Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 07-01-2006, 12:58 PM

Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then?

EssEff · 07-01-2006, 01:03 PM

Not to mention, fake healers are a dime a dozen and their methods are well-known. The Lazarus story is harder to write off, but when you consider the possibility of his followers lying, it's all perfectly debunkable.

ChandraRama · 07-01-2006, 01:13 PM

Lazarus story as written by Mark might have acted like parable rather than reporting the actual event.

S.C.Carlson · 07-01-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChandraRama

Lazarus story as written by Mark might have acted like parable rather than reporting the actual event.

Mark didn't write the Lazarus story; it is found in the gospel of John. There is also a parable in Luke with a character named Lazarus.

Stephen Carlson

Kosh · 07-01-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Mark didn't write the Lazarus story; it is found in the gospel of John. There is also a parable in Luke with a character named Lazarus.

Stephen Carlson

Either way, it's easy to dismiss when it was written anywhere from 40 to 80 years after the alleged event.

EssEff · 07-01-2006, 04:39 PM

..especially considering John was the last book written.

ChandraRama · 07-01-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Mark didn't write the Lazarus story; it is found in the gospel of John. There is also a parable in Luke with a character named Lazarus.

Stephen Carlson

Sorry. I agree.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-01-2006, 05:26 PM

While I am at it, there is not good evidence that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind. Those are important, fundamental claims of Christianity, but they must be taken completely by faith.

ChandraRama · 07-01-2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

While I am at it, there is not good evidence that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind. Those are important, fundamental claims of Christianity, but they must be taken completely by faith.

Exactly.

The historicity debate is so skewed in favour of Historicists currently. The need to prove if a person called jesus existed in the first century judea whose tomb was found empty(even if they could prove that) is no proof of the claim that he was only son of God, born of virgin and he never sinned and he shed blood to the atonement of the sins of mankind.

Somehow the historicists believe that if they could convince the masses that a person by name Jesus existed in the first century judea will somehow prove the rest of the claims of this relgion.

Mythra · 07-01-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Mark didn't write the Lazarus story; it is found in the gospel of John. There is also a parable in Luke with a character named Lazarus.

This is important. The Lazarus story (come forth - he stinketh, etc.) is found only in John.

John's gospel comes much later than Mark or Matthew (Luke is still debatable)

So - Mark writes his account of Jesus' big events. And the raising of a dead guy doesn't make the cut? Inconsequential. Easy to miss. Not worth mentioning.

Right.

Like about a hundred other things concerning the gospels - this doesn't add up.

07-01-2006, 12:58 PM	#1
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	There is not good evidence that Jesus healed sick people Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then?

07-01-2006, 05:26 PM	#8
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	There is not good evidence that Jesus healed sick people While I am at it, there is not good evidence that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind. Those are important, fundamental claims of Christianity, but they must be taken completely by faith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2006, 01:03 PM	#2
EssEff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 5,641	Not to mention, fake healers are a dime a dozen and their methods are well-known. The Lazarus story is harder to write off, but when you consider the possibility of his followers lying, it's all perfectly debunkable.

07-01-2006, 01:13 PM	#3
ChandraRama Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: US Posts: 107	Lazarus story as written by Mark might have acted like parable rather than reporting the actual event.

07-01-2006, 04:39 PM	#6
EssEff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 5,641	..especially considering John was the last book written.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.