Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jdeverse · 12-08-2005, 09:44 AM

Hello and good day Johnny Skeptic, I would not discount the performance of physical miracles by Christ, the miracles of God's manifestations are numerous. However, they are not a proof of their divine mission or power. Even if someone was a witness to a miracle, they will after time question the validity of what they saw. If one were to witness someone become spiritually awakened and evince such a change in character as to offer up their lives (physically and metaphorically) in the path of their beloved - then this is the kind of tangible experience that can inspire hearts to seek the truth.

rhutchin · 12-08-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Because the further claim of John is that you must stand before that same Jesus one day and be judged for your actions on earth and that judgment will determine whether you are allowed entry into heaven. The account of the curing of the blind man has been provided to you to substantiate that claim. Whether you believe that Vespasian also cured a blind man is inconsequential.

TomboyMom
How exactly does that make it any more likely to be true?

This does not make it more likely to be true. It just matters whether it is true. It does not matter whether Vespasian cured a blind man because it has no relevance to us. If the curing of a blind man by Christ was done to validate His claim that we are accountable to Him, then we would want to know whether the story (and, therefore, the claim) were true.

Sauron · 12-08-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

This does not make it more likely to be true. It just matters whether it is true. It does not matter whether Vespasian cured a blind man because it has no relevance to us.

It would prove that claims about Vespasian were true.
The Roman emperors were said to be gods.

Quote:

If the curing of a blind man by Christ was done to validate His claim that we are accountable to Him, then we would want to know whether the story (and, therefore, the claim) were true.

Seems like we would have to examine all such claims of god-hood that were backed up by miracles. What happens in this situation where Vespasian has offered evidence of being a god?

rhutchin · 12-08-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

countjulian
...
Why should I spurn the "eyewitness testimony" of the historian Tacitus on the curing of the blind man by Vespasian, but believe GJohn on the curing of the blind man by Jesus?

rhutchin
Because the further claim of John is that you must stand before that same Jesus one day and be judged for your actions on earth and that judgment will determine whether you are allowed entry into heaven. The account of the curing of the blind man has been provided to you to substantiate that claim. Whether you believe that Vespasian also cured a blind man is inconsequential.

Noggin
Okay. So then shelf the miracle for a second. Rhutchin, we then have to confront John's authority to tell us that we will be judged by the unproven god.

First question John's authority then deal with the supposed recorded jesus miracles vs Tacitus' miracles. Where does his authority come from that gives him the grounds to threaten or warn or hold the looming yet forthcoming judgment over any human head?

Which leads us back to the axe grinding of your having to prove their is a god in the first place that will be doing any judging.

It is a hopeless cycle. It is as if the atheist is the only one who can point it out.

What we have is John providing us with an historical account of his experiences with a man called Jesus. This account agrees with historical accounts written by others particularly that of an historian named Luke. Clearly, something happened in the first century that resulted in a religious movement called Christianity (even as we can trace other religious movements to other individuals).

The issue is whether John and the others are telling us the truth. Unless one can show, without a doubt, that the claims are bogus, the logical conclusion is to assume that they are true.

rhutchin · 12-08-2005, 10:14 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
This does not make it more likely to be true. It just matters whether it is true. It does not matter whether Vespasian cured a blind man because it has no relevance to us.

sauron
It would prove that claims about Vespasian were true.
The Roman emperors were said to be gods.

OK. Does that matter to us today? As far as I can tell, it does not.

Quote:

rhutchin
If the curing of a blind man by Christ was done to validate His claim that we are accountable to Him, then we would want to know whether the story (and, therefore, the claim) were true.

sauron
Seems like we would have to examine all such claims of god-hood that were backed up by miracles. What happens in this situation where Vespasian has offered evidence of being a god?

Perhaps. However, it seems that we could ignore those that have no bearing on what we do today. The accounts about Jesus are relevant because He claimed that we were accountable to Him for the things that we do. Vespasian made no such claim (and seems to have done it only to enhance his claim to be emperor).

Johnny Skeptic · 12-08-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdeverse

Hello and good day Johnny Skeptic, 1) I would not discount the performance of physical miracles by Christ, 2) the miracles of God's manifestations are numerous. 3) However, they are not a proof of their divine mission or power. 4) Even if someone was a witness to a miracle, they will after time question the validity of what they saw. If one were to witness someone become spiritually awakened and evince such a change in character as to offer up their lives (physically and metaphorically) in the path of their beloved - then this is the kind of tangible experience that can inspire hearts to seek the truth.

Let's take your arguments one at a time. I will number them and reply to each one. Regarding item 1, which physical miracles are you talking about? How many people claimed to have seen the miracles? In my previous post I said that today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding item 2, which of God's manifestations are you talking about? I am most interested in tangible manisfestations. Spiritual/emotional manifestations are subjective, and are claimed by the followers of many religions. Tangible manifestations are objective. The writer of the book of John referred to the great importance of tangible manifestations. In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite "tangible" evidence of Jesus' power. Jesus DID NOT tell the skeptics at that particular meeting that his words alone were sufficient for accepting his message. The books of Acts basically says that the disciples went about confirming the word with tangible signs and wonders.

Regarding item 3, as I showed in item 2, the New Testament says otherwise.

Regarding item 4, you said that "even if someone was a witness to a miracle, they will after time question the validity of what they saw," then you question that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, right? Is it your position that spiritual/emotional experiences are more credible than tangible experiences, and that you would still be a Christian today if Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was found empty but Jesus was never seen again? Are you suggesting that unbelievers should become Christians soley because of Christians' personal spiritual/emotional experiences?

As the New Testament says many times, Jesus and the disciples were definitely very concerned with the tangible, physical world, not just with the spritual/emotional world. Surely you have asked God for tangible blessings. Lee Merrill says that tangible personal experiences are an important part of his belief system. So does bfniii, and so do tens of millions of other Christians. We need help in tangible ways, not just spiritual/emotional ways.
As Jesus and the disciples basically said, tangible evidence confirms spiritual evidence. One without the other is an incomplete package.

Sauron · 12-08-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

What we have is John providing us with an historical account of his experiences with a man called Jesus. This account agrees with historical accounts written by others particularly that of an historian named Luke. Clearly, something happened in the first century that resulted in a religious movement called Christianity (even as we can trace other religious movements to other individuals).

Well, we have two texts that make claims. But we don't just assume something is true because two ancient texts made claims.

Quote:

The issue is whether John and the others are telling us the truth. Unless one can show, without a doubt, that the claims are bogus, the logical conclusion is to assume that they are true.

No. It's a little more complicated than that. Nobody has to prove the claims are bogus - the opposite is the case. The affirmative side has to show that that the claims that they are making are true. No benefit of the doubt is given here.

Sauron · 12-08-2005, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. Does that matter to us today? As far as I can tell, it does not.

It matters as much as the Christ claim matters. If Vespasian was a god, then the Roman pantheon is valid and the Roman gods deserve our worship.

Not that I accept that - but it demonstrates at least one reason why we don't just accept ancient tales of miraculous events at face value. Which, of course, applies to the bible as well.

Quote:

Perhaps. However, it seems that we could ignore those that have no bearing on what we do today.

How do you know they have no bearing today? See the above.

Quote:

The accounts about Jesus are relevant because He claimed that we were accountable to Him for the things that we do. Vespasian made no such claim (and seems to have done it only to enhance his claim to be emperor).

1. How do you know that Vespasian made no such claim?

2. If Vespasian's miracle occured, then the miracle would prove that Vespasian was a god. Therefore, we are accountable to the Roman gods.

Noggin · 12-08-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

NOGGIN:
Okay. So then shelf the miracle for a second. Rhutchin, we then have to confront John's authority to tell us that we will be judged by the unproven god.

First question John's authority then deal with the supposed recorded jesus miracles vs Tacitus' miracles. Where does his authority come from that gives him the grounds to threaten or warn or hold the looming yet forthcoming judgment over any human head?

Which leads us back to the axe grinding of your having to prove their is a god in the first place that will be doing any judging.

It is a hopeless cycle. It is as if the atheist is the only one who can point it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Rhutchin answered: What we have is John providing us with an historical account of his experiences with a man called Jesus. This account agrees with historical accounts written by others particularly that of an historian named Luke. Clearly, something happened in the first century that resulted in a religious movement called Christianity (even as we can trace other religious movements to other individuals).

The issue is whether John and the others are telling us the truth. Unless one can show, without a doubt, that the claims are bogus, the logical conclusion is to assume that they are true.

1) So you recognize that Islam as a religious movement too. Yet you feel no compulsion to go investigate if Islam is "The Truth" moreso than your christianity?

Why?

2) The logical conclusion is to not assume John was truthful. The logical conclusion is to become confused at how Islam boldly contradicts-- not enhances-- christianity yet christians will not investigate and follow Islam and Muslims will not investigate christianity and follow christ.

well. I no longer become confused. Logic trumps here. They both cannot be true at the same time. In a global sense, all world religion cannot be exclusively and simultaneously true.

So I am left to just take it all in stride and that means dismissal.

Again, why the myopia? If you were born in Iraq, you would be making equally supportive statements of Islam instead of your christ.

Noggin

gregor · 12-08-2005, 11:09 AM

Mr. Huctchin
While you may be a "presuppositionalist" when it comes to the Bible - one who pre-supposes that our Bible is an accurate document and it recounts historical events, most here are not.

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

12-08-2005, 09:44 AM	#51
jdeverse Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 25	Hello and good day Johnny Skeptic, I would not discount the performance of physical miracles by Christ, the miracles of God's manifestations are numerous. However, they are not a proof of their divine mission or power. Even if someone was a witness to a miracle, they will after time question the validity of what they saw. If one were to witness someone become spiritually awakened and evince such a change in character as to offer up their lives (physically and metaphorically) in the path of their beloved - then this is the kind of tangible experience that can inspire hearts to seek the truth.

12-08-2005, 11:09 AM	#60
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Mr. Huctchin While you may be a "presuppositionalist" when it comes to the Bible - one who pre-supposes that our Bible is an accurate document and it recounts historical events, most here are not.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.