Theophage

Howdy again, Eric

To be honest, I've lost interest in this thread, and I was satisfied to let it slip off the screen and die. It seems my questions were not getting answered in any significant way, and there were so many, many tangents that I could go off on based on other things that were written. But it seems like you have wanted to keep the discussion going a bit longer, so I feel compelled to oblige.

you wrote:
But you can look at riding a bike and see there is a minimal way to do it and a greater way to do it.

In the same way the sacrifice of Jesus may not have been necessary, but there are lesser ways and greater ways to forgive sins.

This is certainly true, but as to my original argument, it is irrelevant. Either X is necessary for Y, or it isn't. I applaud the fact that you are honest enough to admit that the crucifixion, while done to show the greatness of God's glory, was not necessary for the function of forgiving the sins of the world.

Given that agreement, we can now delve into a bit of the side issues. When you say that the crucifixion is a "greater way", I woudl say that is a completely subjective assessment. As I'd writtin in an earlier posting, I would find that a 2000 year old Jesus living on Earth to be much "greater" than a dubious story of a death and resurrection. Thus, to say that one method is preferable to it being "greater" is meaningless in an objective sense.

When I wrote about the fact that God need not be limited to telling us his imprtant message via human written works, you wrote:

God could brainwash humanity, and we would all do God’s will, but that would not be morally right.

God could prove his existence to each and every one of us beyond a doubt, but I think we would have less freedom. We would feel more obliged to do what God wanted, because we would know what he wants, and we may want to do his will just to please him.

First off, God putting his message faithfully and perfectly into everyone (redering a Bible unnecessary) is not necessarily proof beyond a doubt of his existence. Simply being born with particular knowledge is no guarantee that the innate knowledge is true. Thus your point here really doesn't address my comment about the Bible.

In addition to this, you assert that if God proved his existence to us beyond a doubt, that we would have less freedom. You assert this without giving any reason why you think this would be true. Should I just take your word for it?

Actually, I can show that such reasoning is completely false. Consider that I have plenty of physical evidence than Hitler existed, yet such information does not infringe in any way my freedom to agree or disagree with Hitler or his ideas. Similarily, my "beyond a doubt" knowledge of George W. Bush's existence in no way comprimises my ability to choose to follow his ideas or not. In other words, proof of existance does not entail desire to follow in any way. To take a more Biblical example, Satan had proof of God's existance, and was still able to rebel against him (along with one third of all the angels).

Your argument here, though common among believers, is simply nonsense. In fact, it is not so much an argument for why God's existence would remain sketchy, as it is an excuse why the obvious evidence isn't there. A better (IMO) reason for such lack of solid evidence is the fact that God doesn't exist.

[b]We would not be in a very good position to totally disregard him and go our own separate ways, and it sounds like under this type of conditioning atheism might not exist.

I think a lack of true freedom would be tragic. [b]

I should hope that atheism wouldn't exist if God gave proof beyond doubt of his existence. To be an atheist under those conditions would be the same as being a flat earther or solipsist today.

But as I'd pointed out above, just because no reasonable person woudl be an atheist is in no way an infringement on our freedom to choose to follow God or not. If God was proven to me to exist tomorrow, but such a God was also proven to be a complete immoral bastard (such as the Bible God) I still would not follow him, nor worship him. Thus, my freedom would still be intact.

I have yet to see any God belief that isn't based on complete nonsense or flawed reasoning. Thus, I really don't even regard my atheism as a decision made based on "freedom", but rather an inescapable conclusion based upon all I have seen and heard and felt in my life up to this point. This thread is just another data point along that line. Perhaps tomorrow will be different, but I'm not betting on it...

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Eric H

Hello Daniel


You are saying this from a very comfortable position; because you have all the freedom you want from Hitler years after his death, and living free of any control he could have over you.

But had you been a close associate of Hitler during his height of power, you would need to be a very brave person to go against him. In your mind you may want to oppose him, in reality you would more than likely go along with what he wants, self preservation, and fear could play a part.

While I see God and Hitler very differently; the point I was trying to make is that you may have a reduced freedom, if you feel that you are directly under their power or influence.

If and only if God exists, and if he had the power to create the universe as it is, then he must also have a good purpose to do the things in the way he does; Only my thoughts.

As you have said this thread probably cannot progress any more, so I’ll end by saying have a nice day.

Peace

Eric

Theophage

Curse my inability to leave things alone when they've gained to much of my interest

Eric wrote:

But had you been a close associate of Hitler during his height of power, you would need to be a very brave person to go against him. In your mind you may want to oppose him, in reality you would more than likely go along with what he wants, self preservation, and fear could play a part.

Appearing to agree with Hitler to save my ass is completely dependant upon his inability to know my true feelings. Since this is supposed to be an analogy about God, please note that God would know my true feelings, and thus my ruse would not work with him.

So where does that leave us? Exactly where I said earlier; if humans knew for certain God existed, we would still have the freedom to choose to follow him (faithfully) or not. Even if God scared the jebus out of me and I followed him just to save my own neck, God would know and still treat me accordingly:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' - Matt 7:22-23 (NIV)

Yet another data point on the "flawed reasoning" line...

7thangel

Salvation, as revealed by the apostles, were that of predestination. And Paul was clear on his epistles, even saying, "in Him we live and move and have our being." Also he said, "[God]..hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."

Now, in order to show that it is God who does all things in the salvation of the elect, and that He dictates even the heirarchy of the elect, the law, which is man's way to election, was rather presented as a work of God. Thus, the law, as said in hebrews, was "shadow of things to come," because it is something that will happen with regards to the heavenly kingdom. Hence the testament was that a lamb should die for the sins of the people, so Christ died and his blood shed.

Certainly God can do it differently, but for God to fail the testament, and all that was prophesied by the prophets, it would make His witnessing of His predestination unto confusion, consequently, of the concept of His Godhead also.

God Bless,
7thangel

Theophage

Hello 7thangel,

Your argument is simply circular.

Yes, if God had failed to come through on the prophecied promises, it would have caused confusion and that would be a bad thing. But if God planned to save humanity differently from the beginning, those prophecies wouldn't be there for him to fail to fulfil. Indeed, there would probably have been different prophecies which would have foreshadowed his alternative method, and that he would have come through on.

I thank you for the admission that he could have done it a different way, however, as that does support my argument.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

7thangel

You're welcome.

Mattchuaz

Let’s look more closely at the miracle aspect of Jesus’ life and what the whole scope of it was and what He was trying to accomplish through miracles and not just focus on one or two biblical accounts.

The majority of my response comes from a man, Josh McDowell, who is now a Christian author after spending the majority of his life trying to disprove the Bible. The outcome, he was unable to disprove it and is now an undisputed born-again Christian writer of numerous books which show how physical evidence (i.e. archeology) only add truth to the already biblical account of history as we (Christians) know it found only in God’s Word.


If God became a man, then we would expect Him to manifest His supernatural presence in the form of supernatural acts-Miracles!

The Scriptural Witness:
Jesus said “…Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” (Luke 7:22-23 KJV) Jesus’ miracles demonstrated a great variety of power: power over nature, power over disease, power over demons, powers of creation, and power over death. What He did also fulfilled prophecy and pointed to Him as the Messiah predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Among the many supernatural acts He performed were:
1. A leper (Matt. 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-15)
2. A paralytic (Matt. 9:2-8; Mark 2:3-12; Luke 5:18-26)
3. Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-17, Mark 1:29-31)
4. A nobleman’s son (John 4:46-53)
5. Physical infirmity (John 5:1-9
6. A withered hand (Matt. 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11)
7. Deafness and dumbness (Mark 7:31-37)
8. Blindness at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-25); in Jerusalem (John 9); Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52)
9. Ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)
10. Malchus’s severed ear (Luke 22:47-51)
11. Hemorrhage (Matt. 9:20-22; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48)
12. Dropsy (Luke 14:24)

Miracles in the natural realm:
1. Water converted to wine at Cana (John 2:1-11)
2. Stilling of a storm (Matt. 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25)
3. Supernatural catch of fish (Luke 5:1-11; John 21:6)
4. Multiplying food: 5,000 fed (Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 6:34-44; Luke 9:11-17; John 6:1-14); 4,000 fed (Matt. 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-9)
5. Money from a fish (Matt. 17:24-27)
6. Fig tree dried up (Matt. 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14)

Miracles of raising the dead:
1. Jairus’s daughter (Matt. 9:18-26; Mark 5:35-43; Luke 8:41-56)
2. Widow’s son (Luke 7:11-15)
3. Lazarus of Bethany (John 11:144)

Paul Little (author) writes “Christ demonstrated a power over natural forces that could belong only to God, the author of these forces.”
Philip Schaff states that Christ’s miracles were “in striking contrast with deceptive juggler works and the useless and absurd miracles of apocryphal fiction. They were performed without any ostentation, with such simplicity and ease as to be called simply His.”
Continuing this thought, another author, Griffith Thomas relates: “It is noteworthy that one of the words very frequently used of these miracles in the Gospels is the ordinary term, works (erga). They were the natural and necessary outcome of His life, the expression in act of what He Himself was.” He further adds, “The inquiry resolves itself simply into this: granted such a supernatural Person, were supernatural deeds congruous with His life? The character of the works attributed to Him, their beneficence, the restraint under which they were worked, the comparatively insignificant place they occupied in His ministry, and the constant stress laid by Him on spiritual kinship as primary – these are all entirely congruous with the manifestation and working of so miraculous and superhuman a Person as Jesus is seen to be.”
Shaff agrees with this, saying: “All His miracles are but natural manifestations of His person, and hence they were performed with the same ease with which we perform our ordinary daily works. His miracles were, without exception, prompted by the purest motives and aimed at the glory of God and the benefit of men; they are miracles of love and mercy, full of instruction and significance and in harmony with His character and mission.”
I like what A. E. Garvie wrote, “The miracles are harmonious with the character and consciousness of Jesus; they are not external confirmations but internal constituents of the revelation of the Heavenly Father’s love, mercy, and grace, given in Him, the beloved Son of God, and the compassionate Brother of men.”
Thomas concludes, “For us today the Person of Christ is the great miracle, and the true line of thought is to argue from Christ to miracles rather than from miracles to Christ.”
Islam even recognizes Jesus’ ability to perform miracles. The Koran bears reference to them. It speaks of Jesus healing the blind and the lepers and the raising the dead.
Bernard Ramm states, “If miracles are capable of sensory perception, they can be made matters of testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the experiences of beholding the events.” This certainly holds true of Jesus’ miracles, for they were performed before the public and therefore were open to anyone, including skeptics.
Let’s consider, for example, the biblical account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Ramm says, “If the raising of Lazarus was actually witnessed by John and recorded faithfully by him when still in soundness of faculties and memory, for purposes of evidence it is as if we were there and saw it.”
It is also significant that Christ’s adversaries did not deny the miracle of raising Lazarus, but instead tried to kill Jesus before all the people believed in Him. (John 11:48)
Therefore, Jesus’ contemporaries, His enemies included, attested to His ability to perform miracles. However, His enemies attributed this power to Satan, while His friends understood that the power came from God. (Matt. 12:24) In answer to the charge that His miracle-working ability was demonic, Jesus said “…Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? (Matt. 12:25-26 KJV) Christianity is precisely the biblical account of the Great Miracle (Jesus Christ, God in the flesh)!
In Christianity, miracles are not an addendum that can be removed without losing anything of importance. Again, Ramm states, “Miracles are believed in non-Christian religions because the religion is already believed, but in the ‘Biblical religion’, miracles are a part of the means of establishing the true religion. The distinction is of immense importance. Israel was brought into existence by a series of miracles, the law was given surrounded by supernatural wonders, and many of the prophets were identified as God’s spokesmen by their power to perform miracles. Jesus came not only preaching but performing miracles, and the apostles from time to time worked wonders. It was the miracle authenticating the religion at every point.”
Therefore, we must “take the Gospels as they stand…and if Jesus of Nazareth did not perform supernatural works, He many times spoke falsely. Either He who spake as never a man spake, and in whose character no criticism can discern a fault…either He did perform supernatural works or He spoke falsely.” (John A. Broadus) To which, Garvie concurs, “A Christ who being the Son of God, and seeking to become Saviour of men, (and) wrought no miracle, would be less intelligible and credible than the Jesus whom the Gospel records so consistently present to us.”

****My Bottom Line**********************************

Jesus was a miracle-worker because the power of God resided in Him as the very Son of God. Jesus knew from day one that His time on this earth would be short. He used miracles not only out of the love of God which flowed through Him toward men, but because Jesus knew that after His death on the cross, those miracles He had performed would be a way for His disciples to show God’s power through His Son, Jesus Christ. He still performs miracles today. I am saved and know it because of Jesus Christ my Saviour. As soon as I accepted Him into my heart, He changed me. No, a bolt of lightening didn’t hit me but God changes me every day. I am still a sinner, I always will be but like me you can experience a true miracle in your own life by accepting Jesus Christ into your heart. He died for everyone on this earth. It was His purpose for living as Jesus the Son of God. He was God in the flesh and out of His life came the ultimate love we can ever know. Through His love for us He helped men through miracles while He lived on this earth and in His death He can perform the same miracles in a personal walk with Him.

Doctor X

Oh my . . . gentle touch necessary . . . methinks. . . .

Mattchuaz:

Welcome to the forums!

Just sit in this chair . . . bite on this for a moment . . . mind the hounds. . . .

First, citing McDowell will generate howls of protest from this page. Not to engage on Poisoning the Well but he is not a scholar and if you wander about some of the links here, you can read some scathing reviews of his efforts . . . along with that of Stroebel.

That having been written, the "fact" that he tried to "disprove the Bible" and failed is irrelevant to the quality and validity of his scholarship. Incidentally, the fact he did not "disprove" the Flood Myth argues against his rationality, but that is another topic entirely.

Perhaps. However, you have to provide evidence that such miracles actually happened. Let us begin with what you cite based on McDowell.

How reliable are they? To begin, do you believe the miracles of Mohammed, or Krishna, or Buddha, or Apollonius, et cetera? These all have "evidence" of a scripture.

Next, Mt and Lk date the birth of Junior to two different historical events--ten years appart. One, at least is wrong. Whereas, some of the Synoptics state Judas hung himself, in Acts--written by the Lk author--Judas explodes! Mt and Lk rewrite Mk. The "passion" is unhistorical--the Jews did not "let one go" for Passover . . . the Romans did not release the bodies of those they crucified . . . the "power" of the Sadduces is utterly over-represented . . . et cetera.

We also have "literary" aspect of the miracles. In Mk, Junior has to perform the "loaves 'n fishies" miracle TWICE--and the disciples remain clueless as to who he is! Other posters can innundate you with comparisons of the cited miracles from other sources--"miracle men" abound.

Thus your entire listing of miracles are only reliable as the witnesses. I have already demonstrated that they are not--they contradict one another.

What you, and presummably McDowell, do not give is extra-scriptural references. You make the assumption that is a god came to earth he would create miracles.

Why did not others notice them? We have some wonderful ones--my favorite is the dead coming out of graves during the passion, wandering about and talking to people. No one noticed this? No one noticed that Herod ordered a massacre? Et cetera ad nauseum.

On the contrary, ancient historians, did record catastrophic events such as described in the NT texts.

You then cite apologists, frankly, who offer nothing but their interpretation of contradictory scriptural evidence.

If you wish them act as support, then you have to accept the evidence for the divinity of Krisna, Dionysius, Apollonius, various Roman emperors, Charles Manson, et cetera.

Now:

. . . rather big "if" given the dating of Jn. As the "last" of the canonical gospels we have him at around 100-120 CE . . . if memory serves me correctly. He never claims to be a witness. Indeed, Lk denies being a witness in his opening of Lk-Acts. However, this analysis misses the literary nature of the story. By adding on this:

you essentially argue that a story must be true because of the details in the story. Well, it is also significant that the Reverend in Mucho Mojo does not deny the evidence of his child molestation and murder to Leonard Pine and Hap Collins, but instead tried to kill them before they could alert the police and public. . . .


Notice the leap:

Where, exactly, to the "contemporaries" and, especially, "enemies" attest to this? I am aware of no text written by an "enemy" that attests to them. Given above, the Synoptic writers are not witnesses--indeed, they enjoy, especially Mk, denegrating the hapless disciples.

Where are these attestations from "contemporaries?"

You are citing a story to prove the story. 'Tis a bit circular.

A confession of faith seems to follow. . . which brings us to:


This is your confession of faith. You have provided no evidence for it. In order to make the Synoptics valid witnesses, for example, you need to explain the contradictions--such as the birth narratives, genealogies, et cetera. Some argue about whether or not the FBI, CIA, Star Fleet Command, or a bunch of guys looking for curry killed JFK . . . they all tend to agree on the date!

A confession of faith follows . . . I am afraid this ipse dixit does not support your argument.

--J.D.

Mageth

Welcome to the Forum, Mattchuaz. I think you'll find this a bit of a tough crowd.

If God became a man, then we would expect Him to manifest His supernatural presence in the form of supernatural acts-Miracles!

It would seem to me that, if God truly became a man, then he would be unable to perform such miracles (to become a man, he'd have to give up his supernatural powers, as man has no such powers). So, if God became a man, I would not expect him to "manifest his supernatural presence" by performing miracles. A minor point, perhaps, but indicating that your statement may need some revision.

Jesus was a miracle-worker because the power of God resided in Him as the very Son of God.

Aah, so Jesus wasn't a man, as you formerly alleged.

Jesus knew from day one that His time on this earth would be short. He used miracles not only out of the love of God which flowed through Him toward men, but because Jesus knew that after His death on the cross, those miracles He had performed would be a way for His disciples to show God’s power through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Or, alternatively, the miracles were added to the legend of Jesus by the authors of the Gospels to embellish and strengthen their claims of Jesus' Godhood.

He still performs miracles today.

Name one. And provide reliable, verifiable documentation.

I am saved and know it because of Jesus Christ my Saviour.

Saved from what?

As soon as I accepted Him into my heart, He changed me. No, a bolt of lightening didn’t hit me but God changes me every day.

A claim that can be made by adherents of various religions, philosophies, and even psychologies.

Note that, as soon as I got belief of God out of my mind, I began to change. Not like I was hit by a bolt of lighting, but my mind began expanding into new regions of understanding of life, the universe, and everything that were formerly blocked from me because of my superstitious beliefs.

I am still a sinner, I always will be but like me you can experience a true miracle in your own life by accepting Jesus Christ into your heart.

Not much of a miracle, if after "salvation" one remains a sinner. I don't consider myself a sinner, or in need of "salvation". That very notion is a creation of your chosen myth. The myth creates the illness, and provides the medicine.

He died for everyone on this earth. It was His purpose for living as Jesus the Son of God. He was God in the flesh and out of His life came the ultimate love we can ever know.

And yet, paradoxiacally, the majority of people will not benefit from this "ultimate love." The ultimate love comes with a catch, apparently.

Through His love for us He helped men through miracles while He lived on this earth and in His death He can perform the same miracles in a personal walk with Him.

As a certain member of this board once said, "God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself." However you cut it, that's what it comes down to.

Radcliffe Emerson

When I was a believer, I truly, honestly accepted Jesus into my heart several times over the years, believing all the b.s.

It didn't change a thing, and it made no difference whatsoever in my life, NONE.
Just like the latest study that indicates prayer does absolutely nothing for people who are ill.

Getting all of that religious garbage out of my brain was the greatest thing I ever did. My life is so much richer now that I don't have all that human-made dogma (that's right, human-made), mucking things up.

Wasting my time going to a ridiculous church on Sundays that accomplishes nothing but asking me for my hard earned money.
Even if I was a believer, I get more out of a walk in the woods on Sunday than any stupid church.

Nothing in the bible, or Koran for that matter holds up to any kind of reasoning or scrutiny. And anyone who thinks it does is deluding themselves.

I'm sure a person's brain tells them they've just experienced God, but that's all it is, their own brain telling them things. Nothing divine at all.