Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

The miracles in Acts are pretty unimpressive and easy to do by today's faith healers, psychics and Appalachian hillbillies. Escaping from jail is a lucky break, maybe, but a miracle?

If your beliefs are dependent on such tawdry wonders you don't have a religion, you have a side show. Genuine philosophies stand on the merits of their ideas, not anecdotal gimmicks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2009 06:44AM by linc.

it doesnt matter what the miracles were supposed to be. what matters is that jeurgen and pb didnt witness the supposed miracles themselves. they are taking someone elses word that miracles occurred.

this means that jeurgen and pb are dupes. how else should the matter be put?

Linc I agree the Acts' miracles are pretty standard, run of the mill stuff. Paul had a few lucky breaks, most came with the help of the Romans.

Hey Indy pb and Georgie could always argue that life is a miracle.

Jun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Juerg, could you provide ONE instance where
> "supernatural" events having occurred and verified
> beyond the doubt?

Juergen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyond whose doubt?

Jun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Figure of speech. Beyond YOUR doubt I guess. But
> do also supply us with what you think qualify as
> supporting evidence and we shall discuss and judge
> if those said "evidence" is suffice to establish
> and justify a believe of said "supernatural"
> claim.

The point is, in this day an age not a single verifiable supernatural claim exist. It is thus perfectly natural that we assume that the supernatural can never exist; in the same way that we assume the sun will always raise from the east every morning and sets at the west.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Juni {^á´¥^}


"Don't judge other people just because they sin differently from you!" ~ Anon

Three things you (probably) don't know about Islam
[www.youtube.com]

Welcome To Belgistan -- The New Muslim Capital Of Europe
[www.youtube.com]

The ignorant see events as subject to the whims of the gods, but nature doesn't make arbitrary decisions, that's why it is more wondrous than any Virgin Mary on a burnt tortilla. And it never demands praise for its accomplishments.

Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pb, have you or anyone actually listed these
> miracles that you're talking about Paul doing? I
> mean, are we talking about specific, well known
> miracles that he performed and were then
> documented by corroborating witnesses or are we
> talking about whatever he was referring to when he
> essentially said in his letters, "Remember all
> those miracles I did for y'all?".

pond,

I'm not aware that specific miracles are ennumerated by Paul in his letters. I don't think that any are. There are a few passages, like this one, in which he draws the attention of the people to whom he was writing to the fact that miracles are a common happening in their community and that those miracles are considered to be evidence of the blessing of the Spirit and that they serve to authenticate the calling of men and women who claim to be apostles.

That there were events which the community of believers regarded to be signs, wonders and miracles cannot be doubted from the text of Paul's letters.

It seems likely to me that the miracle stories in Acts--and probably in the Gospels as well--describe the kind of events to which Paul refers. While Paul's letters were written earlier, they were not written that much earlier. I can think of one such miracle account concerning something Paul did that is mentioned in the book of Acts. However, I'll only go so far as to say that those miracles are probably of the kind mentioned in the historical narratives included in the New Testament.

We only have primary source material on miracles from the letters of Paul. There is a limited amount of information we can glean from them. The rest is only speculation. Some of it is educated speculation but it is still speculation.

Fascinated_foreigner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pb, have you or anyone actually listed these
> miracles that you're talking about Paul doing?
>
> Here you go Pondy
>
>
> Acts 13:6-12
> Paul makes a false prophet called Bar Jesus go
> blind. (way da go Paulie)
>
> Acts 14:8-20
> Paul makes a crippled man walk (how original)
>
> Acts 16:16-19
> Paul uses his magic powers to escape from jail.
> (Pretty cool)
>
> Acts 19:11-17
> People use the actual garments wore by Paul to
> exorcise demons (ho-hum)
>
> Acts 20:9-12
> Paul brings a dead man back to life again. (double
> ho-hum)
>
> Acts 28: 2-8
> Paul gets bitten by a poisonous snake but
> doesn’t suffer any effects.
>
> That’s about it really, nothing special.
>
> You want some crazy miracles read the Gnostic
> gospels. The gospel of Thomas has some beauties
> attributed to jesus. As a child Jesus brings clay
> bird to life, he also kills a kid for bumping into
> him.

ff,

I'd'a loved to have you in a university class. These are all secondary accounts.

D---

I loved to almost, but not quite flunk people who deserve to fail.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2009 03:46PM by pb.

Juergen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pb Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Amen, J..
> >
> > But, their identity is wrapped up in the myth
> that
> > they are people of reason. They are deluded in
> > that but it would take more courage than they
> have
> > ever displayed here to make that admission.
>
> Looks like I'm going to have to agree. I guess the
> realisation that you built your house on sand is a
> pretty scary one.

Well, it can be scary or, for some, it would be reason to build another house. It's clear that these guys are either in denial--a real possibility for over-thinking intellectual types, especially self-proclaimed 'freethinkers' and sciencists--or they're just hoping the rains don't come down, the streams don't rise and the winds don't blow and beat against that house--a little Matt. 7 lingo, there.

Hey Indy pb and Georgie could always argue that life is a miracle.-ff

they could but theyve never witnessed the creation of life. they never witnessed any of the miracles written about in the bible. they base their belief on second or third hand reports or worse.

to believe someone elses account that a miracle occurred is incredibly naive. its incredibly irrational. but fundamentalist christians like jeurg and pb are no worse than fundamentalist muslims hindus jews etc. none think reasonably about these issues. none can think reasonably about these issues. they just dont have that ability. thats the reason theyre always either killing each other or threatening to.

Thanks for your reply, pb. It was highly illuminating.

"That there were events which the community of believers regarded to be signs, wonders and miracles cannot be doubted from the text of Paul's letters." -pb

No argument from me on that. It's the "regarded" part that I think is the weak link here. That things happened is not the dispute. It's the interpretation of those things that are. I'm sure that back in those days pretty much anything could be regarded as a sign or miracle if the timing was just right or the event rare enough. And I'm sure that, as your comment above alludes, Paul had no monopoly on them.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Indy pb and Georgie could always argue that
> life is a miracle.-ff
>
> they could but theyve never witnessed the creation
> of life. they never witnessed any of the miracles
> written about in the bible. they base their belief
> on second or third hand reports or worse.

Life doesn't meet the definition of a miracle.
>
> to believe someone elses account that a miracle
> occurred is incredibly naive. its incredibly
> irrational.

Nothing in what I've written indicates that I believe someone else's account that a miracle occurred.

> but fundamentalist christians like
> jeurg and pb are no worse than fundamentalist
> muslims hindus jews etc. none think reasonably
> about these issues. none can think reasonably
> about these issues. they just dont have that
> ability. thats the reason theyre always either
> killing each other or threatening to.

Why do you believe that reasonability is the standard of anything that is necessarily good or correct? Based on the history of things done by reasonable people, that's a very peculiar belief.

What led you to believe in reasonability, indy? It seems to me that to believe in reasonability defies reason. What do you do it?

Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for your reply, pb. It was highly
> illuminating.
>
> "That there were events which the community of
> believers regarded to be signs, wonders and
> miracles cannot be doubted from the text of Paul's
> letters." -pb
>
> No argument from me on that. It's the "regarded"
> part that I think is the weak link here. That
> things happened is not the dispute. It's the
> interpretation of those things that are.

To this point, I've simply presented the quote and reasonable conclusions that can be drawn for the mention of sign, wonders and miracles by Paul in this context.

> I'm sure that back in those days pretty much anything could
> be regarded as a sign or miracle if the timing was
> just right or the event rare enough. And I'm sure
> that, as your comment above alludes, Paul had no
> monopoly on them.

I don't agree that your assessment that 'pretty much anything could be regarded as a miracle' is accurate. You've done a marvellous job of receiving this historical data with openness and with respect for Paul and the early Christian community. Don't blow it now. One thing you have to take into account is that everything Christians did from early on was heavily scrutinized by the Romans and the Jews. It can't be doubted that the movement was growing rapidly and Romans and Jews each had their own reasons to fear it.

I say that to make the case that if it was easy to call these so-called miracles into question, there were many people around who would be glad to do it. Most people today think Benny Hinn's a joke and still, his miracles are easily exposed as being, at the very least, questionable. Few people thought that the early Christian movement was something to laugh at and still the conversation about miracles continued to be a part of the conversation in the early Christian community. What's more, as can be seen from that Revelation 2 passage, even within the Christian community, the authenticity of miracles were being tested. Still, Paul could still argue that he was an apostle because he performed genuine miracles.

The textual evidence doesn't support your claim. It's an easy thing to think but the data doesn't support you.

It would be an easy thing to make light of these claims--as isle and indy have done. But, the actual evidence precludes the possibility of doing it as easily as they have or as you are tempted to, based on this statement.

No, as I study these documents simply as ancient historical documents, there is something there. Something that has to be thought through and can't be easily dismissed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2009 05:24PM by pb.

Jun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is, in this day an age not a single
> verifiable supernatural claim exist. It is thus
> perfectly natural that we assume that the
> supernatural can never exist; in the same way that
> we assume the sun will always raise from the east
> every morning and sets at the west.

It all depends on your willingness to believe or disbelieve. The Roman Catholic church officially recognises a number of miracles a year, and in modern times only after pretty rigorous investigation because they don't want to look like idiots when the miracles turn out to be fakes. So, a supernatural claim has been verified in the eyes of Catholics, but in the eyes of hardened sceptics it hasn't because they expect a virtually unmeetable level of verification.

Juergen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The point is, in this day an age not a single
> > verifiable supernatural claim exist. It is thus
> > perfectly natural that we assume that the
> > supernatural can never exist; in the same way
> that
> > we assume the sun will always raise from the
> east
> > every morning and sets at the west.
>
> It all depends on your willingness to believe or
> disbelieve. The Roman Catholic church officially
> recognises a number of miracles a year, and in
> modern times only after pretty rigorous
> investigation because they don't want to look like
> idiots when the miracles turn out to be fakes. So,
> a supernatural claim has been verified in the eyes
> of Catholics, but in the eyes of hardened sceptics
> it hasn't because they expect a virtually
> unmeetable level of verification.

Exactly, J..

I'm confident in accusing Wade of never, ever actually investigating whether verifiable miracles take place. It is a myth among sciencists that a miracle cannot nor has one ever been verified. He's doing exactly what Creationists do when they thoughtlessly spout the party line.

Wade, you should be ashamed of passing on such mindless sciencist tripe without actually knowing what you're talking about. You are better than that!

The thing that surprises me most is that Wade didn't hear about the Hindu milk miracle that occurred in the '90s, I think. Singapore has a fairly large Indian population, doesn't it?