Kinds of Miracles

 There are two basic kinds of events:

• Natural Events
• Non-Natural Events

DEFINITION:

A natural event is a physical event that was caused to occur solely by other physical events. Presumably, most, if not all, physical events are natural events.

1. A non-natural event is either a non-physical event, or is a physical event that was NOT caused to occur solely by other physical events.

This is true based on the definition of "Natural Events."

2. If there are any non-physical events, then those events would be non-natural events.  

This is true based on (1).  The creation or annihilation of an angel, demon, or finite deity by God would be examples of non-physical events.

If there are any physical events that have no cause, then those events would be non-natural events.

If there are any physical events that are caused, at least in part, by non-physical events, then those events would be non-natural events.

3. No miracles are natural events.

This is the case because an event is a miracle only if it is caused, at least in part, by a non-physical event (such as being caused by an action of God), but all natural events are, by definition, caused solely by physical events.

4. All miracles are non-natural events.

This is the case because all events are either natural events or non-natural events, and because of (3).

Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: DRAFT Chapters

 I have been working on this book for over seven years[1]:

Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1

Previously, this book was divided into ten chapters, and it had grown to over 400 pages (of single-spaced text).

Because this book is filled with careful critical analysis of arguments and careful evaluation of arguments, I believe that most people would feel overwhelmed by such a book being over 400 pages long.  

To shorten the book, I have decided to focus the first volume on just one of the two main issues that were covered in my ten draft chapters: The Failure of Peter Kreeft's Case for the resurrection of Jesus in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics.  

I have removed three chapters from Volume 1, and will use those three chapters as material for Volume 2 of this series. Volume 2 will focus on this idea: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory.   That leaves Volume 1 with just seven chapters, and shortens this first volume to a much more reasonable 257 pages (of single-spaced text).

Here are the current DRAFT chapters of 

Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus 

Volume 1: The Failure of Peter Kreeft's Case

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Careful Argument Analysis

Chapter 3: Objections to the Swoon Theory Based on John

Chapter 4: Objections to the Swoon Theory Based on Other Gospels

Chapter 5: Objections to the Swoon Theory NOT Based on the Gospels

Chapter 6: More than Five Theories

Chapter 7: Conclusion

========================

END NOTES

1. For example, in April of 2019, I published the first post of a series of posts about objections by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli to the Conspiracy Theory:

Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 1

Defending the Conspiracy Theory – INDEX

In June of 2019, I published the first post of a series about their objections to the Swoon Theory: 

Defending the Swoon Theory – Part 1

Defending the Swoon Theory – INDEX

In May of 2021, I published a post indicating that I planned to call my first book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, and that this book would focus on Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus:

My First Book

The Disciples Were Not Present at the Alleged Trial Before Pilate

1. THE ALLEGED TRIAL BEFORE PILATE IS HISTORICALLY DUBIOUS

In Chapter 6 of my book Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Resuscitation of the Swoon Theory, in the subsection called "TEN HISTORICAL CLAIMS ABOUT AN ALLEGED TRIAL BEFORE PILATE", I show that there are several good reasons to doubt the historicity or historical reliability of the Gospel accounts of the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate.[1]  This means that there are good reasons to doubt that the disciples of Jesus witnessed alleged events at a trial of Jesus before Pilate. If there was no trial of Jesus before Pilate, then obviously there were no disciples present at that fictional trial.  

2. IF THERE WAS A TRIAL BEFORE PILATE, THE ALLEGED EVENTS IN THE TRIAL ARE DUBIOUS

On the other hand, if there was a trial of Jesus before Pilate, then it is likely that some of the alleged events and details of that trial, as presented in the Gospels, did not actually occur and thus were not observed by anyone, including Jesus' disciples.  For example, if Jesus was not actually scourged by a Roman soldier during or immediately following the trial before Pilate, then none of Jesus' disciples observed Jesus being scourged by a Roman soldier.

3. JESUS DISCIPLES WERE IN HIDING DURING THE TRIAL

No Gospel account mentions that any of Jesus' disciples were present at the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate. Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark indicates that the disciples fled and abandoned Jesus when he was arrested, and the Gospel of Matthew agrees with Mark on this point (Mark 14:48-50 & Matthew 26:55-56). The Gospel of Mark also indicates that only some of the women who followed Jesus were present at the crucifixion, and the Gospel of Matthew agrees with Mark on this point (Mark 15:40-41 & Matthew 27:55-56), implying that the twelve disciples of Jesus were still in hiding at that time. If Jesus' twelve disciples fled and abandoned Jesus when he was arrested, and if Jesus' twelve disciples were not present during his crucifixion, then it is unlikely that they were present at the alleged trial before Pilate.

This is one reason why many Jesus and NT scholars doubt the historicity or historical reliability of the Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate:

About the events reported between arrest and execution, including the trials before Jewish and Roman authorities, I have little historical conficence. The reason: whatever happened was not witnessed by Jesus' followers; they had fled and were not there.[2]       - Marcus Borg

 

END NOTES

1. You can read a DRAFT of Chapter 6 of my book here:

https://thinkingcriticallyabout.podbean.com/e/chapter-6-three-objections-to-the-swoon-theory-by-william-craig/

2. Marcus Borg, "Why Was Jesus Killed?" in The Meaning of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996), p.87.

Parapsychology and the Search for Psi - Part1: Overview of Parapsychology

 

There are three main kinds of alleged paranormal phenomena (called psi) that are studied in parapsychology:

• ESP (Extra-Sensory Perception) - knowledge without the use of ordinary senses
• PK (Psychokinesis) - mind over matter
• SOC (Survival Of Consciousness) - life after death, reincarnation, near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences

There are three main kinds of ESP:

The history of parapsychology can be divided into four main periods:

• Early Individual Investigations of Psi (before 1882)
• Early Organized Investigations of Psi (beginning in 1882 with the founding of The Society for Psychical Research)   
• Early Parapsychology Investigations of Psi (beginning in 1930 with the founding of the Parapsychology Lab at Duke University)
• Modern Parapsychology Investigations of Psi (beginning in 1970 with...) 

The Historical Unreliability of the Passion Story in the Gospel of Mark - INDEX

 

The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Matthew - INDEX

REASONS FOR THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

The stories about alleged events in the life of Jesus found in the Gospel of Matthew involve changes and additions to the stories about the life of Jesus from the Gospel of Mark and those changes and additions by the author of the Gospel of Matthew are dubious and historically unreliable. 

There are at least five reasons that support this conclusion:

REASON #1: There are several general considerations about the Gospel of Matthew that suggest that its additions and changes to stories from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable. I will present such general considerations later in this post. 

REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about the birth, infancy, or childhood of Jesus, but the Gospel of Matthew adds stories of five such events, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of those stories in the Gospel of Matthew. 

REASON #3: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his followers, but the Gospel of Matthew adds stories about two events involving alleged appearances of the risen Jesus and about another event related to the alleged empty tomb, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of these additional stories in the Gospel of Matthew.

 REASON #4: In Chapters 3 through 25, the Gospel of Matthew adds sixteen events that are not found in the Gospel of Mark, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of those accounts of additional events.

REASON #5: The various additions and changes that the author of the Gospel of Matthew makes to the Passion Narrative (about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus) in the Gospel of Mark are consistently dubious and are thus historically unreliable.

The above five reasons are sufficient to show it is very probable that changes and additions made by the author of the Gospel of Matthew to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable, and thus in terms of stories about Jesus, the Gospel of Matthew has very little historical information about Jesus to offer us beyond what we find in the Gospel of Mark.

The Historical Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - INDEX

Here are links to my posts about the historical unreliability of the stories about alleged events in the life of Jesus found in the Gospel of Luke that involve changes or additions to the stories about alleged events in the life of Jesus found in the Gospel of Mark:

The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 1: General Considerations

The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 2: Birth, Infancy, & Childhood Stories

The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 3: Unhistorical Genealogy

The Unreliability of the Gospel of Luke - Part 4: Chapter 1

NOTE:

I plan to write several more posts about the historical unreliability of the Gospel of Luke, and will add links to this page as those posts are written and published.