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.
I'm not a literalist. For example the story of Jonah is more of an allegory and it's also something of a humor story. (People get so obsessed with the fish they forget the rest of the story. Jonah gets a message from God and, rather unlike most Biblical characters I remember, tries to high-tail it out of there. Then later he gets mad because Nineveh repented and he didn't get to see any of that "cool" wrath stuff)
Anyway just because I haven't seen something doesn't mean it never happens. I've never seen the blue Fugates of Kentucky, but that doesn't mean they never existed. I've never heard anyone speak Etruscan, but that doesn't mean I think it never happened. Granted those are natural things but "have you ever seen/heard X" proves nothing.
It's also unlikely in that frame of the geological era, whales or big fish could be found around Judaea
Anyone who suddenly began to chatter about the hundreds of absolutely impossible things primitive mankind told in the bible would end up in a mental hospital. All of you were taught this malarky when you were infants and children and you're totally afraid to consider other possibilities. I for one have much better sense than to believe in virgin birth, healing by touching, raising from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding 5,000 not counting women and children with two fish and five loaves then gathering twelve baskets of leftovers, resurrection etc. Think about what you say you believe...think about it like any rational person might.
The idea that any of the miracles ever happened is absolute hearsay. What in your lifetime have you ever seen which equals virgin birth, healing by touching, walking on water or resurrection?
NB: I am not writing this in order to "proselytize" or "convert" anyone to my religious beliefs. Rather, I want to voice how miracles are perceived by orthodox Christians. If you are not interested in this topic please skip to the next post.
One thing people tend to forget, and this includes both Christians and non-Christians, is that the touchstone of Christianity is the belief that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historical fact.
In the eyes of the Christian, this is the greatest miracle of all--that a man came to earth who was both "true God and true man," died, and then came back to life before ascending to his father in heaven.
After the resurrection occurred the Apostles could have scattered permanently and hidden from their persecutors, and denied the resurrection altogether.
The fact of the matter is, however, that eyewitnesses to the resurrection died hideous, horrible deaths for the sake of the Gospel; the early Church was founded on and sustained throughout the centuries on the blood of Christian martyrs.
I don't know about you, but I would have a very hard time handing myself over to be tortured for any reason -- and I would certainly neverhave ever done so for some ridiculous story about a dead body coming back to life that I knew to be a "fairy tale," a "myth," and a downright lie.
The idea that any of the miracles ever happened is absolute hearsay. What in your lifetime have you ever seen which equals virgin birth, healing by touching, walking on water or resurrection?
It's not hearsay if you have witnessed it. I have seen and experienced a few things in my lifetime that I would class beyond reasonable doubt as "supernatural" or "preternatural."
The standards for one of these events being declared a "miracle" by the Catholic Church, however, are extremely high, so not too many get officially "into the books." Nonetheless, they happen more often than people realize.
For instance, Jack Sullivan of Boston, MA was recently in Birmingham to speak about his cure via the miraculous intercession of John Henry Newman:
the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historical fact.
No...it is not a historical fact.
There were half a dozen historians active at the time Jesus was doing his year and a half stint and Josephus, a Jewish historian was the only one who even mentioned him. In that mention there was no declaration of virgin birth, resurrection or any of the miracles. Considering that his own didn't even begin to write about anything for forty years would be liken to NY sports writers failing to mention that Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle were good hitters until after they were dead.
Examine something closely except the Christian faith and the bible...Moderator cut: Insulting .
I realise that to you, it is not. Fortunately, whether or not it is in fact true does not hinge on whether or not Melvin George believes it to be true.
My point was, to Orthodox Christians IT IS, and we have plenty of evidence on which to base this belief.
I'm not interested in proving God's existence to you or supplying you with evidence of the resurrection.
There are many reasons for this, but one will suffice: by setting rules that I don't agree with on what type of evidence you will and will not accept, you frame rules of the exchange in such a lopsided and arbitrary way as to be meaningless.
I accept and don't doubt for a second that you feel the entire Nicene Creed is hogwash. This really doesn't bother me, and you don't need to keep asserting your strong feelings about it here like a broken record.
you don't need to keep asserting your strong feelings about it here like a broken record.
I will continue to refute any rediculous thing I see...the bible is at the top of the list. See...I was brainwashed with that line of stuff beginning as early as I can remember...about five years old. You know what? I'm smarter than that. Walking on water indeed! It's impossible for a 150 pound man to walk on water!
I'm not interested in proving God's existence to you or supplying you with evidence of the resurrection.
There are many reasons for this, but one will suffice: by setting rules that I don't agree with on what type of evidence you will and will not accept, you frame rules of the exchange in such a lopsided and arbitrary way as to be meaningless.
I accept and don't doubt for a second that you feel the entire Nicene Creed is hogwash. This really doesn't bother me, and you don't need to keep asserting your strong feelings about it here like a broken record.
Your scriptures are the only source of information concerning the alleged ressurrection.
It is, oddly (or not), missing from any other archival work dating to that period.
You cannot offer proof because there is none.
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.
Since you asked....
