Interesting thoughts... thanks for your comment.

Have you ever gotten a chance to read the Bible?  especially the parts about Jesus?   just curious.

Posted 6/6/2007 4:28 AM by tim223

 
 
RYC: Yes I did read that book, and I think it is evidently the work of men with ulterior motives. Aside from the credibility of miracles such as driving out numerous "demons" as performed by Jesus I see little to convince me he was anything other than human.
Posted 6/5/2007 5:18 PM by mykid2 - 

 
I gather that you consider "miracles" to be impossible in principle?

Also, I'd be interested in the ulterior motives that you sense in the authors of the NT... especially in the light of the fact that the early church was heavily persecuted, and that these people who suddenly formed the early christian church had been traditional Jews until something suddenly caused them to change.
Sent 6/6/2007 10:34 PM by tim223 - 

 
Hi Tim, well no, miracles happen all the time and by divine design too as you well know, but that divine design does not include sorting out our petty human affairs... we were not created to serve as some kind of pet for the God(s) to fuss over.
As for the church it likes to foster that image of persecuted underdog, but in reality it has been the most merciless uncompromising persecutor.
Posted 6/7/2007 12:17 AM by mykid2 - 

 
 
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that God does miracles "all the time", but He never does them with respect to everyday things, like turning the water into wine, healing a blind man, or driving out a demon. Is this what you're saying?

On the church, while persecutions did occur (like the Inquisitions in the 12th century) I'm sure you're aware that the evidence of history shows that Christianity was strictly an unprivileged and often persecuted minority until Constantine made it a legal religion in 313 AD. Since the New Testament was obviously written before 313, I'm still curious as to the "ulterior motives" you are referring to.
Sent 6/7/2007 1:34 PM by tim223 - 
 
 
 
 
No it's not what I'm saying. Are you saying Jesus is the only vehicle thru which God performs miracles?
Posted 6/7/2007 4:08 PM by mykid2 - 
 
 
 
 
 
Certainly the Bible gives instances of people other than Jesus performing miracles (Exodus 4, 1 Kings 17).

You wrote: "Aside from the credibility of miracles such as driving out numerous "demons" as performed by Jesus I see little to convince me he was anything other than human" and "miracles happen all the time and by divine design too as you well know, but that divine design does not include sorting out our petty human affairs"

I'm not sure quite what you mean by these statements. I personally see compelling reasons to consider the events described by the Bible as true historical events, including the fact that Jesus did many miracles to validate His teachings and claims. And He claimed to be far more than a mere human... He claimed to be "one" (John 10:10) with the one and only Creator God(Isaiah 43:10), and to even share the name of God (Exodus 3, John 8:56-58).

The Bible teaches that God is very much interested in human affairs, and does not disdain to become involved in them (2 Chron. 6:14, Mark 1:29-2:13). Of course man is not God's "pet", but he is God's creation... indeed God's most special creation (Psalm 8, Hebrews 2:16).

You also wrote: "Yes I did read that book, and I think it is evidently the work of men with ulterior motives."

I'm still interested in what "ulterior motives" you are referring to, and the evidence you see for this.
Sent 6/7/2007 4:59 PM by tim223 - 

 
 
However, I have other interests than discussing the bible.
Posted 6/8/2007 5:24 AM by mykid2 - 
 
 
 
 
 
Ok. We can pick this up again at some later time if you'd like.
Sent 6/8/2007 8:02 AM by tim223 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It might be more enlightening to look not in the bible but at how YOU relate to tjose arcane scriptures.
Take 4 instance "Certainly the Bible gives instances of people other than Jesus performing miracles (Exodus 4, 1 Kings 17)."
Now consider 4 one moment th@ mirracles didn't only happen in those long lost biblical days, but are happening all around us, every day right here and right now in the real reality...
Are you too afraid to behold the benign glory of out divine Goddess oh ye poor benighted soul ?
Posted 6/9/2007 5:19 AM by mykid2 - 

 
 
You wrote: "Now consider 4 one moment th@ mirracles didn't only happen in those long lost biblical days, but are happening all around us, every day right here and right now in the real reality"

Can you give specifics? I'd be interested to understand better what you're saying. Are you referring for example to a Buddhist or Hindu conception of the world?
Sent 6/9/2007 10:38 AM by tim223 - 
 
 
 
 
I know naught of Budhist nor Hindu. I refer to the miracle of Life.
Posted 6/9/2007 10:31 PM by mykid2 - 
 
 
 
Ok, that is understandable.

However, the miracles Jesus did were much more unusual than the miracle of life. The miracle of (human) life happens several times per second, 24/7. Raising the dead, healing the blind, etc happens very rarely.
Sent 6/9/2007 10:54 PM by tim223 - 
 
 
 
 
 
That is what you chose to believe.
One might wonder just how would those alleged biblical "miracles" have stood up to modernday scientific scrutiny, but the real issue must surely be: What relevance can such puerile acts of magick hold on the scale of divinely orchestratied Nature ?
Posted 6/9/2007 11:09 PM by mykid2 - 
 
 
 
 
I'm curious as to why you consider Jesus' deeds puerile. Have you ever read the four New Testament gospels?

Why do you say that nature is "divinely orchestrated"?

Also, would you mind if I post our discussion on my front page where it will be publically viewable and where other people can chime in if desired? That will also make it easier for me to keep track of our discussion.
Sent 6/9/2007 11:17 PM by tim223 - 
 
 
 
3: no problem, I don't like all th@ "protected post" cloak and dagger stuff anyway.
2: If not "divinely orchestrated" then would that leave it "random coincidence"?
1: Alleged deeds - what purpose if not exhibitionist?
Posted 6/9/2007 11:46 PM by mykid2 - 
 

I do appreciate GGP and the Dawkins video he posted... hilarious stuff.   I also do agree with you that the universe was designed by God and is not completely random.   I asked you why you personally believed it because I wanted to learn more about your reasons for believing it.  It's always good to try to understand where the other person is coming from.

The reason that I think the resurrection is actually very important is that Jesus believed some very different things about God than the beliefs you stated... so the question arises whether he is right or whether you are right.  If he actually rose from the dead, that would validate his beliefs in a rather convincing manner.  I.e. given the choice to trust in the spiritual teachings of one person who rose from the dead versus another person who did not, it seems far more reasonable to trust the former.  In essence- He has been there and back... He knows what He's talking about.

Some of the differences between Jesus' view and what I understand of your view:   Jesus believed in the Hebrew view of God as the Creator of the world (and thus as distinct from it)... and Who not only is omnipresent in some senses (Psalm 139) but Who also sometimes literally walks around on the earth (Genesis 2) and Who is a Person, not just a "life force" or "energy".   Also, the question is not whether God "needed" to use prophets... He certainly could have written His words in the stars or spoken them in the clouds or whatever, if He had wanted to.  But according to Jesus and the Bible, God chose to use prophets.  As 2 Peter 1:21 says:

 16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"--

 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

 19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So as I ponder the things you're saying, there seems to be a substantial disagreement with what the Bible teaches.  The question becomes- who is right?  you, or the Bible?   

I'd be interested in your further thoughts on this.  If I've misunderstood you, I'm open to being corrected.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts. 

Mykid2, IF the biblical documents really were as unreliable as you say, then of course Christianity would be finished.  But the documents are actually quite reliable... this is worth further study, and I'd be happy to discuss it together with you.  

On using our senses, of course sensory data is important.  Even written accounts are apprehended through the sense of sight.  But sensory data can only take us so far.  I cannot see, smell, touch, hear, explore, study, test, or feel George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.  Rather, everything I know about them comes through testimony - the recorded (interpreted) sensory experiences of other people. 

There are actually (at least) three ways to know things, in my opinion.  Observation (sense data, induction), Reason (deduction), and Testimony (direct belief based on a linguistic message received from a trusted source).   It is reasonable to use all three of these methods, and not to exclude any of them.  I think you would agree, but you might ask "What about when one of those conflicts with the others?"  That is a reasonable question... for example, there are many other "scriptures" that claim to be from God - the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.  How does one know which one is true?

The way to find out is to dig into the details.  Where did this "scripture" come from?  How do we know?  What evidence supports it?   Etc etc.

Have you done this to the Bible?  If so, what have you discovered?   For example, you implied above that the Bible's accounts about Jesus were "3rd hand".  On what evidential basis do you suggest this?

My own study has made increasingly clear to me the truth of the Bible, and I'd love to discuss this more with you.

With esteem, Tim

Hmmm.

Is that an openminded and tolerant view that you're espousing?  A willingness to seek the truth from wherever it might be found?

Also, you seem to be ignoring my question of how you know that the Bible's accounts of Jesus were all "3rd-hand".