Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As we do not see miracles happening, you need to prove that they do. Otherwise we have no reason to believe.
No, we just need to know most are made up or delusional. What you need to do is demonstrate miracles really do happen. Otherwise we have no reason to believe.
This is one of my main points. How come all these supposed miracles happened 2,000+ years ago.
As we do not see miracles happening, you need to prove that they do. Otherwise we have no reason to believe.
No, we just need to know most are made up or delusional. What you need to do is demonstrate miracles really do happen. Otherwise we have no reason to believe.
Then you don't want to seek the truth. Folding your arms and demanding that we convince you is not seeking truth. Atheists won't even define what parameters are necessary for a miracle to be proven because then they couldn't dispute a miracle that met those parameters.
Anyone who has hardened their heart towards God can not be convinced by evidence. God certainly knows this as even the amazing miracles of Jesus didn't prevent the masses from crucifying him.
Well...good grief - he ought to know whether John was in the form we now have it or not, and if it wasn't,
Why?
Quote:
that isn't significant to you? Perhaps not.
I don't believe Tertullian's writings are inspired or infallible. Do you?
Quote:
I know that some people don't think it matters that Mark and John don't have nativities. It didn't bother Bible apologists -much - that Mark has no appearance of the risen Jesus.
Oh yes, I know they all knew of a resurrection claim and an empty tomb. That's about the last thing they do agree on.
It's simply a question of whom the intended audiences were.
Quote:
The attempt to argue that it wasn't necessary (Mark was earliest and didn't need to explain what later gospels needed to?) or 'different point of view' (Like never having heard of an appearance of Jesus on that day - no more than he's heard of a birth in Bethlehem) or the 'ending got lost' explanation (and apparently the nativity at the start, too - very careless they were with Mark) are really pointless once you realise that the resurrections conflict almost totally, because each was invented separately. And the reason you have to invent a resurrection appearance is because there wasn't one. And that's Mark's omission explained.
No, they don't conflict. And no--they were not invented separately. But they had different intentions when they wrote their Gospels.
OK? I don't use either of the texts that they "edited".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
