Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus Lie?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3479 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 61 of 65 (437185)
11-29-2007 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by sidelined
11-28-2007 10:27 AM


Doubt what? Faith in what?
quote:
NO.I used the words that ICANT presented in another thread to show that his statement saying he DOES NOT DOUBT all those things means that he has faith.
The common meaning to the mustard seed analogy that I have heard,in my experience with christians, is that it means just a little faith. This is in keeping with the example of the disciples and the demons .
No, it just means he doesn't doubt those things. Yes, that is what the verse is implying, but do you understand what the faith is supposed to be in?
The list you presented in Message 11 of what ICANT doesn't doubt has nothing to do with this verse.
When people have difficulty doing something and someone tells them to have a little faith, do you really think they are talking about any of the things on ICANT's list?
Look at Mark 11 (Complete Jewish Bible):
22 He responded, "Have the kind of trust that comes from God! 23 Yes! I tell you that whoever does not doubt in his heart but trusts that what he says will happen can say to this mountain, `Go and throw yourself into the sea!' and it will be done for him. 24 Therefore, I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, trust that you are receiving it, and it will be yours.
IOW, you cannot doubt what you say will happen. The catch is that God has to give you that kind of trust. Again, if one is unable to perform the attempted feat, then God hasn't given them that kind of trust.
If you look at the two verses in Matthew, we see that that author plays both sides of the fence.
Matthew 17
He said to them, "Because you have such little trust! Yes! I tell you that if you 20 have trust as tiny as a mustard seed, you will be able to say to this mountain, `Move from here to there!' and it will move; indeed, nothing will be impossible for you!" 21 Some manuscripts include verse 21: But this kind does not go out except through prayer and fasting."
Matthew 21
21 Yeshua answered them, "Yes! I tell you, if you have trust and don't doubt, you will not only do what was done to this fig tree; but even if you say to this mountain, `Go and throw yourself into the sea!' it will be done. 22 In other words, you will receive everything you ask for in prayer, no matter what it is, provided you have trust."
In Matthew 17 all you need is a tiny bit of faith, but in Matthew 21 you're not allowed any doubt.
So when it comes to regrowing a limb, you gotta believe it will happen with no doubt that it will happen.
And the likely scenario would be because it cannot be done.
Yes dear, that is why we can usually assume there is a bit of doubt for those types of things. The mountain is an exaggeration. In reality, think of the implications of throwing a mountain into the sea.
quote:
Let us get to the crux of things even deeper. Why demons as an example when, in fact, demons do not exist? Why not a concrete example relating to the disciples actual lives?
You're asking the wrong person since I feel that Matthew is written as a satire.
If you notice the authors of Mark and Luke don't use demons in that analogy because they had already had Jesus give the disciples authority to cast out demons.
Mark 3
14 He appointed twelve to be with him, to be sent out to preach 15 and to have authority to expel demons:
Luke 9
1 Calling together the Twelve, Yeshua gave them power and authority to expel all the demons and to cure diseases;
quote:
And you claim not to be wiggling? It is Christians that make the claims for magic and supernatural and faith and the one true god yet when pressed on the issue that they are adamant about they crumple and claim things are actually metaphorical. When the difficulty presents itself they "wiggle" and to say otherwise is to blatantly excuse themselves of claiming miracles and such on one hand and mere philosophical pandering on the other.
It doesn't matter which way you take the verse. The author has provided the loop hole or wiggle room if you wish. If the feat cannot be done, then the person does not have enough faith or has doubt. That way what the author says cannot be deemed false.
Authors usually have a reason for writing what they do. Whether to inform, entertain, inspire, etc. Even within a writing, the characters have a reason for what they say.
If you look at the situation presented in the story, Jesus was trying to encourage his disciples. When a coach gives his team a pep talk does a good coach tell his team they have no chance of winning?
The problem I have with your statements is that you seem to be saying Christians can do the feats according to the verse, but refuse to do so and are bashing them for not using their powers. You seem to be holding them to a standard you've created.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by sidelined, posted 11-28-2007 10:27 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3070 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 62 of 65 (438497)
12-04-2007 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Brian
11-16-2007 2:21 PM


Not relating to this particular angle, but do you think it was at all possible that Jesus could tell a lie?
After the Resurrection, Jesus said all authority in heaven and Earth had been given unto Him.
When you have this much power given, it presupposes the Recipient to have been morally perfect. Considering the miracles Jesus performed and the power demonstrated, there is no motive to lie - about anything.
Either the original Apostles and disciples lied about Jesus or they told the gospel truth. Cataclysmic personal change for the better, in each case, says they told the truth because a lie seldom changes anyone for better.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Brian, posted 11-16-2007 2:21 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Legend, posted 12-05-2007 4:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 63 of 65 (438653)
12-05-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object
12-04-2007 10:30 PM


Either the original Apostles and disciples lied about Jesus or they told the gospel truth. Cataclysmic personal change for the better, in each case, says they told the truth because a lie seldom changes anyone for better.
1) we don't really know what the original Apostles and disciples said about Jesus. We have some writings purporting to be from them but there is reasonable suspicion (in John's case a near certainty) that the disciples weren't the gospel authors.
2) Assuming, for argument's sake, that the gospels were indeed written by the disciples, your position that they either lied or told the truth is a false dichotomy. They could have been honestly mistaken, deluded, deceived or a dozen other things in-between the absolutes of lie and truth.
3) We have no reason to believe that the disciples experienced "cataclysmic personal change for the better" other than their own -alleged- word.
In short, your argument is hollow.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-04-2007 10:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-05-2007 5:14 PM Legend has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3070 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 64 of 65 (438664)
12-05-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Legend
12-05-2007 4:36 PM


1) we don't really know what the original Apostles and disciples said about Jesus. We have some writings purporting to be from them but there is reasonable suspicion (in John's case a near certainty) that the disciples weren't the gospel authors.
All this is is an assumption contrary to the evidence. Who would assume that the N.T. authors were not the original Apostles and disciples?
If I had to guess, logic says Atheists and evolutionists. I would bet that Legend is one or both which explains the evidence denying assumption.
2) Assuming, for argument's sake, that the gospels were indeed written by the disciples, your position that they either lied or told the truth is a false dichotomy. They could have been honestly mistaken, deluded, deceived or a dozen other things in-between the absolutes of lie and truth.
Again, we have an assumption that the before and after nature of each Apostle, as conveyed in the textual evidence, and in other historical evidence, is false. The sources do not allow anything but a lie or truth option because the claims are so far fetched they are either true or a huge conspiratorial lie.
There is no evidence for the ad hoc options asserted by Legend.
3) We have no reason to believe that the disciples experienced "cataclysmic personal change for the better" other than their own -alleged- word.
All this is is an assumption that says the evidence is not evidence and that everyone lied (which Legend denied to be an option just above). The evidence in total shows cataclysmic change for each Apostle. This is why the only options are truth or conspiratorial lie. Since the N.T. is the most revered and time tested piece of literature ever written, whose authors are respected by hundreds of millions of persons, who testify to the truth written therein, and since 2000 years of scholarship has ratified the veracity of these scriptures, we can see these facts demonstrated by the "evidence" of Legend: assumptions and suppositions that the evidence is not evidence. Of course it almost goes without saying: assumptions and suppositions are not evidence, they are in these cases the word of Atheists and evolutionists, persons who have a vested interest and ulterior motive in seeing the Bible to appear false.
In short, said assumptions are a compliment, if there was any evidence they would not be needed.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Legend, posted 12-05-2007 4:36 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Legend, posted 12-06-2007 6:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 65 of 65 (438950)
12-06-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object
12-05-2007 5:14 PM


Who would assume that the N.T. authors were not the original Apostles and disciples?
People who actually read it. All of it. Without discarding the 'difficult' parts.
If I had to guess, logic says Atheists and evolutionists. I would bet that Legend is one or both which explains the evidence denying assumption.
Whether I'm an atheist or 'evolutionist' (sic) is totally irrelevant to the authenticity of the bible authors. If you're so keen to apply logic why don't you start with Matt 21:5-8. Does logic tell you that Jesus really entered Jerusalem riding on an ass and a colt , like a circus act?!
Again, we have an assumption that the before and after nature of each Apostle, as conveyed in the textual evidence, and in other historical evidence, is false.
Care to provide this 'other historical evidence' that attests to the changed nature of the Apostles ?
The sources do not allow anything but a lie or truth option because the claims are so far fetched they are either true or a huge conspiratorial lie.
what sources? show me the sources.
The evidence in total shows cataclysmic change for each Apostle.
where's this evidence outside the Bible then ?
This is why the only options are truth or conspiratorial lie. Since the N.T. is the most revered and time tested piece of literature ever written, whose authors are respected by hundreds of millions of persons, who testify to the truth written therein, and since 2000 years of scholarship has ratified the veracity of these scriptures,.....
how many more fallacies can you cram in one sentence! "the NT revered"? maybe, so what?! so is the Quran and the Book of Mormon. "Time-tested"? certainly and it's failed the test of time. "Millions of persons, who testify to the truth written therein"? so what?! the same can be claimed of the Quran, amongst others. "2000 years of scholarship has ratified the veracity of these scripture"? oh, come off it. Any genuine scholarship on the Bible has shown it to be but a mish-mash of myths, folklore, third-hand accounts and foreign influences. It doesn't even take a scholar to see the contradictions, factual errors, historical improbabilities, failed prophecies, et al within the Bible.
Your position about the gospels as absolute truth or lie is but a false dichotomy.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-05-2007 5:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024