TomboyMom

O.K., now we know why you think the second story is more important than the first. Now tell us why you think it is more susceptible to belief.

TomboyMom

Someone asserts that a man cured a case of blindness by spitting on his eyes, and you think the burden of proof is on me to show the claim is bogus!?! I don't THINK so. Anyone making an incredible claim like that has the burden to produce extraordinary evidence in support of it.
btw, Do you apply the same standard to the first claim? Is the burden of proof on you to show that the Emperor did not cure the man's blindness by spitting on his eyes? If you cannot, do you believe the claim? If not, why the special standard for biblical assertions?

John A. Broussard

While I admit that walking on water, multiplying fish, curing lepers are all rather remarkable events, it does seem strange that such a miracle worker would not have been embraced immediately by hordes of people all over that area.

Despite those miracles, and the fact that probably most of that population was scrofulous, or hungry or blind or lame or deaf, Jesus seems to have had considerable recruitment problems.

So I wonder why he didn't pick a big miracle. One that no one could challenge him on (because there's always some skeptic around who'll claim Lazarus wasn't really dead). Why couldn't he have just pointed to the leg stump of some beggar, waved his hand over it and had it grow out to a fully functional limb?

Surely that would have been a tremendous recruitment tool.

Anyhow, I'd like to hear your explanation for why Jesus didn't do some limb replacements which would have been duck soup for a god to perform.

The spectators, I'm sure, would have been much impressed. I know that I would have been impressed. How about you?

Dean Anderson

The issue is also whether Tacitus is telling us the truth. Unless one can show, without a doubt, that the claim is bogus, the logical conclusion is to assume it is true.

Do I take it rhutchin that you do believe that Vespasian is a divine emperor-God who can cure blindness with his spittle?

Unless, of course, you can show without a doubt that the claim is bogus...

JPD

They are speaking of things that they believe about something which is nothing which it is impossible to have knowledge of. Anyone can say anything about whatever it is that they think God might be and no-one else can in any way demonstrate that it is true or false. This is why it is completely and utterly futile to express any notion whatsoever. It is a waste of perfectly good language that can be used for something, well, useful.

jdeverse

Hello Johnny Skeptic, thanks for your reply. Forgive me if my post goes a little off tangent, I’m going to provide a little background which might make the source of my comments a little clearer.

I feel the questions you pose revolve around a clarification on ITEM 2 the meaning of which I failed to explain clearly. By the term manifestations of God, I am referring to those personages in history who have manifested the attributes of God in their full brilliance. These divine educators include Adam, Abraham, Krishna, Moses Buddha, Zoroaster, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah. A good metaphor to describe their relationship to us is that of a mirror, in that the mirror can reflect to varying degrees the rays of the Sun and the clarity of the reflection depends on the imperfections and dust of the mirror. The Manifestations of God are pre-existent souls who are a perfectly polished mirror free from defect and are able to reflect the full resplendent power of the Sun (God). If one were to say, “I see the sun� when gazing into the mirror, they would be truthful, and if they were to say, “I see the sun within the mirror�, they would also be truthful. These perfect educators are the only path that the creation has to the creator, so simply stated by Christ – “no one comes to the father but through me�.

These manifestations or messengers of God are the most tangible sign for the validity of their message. They are a separate creation, in that as human beings we possess qualities not apparent in the animal, and the animal possesses powers not visible in the plant. In the same way the spiritual reality of God’s messengers endues them with powers and capacities that may seem magical to us, which we label as miracles. In reality no natural laws have been broken. This is what I mean specifically with ITEM 1. You are right, physical miracles have no criteria by which to validate them, they are a judgment call by the individual’s faith and therefore cause disagreement. The quote of John, I would still interpret as having a spiritual meaning – the miracles are the transformation of human hearts to cleave to the word of God and follow his laws. The words must have an outward effect; this is one of the signs of God of which Christ speaks. Every new divine faith has grown to reach the maturity of its mission even through the intense opposition of the world. Unfortunately, as all things religion must go through the cycle of birth, growth, maturation, decline, and death.

If a spiritual reality exists it will be made manifest in the material world and its physical attributes and capacity will be determined by its underlying spiritual essence. The best metaphor I can think of to explain is that of a volcano. The magma chamber created from rising lighter material within the crust is hidden from our view, but the volcanic structure on the surface is the physical representation of that hidden reality.

There are further outward signs of God’s revelation, most specifically the unifying and constructive force they evince in the world. The rise of agriculture and settlement about 10,000BC is shared with the time and revelation of Adam, the Jewish civilizations arose from the words of Abraham and Moses, Zoroaster’s revelation was the active force behind the Persian empires, and though realized in an imperfect form Christ’s spiritual kingdom eventually gave rise to a material one. The words of Muhammad united barbaric tribes of Arabia and in one generation they formed the civilization that would become a center of learning and scientific advancement as the west languished in the dark ages of Christianity.

As for the miracles written of in the Bible, I would ascribe that even though some may have occurred (raising the dead, healing ailments and deficiencies, and feeding thousands with a little bread) and I have no knowledge or authority to ascribe which ones did – that the more important meaning is spiritual which is very different from a personal emotional response. The meaning of bread has always been that of spiritual food, while meat represents the material food. The feeding of thousands from just a little bit of bread (spiritual food) is the lesson of the story.

The final point I would make is that Jesus was not concerned with the physical world at all. He repeatedly emphasized that his kingdom resided in the human heart. The statement to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s is a strong sign of which kingdom Christ felt was important.

Sincerely
Justin.

John A. Broussard

In reading the bible, when can we be sure that bread means bread rather than something else? Or when death means death? Or when miracles are meant to give a person an emotional uplift rather than curing physical illness?

Some rule of thumb to make such distinctions would be very helpful. Can you supply one?

Steven Avery

Diogenes, if you could make a living splitting hairs, and parsing words to no meanings, you could be very wealthy.

Josephus only mentions that James was the brother of Jesus, called the Christ, sure... nothing to do with "Christianity in any way"... I get a chuckle at the blanket assertions you make.

http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html
Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E. Josephus, Antiquities
" Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: "

Really ? I have given multiple testimonies that at least some such persecutions occurred before 70 AD.

Acts 9:2
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

This certainly sounds like "get with the program or else".
Or else being various types of persecution.
"Oh, we will scourge you and bind you, but you still are
a member in good standing ?"

So, get solid primary source testimony that there weren't any such persecutions before 70 AD.

Even more significantly, that Jesus did not speak of a coming persecution (which is what John actually wrote about). He was quoting the prophetic words of the Lord Jesus. If you want me to grant that they were manifested more fully worldwide and completely after 70AD, using the new 19th benediction as a wedge to discover and persecute, that's true, it became a world-wide phenomenon ... the most complete fulfillment of the prophecy was 30 AD.

All the gospel writers wrote about synagogue persecutions, the only difference is one of writing tone and emphasis.

Duhhh, Dude, synagogues vary immensely. Paul was mostly in the Gentile lands. Remember what happpenned to him when he went to Jerusalem ?

Acts 21:11-13
Agabus... was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.

You are very corn-fused. You are claiming an anachronism overlooking lots of source material that shows earlier severe synagogue persecutions, and the fact that the verses in questions are prophetic quotes, in harmony with all the gospels giving the prophetic word.

You haven't even gotten close on either major issue of establishing anything about John being written post-70.

a) that many folks weren't in fact put out of the synagogues, persecuted, bound, scourged, executed -- clearly this is a method of putting out.

b) the particular words themself that you use for a supposed anachronism were prophetic, and the fact of the prophetic words are essentially identical in all the Gospels.

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