I continue my reflections on the historical problem of miracles with another "blast from the past":   ******************************************************* Yesterday I started to talk about why historians cannot demonstrate that a miracle such as the resurrection happened because doing so requires a set of presuppositions that are not generally shared by historians doing their work. Over the years I’ve thought a lot about this question, and have tried to explain on several occasions why a “miracle” can never be shown, on historical grounds, to have happened -- even if it did. Here is a slightly different way of approaching the matter, as I expressed it in an earlier publication on the historical Jesus: ******************************************************** People today typically think of miracles as supernatural violations of natural law, divine interventions into the natural course of events. Miracles, by definition, are events that contradict the normal workings of nature in such a way as to be virtually beyond belief and to require an acknowledgment that supernatural forces have been at work. This understanding is itself the major stumbling block [...]

I just flew into London on the red eye this morning.  As many of you know, my wife Sarah is a Brit, and we have lots of family here.   About fifteen years ago we bought a flat in Wimbledon, which is our base of operation when we’re here.  It’s a hoppin’ part of the universe just now, with the tournament starting.   I won’t be going this year, but our sister-in-law Gill (on the blog!), managed to get a couple of tickets for today, so she and Sarah, now, as we speak, are watching Djokovic.  Not that I’m envious. Tomorrow early I fly to Amsterdam, and then take a train over to Leiden for a meeting of the editorial board of Vigiliae Christianae, one of the premier journals of Patristics (i.e. studies focusing on the “church fathers” and “mothers”).   There are seven editors-in-chief, most of whom are European.  I’m the American.   I’ve been doing this for about eleven years. It’s an honor and a privilege to serve in this capacity.  Vigiliae Christianae, by any estimate, is [...]

I have been discussing the matter of contradictions in the Bible and the question of why they matter.  My overarching point is that they matter NOT simply so we can say “Aha!  There are contradictions!”  They matter for other things. The one point I’ve made so far is that they matter for anyone who is committed to the authority of Scripture.  I need to say that I think the point I was trying to make in that post has possibly been misunderstood.  When I asked how the Bible could be authoritative if there are contradictions, I did not mean it to be a rhetorical question, with the obvious answer being: It can’t be authoritative!  Some readers clearly took the question that way, but in fact I had a different intention. My intention was ... To read the rest of this post you will need to belong to the blog.  Joining is very fast and relatively cheap.  And every nickel goes to charity.  So why not join? My intention was to ask “How CAN it be [...]

In my previous post I explained why the contradictions found in the Bible affect a certain understanding of the inspiration of Scripture.  The contradictions are not a point in and of themselves (OK, OK, so there are contradictions.  So what?).   There actually is a payoff.  In factd, several.  One of the payoffs is that the fundamentalist Christian claim that the Bible has no mistakes of any kind is almost certainly wrong.   But as I have said this is not the only point or even the most important one. I think we can all agree that most people read the Bible for religious reasons, pure and simple.  They think that in *some* sense it is the word of God, and that it provides the guidance they need for what to believe and how to live.   But what if there are *different* and even *irreconcilable* differences from one biblical author to another on precisely these issues?  Which part do you follow?  For then it is not a simple matter of reading any part of the Bible and [...]

Here's a new idea: feel free to suggest to me that I repost one of the posts that you most like from earlier days on the blog!  That was done, unsolicited, by one of the long-time faithful followers of the blog, who wanted to see me repost a post from four years, ago, on why I continue to be obsessed with Jesus even though I am not a believer.   Here it is! ************************************************************************* There is a relatively new online journal, “On Faith,” that is top-of-the line and very interesting. A couple of days ago they published a short article that I wrote, in connection with How Jesus Became God; I called the article “Why I Am Obsessed with Jesus.” It contains some views you will have seen from me before, and some others. Here is the article as I sent it to them. (The full link to the online version in the journal comes at the end). ********************************************************** I finally figured out why I’m so obsessed with Jesus. It makes sense that Jesus mattered to [...]