Forum Index            

SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share

This isn't complicated. 2020 is a referendum on Trump.

The job of the Biden campaign is simple, and Trump is helping.
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

Posted by PalinIsTheTruth 
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 04, 2010 04:55AM
Ok Indy, Isles linc et al here are few tidbits to help you out since pb prefers to discuss this subject with people who aren’t well versed in Christian mythology at a PHD level as he claims to be.

First. Paul mentions nothing about an empty tomb or a missing body. This is only chronicled in the gospels which were written a generation later. The gospels themselves are littered with contradictions with regard to resurrection, not to mention the oldest manuscript of the earliest gospel Mark has no resurrection story, plus in the Luke and John resurrection story the disciples, people that Jesus spent three years with, did not recognise him after walking talking and eating with him for hours.

Second. Paul wrote "he was buried. And he was raised on the third day." Raised is written as “egeiro”. That's not the word for "resurrected." The word resurrected is "anistimi (verb)." And all through the New Testament we find this word "egeiro" being used not for a bodily resurrection, but for a spiritual awakening, or for just waking up.

Third. The word Paul wrote for “appeared” or “seen” is ophthe which does not translate as physical appearance but as a vision.

So in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul wrote that Jesus "ophthe" to Peter, he "ophthe" to James, he "appeared" to these others, and he "appeared" to me. I have mentioned before that according to the three Acts of the apostles accounts Jesus did not physically appear to Paul. He had a vision of a light that his companions did not see and heard Jesus' voice which Paul, funnily enough, never heard before. No christian on this forum has address this glaring anomily.

Fourth. I Corinthians 15:50 reads "Now, I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

So, how could he be talking about a physical resurrection and turn right around and say "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? He obviously intends this to mean that Jesus resurrected, but in a spiritual way, not physically, not bodily.

So in the only first person account of someone who claims to have witnessed the risen jesus there is mention of an empty tomb, and there are no accounts of physical appearances.

Paul quotes not one single Gospel saying of Jesus, anywhere in all of his writings. Paul doesn’t make reference to any of the miracles of Jesus that appeared in the Gospels. And Paul supposedly hung around with these people, and talked to them. It’s obvious Paul didn’t talk to the right people. For example. Paul talked about divorce a lot, and Paul said there should be no divorce. He forgot to take into account the fact that Jesus did allow for some divorce, in some case. He contradicted Jesus.

It’s obvious Paul knew little about Jesus' teaching as told by the people who knew Jesus and is making things up. Like a good salesman should.
So yes, Paul letters are as authentic as historical primary sources can get but the letters show that Paul was not much of a historian, did not know the story of Jesus very well and believed in the resurrection was spiritual not physical.

One more thing guys, I’ve clearly pointed out that the “they were persecuted and martyred so the resurrection must be true” argument is specious, but here’s a quote from Richard Carrier, who has a Ph.D in Ancient History is a published author, and an expert at destroying apologists that claim there is undeniable historical evidence that proves the resurrection is fact . This is a great rebuttal against the “early christian martyrdom is evidence that the resurrection was true” baloney

“None of the Gospels or Epistles mention anyone dying for their belief in the "physical" resurrection of Jesus. The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts. But Stephen was not a witness. He was a later convert. So if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone. But even in Acts the story has it that he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove anything in that respect. Moreover, in his last breaths, we are told, he says nothing about dying for any belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but mentions only his belief that Jesus was the messiah, and was at that moment in heaven. And then he sees Jesus--yet no one else does, so this was clearly a vision, not a physical appearance, and there is no good reason to believe earlier appearances were any different.

The second and only other "martyr" recorded in Acts is the execution of the Apostle James, but we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or what he thought he died for. In fact, we have one independent account in the Jewish history of Josephus, of the stoning of a certain "James the brother of Jesus" in 62 A.D., possibly but not necessarily the very same James, and in that account he is stoned for breaking the Jewish law, which recanting would not escape, and in the account of the late 2nd century Christian hagiographer Hegesippus, as reported by Eusebius, he dies not for his belief in a physical resurrection, but, just like Stephen, solely for proclaiming Jesus the messiah, who was at that moment in heaven.

Yet that is the last record of any martyrdom we have until the 2nd century. Then we start to hear about some unnamed Christians burned for arson by Nero in 64 A.D. but we do not know if any eye-witnesses were included in that group--and even if we did it would not matter, for they were killed on a false charge of arson, not for refusing to deny belief in a physical resurrection. So even if they had recanted, it would not have saved them, and therefore their deaths also do not prove anything, especially since such persecution was so rare and unpredictable in that century. We also do not even know what it was they believed--after all, Stephen and James did not appear to regard the physical resurrection as an essential component of their belief. It is not what they died for.

As far as we can tell, apart from perhaps James, no one knew what the fate was of any of the original eye-witnesses. People were even unclear about who the original eye-witnesses were. There were a variety of legends circulating centuries later about their travels and deaths, but it is clear from our earliest sources that no one knew for certain. There was only one notable exception: the martyrdom of Peter. This we do not hear about until two or three generations after the event, and it is told in only one place: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which was rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh…"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2010 05:54AM by Fascinated_foreigner.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 04, 2010 03:53PM
islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "What evidence is ther for Kung's and Rahner's
> and, I suppose isle's belief, other than its
> easier to align that belief with 20th century
> sciencism?"---pb
>
> I wouldn't mind discussing this with you,
> particularly Kung's and Rahner's theological views
> regarding the Resurrection, but certain things
> need to be made clear first, since it will save a
> lot of wasted time. You seem to be biased against
> something you call, “20th century sciencism”.
> What is this “20th century sciencism” that
> you're referring to, and what’s wrong with it in
> your opinion?

What I refer to as “20th century sciencism” is the making of the scientific worldview a theology--a religion. It's what I often accused Hank of. Hank, I believe, is absolutely guilty of BELIEVING in science. Sox, I think, did that as well and so do Ingy, whose been gone a long time and may have been gone before you showed up. (When I started here 'Ingersoll' probably posted more than anyone else.)

When I talk about sciencism, it is to tweak you by suggesting that you're making science your religion.

There is nothing wrong with science so long as one doesn't make more of it than is appropriate. Science deals with the natural realm. If a supernatural realm exists, science has nothing to say about it and couldn't know anything about it because it doesn't have tools to engage it.

Frankly, when you use words like possible and impossible in reference to the resurrection of Jesus, it seems to me that you are suggesting that science is omniscient and that it can decree that something supernatural can't happen. The truth is that science has nothing to say about an event that cannot be measured by natural means. As I read you, when you say that you are bringing to the biblical text an understanding of what the best minds agree is possible, you are taking science where it cannot legitimately go.

That's what I mean by sciencism--suggesting that science addresses metaphysical issues.

> It seems to me that you are against
> the findings of science intruding on history.

By no means. I'm simply against suggesting that science has anything at all to say about metaphyscial realites in any time frame.

I am a theist--a CHRISTIAN theist. I believe that there are natural laws because God created them. I just don't assume that natural laws can account for all of reality. And, no one has ever justified the claim that there is no reality because what science can encounter.

> In other words, when you use the word history or
> historicity of an event, are you more interested
> it what people’s beliefs were (and might still
> be) with regard to the event in question, or what
> actually occurred?
>
> I suspect, but I’m not sure, that you’d
> prefer history tell us what people believed, and
> that what actually occurred is of less value or
> consequence (with regard to history).

Not at all.

> History should be used, for instance, only to demonstrate
> that certain people once believed a volcano
> destroyed their village because they didn't
> sacrifice a virgin to the volcano and this should
> be taken at face value???

That they believed it is important. That they believed it doesn't make it so. But, that you sneer at what people in another time and place believed doesn't make you correct, either.

> And, in describing that
> eruption, we shouldn't be concerned with what
> science has determined as to why volcanoes erupt?

Here'e the thing, isle. Science can't say anything about a supernatural component to what it can measure employing natural terms.

> Same thing with people believing demons or evil
> spirits as the cause of disease. Should we accept
> as an historical fact that at that time, evil
> spirits actually caused disease?

Should we accept that science provides the only explanation that has meaning?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2010 05:12PM by pb.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 04, 2010 04:00PM
Mark has no resurrection story... -- The Gospel according to ff.

The Gospel according to Mark:

16:1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
Jun
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 04, 2010 09:57PM
Reads like a story. Assume that this ancient legend is factual, a non-supernatural explanation is that the mystery Jedi (?) dress in white robe rolled away the stone and got rid of the body, and proceeded to troll people into believing that Jesus has risen from the dead.

Are there any passages describing them meeting Jesus at Galilee?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 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]

pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 04, 2010 10:10PM
Jun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reads like a story. Assume that this ancient
> legend is factual, a non-supernatural explanation
> is that the man dress in white robe (?) rolled
> away the stone and got rid of the body, and
> proceeded to troll people into believing that
> Jesus has risen from the dead.
>
> Are there any passages describing them meeting
> Jesus at Galilee?

Wade,

If you get any farther away from the point you are going to fall off that cliff and smash your head on the rocks below.

I was merely representing the fact that ff's commentaries on the material in the Bible are filled with error. He claimed that the earliest Gospel to be written contained no account of the resurrection. I simply demonstrated that ff's w-r-o-n-g!
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 12:04AM
Geez Pb is that all you got?! I've made a dozen points yet you only address one and easist one at that... tsk tsk. Shame on you.

So pb according to you the finding of some grave robbing weirdo in white inside the tomb of jesus, by Mary and Salome and the weirdo telling them jesus has risen is a resurrection story?! Man are you easily pleased.

Most scholars agree this bit was added to Mark 16 much later...
9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

12 After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either.

14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

19 So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.


You can see why this last bit was added on. It's a nifty way to perpetuate the ressurrection myth. Hence the earliest gospel has really no record of ANYONE seeing the risen jesus in the flesh. And since Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark one can only concluded that the gospel writers pulled the jesus appearances stories out of their holy butts or just extrapolated on Paul's exaggerations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2010 03:29AM by Fascinated_foreigner.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 02:59AM
Isn't it a bit absurd to be using the Gospels as "evidence" that the Resurrection really happened? That's like using Aesop's Fables to prove the tortoise really beat the hare. After all, Aesop never prefaced his stories by saying, "Now this is parable folks, so don't go taking it literally."

Pb doesn't believe in the Resurrection any more than he does when a sure loser like McCain is introduced as "the next President of the United States!" What pb is really claiming is the right to ignore any distinction between fiction and truth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2010 03:15AM by linc.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 05:07AM
Linc, going by pb’s past responses he will probably repeat himself (as he has done ad nauseum) and state that the Paulian letters are as authentic as any historical primary source can get and that the Paulian letters, which were written 10-15 years after the fact, back up the gospels Resurrection accounts. This of course is a spurious argument as Paul writes nothing about any of resurrection accounts in any detail except for regurgitating an early christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

pb could also argue that we have no more evidence on life of Jesus than we do Alexander the great, yet nobody denies Alexander lived and did what he did. The only sources we have on Alexander come from historical material that date hundreds of years after Alexander existed, and thus when it comes to the Gospels one should consider them incredibly reliable because they were written between 1-3 generations later, which in historical terms is yesterday’s paper.

Problem with this argument is...

One. No historian believes that Alexander the Great was the son of Ammon-Zeus despite the fact Alexander was worship as a god during and after his lifetime. Yet evangelical Christian historians expect us to do just that and more when it comes to Jesus.

Two. The ancients who wrote Alexander the Greats biographies were actual historians not anonymous followers of some cult like the authors of the gospels.

Three. Alexanders’ biographies were meant to be read as history books not as religious scripture like the gospels.

Four. There is an enormous amount of archaeological evidence that back up the historical biographies of Alexander the Great unlike the gospels.

Five. Alexanders' biographers may have exaggerated from time to time but they don't have Alexander the Great walking on water and rising from the dead. No, as historians they avoided the supernatural unlike the cult followers who wrote the gospels.

So linc you're right. To use the gospels as primary sources for finding out about what happened in 1st Century AD Judea is like using Homer’s Odyssey as a primary source for the history of the sea creatures of the Mediterranean.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2010 06:15AM by Fascinated_foreigner.
Jun
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 11:01AM
pb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Reads like a story. Assume that this ancient
> > legend is factual, a non-supernatural
> explanation
> > is that the man dress in white robe (?) rolled
> > away the stone and got rid of the body, and
> > proceeded to troll people into believing that
> > Jesus has risen from the dead.
> >
> > Are there any passages describing them meeting
> > Jesus at Galilee?
>
> Wade,
>
> If you get any farther away from the point you are
> going to fall off that cliff and smash your head
> on the rocks below.
>
> I was merely representing the fact that ff's
> commentaries on the material in the Bible are
> filled with error. He claimed that the earliest
> Gospel to be written contained no account of the
> resurrection. I simply demonstrated that ff's
> w-r-o-n-g!

sad smiley
Pb, I was just taking the opportunity to persuade you to provide more following from that. winking smiley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 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]

Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 02:38PM
“What I refer to as “20th century sciencism” is the making of the scientific worldview a theology--a religion. It's what I often accused Hank of. Hank, I believe, is absolutely guilty of BELIEVING in science.”---pb

To me, this seems to be part of the reason why arguments with you always end up being non-productive. You simply change the meanings of words until they become plastic and imprecise, or make up new words, which are also imprecise. And by mixing and matching you come up with the claim, “ ‘20th century sciencism’ is the making of the scientific worldview a theology--a religion”.

Theology is the philosophical study of God. The meaning of religion is a little broader, but essentially it’s “An organized system of belief that generally seeks to understand purpose, meaning, goals, and methods of spiritual things. These spiritual things can be God, people in relation to God, salvation, after life, purpose of life, order of the cosmos, etc”--- Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Theology and religion deal with metaphysics, science deals with the empirical.

Since science and theology/religion have different goals and they use different methods to achieve those goals, how does one make a scientific worldview (whatever you mean by that?) into theology or religion? If someone has no belief in God or interest in the metaphysical, why would you want to call that position a religion? What, in your opinion could be any more different than religion, or the opposite of religion? What would be a non-religious worldview?

"Frankly, when you use words like possible and impossible in reference to the resurrection of Jesus, it seems to me that you are suggesting that science is omniscient and that it can decree that something supernatural can't happen."

Why do you ignore what people here say? This is another of the difficulties with carrying on a genuine discussion with you. Here’s what I said:

“ When it comes to believing whether or not a person, actually dead for three days, came back to life, or even can come back to life, there are solid reasons based on empirical evidence which are prior to my belief, and which warrant my belief that such a claim did not happen. I’m well aware that our present knowledge is incomplete and that my views could change based on new information. However, I believe, for instance, based on these laws [natural physical laws], that it would be impossible for me to physically jump from my back deck, all the way to the moon, spend a day there collecting rock specimens, and then jump all the way back to the earth with my collection."---Naturally, if we are going to get into the metaphysical or supernatural realm, all bets are off (I might then be able to jump to the moon) since we don’t have any more laws. Arguing the physical, based on the supernatural is like trying to play tennis without a net. Historical events take place in the physical realm and when doing history, a good historian doesn’t use metaphysics to explain the empirical (which is why historians would reject Columbus and his crew flying across the ocean on elephants).

If, for historical purposes, you want to explain the Resurrection in physical terms, “the resuscitation of a corpse”, this would then be a physical occurrence and would, for historical verification, be subject to the known empirical laws of the universe. If you want to interpret it as something metaphysical, or supernatural, then you are stepping into another realm. And it does seem to me, that the biblical stories suggest that they are describing a supernatural event (not a physical one) and Jesus’ “body” can hardly be described as his former physical corpse that was resuscitated. His “body” seems to have been transformed ( and has non-physical characteristics), it can “appear” to some people while being invisible to others, he is said never to have died again which a physical body would do, and his body is said to have “ascended” into an apparently non-physical place.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 02:57PM
Fascinated_foreigner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geez Pb is that all you got?!

By no means.

But, it's all I need to demonstrate that all you said in that post in factually in error. It also provides me with an opportunity to show that you lie about us and what we believe.

Shouldn't that be enough?
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 02:58PM
Isn't it a bit absurd to be using the Gospels as "evidence" that the Resurrection really happened?

Well, linc, it certainly isn't the place I'd go first.

Talk to ff. He brought it up.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 03:00PM
Jun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Pb, I was just taking the opportunity to persuade
> you to provide more following from that. winking smiley

I've done that in the past. I'm sure I'll do it again some day on a thread that is on that subject.
Anonymous User
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 03:35PM
islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me, this seems to be part of the reason why
> arguments with you always end up being
> non-productive. You simply change the meanings of
> words until they become plastic and imprecise, or
> make up new words, which are also imprecise. And
> by mixing and matching you come up with the claim,
> “ ‘20th century sciencism’ is the making of
> the scientific worldview a theology--a
> religion”.

I keep thinking back to [www.selectsmart.com]...

But, 'Sciencism' is a pretty common word and I'm pretty sure we all know what pb's talking about.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 08:31PM
Science IS the investigation of reality-- that's the meaning of the word. That doesn't mean whatever is labeled 'science' is true, it just means that science is honest and self-critical, whereas your religious sect has earned a reputation for dishonesty rivaled only by lawyers (remember 'Intelligent Design'?).

A lot of people would dismiss science as no better than reading tea leaves, but science is still strong in our culture, and you better hope it stays that way. Science is so effective at understanding the way the world really is that you take the conveniences of modern life for granted. Supernaturalism has contributed nothing to this.

What you may object to is Dialectical Materialism, the idea that everything can be described in terms of physical matter. This seemed true in the 19th century, but 21st century science has gone beyond that, coming into tune with Hindu-Buddhist concepts. Fundamentalist Christian/Muslim ideas of miracles and a Father/King creator are popular only with the uneducated-- they are designed to promote conflict rather than enlightenment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2010 09:13PM by linc.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 09:39PM
isle,

If, for historical purposes, you want to explain the Resurrection in physical terms, “the resuscitation of a corpse”, this would then be a physical occurrence and would, for historical verification, be subject to the known empirical laws of the universe.

It certainly is a physical occurrence and, if you could subject the body to testing you could examine it, if Jesus allowed you to do it. He probably would still have rights to those who don't believe in His resurrection.

...it does seem to me, that the biblical stories suggest that they are describing a supernatural event (not a physical one) and Jesus’ “body” can hardly be described as his former physical corpse that was resuscitated. His “body” seems to have been transformed ( and has non-physical characteristics), it can “appear” to some people while being invisible to others, he is said never to have died again which a physical body would do, and his body is said to have “ascended” into an apparently non-physical place.

I'm a little sketchy on the biblical texts to which you refer.

When did His body appear to some people while it was invisible to others?

Re: "he is said never to have died again..." Explain.

"...his body is said to have “ascended” into an apparently non-physical place..." Well, His pre-crucifixion body is said to have walked on water. What your point?
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 09:44PM
linc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science IS the investigation of reality-- that's
> the meaning of the word.

Actually, I think it is Latin for knowledge.

> That doesn't mean
> whatever is labeled 'science' is true, it just
> means that science is honest and self-critical,
> whereas your religious sect has earned a
> reputation for dishonesty rivaled only by lawyers
> (remember 'Intelligent Design'?).
>
> A lot of people would dismiss science as no better
> than reading tea leaves,

I don't think so.

> but science is still
> strong in our culture, and you better hope it
> stays that way. Science is so effective at
> understanding the way the world really is that you
> take the conveniences of modern life for granted.
> Supernaturalism has contributed nothing to this.

The scientific method deal only with the natural realm.
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 11:18PM
If miracles existed only in the 'supernatural realm' nobody would argue about it, but claims of walking on water and rising from the dead deal with the natural realm. If you can prove it happened, prove it; if not it's just talk.
pb
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 11:22PM
linc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If miracles existed only in the 'supernatural
> realm' nobody would argue about it, but claims of
> walking on water and rising from the dead deal
> with the natural realm. If you can prove it
> happened, prove it; if not it's just talk.

To what parts of the physical universe would you think the supernatural realm might not extend?
Re: Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!
January 05, 2010 11:36PM
The physical parts...?

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!