Man raised back to life in Jesus' name

i'm gonna interrupt this because it's getting stupid (on both sides).you can't prove a miracle, you know it. miracles are by definition outside the realm of naturalism, and thus cannot be shown by any amount of evidence. it is therefor up to the person claiming it is not a miracle to provide evidence to the contrary -- if a natural explanation can be shown, it is NOT a miracle.this is substantially different than, say, the loch ness monster. nessie, presumably, if she exists, is a real animal. so in the abscence of credible evidence the burden of proof lays on the person making the claim. they can reasonably go out, and capture nessie, and show that she does exist.we can't do this with miracles -- all we CAN show is that something is not a miracle. the best we can do with a miracle to show that to the best of our knowledge something COULD be.

---

אָרַח

yes, SOMETHING would be nice. people who like to make extraordinary claims seem to like third-hand tales, fuzzy pictures, and shaky home videos.("heresay" = hearsay + heresy?)

---

אָרַח

metaphors?

quote:

---

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

​

Job 2:7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

---

---

אָרַח

heh, i guess i missed this one too.why, the immutable truth of the eyewitness account, of course. good question though. the only real answer, i guess, is a "god of the gaps" answer: something we cannot explain naturalistically.

---

well, than job makes no sense. it's no test if job deserves his punishment.also, i'm not sure that this jesus bit makes much sense either. how could suffering touch christ if he was born without original sin? and how could he die for our sins, if he couldn't die? i guess i missed this post before. going through old posts now that i can check my email. but, uh, belated happy new year to you too!

---

well, that still doesn't explain job. do we need original sin? why?

---

i guess i'm not. because if job has any sin at all, he has no right to complain. he's getting what he deserves. job DOES have explanation of why bad things happen to good people, and it's not original sin. it's not particularly comforting in the way the book of job puts it, or a very good answer, but it's an answer nonetheless.note also hat original sin isn't so much as mentioned anywhere in the book. that would have been a good explanation from god: "blame it on adam." but the idea isn't even there.

---

well, yes, i agree with this statement. however, we can't just go quotemining for dogma and read whatever we want into it either.in the case of job, original sin can only be inferred to NOT be in place. it would negate the premise of job being upright and not deserving the curses put upon him. the question of job is "why do bad things happen to good people?" and the answer doesn't appear to be quite that "there is no such thing as a good person."job is blameless, and upright. perfect in everyway. the closest we get to original sin is the comparison between god and job -- next to god, job (perfect though he is) is nothing, and evil. but i think that's more a statement about GOD than it is about job.

---

right, sure. but it says that job *IS* righteous.perhaps it's good to look at the whole of job, not just the first few sentances. job is perfect -- except when compared to god. maybe that's what paul meant. so perhaps job has some insight on romans, not the other way around. it's more a matter of who's in charge. if you get in a fight with god, you're wrong whether or not you might have a point.

---