Steven Avery

Tis ok.. I was really just asking. The problem would arise if someone's personality really became the focus, but the thread has been good not to go that way. Or later, say the thread is still going strong, but I am vacationing in Eilat, :-) Then at that time it could be somewhat puzzling or inappropriate. In general, names in subject lines in email forums can put a type of pressure on the person whose name is being focused (why didn't you respond quicker, why this, why that) .. so it is avoided. Hasn't been a problem so far, so I will take it as an honor, or at least an interest in the unusual topic, here, of simply taking the claims of the NT as accurate :-)

Gooch's dad

That who were eyewitnesses? Luke? No, he wasn't, he specifically says that at best he has heard his reports from some people who were eyewitnesses.

The rest of your post doesn't really make sense. The testimony of the gospels isn't consistent, not even vaguely so. And what "people who lived back then and knew the events and the people involved"? What are you even talking about here?

Steven Avery

And also an empty tomb :-) Not a bad pun, all things considered. Just curious, is there a reason that you think supernatural events cannot be discussed rationally ?

Amaleq13

Fait accompli.

To All: Please make an effort to redirect the discussion to the specific topics of the OP.

Thanks in advance,

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Gooch's dad

You're question-begging if, in the process of trying to argue that Christianity is true--using the bible as your evidence--that you assume that Christianity is true, and that the gospels were miraculously inspired.

Yes, there is an assumption of naturalism in all historical inquiry, before you try tossing in that non-starter. You certainly assume that General Vespasian didn't actually cure several soldiers with his own spit, as reported by Suetonius? One of those soldiers was even cured of blindness.

Christian apologists have a double standard on this "rational investigation of supernatural events" business. They don't assume a priori that the myths of any other religions, or the scriptures of any other religion, are equally as likely to be true.

And on that alone, much of your argument falls. Mark is post-70, you cannot argue otherwise without begging the question.

DramaQ

Much as I would like to go into it… The mods have asked us to stay on topic.

About Luke: like Mark, Luke has Jesus tell us (in 21:6) that the temple will be destroyed. By your reckoning, this statement was made 20 years before the event happened.

In order to explain this, you tell us that Jesus had the superpower of being able to see into the future.

This is something that you CAN not and WILL not prove.

Sounds to me like the discussion is over before it starts.

dq

gregor

Self edited -not on OP [but hard to resist responding to the masterful bon mot discounting hundreds of years of geologic research.]

Steven Avery

Tis 100% true that I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the various supernatural events spoken about in Scripture .. from Creation to Sinai to Isaiah's prophecies to the miracles of Elijah and Elisha and Jesus walking on water

.. However, I'm not sure why this is labeled as "question-begging", since I never agreed to begin the discussion with a purely naturalist presupposition. In fact, one look out the window at the beautiful creation gives me a supra-naturalist perspective

Psalms 19:1-2
The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech,
and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Chris Weimer

Praxeus - I'm curious. You look outside and see it as the touch of the divine hand, but clearly, no trees grow where no seed was planted, and the sun has all natural causes for it's brilliance, so in effect, you say "Fuck you, Science! God personally made all those trees grow and keeps the sun shining!" Am I wrong? You're obviously biased in this aspect, holding an a priori indemonstrable position, for no real reason other than your "feelings". If this is the case, then you have no real say at all. Get with the "real" world and stop that fantasy.

Chris Weimer

And yes, the reason supernatural events can't be discussed rationally is because they're not rational, i.e. there's no reason why they are. They've never been proven, and by definition, can never be proven.

There's a talking dragon in my closet, why don't you believe me?