"Why won't God heal amputees?"

[jem]

I am familiar with most if not all the the questions you raised.

I can address them one by one or I can send to to websites which address them.

Of couse I do not necesarily take every word the bible literally. I come from a Catholic background. But, I will address your challenge as if I should.

The most import challenge you raised is the one of justification. Saved by works or saved by faith only.

This was the basis for the reformation.

You wrote...

Are we "saved" by faith?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)


Or of Works?
James 2:24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (Matt. 19:16-21)

Now if you were to read the bible you would know that the works that James references are actions showing faith.

Abraham setting up to sacrifice his son. Is not a "work" is it. Is is the act of someone following God through faith.

Any of these questions should really translate faith in faithing. Having faith is not a set of rules or prayers or pithy statements about your love of God.

It is about acting on your faith. Acting in faith. Acting as if you believe God.

Works are the action part of your faith. There is no dichtomy there to those few who actually open up the bible and read it. Incidently the new Pope had an accord with the Protestants on this fact back in the 80s.

Melchisdec, enoch and Jesus --

It is surmised by many born again teaches that Mel and enoch were Jesus or types of Priests that represented Jesus. I have seen whole chapeters devoted to this subject.

I will have to admit that Judas exploded is something I have not caught before - I will check it out.

I have seen the point about the mustard seed refuted and many other of the points you raise.

I will look into it.

 

[jefferis]

I was introduced to this thread by a friend who knows me outside of the trading environment, although I do trade stocks...

I think is rather naive to think that just because someone has found in the Bible apparent conflicts and passages which offend modern sensibilities, that someone has somehow been able to disprove the value and validity of the scriptures. It is naive to think one has discovered the "gotcha" - without having spent years investigating the historical and cultural context of the writers and weighing the arguments fairly on either side. Instead, I see the typical, superficial posturing of those, both for and against, who rant and spew opinions without having taken the time to study the depths of the issues. I would no more value someone's personal opinion about the truthfulness of the scriptures than I would allow someone to operate on me because he's watched General Hospital. Yet we are often being asked to give credence to someone because he has come up with a logical box which he thinks somehow "proves" his point and disproves the reasonableness of faith...

First of all, let me address the posts by "Jesus." Beware of comic book theology and gobbledygook that depends upon some kind of enlightenment where you suddenly 'realize' who you are. If you suddenly 'realize' something, it is probably the drugs. Been there, done that. Truth is consistent with reason, even if not bound by it. And comic book theology always has that odd air of spiritual superiority. It claims higher truth, but won't submit to argument and go toe to toe with reason and debate.

Second, both fundamentalists who defend the scriptures and atheists who attack the chronological inconsistencies, and minor reporting errors, in the New Testament have made a significant cultural mistake. They are treating the writers of the New Testament as if they were the product of the age of Enlightenment Rationalism and were trying to create an exact, journalistic report of events in sequence. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Gospel writers were not writing down facts in order of occurrence, they were using historical events to show how the life of Jesus fulfilled the prophetic typology of the scriptures. In other words, while being faithful to the events, they were not very concerned to live up to our historical methodology. The writers were creative theologians, using the life of Jesus to show how his life fulfilled the scripture's predictions about the Messiah.

We have an historical attestation to this effect from the 2nd Century Papias, who said,
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely...So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able."

So, in my mind, minor divergences of reportage on small details does not destroy the credibility on the widespread agreement of the authors on the major points. Jesus was crucified, Jesus died, Jesus was astoundingly raised from the dead. In fact, without his resurrection, they would have had no motivation to write anything, since immediately after his death they were all running for their lives afraid the same fate was to befall them...

Just to sum up the point: how can you know the meaning and validity of the scriptures if you don't know the authors' purpose, literary method, and intent? There is a literary form and structure of the Gospels, which most people miss. They were publicists, not simply historians. The Gospels are a literary genre called typologies. They wanted to show how Jesus is the fulfillment of the types revealed in the Old Testament books. They organized and arranged the events of Jesus' life to fit the literary pattern of the first 6 books of the Bible. Matthew, Luke, and John, all use a different books of the Tanakh to reveal how the events of Jesus' life are the fulfillment of the First Covenant. Matthew records Jesus' 40 days and nights in the wilderness and his subsequent Sermon on the Mount. This part of Jesus' life fulfills the paradigm of Exodus, where Moses is on the Mount for 40 days and nights and brings down the 10 Commandments and teaches the people from the mountain. Jesus is the new Moses, according to Matthew. Luke, however records Jesus' Sermon on the Plain which follows the book of Deuteronomy where Moses recounts the history of the Law on the Plain outside the promised Land. Again, to Luke, Jesus is the new Moses. John uses the book of Joshua {Joshua is the Hebrew name for Jesus} to reveal how Jesus' crossing the Jordan river corresponds to Joshua's crossing when the people of Israel entered the Promised Land. Jesus is the new Joshua, bringing the people of God into the New Promised Land of the Spirit by his death and resurrection...


My point is this: if you don't understand what the authors' intent and purpose were, you cannot impose upon them modern, journalistic forms and expect the results you want, either for or against. You are arguing apples against oranges.

If anyone wants to deal with specific issues, I'll try to answer them as best I can, but please do not vomit out on electronic paper all the bile and anger you have against Christianity in a misguided effort to prove yourself superior to the rest of us 'dumb' folks. I'm willing to enter into genuine discussion and dialog, but not a ranting match. Been there, done that... it's tired and boring. I'll admit when I don't have answers, when there are problems with the text, and when things just do not make sense to me. That is the best I can do in an honest dialog...

 

[lkh]

Quote from jefferis:



So, in my mind, minor divergences of reportage on small details does not destroy the credibility on the widespread agreement of the authors on the major points. Jesus was crucified, Jesus died, Jesus was astoundingly raised from the dead. In fact, without his resurrection, they would have had no motivation to write anything, since immediately after his death they were all running for their lives afraid the same fate was to befall them...

..

And you know Jesus was raised from the dead how? Because the bible tells me so.
Let me ask you a question. Why does Paul who wrote the earliest books of the Bible never mention the empty tomb or the the virgin birth but these stories show up in the Gospels written later?
You are right. The Bible was written by publicists who were trying to elevate Jesus to deity status.
They had a problem though because the Bible clearly says there is only one God. In order to get around that problem they concocted the trinity story.
If people like you would study about the Bible instead of just studying the Bible you would not be trapped in this circle of circular logic.

 

[lkh]

Proof #47 - Contemplate creation

Many Christians look at our universe, and especially life on planet Earth, and come to the conclusion that what we see is "irreducible complexity." In the Christian view, the complexity of our universe and life on earth requires an intelligent creator to bring everything into existence. A Christian might say:

"Look at how amazing and complex life is. Look at how intricate the human eye is, and the human brain. There is no way that the human eye and the human brain arose spontaneously from the mud. In the same way that a watch cannot appear without a watchmaker, there is no way that all this complexity arose without an intelligent creator."
So, we have a question that demands an answer:
Did the complexity of life arise spontaneously, or did it require a creator?
Christians believe that a creator is essential. Scientists believe that the idea of a "creator" is pure mythology, and that the complexity arose through natural processes like evolution. Who is right?

You can actually answer this question yourself with a little logic. Here are the two options:

The complexity of life and the universe did arise completely spontaneously and without any intelligence. Nature created all the complexity we see today.

An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today because complexity requires intelligence to create it.
The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.
The problem with the second option is that it immediately creates an impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires intelligence. Therefore, God is impossible.

In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary.

 

[jefferis]

Quote from lkh:

And you know Jesus was raised from the dead how? Because the bible tells me so.
Let me ask you a question. Why does Paul who wrote the earliest books of the Bible never mention the empty tomb or the the virgin birth but these stories show up in the Gospels written later?
You are right. The Bible was written by publicists who were trying to elevate Jesus to deity status.
They had a problem though because the Bible clearly says there is only one God. In order to get around that problem they concocted the trinity story.
If people like you would study about the Bible instead of just studying the Bible you would not be trapped in this circle of circular logic.

I know Jesus was raised from the dead because I've met him. He lives in me. I did not believe before, but after the encounter, I had no choice Seriously, I did not believe in the Bible, but when you receive the Holy Spirit, you know God as surely as you know that you exist. You may not be able to accept that, but that is my testimony. That's my story and I'm sticking to it

As I said, truth is not contrary to reason but truth isn't bound by reason. Why? Because we are finite creatures and not omniscient and there are things beyond our ability to reason or understand. We reason from what we can know and understand, but because we are finite, we reason from imperfect or incomplete data. If we are humble and not arrogant, we can point to the limits of our understanding and of our human reasoning, and recognize and admit our limitations. To think because we can master logic that we have somehow arrived at ultimate truth is a real non sequitur. Reason and logic depend upon the premises or axioms upon which one puts INTO the system. And our humanity, because it is fallible, is bent by our emotions and prejudices that we put into the formula. We achieve the desired outcome of our logic by the prepositions we assume. I can equally prove there is no God by the system of logic as I can prove there is. Logic doesn't prove anything. It just demonstrates consistency of thought or inconsistency. Yet if there is a God and he reveals himself [since if he were God he would have the power to do so], then the power of his presence could breach the limitations of human reason and provide experience that is more palpable than the imagination of the mind and the conclusions that logic alone could manufacture. You would know the Person who is Truth, rather than just talk about truth.

On to your question about Paul. Paul doesn't mention the matters you raise because they were not relevant to the reason he was writing letters to his congregations. A letter is a slice of life and addressed to a current issue. He spent 2 years or more in Corinth with his church. Everything that was relevant to the history of Christ, his birth or whatever, would have been addressed there in basic training. He got a report about immorality and pride and in fighting and sent a letter to address those issues among others. He wasn't rehearsing the whole history of Israel in a letter.

As to the Trinity, the Church was dealing with a resurrected man, the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who believe, and the evidence of the Messiah as something more than ordinary. The understanding of how these things could be developed over time. From there earliest times, even Paul called him "Lord" and talked about being drawn up into heaven. Read Paul's vision of Jesus' return in Thessalonians and ask, "is he speaking about a mere mortal man?"

The final summation of the understanding of the Tri-une God is that there is One God in Three Persons. Person in Greek is the word "Persona." Persona is the mask that actors wore on stage to represent laughter or sadness. The same actor can appear under different persona. There is only One God. The God that takes on human flesh and walks among us to show us what Love is supposed to look like is the same God who sits in heaven. One God in Three Persona. Obviously, there is more to it than that, but I don't think you are seriously interested in the context, just using that as an attack point.

 

[I am...]

Quote from lkh:


You are right. The Bible was written by publicists who were trying to elevate Jesus to deity status.
They had a problem though because the Bible clearly says there is only one God. In order to get around that problem they concocted the trinity story.
If people like you would study about the Bible instead of just studying the Bible you would not be trapped in this circle of circular logic.

"Publicists" try to raise me to "special" status at the expense of you, my brethren. I am equal to my brethren among the Sonship of God, differing only by decisions I've made, such as the decision to listen ONLY to the Holy Spirit as my guide in this world of mirage and illusion. Because we are equal, we are one. Thus, there is the Father, there is one "only-begotten" Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is the Holy Trinity, we are "one", and each of you are part of it, even "hcour". This solves the mystery of the "one" God. There is no other reality. As the Son, we are equal to our Creator. Only we cannot create our Creator, nor create without Him. Since this "world" was "created" without Him, it is not created at all, and does not exist. It is "comicbook". It is only in the mind. And those Sons who think it real, are quite literally out of their mind. Thus, it is the mind that is being salvaged by the Holy Spirit, a gift from the Father to His wayward Son. Until then, you will wander around, trapped in circular logic. To put specialness into perspective, you can replace all Bible references where I am said to refer to "me"...you can replace those with "the Holy Spirit", for I embodied the Holy Spirit completely. Thus, what was once, "Follow me", becomes, "Follow the Holy Spirit", and, "Believe in me", becomes, "believe in the Holy Spirit", for He is your Guide. You all have the Holy Spirit in equal measure, if you will but listen to Him. We are equal, because you will all make the decision to listen only to Him. You have all the "time" in the world.

Specialness in projected upon me by those who secretly desire to be special.

Blessings upon hcour,

Jesus

 

[lkh]

Quote from jefferis:

I know Jesus was raised from the dead because I've met him. He lives in me. I did not believe before, but after the encounter, I had no choice Seriously, I did not believe in the Bible, but when you receive the Holy Spirit, you know God as surely as you know that you exist. You may not be able to accept that, but that is my testimony. That's my story and I'm sticking to it

I present evidence, logic, and research from some of the best secular researchers in the business and you counter with some emotional nonsense that you have met Jesus. Do you really think you can sway educated people who are only interested in hard evidence with emotional testimony?

 

[I am...]

Quote from lkh:



In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary.

Yes, that was the kind of logic that led to an imaginary world in the mind of the Son of God.

Jesus

 

[jefferis]

Quote from lkh:

I present evidence, logic, and research from some of the best secular researchers in the business and you counter with some emotional nonsense that you have met Jesus. Do you really think you can sway educated people who are only interested in hard evidence with emotional testimony?

You present conclusions of logic based upon faulty assumptions. I was reading one of your posts, which is as illogical in conclusion as it is circular:

IThe problem with the second option is that it immediately creates an impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires intelligence. Therefore, God is impossible.

In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary.

That proves my point about the failure of logic to be able to evaluate a priori assumptions. You assume God is created, rather than uncreated. You assume God is bound by time and by the material laws of cause and effect, when even Einstein posited 4th and 5th dimensions which were beyond the realm of light and time. If there is a God, then God is the creator of time and light. That is the primal statement of Genesis: a Big Bang. "Let there be light..." For time to exist, light must exist, since time is measured by the travel of light. If time is created with light, then it also is subject to the Creator. Since time is created, there is no time 'before' God. God is before time and is not the product of cause and effect. In the natural world we see that both time and light cease to exist in a black hole, so time itself is finite and has a limitation, unlike the purported nature of God. There is no necessary "therefore" in your "proof" of God's non-existence. Garbage in = Garbage out. If God is uncreated, your logic is meaningless.

Who will accept this evidence? Have you ever been in a court of law? There are two types of evidence. We accept in a court of law all sorts of testimony as a valid witness to things that have happened. We also accept forensic evidence which can support or discount that of an eye witness. However, the legal system requires and relies upon witnesses for most things. Empiricist observations and scientific measurements can be one form of evidence. Testimony is another. The historical record of the scriptures and the motivations and the logic of the behavior of the writers is a form of evidentiary testimony, but as I said in my first post, you have to take the time to study the arguments and the reasons behind this testimony. Or else you are making biased and off the cuff judgments based upon your internal prejudices. You have already decided the case and are using logic to bolster your conclusions. You are not impartially viewing the evidence.

I'll open this up to others following this thread: How many of you have had a personal encounter with the Risen Lord, Jesus Christ, have received the Holy Spirit and been born again? Fess up and give testimony. Let lkh that this experience is common to human beings from various walks of life.

There are many of us out here who have encountered the Living God and who have become One with Him through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That is my eye witness account. You can take it or leave it. BTW, it isn't my job to persuade anyone. My job is to tell you what has happened to me. Beyond that, the Gift of Faith is given by God to all whom He chooses to save. I neither choose anyone, know who will believe, nor am I privy to His judgments of men's souls. But I will say this, if God does not choose you, you will not believe, nor will you be able to believe. God is the judge of the universe and of men's souls.

 

[hcour]

I haven't had a personal encounter w/the risen Lord, however I have had milk and donuts w/the Easter Bunny. And next Tues nite you can be sure I'll be waiting in my local patch for The Great Pumpkin.

H