Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

"You [Juergeon] are impossible to take seriously."---Jun

I'd be quite surprised if they (pb & Juergeon) thought anyone here might actually be taking them seriously!

They are satirists, like PalinIsTruth, they are just here to have fun, making fun of Conservatives and Conservative Christianity!

And ya gotta' admit...they are good at it!

Many, even all of those people may choose to believe that it was aliens-ponderer

imo no one ever chooses what to believe and what not to believe.

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd be quite surprised if they (pb &
> Juergeon) thought anyone here might actually be
> taking them seriously!

Isle, I'd end up with a hemorrhage to the brain if I tried being 100% serious with people as sanctimonious. I never say anything I don't believe, though.

Jun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I doubt Islander has asserted that "nothing
> supernatural can happen", but simply that it
> require a lot more substantial evidence than what
> which have been provided/available so far.

I think he has. By claiming that the resurrection couldn't happen, therefore it hasn't, he is attempting ot write out the supernatural from history. If Isle wants to correct me he can, but I don't think I got him wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2009 07:56AM by Juergen.

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "You are impossible to take seriously."---Jun

I am not linc.

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

Islander brings up a good point, mainly that most of the "conservatives" on this board are really satires. In fact the "leaders" of the conservative movement are distinctly overblown and clownish: Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, all exaggerated parodies who seem to exempt themselves from serious rebuttal by falling back on the "I was only kidding, where's your sense of humor" defense.

Has the conservative movement become a comedy act?

O'Reilly?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



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

Quite Reilly



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

"he [isle] is attempting ot write out the supernatural from history."---Juergeon

Of course! When trying to reconstruct actual events from the past, we eliminate the impossible right off the bat. In this instance, that a person who has been truly dead for three days must have come come "back to life" (the laws of biology tell us why this is impossible). That's "how", historians do real history. It's why, once we've ascertained that a person has died on a particular date, that George Washington died in 1799, for instance, we'd discount reports that he was one of the negotiators of the Treaty of Ghent, signed on December 24, 1814. Either one or the other could be an historical event...but not both. It's how history is done!

One of the problems, if we were to adopt the philosophy of the religious/supernatural mindset as a means of justifying contradictory historical evidence, is where and how do we draw the line? The belief in a supernatural explanation for an event necessitates acceptance of further unprovable supernatural events needed to justify the first and soon we find ourselves entangled in a web of supernatural events. For example, if Jesus came back to life after being dead, did he die again later? If so, where is his body and why do we have no reports of his second death? If he's still alive, where is he? All we have are more supernatural explanations for these questions.

Of course, belief in supernatural events can be taken on faith, and that's what the faith based religions themselves teach.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2009 01:51PM by islander.

Jun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Witnesses accounts alone is not sufficient to
> establish the existence of UFOs, of Elvis'
> resurrection, of Joseph Smith, and etc even if
> they are willing to undergo immense suffering to
> support their "probably delusional" believes.

Quoting my example, Juerg do you think it is "close minded" to regard the claims of the resurrection of Elvis, for instance, as "practically" impossible. That it would be worth as much consideration as other more plausible scenarios? Or do you reckon that the treatment of such supernatural claim as virtually "impossible" is actually quite reasonable?

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

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we can say that the most that can be said
> to be verified with regard to the Resurrection,
> and called historical fact, is that some people at
> that time believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
> I doubt many historians, Christian or
> non-Christian would doubt that there were, indeed,
> some people who actually did believe Jesus rose
> from the dead.

I think more can be verified than that.

No one was or has ever been able to produce the body of Jesus. The rise of the Christian movement was vexing to Jews and Romans alike and the movement we built on the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to some of His followers and returned to heaven.

Second Corinthians 11 contains an account of all that that Jews and Romans did to thwart Paul's claims to have witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. This account was written fairly early in the movement and covers eventsthat would have taken place over a period of quite a few years. As much as the opponents of the Christians did to silence individuals who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after His death on the cross, they didn't ever just take the body of Jesus out of the tomb and show it around. On top of that, none of the people who claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus acted like people who were telling lies. Paul claims, in 2 Corinthians 11, to be experiencing only what others in the Christians movement are experiencing in terms of oppression at the hands of the Romans and Jews.

I think you are stretching it more than a little bit to say that this evidence doesn't serve to verify the claims of the early believers that Jesus rose from the dead.

ave contended here many times that the best explanation of the facts known to us, is that the claims of the early believers are true. Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. "He is not here, He is risen."

You have never offered an explanation of the fact that Paul and others would endure the suffering they did and that no opponent of Jesus ever produced His body.

"imo no one ever chooses what to believe and what not to believe." -Indy!

Could you elaborate on that somewhat? I don't see how that could be the case. How could belief not be a choice?

Gang,

It’s been a few busy days.

A few days back isle and I had this exchange among a number of posts earlier in this thread.

If you want to join me in a conversation of the letters of Paul as a collection of ancient early Christian documents, I'd be overjoyed to do that with you. I am, at heart, a historian. I am trained as a historian and I have skills which I have honed over the years that allow me to handle texts with a fair amount of precision. And, I must admit, that I'm not always as patient with people not as accustomed as I am in dealing with ancient sources. -- pb

Can you give us an actual example of what you are claiming, chapter and verse? This way, we can examine it and we'll be able to more clearly see if and how it helps (or hinders) your case. – isle

I’m going to take a shot at taking a brief passage from the writings of Paul—a passage that scholars agree is genuinely the writing of Paul, the leader of the early leader of the Christian movement, in a letter written by Paul to a community of believers well known to him with whom he had a long personal history.

This is a letter. Letters are extremely important historical documents, especially when the person sending or receiving them are known figures. Letters are honest and forthright. When you read a letter you catch a person or people in conversation. You know that the content of the letter, when taken in context, must be taken at face value to be interpreted properly.

Close to the end of 2 Corinthians, the third longest letter of Paul known to us, Paul is defending his claim to be an apostle. In fact, approximately the last fourth of the letter is an extensive defense of his claim to be an apostle. Paul says this: “I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the "super-apostles," even though I am nothing. The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance. How were you inferior to the other churches, except that I was never a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!” (2 Cor. 12:11-13)

There are several aspects of this brief passage that present a strong witness to the fact that miracles were undeniably a part of life in the early Christian movement.

1. There is the fact that, in conversation with each others in the Christian movement, Christians had developed a rather sophisticated vocabulary for what we call miracles. There’s a cliché that Eskimos have 26 different words for our word ‘snow.’ I don’t think that’s actually true.
But, what is undeniably true, based on this ancient passage in early Christian literature, is that there were three words among Christians for miracles: “signs, wonders and miracles.”
From this it becomes clear that miracles were so common in the early Christian movement that there was a lexicon of miraculous events that differentiated between what we think of as miracles in the three categories of signs and wonders and miracles.
If you want to deny that miracles we common in the early Christian movement you have to explain how, in conversation, they had come to develop different categories for miracles. That sort of evolution of language takes place only of necessity, i.e., only when communication is made easier when vocabulary is expanded. Clearly, events deemed to be supernatural were so common that it became convenient to place the events in three different categories in order to facilitate communication. The mere fact that, in conversation, Paul differentiated signs from wonders and wonders from miracles testifies to the fact that these events happened frequently.

2. There is the fact that early in the Christian movement the ‘marks’ that separated a genuine apostle from a false apostle was the ability of the person claiming to be an apostle to perform signs, wonders and miracles.
Paul alludes to the fact that the ability to do signs, wonders and miracles was the accepted standard in the early Christian movement to authenticate a person’s claim to be an apostle.
Understand that there were more than twelve people acknowledge to be apostles among Christians. In fact, quite a few people beyond the Twelve acknowledged to be apostles in the early Christian movement. In Revelation 2, generally agreed with considerable confidence, to have been written in the 90s, there is this passage which the writer claims to have been dictated by Jesus in a vision, “I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” (vs. 2) Dispute, if you like, that these are the words of Jesus given in a vision. Here’s what is undeniable: At the end of the first century, Christians were talking about who is a true and who is a false apostle.
In 2 Corinthians, we catch Paul in dialog with a local Christian community describing the standard that is shared among Christians. That is: In the early Christian community a true apostle was distinguished from a false apostle in that a true apostle was one who did signs, wonders and miracles.
It’s hard to argue that miracles were not common in the early Christian movement when the standard Christians used to separate a true apostle from a false apostle was whether or not that person performed signs, wonders and miracles. No such standard would have been developed unless signs, wonders and miracles were understood to be a mark of an apostle.

3. There is the fact that Paul wrote this letter to a community of people with he had a long personal history. His first letter to this church, also acknowledged to be authentic by virtually all scholars, makes it clear that Paul is actually the person who introduced Christianity to the city of Corinth. He actually personally brought this community of believers into existence. (1 Cor. 3:6)
So, when he writes about doing signs, wonders and miracles in their presence, there is no way that he can be doubted. Not only that, but he reminds these folks that, “signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance.” In that phrase Paul brings to the memory of these people that he did many signs, wonders and miracles in their presence and that he did them over an extended period of time.
Apparently, these people were skeptical about Paul’s claim to be an apostle. It became necessary for him to do signs, wonders and miracles over a lengthy period of time simply in order to convince them of his calling to be an apostle.
Because this letter is acknowledged to be authentic and because of the long history that Paul had with this church and because he is reminding them that they personally witnessed that he did miracles in their presence “with great perseverance,” it is unreasonable to suggest that miracles were not common in the early Christian community. No, it’s not unreasonable. It’s impossible.

4. There is the fact that Paul alludes to the larger community when he asks, “How were you inferior to the other churches…?” The subject at hand, of course, is the miracles he did in the presence of the people in Corinth. He’s alluding to the fact that he did more signs, wonders and miracles in their presence and over a longer period of time than he did in other local Christian communities. The fact that he did more in Corinth than in other places is also testimony to the fact that it was a normal thing for him to perform signs, wonders and miracles—the marks of an apostle—every place he went.
It’s hard to suggest that miracles were not a part of the early Christian community when Paul could suggest to the people in Corinth that, while he did signs, wonders and miracles in their presence in great numbers and over a long period of time, he did them everywhere he went.

Gang, the fact is that, when you read the New Testament as a collection of ancient historical documents you learn something about life in the early Christian movement. One thing you learn is that signs, wonders and miracles were so common that their appearance was not only expected, it was demanded from a person who claimed to be an apostle
It’s not possible, reading the New Testament documents, to doubt that miracles took place.

What you do with that is up to you.

This is a letter. Letters are extremely important historical documents, especially when the person sending or receiving them are known figures. Letters are honest and forthright. When you read a letter you catch a person or people in conversation. You know that the content of the letter, when taken in context, must be taken at face value to be interpreted properly.-pb

i nominate this for the most embarrassingly naive set of statements anyone has ever written on this board. this cannot possibly be the work of anyone with even an undergraduate degree in history.

"letters are honest and forthright"???

really? who says? what magical properties do letters have that other forms of human communication dont have? as anyone with common sense should know letters are just as full of errors exaggerations and outright lies as are any other forms of communication. no real historian assumes that any extraordinary claim asserted in a letter is true just because it is asserted in a letter. in fact they do just the opposite. they assume until proven otherwise that those claims are false.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> what magical properties do
> letters have that other forms of human
> communication dont have?

Yikes, man!

Do you know how historians go gaga when a letter is discovered and authenicated as being from a known historical figure and a person/s with whom that person is intimate? In those letters you catch a glimpse of the real, unguarded person. Can you imagine that you might get a better picture of who I am if you could read an email I sent to my wife or to a close friend?

Well, this is to you, indy. You probably can't.

> as anyone with common
> sense should know letters are just as full of
> errors exaggerations and outright lies as are any
> other forms of communication. no real historian
> assumes that any extraordinary claim asserted in a
> letter is true just because it is asserted in a
> letter. in fact they do just the opposite. they
> assume until proven otherwise that those claims
> are false.

I think, indy, you've just given us a glimpse of the real you. When I write an email, it's always no-nonsense and perfectly concise and as clear and straightforward as possible.

Of course, if the person writing is someone of less than stellar character, a letter would be full of exaggeration and outright lies. Wow, ind. I think you just let us see a part of you you may have wanted to keep hidden.

I'd encourage you to read one of the letters of Paul in the Bible and tell us what you even suspect of being an exaggeration or lie. I'd love to get your unique and highly personalized perspective.