"go, sell all that you have and give to the poor..."

[oxmixmudd]

Then why not believe every alleged supernatural event? Why be selective?

I do not know how broadly you are casting 'every' in your statement above, but wrt the book of acts, one has the capacity to believe these were good people who genuinely believed what they were saying and retelling. That Luke himself was a man of integrity and well educated. That means he, they are not purposefully making things up so as to deceive people.

I approach the scripture with the belief that the writers were recording what they saw and heard as they saw and heard it. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

the simple truth is that even a skeptic can, if they want to, find explanations for what is recorded in acts without resorting to the assumption the writers are lying about the events being recorded.

Why should a literary morality tale require lying?

The book of acts is not a literary morality tale. It is a history of the earliest years of the church. As such, anything in it that was not an actual recounting of events as understood by those witnessing them would be lies at least wrt the source used.

[Mountain Man]

Then why not believe every alleged supernatural event? Why be selective?

What other supernatural events are you referring to?

[mossrose]

I do not know how broadly you are casting 'every' in you statement above, but wrt the book of acts, one has the capacity to believe these were good people who genuinely believed what they were saying and retelling. That means thay are not purposefully making things up so as to deceive people.

I approach the scripture with the belief that the writers were recording what they saw and heard as they saw and heard it. I have no reason to believe otherwise.





The book of acts is not a literary morality tale. It is a history of the earliest years of the church. As such, anything in it that was not an actual recounting of events as understood by those witnessing them would be lies at least wrt the source used.

I approach scripture with the belief the writers were inspired by God. Therefore there are no lies in it, as HA suggests.

[oxmixmudd]

I approach scripture with the belief the writers were inspired by God. Therefore there are no lies in it, as HA suggests.

As do I. Most important however, is that our two statements are not mutually exclusive. My statement - however - does make clear that the belief the writer's were lying - even from within an atheist worldview - is an unnecessary and uncharitable choice.

[mossrose]

As do I. Most important however, is that our two statements are not mutually exclusive. My statement - however - does make clear that the belief the writer's were lying - even from within an atheist worldview - is an unnecessary and uncharitable choice.

And I wasn't disagreeing with your statement, Jim, rather just adding a bit to it.

[Sparko]

You really believe the events in Acts 5.1-11 events occurred as described in the text? That two people were killed with a word/look by Peter?

You do not view this scenario as a literary construct invented to reinforce a moral point in a dramatic narrative?

I take it as literal. But told in a way that is a type of parable. It was a story told to Luke and he retold it in Acts 5. Did it really happen or was it just a story? I suppose you could think it was just a story, but that Luke believed it enough to include it in his book. But as a Christian, I believe the Bible is divinely inspired in its autographs. So yes, I do believe the events happened, although maybe not exactly as the translations say. Unless you have some evidence that this was a later addition to the book (like the ending in Mark was?)

[oxmixmudd]

And I wasn't disagreeing with your statement, Jim, rather just adding a bit to it.

Cool - thanks!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I approach scripture with the belief the writers were inspired by God. Therefore there are no lies in it, as HA suggests.

I have never used the word "lie". You have assumed that.

I would contend that this scenario was a literary creation for kerygmatic and didactic purposes and that it was employed by the author of Acts for the edification and instruction of the specific audience he was addressing

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I take it as literal. But told in a way that is a type of parable.

How can it be both at the same time?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What other supernatural events are you referring to?

Make your selection. There are plenty from which to choose.

[Sparko]

How can it be both at the same time?

A parable doesn't mean it is false. It is just a "lesson" which could be based on actual events/people. In other words, Luke chose a real event to teach a lesson in his book. The fact that he uses actual names and the fact that he mentioned how the church knew of it and were afraid suggests it actually happened , rather than a parable that says something like "A man went before the king and blah blah blah"

[Mountain Man]

Make your selection. There are plenty from which to choose.

Okay, so you don't have any particular events in mind and are just throwing out a general statement instead of making a substantive point. Fair enough.

[tabibito]

Such as the event in Kyoto in 1974 (was it)? Where a fire in a street of traditionally constructed houses burnt out of control until about midway along the street, with minor scorch marks on the side of the first building that survived. No natural explanation has been advanced for that sudden stop - the reason is a complete mystery. However, a broken pottery tanuki stood at the end of the burnt out section, so the locals decided that it had sacrificed itself to save the street. So ... natural but not understood causes, or supernatural? Me - I file it in the "too hard basket."

[NorrinRadd]

I'm theologically conservative and take the supernatural accounts in Scripture as true and factual.

So yes, Ananias and Sapphira really did die as Peter forespoke through the Spirit, though whether his words were causative or "merely" predictive is not clear.

I also believe the events of Acts 2 happened historically as recorded -- but I believe they were also framed as a reversal of Babel, and possibly as a successor to the Mosaic Law-Giving account in Exodus.

I believe in the factual veracity of even the "odd" supernatural accounts, such as Jesus healing by spitting on people, people being healed by shadows, cloths, the hem of a garment. Walking on water. Ax heads floating. Bears killing youths because the insulted the prophet. Red Sea parting. Sun and moon remaining motionless to give Joshua and Israel more time for bloody vengeance.

[Sparko]

I will try to answer Hypatia.

Yes, I believe the bible which means I believe in the "supernatural"

Why don't I believe all supernatural claims? Mostly because believing in the bible doesn't mean disregarding skepticism or logic. I will look at any claim and make decisions on if they are real depending on the circumstances involved.

Ghosts and associated phenom. such as psychic mediums - This is one thing that I don't believe in, but based on what the bible teaches. It teaches that when you die you don't hang around on Earth, but go before God, who decides where you end up, heaven or hell. UFOs? Not sure if they are considered supernatural. I do believe that there could be life on other planets but I don't think they have reached us, or if they have, they would spend their time buzzing people or exploding cows. Demon possession? Yeah I think that could happen but most cases are just mental illness or fakery. Big Foot? Again, not supernatural, but I think it is mostly a bunch of bunk, fakery, mixed in with people seeing something like a bear and imagining it was big foot.