• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Questioning miracles

Discussion in 'Questions by Non-Christians (Archived)' started by aidmh, Jul 16, 2002.

  1. D. Scarlatti

    D. Scarlatti Well-Known Member

    +82
    Atheist
    "The earliest NT manuscript, P52, which is a tiny fragment of the Gospel of John, dates from circa 125 CE, nearly one hundred years after the 'events.' Most of the earliest NT manuscripts date from hundreds of years later."

    That's irrelevant to SimpleChristian's claims, to which I was directly responding. SimpleChristian's post contained several completely bogus statements having to do with the quantity and dates of manuscripts, not the origin of the tales recorded on the manuscripts, which is an entirely separate issue.

    I think it's evident that if a fragment of John is dated to 125 CE it's safe to say it was actually written around that time, since the methods of dating are based on elements of the handwriting style and not radiometric analysis of the papyrus.

    Obviously prior to the discovery of P52 in 1920 the argument could be made that John dated from a later time. P52 suggests such arguments are incorrect. This glaringly obvious conclusion is the "context" you claim I've "neglected to mention."

    You may also notice that in another post, in response to Louis Booth's bizarre non sequitur, I alluded to the scholarly consensus that Mark's Gospel originally appeared around 70 CE even though the earliest available manuscripts date from hundreds of years later. So clearly you have no grounds for suggesting that I am ignoring "context."

    Anyway how could I have "neglected to mention" anything, since the quotation you've provided was taken from the same article to which I linked. It's there for anyone to read. That's why I put it there. In other words, rather than "neglecting to mention" it, I provided the context in its entirety.

    What I also "neglected to mention" was the following, also taken from the same article at the Duke University website:

    Note the broad irony here. In spite of SimpleChristian's wild exaggerations, the fact that there are so many more contemporary non-Christian sources enables scholars to date the NT manuscripts, which themselves make reference to neither dates nor authorship.

    So you see, SimpleChristian's statements that "Well over 3,000 of the extant manuscripts date within 100 years of the events, most of these dated to within 50 years of the events," and "We even had extant documents that can be dated to within 10-20 years of the events," and "This is literally unheard of in ancient manuscripts and exists in no other book outside of the new testament" are pure unadulterated nonsense.

    Why? There's nothing to retract. And I provided the evidence in the first place. If you have some evidence that supports SimpleChristian's ridiculous assertions, bring it forth.

    Better yet, SimpleChristian should do so. However since SimpleChristian never supported any similarly absurd claims about a certain Supreme Court case made elsewhere, I won't be holding my breath. But, as they say, hope springs eternal.
     
  2. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    +4
    The point is this:

    Nobody is disputing that the fragment is from 125 CE. However, that says nothing about the original document of Paul's Gospel. The handwriting dating it to 125 CE is likely correct, since it was likely re-copied at that time.

    So, your mentioning of that fragment proves nothing, and in fact, goes a long way to discrediting any legendary influences, which helps our point.

    However, I too would like SimpleChristian to provide references for his statements.  I have had a bit of trouble in the past with his beliefs not being based on history.  Hopefully he can do so.
     
  3. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    I have seen for myself that miracles are performed and prophecy spoken, not through any long dead saint, but by a living person: not by a man who serves any denomination, but by a man who seeks to serve God with all his heart. The power that backs such a man's words is of God - he says as much. "Not by my own power or virtue, but by the power of God are such things done."

    No-one who falsely claims to be of Christ is backed by power from any source - Rome claims that God is behind the miracles that she claims as her own. It would seem then, that Rome is backed by God (assuming that even 1 of the miracles she claims is real). A religion could conceivably adhere to a god other than the Christian god and demonstrate signs and wonders, it is true - but it could not be done in the name of Christ: that would be prevented.

    So - Rome has God's backing. The man I spoke of has God's backing. God leaves himself with a witness in both cases. It is also demonstrated that God doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to the claims that only one denomination has been granted his authority.
     
  4. D. Scarlatti

    D. Scarlatti Well-Known Member

    +82
    Atheist
    Somebody might, but, okay.

    What I posted on the subject had nothing to do with anything aside from SimpleChristian's wild exaggerations. I said nothing about the price of tea in China either. Keep your eye on the ball, sOuljah.

    Anyhow I will assume what you meant was the Gospel of John, not "Paul's Gospel." So what "original document" are you talking about?

    Upon what evidence do you base this remark? Likely re-copied from what?

    It, among others things, shows SimpleChristian's wild exaggerations to be just that: wild exaggerations. That's why I mentioned it, and that is the only reason why I mentioned it. What else, pray tell, was it supposed to prove that, according to you, it failed to prove?

    To reiterate, I was responding to SimpleChristian's outrageous claims with a few simple facts regarding the quantity and dates of manuscripts. That's all. Feel free to draw whatever inferences you wish to help or whatever point it is you're defending.
     
  5. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    +4
    I thought you were using it to say that it was the earliest, and original, fragment.

    If not, then sorry for wasting your time.
     
  6. D. Scarlatti

    D. Scarlatti Well-Known Member

    +82
    Atheist
    As far as I know, it is by far the earliest NT fragment we have. Whether it represents the "original" is a more difficult question to answer, I am sure.

    Not at all. It's a very interesting conversation.
     
  7. Amatire

    Amatire Member

    336
    +1
    hmmm... "this forum is NOT for Apologetics or debates!" that is what it says at the top of this "Questions about christianity" forum... :mad:

    Im sorry but please could you debate this in the apologetics room.... I think it is a very interesting argument, but at the moment we are breaking the rules. (Whoopsie!) The guy who started this thread wasnt looking for a full on debate about the origins of P52 (giggle!) he wanted to know if there were any people here who had actually experienced miracles or whether it was a purely catholic phenomena. (hmmm?!)

    So far, we appear to have scared him off! (double whoopsie!)

    hugs :angel:

    xx Am xx

    ps if you start up another thread in the apologetics room I will gladly join in, I have nothing against this discussion personally, but sooner or later we are gonna get yelled at by the moderators.. and Id rather not. ;)
     
  8. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "That's just a wee bit circular, considering the Gospels are the only source for the so-called "actual events." And three of those Gospels are in turn ultimately derived from whatever oral tradition the author of Mark relied on, since the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as source material.
    "

    *sigh* not ciruclir at all since 1. There was enough time for eyewitnesses and people who knew first hand accounts to shoot down these things if they were wrong or had fictional material. 2. that is a preposed theory, but not nessisarily a correct one. 3. the lukian account has been shown to be quite historical when dealing with events and places.

    "Why don't I just invent some "miracles" for a Caesar to perform while I'm at it, since there is just as much evidence that a Caesar performed "miracles" as there is that Jesus did. That is, none."

    *sigh* You really haven't done a lot of reading about acient lit have you? the closest one is still 800 years from the actual dates compared to even your PUFFED UP assertion of 400 yrs. It is fact that the accounts depicted in the letters of Paul (cor letters) could not have been written too long after this event. If you want to stick your head in the sand as far as literaty (sp) eviedience goes, that's fine, but just don't imply its not there okay? If you wanna beileve in the Ides of March, or any other battle that took place historically, it has less evdience of it happening in the acient world then Christ's miricles.
     
  9. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Whether it represents the "original" is a more difficult question to answer, I am sure. "

    ahh..so now you think someone went to all the trouble of making a fragment look just like the original only to include something else that was wrong...come on now...
     
  10. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    My understanding is that a manuscript fragment exists dated not earlier than AD82, but no later than AD 95 - that fragment being a passage from John and written in Hebrew.

    I can't find the book that makes reference to the fragment, nor can I track through the net on the basis of what little I remember from the book.
     
  11. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Lemme see now - Jesus began his ministry when he was about 30 years old - his ministry extended for 3 years according to tradition (which I doubt, seems much longer from biblical account, but accept 3 years anyway.) hmmm. OK - forgetting the actual argument regarding where year 1 should be located, we now have 33 years - at that time, Paul was a young man - add 40 years for Paul's ministry. That's AD 73, about 50 to 60 years before the manuscript P52 is dated.
     
  12. Amatire

    Amatire Member

    336
    +1
    wait a mo, when we studied Theology at school we were told that P52 was dated by writing style to about 90 AD not 125! And they suggested that it could have been written as early as 70 AD...
     
  13. Gerry

    Gerry Jesus Paid It All

    +11
    It seemed to me you were asking about REAL LIFE miracles in our lives, as opposed to stigmata. However I see this string like so many will not allow an answer because it has now turned into a protestant-catholic issue.

    I regret that this has become a never ending cycle completely side stepping the point.
     
  14. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Did you miss post 23, Gerry?
     
  15. Pastor N.B.

    Pastor N.B. Member

    434
    +0
    Hi'
    just my thinking here. Paul prayed 'thrice' and got 'my' answer. 2 Cor 12:9.
    Maybe after the third time on certain prayers, we could just let it go?

    And for me at least, the Masters [asks] (prayer) His Father, yet He is saying to me also, total submission! 'Not my will but [Thy will] be done."

    Then, I suspect that some Gentiles prayed over the years for healing and their faith was answered as the Father had seen fit. Some folk it seems, as seen in Rom. 2:14-15 'shew the work of the law written [in their hearts]' and do not even know it! Notice the Word 'do by nature'. Sounds like they are converted & have never even heard of the Gospel as we know it.

    Remember the verse before? "For not the [hearers] of the law are [just before God], but the [doers of the law shall be justified]. v13 ibide.

    Is not answered prayer conditional also? 'me' thinks so! John 9:30-31, Psalms 66:18 & Isaiah 59:1-2.
     
  16. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Not to mention Jam 4:2 -3
    Pastor N.B. Hmmmm. nota bena?
     
  17. HolyGuardianAngels

    HolyGuardianAngels Merry Christmas Everyone

    +68
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican


    When, by the auspices of the Church;
    as when someone is healed, w/o the intervention of humans, it is a miracle . . .


    I credit and give thanks for Saintly John Paul 2 the Great:hug: , whom I very much believe, is responsible for my being well today!







    Happy Easter
    :angel:
     
  18. kulenok

    kulenok Member

    324
    +10
    Pentecostal
    Single
    Well, I don't believe that everyone who is not Pentecostal will go to hell. The Same goes for Catholics. It is not how you view GOD, it is how you worship him. But I think personally that Pentecostals have a better relationship with the Spirit.
     
Loading...