How are we to explain these "miracles?"

[Heissonear]

But all you've done is make a vague claim, with absolutely no way to check it. What was the child's name? Who were the other witnesses? When did this happen? Where did this happen? With no way to check, then all we have is a single person's testimony, which is notoriously unreliable.

.

Read post #224.

What gives? Why do you seek remnants in the physical, when it is the product of the Spiritual? What are you seeking, to remain natural, worldly in your methodology and in substance? You are looking back like physical facts could and should have been accumulated and deduced. Do you still seek to be naturalistic in what happened and your approach to find Him?





.

 

[Heissonear]

But all you've done is make a vague claim, ........... with no way to check, then all we have is a single person's testimony, which is notoriously unreliable.

.

Vague and notoriously unreliable.

Noted.

But this happened, you believing it or not. You having physical evidence or not. You being skeptical or not.

1. In mothers arms a child with a deformed arm was lengthened and made whole and normal over a few seconds period of time before three peoples eyes, firsthand. A process which the natural cannot account for.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only stories of Jesus told by authors who never met him.

You say that as if you actually believe it.

 

[Neogaia777]

Nobody, because the only accounts we have of Him are from people who never witnessed Him.

We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I do not see you as being logical, reasonable, or truthful in this: Matthew and John were two that personally witnessed Jesus Christ, and what about the stories about Peter and all the apostles being gathered together and spoken of in the book Acts when the Holy spirit came down upon them, these were all "firsthand" witnesses, of both Jesus Christ, and of the power of God/Holy Spirit, in and through the use of Jesus name...

Others were his disciples like Mark and Luke and maybe even Stephen and other disciples some of whom wrote books, the truth is we don't which of these disciples witnessed Jesus first-hand but it is reasonable to assume some did and might have been of the original seventy that Jesus personally sent out...

Others, who you say, were not firsthand witnesses may have had a personal appearance by Jesus after his resurrection, or/and even if they didn't, they are firsthand witnesses of the power of God and of the Holy Spirit, working through Peter, Paul and others, which was sent by out by/through what and because of what Jesus did, and they were performing miracles in Jesus name, through and by the use of Jesus name, and their are many firsthand witnesses to this/these accounts/effect(s)

So, I disagree with you and believe you are only in denial of the truth...

 

[PsychoSarah]

What makes you state that? Are you also with others, claiming that I lied about the miracles I've witnessed?

.

You refuse to show evidence, why should we believe you? Extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary evidence.

 

[Heissonear]

You refuse to show evidence, why should we believe you? Extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary evidence.

.
I have stated what happened, what I personally and firsthand witnessed.

No evidence in the physical needed. Maybe for you and about 20 to 30 other atheists on this forum. Supplying physical evidence is your problem. You cannot say it is a lie and did not happen in reality. It only shows your ignorance of the reality of Spiritual Realm Dynamics you know not of.

 

[PsychoSarah]

.
I have stated what happened, what I personally and firsthand witnessed.

No evidence in the physical needed. Maybe for you and about 20 to 30 other atheists on this forum. Supplying physical evidence is your problem. You cannot say it is a lie and did not happen in reality. It only shows your ignorance of the reality of Spiritual Realm Dynamics you know not of.

Eyewitness testimony is some of the least reliable evidence for anything that can be given.

 

[bhsmte]

We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I do not see you as being logical, reasonable, or truthful in this: Matthew and John were two that personally witnessed Jesus Christ, and what about the stories about Peter and all the apostles being gathered together and spoken of in the book Acts when the Holy spirit came down upon them, these were all "firsthand" witnesses, of both Jesus Christ, and of the power of God/Holy Spirit, in and through the use of Jesus name...

Others were his disciples like Mark and Luke and maybe even Stephen and other disciples some of whom wrote books, the truth is we don't which of these disciples witnessed Jesus first-hand but it is reasonable to assume some did and might have been of the original seventy that Jesus personally sent out...

Others, who you say, were not firsthand witnesses may have had a personal appearance by Jesus after his resurrection, or/and even if they didn't, they are firsthand witnesses of the power of God and of the Holy Spirit, working through Peter, Paul and others, which was sent by out by/through what and because of what Jesus did, and they were performing miracles in Jesus name, through and by the use of Jesus name, and their are many firsthand witnesses to this/these accounts/effect(s)

So, I disagree with you and believe you are only in denial of the truth...

You mention Matthew and John, but most scholars and historians agree the 4 gospels were penned by anonymous authors. John was the last one written, some 60-70 years after Jesus died and makes eye witness accounts quite difficult.

 

[selfinflikted]

Have any of you, (and I'm speaking to the non-believers in here) even given the Bible, heck I'd even be satisfied with you taking the time with just the four gospels, (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) have any of you given them a "chance" even? As much as you non-believers in here accuse believers of being "ignorant", well I would say that all you non-believers are ignorant, especially if you won't even take the precious time out of your day, your life, to even just read at least the four gospel accounts and for God's and your own sake, give them a "chance", and when reading them, be open to the possibilities...

You people (non-believers) take so, so very, very much reading and studying and examining everything else in life, are you not even willing to take the time to read four very short (compared to the rest of mere mans knowledge and wisdom you take in) are you not even willing to take the time to read four short books (on average about twenty pages each)? and then, and only then, come back to us (believers) and then say what you have to say, what's the matter with reading them, are you afraid, what is it exactly that's holding you back?

In Jesus name, God Bless!

The Bible is precisely what turned many Christians into atheists in the first place. I am one of those myself.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is precisely what turned many Christians into atheists in the first place. I am one of those myself.

How's come I'm not one, then?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How's come I'm not one, then?

Not everyone thinks in the same way.

 

[bhsmte]

Not everyone thinks in the same way.

Correct and more specifically, not everyone has the same psychological needs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not everyone thinks in the same way.

So he thought himself into atheism?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So he thought himself into atheism?

Not exactly, I don't know anyone who actively seeks to be atheist, it just kinda happens. More like some people, me included, can't think ourselves out of atheism, or, in the case of a few others, don't want to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct and more specifically, not everyone has the same psychological needs.

What psychological needs does he have to be an atheist?

And for that matter, what psychological needs do you have that you need to think yourself into atheism as well?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What psychological needs does he have to be an atheist?

And for that matter, what psychological needs do you have that you need to think yourself into atheism as well?

It isn't a psychological need to be atheist it is a lack of a psychological need for worship.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not exactly, I don't know anyone who actively seeks to be atheist, it just kinda happens. More like some people, me included, can't think ourselves out of atheism, or, in the case of a few others, don't want to.

So the Bible has nothing to do with you being an atheist then?

 

[AV1611VET]

It isn't a psychological need to be atheist it is a lack of a psychological need for worship.

I think these guys don't know, and just want to blame it on the Bible.

Don't you?

 

[bhsmte]

What psychological needs does he have to be an atheist?

And for that matter, what psychological needs do you have that you need to think yourself into atheism as well?

Good question.

For me specifically, after thoroughly examining the bible and then looking at the realities of the world we live in, I could not reconcile the story as believable. So you could say, I got to a psychological point, of needing to be honest with myself and I could not go on, thinking I believed in something and I was only fooling myself.

So, it was a need to acquire knowledge of a specific source and not reject reality.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So the Bible has nothing to do with you being an atheist then?

Very little, actually. Reading it might have reaffirmed that view, but I was atheist before I read it. Evolution isn't the reason either, just going to put that out there before it is brought up.