s impossible for them to be consistently wrong, for there is no consistent alternative.
Due to common grace, Van Til didn’t think unbelievers were beyond the reach of rational persuasion.
“Man willingly and sinfully treats God's evidence unethically. Paul was unambiguous on this point in Romans one.”
The unregenerate are just as hostile to the Gospel as they are to apologetics. If your argument devalues apologetics, then, by parity of argument, it devalues evangelism.
“While historical and scientific evidences may indeed be edifying to one's faith, they can never serve as the basis for faith or the basis for accepting the testimony of Scripture.”
The Holy Spirit can and does make use of evidence.
Rather than me expounding on what I think your position is on the issues, why don't you state in plain English. That would save us time and perhaps clear up any potential misunderstandings I have on your position. My deduction could be wrong. We can talk about consistency later.
DeleteCommon grace does not provide for rational persuasion to believe the gospel. Common grace does not bring men to faith in Christ. Common grace has already given men knowledge of God. Van Til says that men do not merely have the capacity to know God, they actually know God. The unbeliever's knowledge of God is not potential, it is actual. Scripture unambiguously reveals this to be true. When we act as if men don't actually know God, we pretend that Scripture is wrong. "Christians can bear witness of this God only if they humbly but boldly make the claim that only on the presupposition of the existence of this God is there any footing and verge for the interpretative efforts of man." Proofs only have probative force if they are formulated on a Christian basis. There is no neutrality. The unbeliever is not about to let you formulate your proofs upon a Christian basis. They would say you are assuming what you must prove. They insist on neutrality, suggesting that the proofs should rationally lead to whatever the truth might be. With this, Van Til would strongly disagree. Yet, this seems to be the crux of our difference.
My argument does not ipso facto devalue apologetics. What my argument purports to do is point apologetics back to revelation, back to Scripture, back to humility. I seek a biblical understanding of the relationship between faith and reason. I have a high regard for apologetic work. I think it is valuable so long as it is faithful to divine revelation, so long as it is reflective of a firmly biblical theology. Far too often, the enterprise of apologetics is an exercise of arrogant men who seem to be more interested in displaying their philosophical acumen and intellectual dexterity than they are in presenting the gospel. To many of them, presenting the gospel is just too boring. And should one criticize them for their disposition, they are branded an anti-intellectual.
The Holy Spirit can and does make use of evidence.
ReplyDeleteThen if Scripture is an evidence, the long argument/combox thread short would seem to follow. After all the title to this post is:
Is It Sinful To Produce Or Want Evidence Like The Shroud Of Turin?
Or if we prefer, what does Christ say?
Abraham told the rich man in hell that If his brothers would not hear Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31
But the shroud is from one who rose from the dead.
∴ They will not be persuaded.
thank you
So you're saying the Resurrection of Christ isn't evidentiary, even though the NT treats his resurrection as evidentiary.
DeleteRPV wrote:
Delete"Abraham told the rich man in hell that If his brothers would not hear Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31 But the shroud is from one who rose from the dead. ∴ They will not be persuaded."
You seem to be assuming that Jesus is describing what will occur with all unbelievers throughout history. You haven't given us any reason to accept that assumption. And it's a dubious assumption in light of other passages of scripture and post-Biblical history. The apostle Paul opposed Christianity, yet converted when he encountered the risen Jesus. Similarly, other opponents of Christianity since then have cited evidence for Jesus' resurrection as a factor leading to their conversion. What about non-Christians who don't reject Moses and the prophets, but instead are gradually being drawn to Christianity, like Cornelius prior to his conversion? Etc. Jesus is addressing a particular type of unbeliever in Luke 16, not all unbelievers. The fact that some unbelievers wouldn't come to faith even if they saw a man risen from the dead doesn't prove that all unbelievers fall into that category.
Besides, even if the Shroud weren't useful in converting people, it would be useful in other contexts.
steve2/06/2013 6:43 PM
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying the Resurrection of Christ isn't evidentiary, even though the NT treats his resurrection as evidentiary.
Distinguish. The NT is inspired and infallible "evidence". Do we want to claim that for the shroud?
Jason Engwer2/06/2013 6:58 PM
RPV wrote:
"Abraham told the rich man in hell that If his brothers would not hear Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31 But the shroud is from one who rose from the dead. ? They will not be persuaded."
You seem to be assuming that Jesus is describing what will occur with all unbelievers throughout history.
You’re assuming he’s not.
You haven't given us any reason to accept that assumption.
Likewise.
And it's a dubious assumption in light of other passages of scripture and post-Biblical history. The apostle Paul opposed Christianity, yet converted when he encountered the risen Jesus.
Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous. Can/will it happen again. (Mohammed?Joesph Smith?)
Similarly, other opponents of Christianity since then have cited evidence for Jesus' resurrection as a factor leading to their conversion.
Could they be mistaken?
What about non-Christians who don't reject Moses and the prophets, but instead are gradually being drawn to Christianity, like Cornelius prior to his conversion?
Acts while canonical describes what was going on before the canon was closed. And dreams as one of the “diverse manners” God has previously chosen to reveal himself have ceased (WCF1:1).
Etc. Jesus is addressing a particular type of unbeliever in Luke 16, not all unbelievers. The fact that some unbelievers wouldn't come to faith even if they saw a man risen from the dead doesn't prove that all unbelievers fall into that category.
Why not/prove.
Besides, even if the Shroud weren't useful in converting people, it would be useful in other contexts.
What are those contexts? Are they primary, secondary, tertiary/auxiliary or what?
Or could they be in the light of the Second Commandment a distraction and stone of stumbling for the reprobate?
Bob S
RPV
Delete"Distinguish. The NT is inspired and infallible "evidence". Do we want to claim that for the shroud?"
Why should I distinguish what you failed to distinguish. You quoted Lk 16:31 to prove whatever point you were attempting to make.
Well, were some people persuaded by the Resurrection of Christ or not? Did you intend to quote that as a blanket statement, meaning no one was ever persuaded by the Resurrection? If not, then you should have qualified your appeal at the outset.
So are you now admitting that evidence can be convincing?
BTW, do you agree with Conyers Middleton that there are no post-apostolic miracles?
RPV wrote:
Delete"Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous…. Could they be mistaken?... Acts while canonical describes what was going on before the canon was closed. And dreams as one of the 'diverse manners' God has previously chosen to reveal himself have ceased (WCF1:1)."
You give us no reason to apply Luke 16 beyond the people Jesus is addressing in that passage. Instead, you assume without argument that Jesus is addressing all unbelievers.
Then, when Paul's conversion contradicts your reading of Luke 16, you dismiss his conversion as "miraculous". How does the miraculous nature of his conversion resolve the problem it poses for your reading of Luke 16? All conversions are miraculous. And some of those miraculous conversions are brought about by means of encountering the risen Jesus or evidence for his resurrection.
You then dismiss all post-Biblical converts who cite evidence for Jesus' resurrection as a factor in their conversion. You ask, "Could they be mistaken?" Asking that question doesn't give us reason to think it's probable that they're all mistaken. And we don't assume that people are mistaken about their conversions as our default position. If you want us to think they were mistaken, you need to provide some reason for reaching that conclusion. People aren't normally dishonest or experiencing a memory lapse, for example, so we don't begin with an assumption that people are probably wrong about what they're saying regarding a subject they're in a good position to judge. So far, in order to preserve your speculative reading of Luke 16, you not only have to dismiss Paul's conversion, but also the claims of many post-Biblical converts.
Then you dismiss Cornelius' conversion by citing the Westminster Confession and making a comment about the canon and dreams. Why is it that we should avoid spending time and other resources on an extra-Biblical source like the Shroud, because it's extra-Biblical, yet it's acceptable for you to study and cite extra-Biblical sources like the Westminster Confession? And how does citing the Westminster Confession reconcile Cornelius' conversion with your reading of Luke 16?
You write:
"What are those contexts?"
I've already explained, many times. Similarly, a hymn, a book, or an archeological artifact wouldn't have to convert people in order to be useful in some manner.
steve2/06/2013 9:28 PM
ReplyDeleteRPV
"Distinguish. The NT is inspired and infallible "evidence". Do we want to claim that for the shroud?"
Why should I distinguish what you failed to distinguish. You quoted Lk 16:31 to prove whatever point you were attempting to make.
Ummm, Lk 16:31 is Scripture. The SoT is not. So what is your point? Luke 24:12?
Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
Since Christ was buried in a linen shroud.
And the SoT is a linen shroud.
∴ The SoT must be Christ’s shroud.
Rather:
Scripture says Christ was buried in a shroud.
But Scripture does not say Christ was buried in the SoT.
∴ Therefore the SoT is not the shroud of Christ.
Well, were some people persuaded by the Resurrection of Christ or not? Did you intend to quote that as a blanket statement, meaning no one was ever persuaded by the Resurrection? If not, then you should have qualified your appeal at the outset.
Yeah, some eyewitnesses were. Some weren’t. Why not?
Some of those who hear the preaching of the resurrection are converted. Some are not. Why not?
So are you now admitting that evidence can be convincing?
See above. What kind of evidence. Fallible or infallible?
BTW, do you agree with Conyers Middleton that there are no post-apostolic miracles?
Don’t know CM’s work or beliefs.
Warfield didn’t think there were any if I understand the gist of him on Perfectionism.
In light of the purpose of miracles in Act 2:22, Heb. 2:4 I am inclined to say no.
Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Hebrews 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
Did Knox or Peden have “second sight”? Dunno. Weren’t there, much more if they did, it cannot be made an item of faith ecclesiastically, to discipline belief in or no.
thanks,
Bob S
RPV
Delete"Don’t know CM’s work or beliefs. Warfield didn’t think there were any if I understand the gist of him on Perfectionism. In light of the purpose of miracles in Act 2:22, Heb. 2:4 I am inclined to say no."
So, for instance, you don't think God ever heals anyone in answer to prayer.
"See above. What kind of evidence. Fallible or infallible?"
So you're admitting that your appeal to Lk 16:31 is qualified. Some people believe when they witnessed the Resurrection.
"Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous. Can/will it happen again. (Mohammed?Joesph Smith?)"
Do you agree with the Westminster Confession that the Pope is the Antichrist (a la Mt 23, 2 Thes 2, Rev 13)?
"Because we are not archaelogists, but Christians. We require infallible proof...IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism."
Perhaps you can identify the author of the following statement:
"We determine what books have a place in this canon or divine rule by an examination of the evidences which show that each of them, severally, was written by the inspired prophet or apostle whose name it bears; or, as in the case of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, written under the superintendence and published by the authority of an apostle. This evidence in the case of the Sacred Scriptures is of the same kind of historical and critical proof as is relied upon by all literary men to establish the genuineness and authenticity of any other ancient writings, such as the Odes of Horace or the works of Herodotus. In general this evidence is (a) Internal, such as language, style, and the character of the matter they contain; (b) External, such as the testimony of contemporaneous writers, the universal consent of contemporary readers, and corroborating history drawn from independent credible sources."
For unless the sovereign God stands behind reality, human experience operates in a void, and reality is unintelligible. The truth of Christianity is thus the axiom on which all rationality depends, rather than the conclusion of a process of argumentation. For there can be no epistemology common to all men. Unless we start with this God, we will never get to him. It is not only useless, but wrong, to appeal to theistic arguments or historical vindications in defense of the Christian faith.(1)
ReplyDeleteThe truth of what Van Til thought about traditional apologetics and its emphasis on evidences: "the traditional method of Apologetics compromises Christianity in order to win men to an acceptance of it."(2)
The one thing the Christian is supposed to do in proclaiming and giving an answer for the truth, is generally the one thing he does not do in modern apologetics: proclaim the truth without compromise. I have heard the "Scripture isn't enough." I have read that fallible evidence is superior to infallible evidence. I even witness the folly that evidence within the drama of revelation itself is extrabiblical. Detaching the apologetic effort from a sound biblial theology is not only ineffective and harmful to the cause of evangelism, it is degrades the message of the gospel of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
1. Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til., ed. E. R. Geehan (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Nutley, NJ, 1971).
2. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith. 257