The Death Of Stephen Braude

He died last Saturday. He was a major figure in paranormal research. I learned a lot from him. He had a rare combination of breadth and depth of knowledge of the field, carefulness, and communication skills. He worked at an unusually high level in a context that's unusually difficult, one that's been neglected and is often despised, despite being so important. One of the ways you can measure somebody's significance is how often you wanted to hear from him in important contexts. There were many times over the years when a paranormal issue came up, and I wanted to hear from Stephen Braude.

You can find him referred to in a lot of places in our archives, by me and by others who have posted here. Here's a Psi Encyclopedia article that provides an overview of his life and paranormal work. I've often recommended his book The Gold Leaf Lady (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2007) as an introduction to the paranormal. I'd still recommend it as a good place to start, both in terms of an introduction to the paranormal and as an introduction to Braude. Here's a video he participated in around the time the book came out. It's about fifteen minutes long and will provide you with an overview of Braude's background and the book. I've also linked this video in the past, in which Braude discusses some of the paranormal cases he studied the most, like the Ted Serios case. During the last several years of his life, Braude did some interviews about various paranormal topics with Jeffrey Mishlove. You can find them by running a search with Braude's name at Mishlove's YouTube channel.

The Cumulative Effect Of The Pre-Irenaean Sources On Gospel Authorship

I've sometimes linked a collection of resources I put together on the best and earliest evidence for the authorship of the gospels. A mistake that can be made when evaluating that kind of evidence is to view the information in too isolated a manner. There's a cumulative effect to the evidence, and sometimes two or more things take on an added significance when considered together, a significance they wouldn't have if considered individually.

The Maturing Of Matthew And John

I want to expand on some things I said in my last post. When somebody like Bart Ehrman refers to the unlikelihood that the average first-century Jew without much of an education, an ancient fisherman like John, etc. would compose a document like the gospel of Matthew or the gospel of John, there are other factors involved that are being neglected.

The Ehrman/Licona Debate On Gospel Authorship

Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona recently debated the subject. I listened to the debate while doing something else and didn't take notes, so I'll just be summarizing some points that have come to mind after listening to the debate. Mike had some good things to say, but I want to supplement what he offered.

An Interview With Stephen Carlson On Christmas Issues

I recently saw a Facebook post from Chris Powell that linked an interview with Stephen Carlson about some Christmas issues. Carlson makes a lot of good points about the meaning and historicity of the infancy narratives, especially Luke 2. The interview is about an hour long and is well worth listening to. You should also read his article on Luke 2, which is one of the best resources available on Luke's census account and some other issues.

I disagree with some of what he says during the interview. I would date Luke's gospel earlier, for reasons I've explained here, among other places.

Know Why You're Here

“I have food to eat that you do not know about. . . . My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.” John 4:32–34

Jesus ate obedience.

Few things are more energizing than to know why we are here and do it.

— John Piper (@JohnPiper) October 5, 2024

The Time More Hoped For Than All The Centuries

"The inhabiter and founder of the heavens lived on earth so that the human person, the earth-dweller, might travel to heaven. O day more lightsome than all the sun! O time more hoped for than all the centuries! What the angels were waiting for, what the seraphim and cherubim and the mysteries of heaven did not know - this has been revealed in our time. What they saw through a glass and in mere semblance we perceive in reality." (Maximus of Turin, Sermon 45:1, Boniface Ramsey, trans., The Sermons Of St. Maximus Of Turin [Mahwah, New Jersey: Newman Press, 1989], 249)

Does the behavior of the figures involved in Matthew 2 make sense?

I've seen some recent skeptical videos that repeat the common objection that the behavior of the people involved in Matthew 2 doesn't make sense (God's behavior, the behavior of Herod, the behavior of the magi, etc.). We've addressed those issues many times over the years, and I want to gather some of those responses in one place. Here are five posts I've written that address the topic to one extent or another: one, two, three, four, and five. And here's one Steve Hays wrote.

The Discussion Of Jesus' Birthplace Between Jimmy Akin And Bart Ehrman

I just listened to it live. There's supposed to be a recording available within a few days, but I'll just go by my memory and notes for now.

A Summary Of The Evidence Against A Pagan Holiday As The Basis Of Christmas

Tom Schmidt is in the midst of posting a Twitter thread on the subject, which he started earlier this month. He also linked a recent Twitter thread by Tim O'Neill about English Heritage retracting its claim that the December 25 date was taken from paganism.

Did Paul believe in the virgin birth?

C.J. Cornthwaite recently produced a video that's partly about the subject. I want to make several points in response:

Luke 3:38 And The Virgin Birth

The reference to Adam as "the son of God" in Luke 3:38 is unusual. And Jesus had just been referred to as the Son of God in Luke 3:22, right before the genealogy. The concept of Jesus' being the Son of God is a prominent theme in early Christianity, in Luke's writings and elsewhere. The similar terminology involved in the references to Jesus and Adam, the proximity between the references to Jesus' Sonship and Adam's, and the unusualness of referring to Adam as a son of God make more sense if Luke is paralleling the two.

They can be paralleled in multiple ways. Adam's initial sinlessness is reminiscent of Jesus' sinlessness, Adam's initial good relationship with God is reminiscent of Jesus' good relationship with the Father, etc. But the reference to Adam's sonship is in a genealogy, so it makes the most sense to focus on a parallel in terms of origins or begetting.

That doesn't single out a virgin birth. Jesus, in his humanity, could have been created without a father or mother, as Adam was. But the parallel could also be partial, so that Jesus' humanity comes from God's intervention, without sexual intercourse, even though he has one or more human parents. Isaac is referred to in the genealogy as the son of Abraham (verse 34), without being referred to in any unusual way, unlike Adam, which provides some evidence that Luke has something more in mind than just the sort of Divine intervention involved in Isaac's conception. The wording of verse 38 doesn't single out the virgin birth, but it leads us in the direction of some sort of Divine intervention in Jesus' origins beyond what we see with Isaac. The larger context, in Luke's gospel and in early Christianity more broadly, provides us with further information, including the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin. Most likely, both Luke 3:23 and 3:38 are alluding to the virgin birth.

That provides us with another example of how the material in Luke 1-2 is reflected in later chapters of the gospel, despite what critics often allege to the contrary. For other examples, see here.

Early Extrabiblical Sources On Jesus' Childhood

It's sometimes argued that the infancy narratives were added to Matthew and/or Luke sometime after the documents were originally published, perhaps even as late as around the time of Marcion. Or an infancy narrative will be considered part of the original document, but the document will be dated late, such as in the 90s or even sometime in the second century.

If Jesus was born outside Bethlehem, would the ancient sources be so unsupportive of that conclusion?

Critics of the Bethlehem birthplace often act as if they're confident that Jesus wasn't born there or that he was born in Nazareth instead. I've addressed their arguments many times, such as in the posts collected here. The article here argues for the likelihood that the early Christians and their opponents had access to reliable information on Jesus' birthplace and the likelihood that they obtained that information. For a brief overview of the evidence for the Bethlehem birthplace, do a Ctrl F search on "shows" here and go to the last hyphenated section here for information on ancient non-Christian sources. What I want to focus on in this post is something I wrote in a Facebook thread a few years ago. This is about whether evidence was lost or suppressed for a false date Jesus and the early Christians had set for the second coming. The same principles can be applied to the notion that Jesus was born outside Bethlehem, but that the evidence for that birthplace was lost or suppressed:

The Value Of Geographical Issues In The Christmas Context

I wrote a post a few years ago about a geographical argument for prophecy fulfillment related to Christmas. It's based on Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 9:1. I want to discuss a few of the reasons why such geographical factors are evidentially significant, both in the context of prophecy and in other contexts: