Lebowsk1, I liked this post. I don’t agree with you, but I respect you alot more because Cisco laid out some heavy questions and you explained yourself. As I said, I disagree with you, but you actually answered some questions of definition, and that’s more than a lot of people here have been willing to do. I guess my real problem is leaving my questions at the end of my posts. People get angry with me, look for the tl;dr version, and then skip on to the next post.
@Soul Bushido: You quoted me in your response, and I think my response to your counter is more in line with the truth.
Buzzzzz! Wrong. You’re adding on your own extra editorial that is NOT in the verse, so that it fits with the reality of prayer does NOT work in the way that Jesus explicitly promised.
You don’t think that there are people…who would be helping others 24/7 if they had the time/money? You don’t think those people haven’t prayed for the time and money to free them up for philanthropy? Yet most lottery winners and most CEOs do selfish things with their money. If the lottery is pure (infinitesimal) chance, why not reward people who pray for the lottery for noble reasons to get it?
Your argument falls apart if there is even ONE person deserving of any prayer who has not received it, because, per Jesus’ own specifications if you ask for ANYTHING in his name you can have it. He actually doesn’t place ANY restrictions when he says this but we can only assume you have to be deserving. By telling heroes, brave selfless people they aren’t deserving of their limbs back you are merely an amoral minion of an evil god. Shame on you.
You do have a point. My initial answer doesn’t work, and you’ve changed my mind. I’ve developed a different argument instead, because it’s more valid. I know you think the Bible is a bunch of bull, but it’s the best way I can explain this. Thanks for helping me realize the error in my reasoning, I hope this answer makes more sense and I hope it provides sufficient answer to the question.
Here’s the verse you keep bringing to the forefront:
or
and
or
These links are to the passage in question from two of our most accurate English word for word translations of the Bible. Now this is where your problem is: Context.
You seem to present a good argument by quoting that verse. Anyone who reads that verse thinks "God is cruel! He hasn’t healed my cancer! He’s insert derogatory statement.
But:
If you read the WHOLE chapter, and put this chronologically into context
or
and
or
This takes place at the time preceding and leading up to Jesus’ death and betrayal. His disciples are getting anxious because they know He’s going to leave at some point, and this chapter and those surrounding are about Jesus comforting His disciples.
First notice the change in noun agreement from Chapter 14 verse 12 to 13. Verse 12 says “he who,” or “whoever,” meaning anyone. However, verse 13, Jesus changes His wording to “You,” meaning His disciples. He’s explicitly talking to those men in the room with Him. Who is Jesus talking to? His disciples. He is telling them that if they ask for God’s power in His name, He’s going to give it to them. He is NOT saying that anyone asking in Christ’s name is going to get the power.
He’s saying “Disciples, you’re going to be my witness here on earth after I leave. In order to convince people of my ministry, you will be granted the power to do anything you need to in order to bring me glory.”
I agree with you. To say “not all” is like saying "99% do, but because there’s that 1%, I can’t say they ALL do."
Where-as “vast majority” implies more around 70-80% It’s a matter of scale.
While I understood what spudly was saying, I think that if he used the same verbiage throughout, he would have been a bit better received.
Yes, the followers would need evidence to actually have that serious dedication… It’s sociology science, people die for what they believe, and in the minds of the martyr, what they are dieing for is the truth. The resurrection could not have been convinced by words or even just by seeing evidence. Saying that they just gobbled up some guy rising from the dead is illogical because who would believe a man was god and rose after being crucified from shit they heard? If you look up history and check out how they died, then it’s certain they really believed in the resurrection of Jesus. And what way would they believe it to be true? This is not like some cult who built there beliefs upon altering of doctrines, but an actual belief that God manifested in the flesh and actually rose after being executed on the cross. What basis is there to show that they were at error with that? I’ve been asking for the basis ever since…
Buzz you are the one that is wrong, your whole posts makes it obvious that you have no idea what prayer is, instead you give out your understanding of it being like a wish request line. God not healing amputees is answered with the saying “life goes on”… regardless of tragedies, the world and life continues until the time comes for the persons death. Amputees = God doesn’t exist is a horrible argument, please get with the times already.
This check list from 12-16 year old atheists comes as
An omnipotent God would heal amputees.
Amputees are not healed.
Therefore, an omnipotent God does not exist.
In reality you can replace the promise with anything unpleasant. God heals amputees, now a complaint comes, why won’t God heal the blind anymore, he heals the blind? next complaint, why won’t God heal the mentally ill, he heals the mentally ill;why won’t God feed the hungry, he feeds the hungry and it leads all the way to the extermination of those unpleasant realities. When God heals all the unfortunate realities of humans around the world, what was the use of giving us the moral code of being humane (Loving and Helping one another)? It disappears along with it. God influences us inside to actually feel for those people, and hopefully act on it by helping them. We have that power to actually heal them, by trying to make them feel better, not labeling them as a curse. You go scoff out about God not healing, yet you don’t do anything to help them out anyway. instead, you destroy them more by feeding these lies that God doesn’t exist or he doesn’t love them, just for them to actually get the feeling of living sorry lives and forgetting about any inspiration that would probably raise them emotionally. God doesn’t heal that way because the physical life eventually comes to an end and all will be new after, as the Bible says. Currently, the job of making earthly miracles are on our part. He created us with a mind and also humane nature, what would be the use of that if he just does everything for us?
Well, i see the legacy and i see the harmonizing it has with Sociology facts, therefore it is believed. Any suggestion that his contemporaries developed the belief and died over a gossip is illogical. It’s just the usual atheist stubbornness because they don’t want to be the ones who are looking illogical and ignorant.
Absurd inferences doesn’t stack to sociological description of cult/religious activity.
Actually i do, and for you last question, right now, yes they didn’t mistake their teacher rising from the grave. Until the time i see a solid case that Jesus was actually a magician and did pull a Houdini from the cross, but i have not seen anything yet from you, so there is no effective academical refutation yet so at the moment there is no reason to say that they made mistake. It is illogical for those men to just gobble up that their teacher rose from the crucifixion after jetting away for safety during his arrest. What you want to be as an answer doesn’t stack yet therefore it is a dead assumption.
I didn’t ask if their beliefs ARE wrong, I asked if it is POSSIBLE for them to be wrong. I think it is possible for anyone to be wrong.
Contrary to your previous dogmatic statement:* “Any suggestion that his contemporaries developed the belief and died over a gossip is illogical.”*
It’s not illogical to dismiss the story because it is not a necessarily true story. When someone reads it, it isn’t like 2+2 = 4. Where 4 necessarily follows.
You need many other beliefs beyond the story in order to think it actually happened. You need “sociological” and “historic” theories, you need to believe the source is credible, you need to think the followers didn’t make mistakes, you need a theory of interpretation so you don’t just believe it is metaphor but physical…etc. etc.
Probability problem: what is more probable, the story about a man coming back from the dead, or that people lied and made up the story or that people believed it BUT were WRONG. Humans like to tell lies, and humans are wrong a lot – it’s more probable that the story is a lie or the believers were just mistaken.
Logical problem: already given, neither the writers nor the witnesses of the story are infallible, as such the story isn’t necessarily true, this doesn’t mean it’s false either, it just means we should remain skeptical, neutral.
Although I think the story is a mixture of intentional fabrication and unintentional human error, I also admit I might be wrong. Maybe he did come back to life…Can you admit that you might be wrong? Or do you think yourself and your bible to be infallible?
I don’t see much significance in a resurrection, so if it did happen or if it didn’t, isn’t very important to me, I guess I’m unbiased that way. Are you unbiased or do you hope it did happen?
Yes, i said it may be plausible but it is actually basis and an empty argument. The only logical reason for them to be at error is if Jesus was a magician, but where is the basis of magical stunt of the Crucifixion?
Yes, you are right. The belief in the resurrection isn’t a belief that is developed by gossip, not for his contemporaries, their attitudes help trace the resurrection and until the time there is a solid case that shows the disciples where deceived, then there isn’t a good argument to contend with the belief of a man being God and rising from an execution .
The only reason why you want to think the apostles made mistakes because you don’t want to stand in error. These things you just mention show the support of the resurrection because as Sociology science says, Cults do start with a central teacher/figure and there is no cult that has no belief in the leader. The belief of this leader is that he was the eternal God talked about in the Torah and that he rose from the dead, 3 days after he was crucified. How does any one just believe that with out something remarkably convincing?
I think a refutation to Carrier’s article has been posted. Richard Carrier has many other proposals as to how the resurrection was a mistake. His early article during 1999 proposed that Jesus survived the crucifixion, he then backs it up
As i said, i am giving the chances but the only logical way i see the disciples believing a false resurrection was if Jesus was a magician and pulled a magic stunt. Yet no where do i see that case. Every other assumption doesn’t stack up with the aftermath of the apostles, they really did think they died and served for the truth and i don’t get how anyone can just dim their intelligence and think that they were easily fooled? How can anyone not get skeptical (regardless of the admiration) about someone resurrecting 3 days after he was executed? There really had to be something very very convincing to actually transform those men into dedicated followers who would carry on the teachings regardless of the violent deaths they would endure from it. In reality, if you read my replies to Lebowski… i really do have a skeptical tolerance towards miraculous claims. There are allot of stories and videos of people who claim to have had a vision of Jesus… i don’t believe it. Even if i see something unnatural, i really won’t consider it a divine miracle. Impact is a great support for validity, and something about a guy coming back from the dead would be impossible to believe in with out something seriously convincing. The legacy should have died along with the apostles because i don’t understand how others would just believe it.
If you are using Sociological evidence to prove the divinity of Christ, then how do you explain the 1.3-1.6 billion people who believe in Islam? Doesn’t the Koran have the same weight as the bible, sociologically?