James Brown
Veteran Member
And your answer is, "One day he will. Trust me"?
God is reported to heal people of cancer, of mental illness, of colds and flu, all in the here and now. But when it comes to amputees, we have to await future developments?
-
Features
120 Reasons to Reject Christianity
- Thread starter kyroot
- Start date
And your answer is, "One day he will. Trust me"?
God is reported to heal people of cancer, of mental illness, of colds and flu, all in the here and now. But when it comes to amputees, we have to await future developments?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Part and Parcel.
The evidence for God is so very often either a tall tale from long ago, or an IOU for tomorrow, or something we already accept as real, just with 'because god' appended to it.
Or it's the nonbeliever's fault for denying the evidence.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,231
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
It isn't just on amputees that we have to wait.
I don't know if you've heard the "good news," but Jesus' return is imminent. Like, you need to get right with God right now, or you'll end up on the losing end of the Rapture.
Why just the other day I had an earnest young man explain in great detail why we were living in the "End Times." Where the Anti-Christ was, all the portents and signs that signaled the approaching Tribulation, and what would happen if I didn't accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
Actually that's not entirely accurate. Oh the young man described all that, but it wasn't the other day. It was over 20 years ago. 15 years prior, all the "signs of the End Times" were laid out in a movie I saw called "The Late Great Planet Earth," based on the book of the same name published nearly a decade prior to its debut in theaters. My entire adult life was supposed to take place in the time leading up to and including the end of the world, return 'o Jesus, and everything described in Revelations.
I'm still waiting.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
They never pay up.
"It was a spiritual end-of-the-world" or "The 'end' meant our last chance to (jail Hillary, outlaw gays, build the Wall, whatever). The disaster's unavoidable now."
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Daesh claimed that it is predicted in the Hadith that a crucial battle would be fought at Dabiq between the Caliphate, helped by Jesus Christ, and armies of Rome led by the anti-Christ Dajjal that would culminate in complete destruction of the world. Only a few loyal soldiers of the so-called caliphate would survive to establish the reign of Islam.
But, on Sunday, when Syrian rebels blitzed their way to Dabiq under the cover of heavy shelling and strafing by Turkish forces, Daesh fighters fled the village, leaving behind deserted streets and huge caches of arms and ammunition.
“The Daesh myth of their great battle in Dabiq is finished,” Ahmed Osman, the head of the group that captured the village, told Reuters after the successful operation.
----
Looks like Christians are the only fools to make failed end if the world prophecies.
But, on Sunday, when Syrian rebels blitzed their way to Dabiq under the cover of heavy shelling and strafing by Turkish forces, Daesh fighters fled the village, leaving behind deserted streets and huge caches of arms and ammunition.
“The Daesh myth of their great battle in Dabiq is finished,” Ahmed Osman, the head of the group that captured the village, told Reuters after the successful operation.
----
Looks like Christians are the only fools to make failed end if the world prophecies.
Learner
Veteran Member
I suppose people should at least get the sequences "right" regarding those events in the prophecies (before Jesus returns). You know ... anti christ comes before Christ, particular wars mentioned in revelations (some think has already started) The two witnesses appearing and preaching to the world and other events etc and etc.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,231
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Or maybe the sequences are irrelevant because Jesus isn't going to return after all.
Learner
Veteran Member
If the sequences do follow up as written then we would expect there being the likelyhood of the rest of the prophecies to follow - mainly theists of course but not entirely ( people not neccessarily religious in anyway will see the signs THEN accept it).
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,231
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Okay, so all the previous predictions of the return 'o Jesus were wrong, but the one you're counting on is right because...?
I mean, a good percentage of the people who have tried to convert me to the Jesus thing over the past several decades have (as I indicated above) tried to sell the idea that the return was imminent. Not "oh, you'll be fine until at least 2017," but "accept Jesus as your savior NOW" because prophesy foretold that the end 'o the world would happen in the 1970s.
Then the 1980s.
Then the 1990s.
Year 2000 for sure. Or 2001. But absolutely the millennium. That came and went with no return of Jesus. No anti-Christ. No fulfillment of prophesy whatsoever. Just another shifting of the goalposts to "soon."
Learner
Veteran Member
I doubt many theists took serious to those predictions of the 1970s - 2001 , as it says " No one will know" or predict when. I never knew any theists that did. Only that they understood that Jesus said more or less when we are in the days like that of Noah. Worth reading for the curious what people were like back then in the days of Noah.
Learner
Veteran Member
Well that is interesting. I'm always willing to learn things like this.
ROTFL!!!!
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Many miracle stories might be dismissed as "allegory" only -- but the Jesus miracle acts must have been real historical events.
simple answer: The Jesus miracles in the gospels are best explained as real events, for which we have the same kind of evidence as we have for normal historical events. Whereas these Josephus visions are best explained as fiction, similar to other "miracle" scenes in writings which describe a battle scene, and for which there is virtually no evidence as being literal historical happenings, because they appear in one source only and it's easy to identify the writer's motivation, promoting an idea or a theory about the gods and their involvement with certain earthly characters and nations or tribes, etc.
But there's another way to explain why the Jesus miracle stories cannot be taken as allegory and were not so intended by the writers.
If the literal meaning is essential to the writer's message, then the meaning must be literal and not allegorical.
The above Josephus excerpt, listing the portents or "signs from God" at this Jerusalem scene, are only decoration being added to his account of the mayhem taking place. He could have omitted this from his description without doing harm to his account, because the purpose of his work is served by presenting us with these events, minus the "miracle" visions, so we can have knowledge of what happened and how history unfolded at this time for the Jews, and especially how this event changed the course of history for them, with their temple being destroyed and the people suffering such a setback and becoming scattered.
We don't need these visions Josephus presents in order to get this picture of what happened, even if they add extra sensationalism to the scene. He could easily have left this "miracle" element out and we would still see clearly the course of events and understand the essence of what happened.
But this cannot be said regarding the miracles of Jesus in the gospel accounts.
The "GOSPEL" of Christ has no substance without the miracle acts.
If the Jesus miracle acts are omitted, what's left remaining is incomplete and doesn't makes sense.
What is the "gospel" if Jesus did not have power such as described in these miracle healing acts? What is the "good news" if he had no power? if he was just another ordinary human with no special power?
The demonstration of his power, especially his resurrection and thus overcoming of death, and the realization that he had/has this power, is what makes Jesus important in history and explains why he attracted "disciples" and became the object of the gospel writings and the Paul epistles. If he had not demonstrated this power, in physical observable acts, he would have been a nobody and would not have been worshiped by anyone or written about.
What would there have been to write about? Without that power he demonstrated, he would have been just one more failed messiah pretender, one more babbling preacher among hundreds (or thousands) who were ignored and entirely forgotten (or 99% forgotten in a few cases where a charismatic did get enough notice to be mentioned once or twice in the written record 100-200 years later).
So a major difference between the Jesus "miracle" stories and others, like this example in Josephus, is that the writings about Jesus could never have happened if those miracle events described had not taken place (or if no one had believed they took place), whereas the Josephus writings would certainly have happened anyway, and would have served the purpose, without those "signs" in the sky, etc. being included.
The basic message of the gospel accounts, or the basic mission of Jesus, could not exist or have any substance without the mention of the power he demonstrated as being at the center of it, whereas it should be clear to anyone that the stories of portents or signs in the sky at these battle scenes -- in Josephus, Herodotus, and others -- do not add anything of substance to those accounts, except as a kind of "icing on the cake" at most, and could easily have been excluded without omitting anything essential.
simple answer: The Jesus miracles in the gospels are best explained as real events, for which we have the same kind of evidence as we have for normal historical events. Whereas these Josephus visions are best explained as fiction, similar to other "miracle" scenes in writings which describe a battle scene, and for which there is virtually no evidence as being literal historical happenings, because they appear in one source only and it's easy to identify the writer's motivation, promoting an idea or a theory about the gods and their involvement with certain earthly characters and nations or tribes, etc.
But there's another way to explain why the Jesus miracle stories cannot be taken as allegory and were not so intended by the writers.
If the literal meaning is essential to the writer's message, then the meaning must be literal and not allegorical.
The above Josephus excerpt, listing the portents or "signs from God" at this Jerusalem scene, are only decoration being added to his account of the mayhem taking place. He could have omitted this from his description without doing harm to his account, because the purpose of his work is served by presenting us with these events, minus the "miracle" visions, so we can have knowledge of what happened and how history unfolded at this time for the Jews, and especially how this event changed the course of history for them, with their temple being destroyed and the people suffering such a setback and becoming scattered.
We don't need these visions Josephus presents in order to get this picture of what happened, even if they add extra sensationalism to the scene. He could easily have left this "miracle" element out and we would still see clearly the course of events and understand the essence of what happened.
But this cannot be said regarding the miracles of Jesus in the gospel accounts.
The "GOSPEL" of Christ has no substance without the miracle acts.
If the Jesus miracle acts are omitted, what's left remaining is incomplete and doesn't makes sense.
What is the "gospel" if Jesus did not have power such as described in these miracle healing acts? What is the "good news" if he had no power? if he was just another ordinary human with no special power?
The demonstration of his power, especially his resurrection and thus overcoming of death, and the realization that he had/has this power, is what makes Jesus important in history and explains why he attracted "disciples" and became the object of the gospel writings and the Paul epistles. If he had not demonstrated this power, in physical observable acts, he would have been a nobody and would not have been worshiped by anyone or written about.
What would there have been to write about? Without that power he demonstrated, he would have been just one more failed messiah pretender, one more babbling preacher among hundreds (or thousands) who were ignored and entirely forgotten (or 99% forgotten in a few cases where a charismatic did get enough notice to be mentioned once or twice in the written record 100-200 years later).
So a major difference between the Jesus "miracle" stories and others, like this example in Josephus, is that the writings about Jesus could never have happened if those miracle events described had not taken place (or if no one had believed they took place), whereas the Josephus writings would certainly have happened anyway, and would have served the purpose, without those "signs" in the sky, etc. being included.
The basic message of the gospel accounts, or the basic mission of Jesus, could not exist or have any substance without the mention of the power he demonstrated as being at the center of it, whereas it should be clear to anyone that the stories of portents or signs in the sky at these battle scenes -- in Josephus, Herodotus, and others -- do not add anything of substance to those accounts, except as a kind of "icing on the cake" at most, and could easily have been excluded without omitting anything essential.
DBT
Contributor
No such thing. Confirmed historical events normally have multiple independent sources that corroborate an account of an event or historical personage. Apart from a few brief questionable mentions by Josephus, et al, the only source of information about the life and acts of Jesus are the books of the new testament, which are copies penned by anonymous authors, not eyewitnesses.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Which events (miracle and non-miracle) are more credible as historical, and which ones less?
No, that's inaccurate. There is evidence in some cases. But not always enough to reasonably believe it -- this varies from one case to another.
If documents near to the period of the reported event say it happened, this is evidence that it happened. Just like such reports are evidence for ANY historical events. Without such reports in written documents, we'd have no evidence for ANY historical events.
It depends on how many sources there are and how close these are to the reported events. You have to be willing to consider each claim separately and not bone-headedly lump them all together into one category simply because of your absolute doctrine that there can never be any miracle events regardless of evidence.
We have the same kind of evidence for the Jesus miracle acts that we have for many normal historical events.
This has been presented, so if this is "no reason . . . to accept it as historical," then there is no reason to accept much of our historical record, and probably half of all our known history has to be tossed out as non-historical.
Right, the same as for most of our historical facts for 1000+ years ago. They must be actual events (the normal kind) which really happened, because of the evidence we have for them, reported in written documents. But your criteria for historical evidence would require that we eliminate half of our known history of those times.
Wait -- You're criticizing me for criticizing someone who criticized my criticism of . . . you lost me!
Whose bias? not anyone here. No one on this message board is biased.
Surely he's the PILLAR of Absolute Truth.
Get a grip. Here, let funinspace help you out:
More simply (and less bombastically): they have to be attested to in multiple documents, significantly represented within the literature of the time of the reported events, like ALL reputed historical events must be reported. Those alleged events, normal or abnormal events, which are not significantly reported in the documents of the period, or which are significantly contradicted in those documents, are rejected as non-credible and non-historical.
No, that's inaccurate. There is evidence in some cases. But not always enough to reasonably believe it -- this varies from one case to another.
If documents near to the period of the reported event say it happened, this is evidence that it happened. Just like such reports are evidence for ANY historical events. Without such reports in written documents, we'd have no evidence for ANY historical events.
It depends on how many sources there are and how close these are to the reported events. You have to be willing to consider each claim separately and not bone-headedly lump them all together into one category simply because of your absolute doctrine that there can never be any miracle events regardless of evidence.
We have the same kind of evidence for the Jesus miracle acts that we have for many normal historical events.
This has been presented, so if this is "no reason . . . to accept it as historical," then there is no reason to accept much of our historical record, and probably half of all our known history has to be tossed out as non-historical.
Right, the same as for most of our historical facts for 1000+ years ago. They must be actual events (the normal kind) which really happened, because of the evidence we have for them, reported in written documents. But your criteria for historical evidence would require that we eliminate half of our known history of those times.
Wait -- You're criticizing me for criticizing someone who criticized my criticism of . . . you lost me!
Whose bias? not anyone here. No one on this message board is biased.
Surely he's the PILLAR of Absolute Truth.
Get a grip. Here, let funinspace help you out:
More simply (and less bombastically): they have to be attested to in multiple documents, significantly represented within the literature of the time of the reported events, like ALL reputed historical events must be reported. Those alleged events, normal or abnormal events, which are not significantly reported in the documents of the period, or which are significantly contradicted in those documents, are rejected as non-credible and non-historical.