The Tension of Faith

In the course of this thread, I have:Given sound reasons why the Gospel of John should not be accepted as reliable:
Message 809Faith has yet to address these pointsI refuted Faiths arguments for reliability of the Gospels Message 878Faith has yet to address my pointsI have explained how we could have better evidence for the miracle stories in the Gospels. Which raises the question of why - if God was trying to provide us with goood evidence - the evidence is so much weaker than it could be. Message 1031Faith has yet to address this point.I have even produced an example of a significant disagreement between Matthew and Luke/Acts which demonstrates the unreliability of the NT Message 1143Faith has not addressed this point.This illustrates the emptiness of Faith’s case. And how an honest, rational person not only can, but should disagree with her.

Yes, Percy, Mary thought Jesus was the gardener, but why did she think that? How close was she to Him when she thought that, was He facing her or turned away? It is clear from the text that He didn't look different from His usual self, and when He meets with the disciples later He clearly identifies Himself as NOT A SPIRIT, and eats a piece of fish to prove it, so the only reasonable explanation is that she misidentified Him because she was not expecting to find Jesus alive but a corpse in the tomb. A man outside would at first suggest someone else who could be explained in terms of something appropriate to the location, such as a gardener. Haven't you ever mistaken someone for someone else and without any such good reason either. I do not consider apparitions to be miracles though I have identified them with the supernatural just because that is the familiar term for such things; in reality they are manifestations of natural created though normally disembodied invisible things and not strictly supernatural. But I do use that term for them.I would not identify them with miracles in any case. I don't believe there are any miracles today and that certainly includes the many supposed appearances of "Mary" to Catholic crowds. I do think that a careful reading of what I've been saying would make this clear.I DO NOT THINK APPARITIONS ARE MIRACLES AND COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE SAID THEY ARE. AS I'VE DEFINED THEM, MIRACLES ARE SUSPENSIONS OF THE NATURAL PHYSICAL LAWS which is something only God can do, and they are physical events in themselves within the physical world. If they do occasionally occur today the examples you gave aren't examples of that. Apparitions certainly are not miracles and not even physical. Not any apparitions and not the one I saw either, and ONE apparition is all I've claimed to see. Yes it looks like I should have corrected you when you called Jesus' appearances miracles but I accepted the term because of the resurrection which can fairly be called a miracle in some sense, although there was nothing about His appearances themselves that was miraculous, and He certainly was not an apparition as I've been describing them. In any case I was more interested in the argument that ALL supernatural phenomena including apparitions leave nothing but witness evidence in answer to your claim that they should and therefore could be studied. I was asking you to give any example at all of the kind of supernatural phenomenon you think could be studied, and that remained my focus although it appears that you were on some other track. At some point it seems a confusion occurred between general supernatural things such as apparitions, and miracles.Be fair, Percy, what I say above is consistent with what I've been saying all along.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The picture of the "antichrist" that you post IS silly. The Pope is quite real and was identified by all the Protestant Reformers as the Antichrist described in scripture (primarily due to his claim to be Christ on earth, but also the anti-Christian doctrines the papacy has promoted down the centuries), that the ridiculous satanic imagery has replaced in recent years, probably the work of Catholic theologians trying to deflect the Reformers' identification oif the Pope.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think some demonically manifested events have been misidentified as miracles, things that are frequently done by Hindu gurus for instance, probably along with some outright frauds, while miracles are something only God can do, which doesn't describe any of the examples given. I do think there are events that casually get described as miraculous, events for instance like whatever protected the grandmother and child in the video from death when the car went out of control, but without spending more time than I want I don't know if these are in any sense truly miraculous. If they involve angels I might believe them but wouldn't consider that miraculous, but please let's not get into that kind of claim. It's enough to keep the focus on the true miracles of the Bible, the suspensions of natural law performed by God and by Jesus.Look, a lot of this is clearly semantic confusion. It would help if we could keep the categories separated if possible.I've been defining a miracle as the suspension of physical laws which can only be done by God. If I haven't been consistent about that perhaps that would explain some of your confusion but then let me correct it now. Apparitions and other things on that website are not miracles, just manifestations by the demonic realm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This isn't the only passage. There's Luke 24:13-35 where two disciples meet the post-resurrection Jesus on the road and do not recognize him. But despite the experience of Mary and the disciples, you claim you have powers beyond theirs and have no trouble recognizing the supernatural, and that you've witnessed it many times.If that's what you believe then that's fine, but it's something you believe on faith, not evidence.All the angels and demons and apparitions and miracles and the supernatural that's part of the natural except for God who is the only part of the supernatural that lies outside the natural and sometimes manifestations of the supernatural are physical and sometimes they're not and the supernatural can't be studied even though it's part of the natural but despite that you have all this detailed knowledge of the supernatural and on and on, all this stuff is make believe. Again, if you want to believe it fine, but you sound like a crazy person, and clearly you understand that you sound like a crazy person.This thread's about faith. If you want to believe something on faith I don't think anyone here would have a problem with that. But you think you have evidence, and that evidence must be presented if you are to persuade anyone, but you instead respond that evidence isn't possible unless you first believe. That's why I keep comparing your beliefs to belief in Santa Claus, not because the comparison's perfect, but because the amount of evidence is equal. Evidence that is real is apparent to everyone. Evidence that is only apparent to believers isn't evidence but faith. This is amazingly detailed knowledge you have considering this is something that can't be studied. The reality is that you don't know if the supernatural is part of the natural. You don't know if apparitions are miracles. You can't see "disembodied invisible things". And who could even guess what "not strictly supernatural" means. I agree with you. The only difference between us is that I don't believe there were any miracles in the past, either. Great. "Physical events...within the physical world" can be studied. Where's the evidence for miracles? What do you mean, "If they [miracles] do occasionally occur today..."? Do you mean maybe you're wrong that there are no miracles today? All this "it could be this or it could be that" is just more evidence, as if more were needed, that you just make things up as you go along. Then from where came all this experience you claimed to have in telling the supernatural from the natural? But you've never seen a miracle, and you've only seen one apparition, and I presume you haven't seen any angels or demons, so where comes all this knowledge about how apparitions are non-physical while miracles are physical and neither leave evidence behind? The only thing consistent in what you've been saying is its inconsistency, it's contradictory nature, and it's lack of evidence of any sort.--Percy

WHERE DID I SAY I'D "WITNESSED IT" whatever it is, many times? I had ONE experience of seeing an apparition. What other statements have I made that you've managed to conflate into claiming to have witnessed the supernatural many times? Good GRIEF.WHAT I SAID WAS THAT I CAN DISTINGUISH AN APPARITION FROM A MENTAL EVENT SUCH AS A DREAM AND THAT SO COULD YOU OR ANYONE BECAUSE IT'S NO DIFFERENT FROM KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DREAM AND THE ROOM YOU WAKE UP IN. SHEESH, what is so difficult about this? If that's what you believe then that's fine, but it's something you believe on faith, not evidence.[/qs]JESUS WAS NOT AN APPARITION. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE, not who did or did not recognize Him when they didn't know He was resurrected but thought He was dead. He had a glorified body that isn't described but it was not a spirit body like an apparition's, and when they got over their shock they DID recognize Him. The problem with recognizing Jesus had nothing to do with anything supernatural since He was not an apparition but quite real. Good grief man. Recognizing the resurrected Jesus HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID ABOUT TELLING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN APPARITION AND A DREAM. Sheesh. I've been trying to make the relevant distinctions all along. Perhaps you could pay closer attention.The phenomena of demons and angels are CUSTOMARILY referred to as supernatural, although strictly speaking since they are part of the created order they are NOT supernatural. Nevertheless we customarily call them that. However, nothing in the created order can do miracles which involve the suspension of physical laws that can only be done by God. And yes, God Himself is strictly speaking the only thing that is accurately called supernatural. Perhaps you need to take a brain pill.

Yes, of course it's silly, just like your belief that such a creature exists. As Jar already informed you, religious beliefs change over time, and there are few protestant denominations today who maintain that belief. The conflicts between Protestants and Catholics are as arguments over the emperors new clothes, over things that don't exist.You have a strong affinity for name-calling. For some strange reason the contradiction of taking Jesus' message of love and using it to cast names of hate at others isn't apparent to you.Faith, forget all these petty details that trouble your mind and cause you nothing but pain and hardship. Forget all the angels and demons and apparitions and miracles and supernatural and evidence. Just love everyone. That's what Jesus would do.--Percy

YES, I DO NOT PERSONALLY BELIEVE IN MIRACLES BEYOND THE BIBLE, BUT IF THERE COULD BE SUCH A THING I HAVEN'T KNOWN ABOUT IT WOULD ONLY HAVE WITNESS EVIDENCE FOR IT ANYWAY.Miracles are not the same as manifestations of the demonic world, which can produce some odd phenomena which do not violate the laws of physics but are essentially tricks or manipulations of natural phenomena that demons can do.I know about these things because I believe the witness evidence.

Yes, many Protestant denominations have lost the knowledge that the Pope is the Antichrist. Too bad because the Reformers proved it from scripture beyond a doubt. What you are calling name-calling is using words with their correct meanings. Calling someone the Antichrist is calling him what the Reformers proved from scripture.God doesn't love the Antichrist. Scripture says God is angry with the wicked every day. It also says He loved Jacob but hated Esau. God IS love but His love has to be expressed in judgment against the wicked as itself an act of love because otherwise the wicked would wreak even more harm than they do already. Nothing in scripture allows the wicked free rein to hurt other people, they have to be judged and prevented from doing harm. There are even psalms where David assures God that he hates the same things God hates.God loves everyone of course to the extent of desiring that they repent and be saved. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And you know this how?If humans are really heating up the planet and threatening our very existence, you'd want evidence for that, right? You wouldn't accept something some ancient Greek philosopher wrote a couple millennia ago as evidence, right? You understand the need for hard evidence as the basis for accepting the nature of the real world, right?So if the supernatural is actually part of the natural, if demons and angels and miracles and apparitions and God exist, present the evidence.--Percy

One wonders if Faith believes in these miracles. Or does she not trust the witnesses.

Only God can suspend the laws of physics. Created beings cannot. If you are asked to assess some strange phenomenon just consider whether it violates the laws of physics. That's a miracle. Otherwise all kinds of strange phenomena can occur and not be miraculous. You don't need evidence of the causes of such phenomena, you just need a grasp of the distinction.

You mean the miracles I don't think are really miracles? They may or may not be demonic manifestations which are not miracles But I may have no reason to doubt their reality, I just think they are demonic things pretending to be from God that should be ignored.I believe the Marian apparitions are real, that people are really seeing an impersonation of "Mary," but I believe they are demonic impersonations. One big clue is that "she" teaches false doctrine, a clear sign they are not from God. But of course since the real Mary has no divine power Protestants know that anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I mean the miracles described in the link. They seem to be fooling a bunch of people who think they’re Christians as much as you think you are.

Yes, I think they are misidentifying demonic phenomena as miraculous or coming from God when they don't. Am I not allowed to disagree with other Christians?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.