steveorino

I never try to claim to understand the mind of God apart from the teachings of Christ, but can you give a better solution for Drew's experience? steveOrino

I have. Of course people on SC said it wasn't a miracle even though they could offer no reasonable explanation. Please, refresh our memories. In 1984 I lived in Alaska. It was bad weather one day and my wife had borrowed her dad's "land yacht" buick as our Blazer was in the shop. She put the kids by the garage door, Rashelle 5, Dustin 2 and Drew 1 and only crawling) She couldn't park the Buick in the garage (it was too long). She told the kids to stay there and she would drive the car into the garage. As she drove in she saw the door cracked and Dustin peeking out. She thought well, at least he's in the house. She felt the car starting to drive over something. Initially she thought it was a pile of clothes she had left on the garage floor for the laundry. Then a sick feeling hit her ... she was driving over her baby. Sure enough Drew crawled out through the cracked door and there he was laying there with tire tracks across him, crying. She gathered the kids up and cradled Drew in her arms as she drove to the hospital. I was told on the phone she had driven over Drew and killed him. You can imagine my horror!! When I arrived to the emergency room the nurse said "He's all right". Yeah, sure ... SHOW ME!! There was Drew, Sherry, the Doctor, and his sleeper with tire tracks over them. All Drew had on his body was a few indentations of rocks (Alaska puts small gravel and salt on the roads) from the tires. The Doctor said he's had no internal injuries, but he would most likely be bruised and sore. He never was sore and had no bruises! My wife wrote and published an article for a magazine about this experience called, "The buick, the baby and the angel" Drew now is serving as a sgt in Afghanistan.

I have. Of course people on SC said it wasn't a miracle even though they could offer no reasonable explanation. Is everything with out a reasonable explanation a miracle of God? No, I was simply stating my personal experience in reply to jakee who was given his lack of personal experience as evidence. steveOrino

A profession of faith? It was a deliberate slam, how else do you interpret 'fool' (emphasised in all caps no less)? If bigtexan wants to respond with a few 'fools' of his own then thats his prerogative. It's no more hate speech than the original post was. I agree with you Jakee. (surprised?) I thought the text, while true to the Christian worldview, was meant to be a put down. Thus my response offered the question that if the same Christians who quote such passages to atheists remember the passage from Peter that says to be ready to give a reason for your faith, but do so with gentleness and respect. That type of message (fool) is always met with derision. steveOrino

I'm saying the ressurection is not the first miracle Christ is supposed to have performed. I think I'm right in saying the apostles were by all accounts utterly convinced of the divinity of christ before he was nailed up, yes? In that case, well, suppose there was an empty tomb. Suppose people reported seeing a bloke who looked like Jesus walking around. Suppose a story blossomed from there. I'm not saying thats what happened, I honestly don't have a clue what happened,... You are right in that according to gospel accounts they saw plenty to believe he was divine. I would think that would be dashed to bits when he died though. Even the staunchest critics of Christ's divinity (such as many in the Jesus Seminar) believe the disciples saw something that radically changed them. Scripture and logic says it was something on the lines of a resurrected Christ to have changed them that much. Changed them from scared men in hiding to bold evangels for JC. Actually there were over 500 witnesses to JC's resurection which is one of the explanations of a rapid growth of Christianity. Without the resurrection, the Apostle Paul says our faith is in vain and we are to be pitied above all men. It is illogical to believe so many Jews would follow the teachings of a dead rabbi who called himself the Messiah when their religous history did not allow for a resurrected Messiah, let alone a dead one unless they had a face to face encounter with the resurrected Christ. steveOrino

I have. Of course people on SC said it wasn't a miracle even though they could offer no reasonable explanation. steveOrino

I thought you understood my point . What does that have to do with the Apostles? The are not followers coming along years later hearing the stories. They were eye witnesses to his death. Do you believe they were willing to die for a lie they made up? steveOrino

So you are stating with HairyJuan the apostles were not real men, but fictional characters? steveOrino

A prophecy of Christ that came true was not relevant to his story? Historians do not say myth cannot rise within 35 years. They claim they cannot be established that quickly. Any myth about Christ that would have been started before 70 AD could have easily been refuted. There are no alternative myth stories. When myths arise there is usully competing stories. The early Jewish writers who considered Christiany a heresy never disputed the claim of an empty tomb with "His body is here, go see for yourself" Instead they said the disciples stole it away. Yeah, right. That goes back to would the disciple die for a lie they made up. And what logical goal would there be in proclaiming a risen messiah when that teaching was not in their tradition, and that type of teaching got them excommunicated from their religous community and cost them their life? Many sources outside the Bible (the Bible only records the martyrdom of Stephen and James) like Fox's book of the martyrs and others record them as historical fact. steveOrino

Belief in as RISEN savior or just as a teacher? I cannot imagine a first century Jew dying for a dead messiah. That is illogical as well as dying for a myth you created yourself. steveOrino

Yes, there are martyrs in most every religion, but dying for what you BELIEVE to be true is a LOT different than dying for what you KNOW to be false. Which is the case if the aspostles were willing to die for a myth they created. I don't think he was implying that they knew it to be false (?), just that their belief was not necessarily true (even though they believed it to be true). Why would they "believe" it to be true apart from first hand knowledge? remember these are eye-witnesses to his death and burial. steveOrino

You're creating a false dichotomy. The only two choices you acknowledge are; 1) They made it up, did not believe any of it and were intentionally decieving people, 2) It was all true. It just isn't that simple. People are, by their nature, gullible, credulous and easily persuaded. Once people are sufficiently persuaded of the 'truth' value of something they can become extremely blind to any contrary evidence. People are completely capable of on the one hand completely believing the truth of something while, on the other, inventing supporting evidence to strengthen their cases. What would have convinced the Apostles that JC was resurrected apart from seeing him? What value would they have to convince themselves JC was alive if they knew he was still in a borrowed tomb? steveOrino

I'm not sure what you mean other than my communication skills are lacking. steveOrino

So Bill, you believe the Apostles KNEW they had seen a risen Christ? steveOrino

Women might not have been allowed a legal voice, but they still had a voice. Maybe those women did find an empty tomb. So what? An empty tomb doesn't mean god exists either. Are you really suggesting that the story must be true because it was told by women? Seriously? No, I'm responded to the accusation that the empty tomb was a fabricated lie to advance the death wish of the Apostles. Had they been in the business of fabricating stories to gain followers they would not have fabricated two women as witnesses. The only reason to say two women found the empty tomb was that was the fact whether they liked it or not. steveOrino

@#$%&(*!

Had the Apostles fabricated JCs resurrection it would move from belief to knowledge steveOrino

No, Bill, why are you being Obtuse? Let's stick to people dying for a lie they made up. Is that normal? What would the odds be that all the Apostles would be willing to die for a lie they made up? steveOrino

If we are playing numbers lets add to the 12 people willing to die for a lie with over 700 prophecies about the lie fulfilled hundreds of years after the fact. steveOrino

okay, to further their "ill-conceived made up" story they wrote the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women. Women! Women who had no legal voice in their culture and whose testimony was not allowed in Jewish court. Had they been willing to fabricate a story to die for I suggest they have Peter discover the empty tomb, not two women who were not considered to be a reliable source in their culture because of their gender. Why would they write that?? Hmmmm, maybe it was the truth? steveOrino

No, not at all. As I said (and many others here have said) people die for thier beliefs all the time. Had the Apostles made up their story, they would not have been dying for "beliefs" They would have been dying for what they knew to be a lie. Let me state it another way. people die for things they believe to be true. They do not die for things they know to be false. Had the Apsotles fabricated their story all 12 of them would be willing to die for a lie they made up. That is illogical. steveOrino

Is it possible for a first hand witness to be fooled into believeing something that is false? Quite obviously yes. Look up false memory syndrome, UFO abductions or people who really do think David Blaine can levitate or Derren Brown really can play Russian Roulette and win by reading your mind. Had they made it al up they would be willing to die for a beliefe they fabricated. That sets them apart from martyrs who die for what they believe. Try finding 12 or more who were all willing to die for a belief they KNEW was false. steveOrino

Willingness to die for a belief does not equate with willingness to die for a lie you made up. steveOrino

You make it sound like they appeared out of thin air around 1611. Even the staunchest critics believe "Q" was written before the synoptic gospels and Acts was written after Luke. Yet neither Matthew or Acts record anything about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. This fact would have been very important to the readers of the Acts of the Apostles, and the writer of Q and Matthew would have included it as it verified JC's prediction that this was going to happen. The fact the fall of Jerusalem was not written int to the gospels and Acts are an excellent indication they were written before the fact. The 35 years between the crucifiction and the fall of Jerusalem is not enough time for myths to generate. steveOrino

All this proves is that they willing to die for their story. Soldiers do quite a bit of dying regardless of whether they believe in why they were sent to war. David Koresh's followers did quite a bit of dying too. A christian martyr doesn't prove that god is real. All 12 of the disciples were willing to die violent deaths for a lie that they made up? Yeah, that makes logical sense. What did their "lie" gain them? Popularity? No, they were ridiculed and rejected by their own people,including their own family members. They were kicked out of synagogues throughout Judeah. Were they looking for power? Hardly. The Christian sect of Judiasm was mostly underground until 300 years after the crucifiction. I'll say again ... many throughout history have died martyred deaths for a religious belief. Why are the martyrs of the Apostles different? Because people don’t die for a lie. Look at human nature throughout history. No conspiracy can be maintained when life or liberty is at stake. Dying for a belief is one thing, but numerous eye-witnesses dying for a known lie is quite another. steveOrino