rhutchin

No need to ask them. They will publish this because they believe in you and want to give you the reputation you are due. Those who experienced it will be telling everyone also. I will see it all on the news tonight (if you are telling the truth).

Deus Ex

It is impossible for me to prove that a miracle did not happen 2000 years ago. It is, also, impossible for you to prove that one did. We can only deal with probabilities and plausibilities. Since you are the one who asserts that miracles did occur, then the burden of proof is on you to convince me that an extremely unlikely event happened(such as the resurrection). No Christian has done this.

Again, your evidence for Paul's healing abilities comes from book of Acts (probably written decades after Paul's death). Paul's own letters never mentioning him healing anyone. Acts is fiction.

Ouch.

spamandham

They probably won't publish it, since they are illiterate, and since I told them to keep it a secret as my time has not yet come.


edit:

Also, it won't be on the news, because no news cameras were at the scene.

Johnny Skeptic

And the intent is also that Christians correctly understand what they read. You obviously don't. Consider the following:

Obviously not. It is not difficult to make claims after the fact. For instance, in the NASB, Isaiah 53:9 says "His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth." It is a reasonable possibility that the story of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, who was a rich man, was made up to accomodate Isaiah 53:9.

It is also are a reasonable possibility that Matthew dreamed up the story of the Magi to accomodate Micah 5:2, which says "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...liolaters.html

http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html

The article provides lots of other evidence that reasonably proves that Isaiah does not refer to Jesus. Regarding "The Jews for Judaism analysis of Isaiah 53.......," a Jews for Judaism website at http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index....=48&Itemid=373 has lots of articles about Isaiah 53.

Your opionions regarding Isaiah 53 are based upon faith and inerrancy, not upon history and correct interpretations of Isaiah 53. It is typical for inerrantists to rubber stamp everything that the Bible says and try to force history to agree. No rational person would be an inerrantist. For instance, there is excellent evidence that a global flood did not occur. The global flood violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, and the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting. If God is not obligated to save anyone, then he certainly is not obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts, which means that there are not any good reasons for anyone to believe that the Bible is inerrant.

From a historical and scientific perspective, it is very difficult for fundamentalist Christians to reasonably prove any supernatural claim that the Bible makes. The following claims are not even debatable from a scientific and historical perspective:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

3 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

4 - Jesus never sinned.

5 - Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of manking.

Even if Jesus rose from the dead, that does not tell us what he probably said, and why he rose from the dead.

SeekingKnowledge

I freely admit that Johnny has a much more intellectual and fact based argument for you.. But my first thought is:

If my "gospel of Knowledge" or any other modern prophetic doctrine merely requires followers and books written about it for you to believe it, then why aren't you a Mormon?

Or are you?

spamandham

When the whole system is rooted in logical fallacies, facts don't make a lick of difference. Any fact can easily be apologized away with an appeal to magic or maybe. But if you can get someone to realize they are fundamentally using flawed reasoning they would consider absurd in any other aspect of their life, a little progress has been made.

SeekingKnowledge

Thank you.. I will have you know that I will be relying on educated folks, such as yourself, quite a bit to help me say what I am trying to say.. To change a word or two to better reflect what I truly mean.

And so the translation and mistranslation of the "Gospel of Knowledge" starts.. You can be one of my disciples, if you like... LOL

Imagine how convaluted my works will be in another 2000 years (even with all the availability we have today to "preserve" evidence, like the Video I have of my bringing a dead squirrel back to life)

rhutchin

There is no modern prophetic doctrine. God spoke to us through Christ and that was the end of it. The apostles then wrote of what Christ told them as did Paul.

The Mormons and Muslims both claim that Christ is not God and each sets out to establish a sect opposed to Christ and those who follow Christ.

If it were true that God has actually given you some new revelation, then he would have provided you the ability to do miracles to validate the things that you are saying.

If however, you set yourself up as God, or a spokesman for God, apart from Christ, then you should have power, or be given power, to validate what you say. Let others testify that the miracles you do validate your claim to be spokesman for God and then let people choose whether to follow Christ or to follow you.

rhutchin

Much speculation does nothing. Matthew need only state the truth about the Magi and speculation about "reasonable possibilities" that oppose Matthew's account does nothing but show the imaginative powers of the mind. Speculation proves nothing and never will.

Deus Ex

Wonder why Jesus did not bother to write anything?

Other than Paul, we have no evidence that any apostles wrote anything. The gospels were written anonymously; 1 & 2 Peter are surely pseudonymous and not written by an illiterate fisherman. The epistles of John were most likely written by a community of believers living in Ephesus.

So you believe the 'Bible' to be valid because of the magic powers of the apostles? You have no proof of their miracle magic; just stories in a book. :banghead:

There is no evidence that anyone in the first century AD had magic powers.