Religion or Science - How do they compare?

Only for you and your beliefs. Obviously it's necessary for you to change the meaning of a word that makes the entire Christian belief system a nonsense.Unfortunately for you it doesn't matter what liberties you take with the meaning of words, it's clear that everyone thought the second coming was soon - just like you. And just like you, they were wrong.

If I were to pray to have water turned into wine and it happened, (hasn't worked so far), it wouldn't be me performing the niracle but God working through me. Firstly there is no reasonable motive for them to do that, but also they would have gone with something more Jewish like in the story of the transfiguration. Why on earth would they do that. If Jesus simply died with nothing further happening it would simply be the end of the story. They would have as the Jews did in other cases, gone on to another messiah who would hopefully get the job done in the manner that they had understood. Jesus did fulfill the establishment of the Kingdom but it was a world wide kingdom instead of a specified piece of real estate. He also rebuilt the Temple but it was in the hearts of those who His followers instead of a physical building. Not what they were expecting or looking for. As an atheist that is obviously correct. As a theist I see the latter as being most likely. It pretty much depends on our starting point.

Now that is a truly crazy thing to say. Pretty obviously you performed the miracle. And did it several other times too - raising dead, feeding thousands without a supermarket erc. Sure you can claim it ain't me but it sure looks like it. You mean that these people didn't believe anymore? When the modern-day prophets predict the end times but they don't happen, they don't jusy give up, they carry on and make all sorts of excuses about why. They have every motive to continue, they're deluded, just like Faith. You think she's ever going to be persuaded by amything at all? Of course not. No it doesn't, it only depends on the evidence. You simply substitute an irrational belief for evidence.

Even the charlatans that cook up fake healings say that it is God using them as a vessel or something similar.

Three things for now:First, it is objective fact that the word "generation" had different meanings, I didn't invent that. The question is which applied.Second, Jesus' prophecy points in part to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, for instance that no stone would be left standing upon another, and the warning to those in Judea to flee to the mountains, anticipating the armies of Rome under Titus. And that specific generation did indeed witness all that.The problem is that the passage also refers to the second coming as well, and that's what needs sorting out.Third, we know He is coming again no matter what timing is implied in that particular discourse, which means His coming is yet future. There are too many other passages that make that clear.

Yet until the return AND establishment of a new Kingdom Jesus is still just a failed Messiah.Remember, Jesus was never a Christian but rather a Jew.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Charlatans tell lies. Who knew?In the stories when JC performed his miracles, they didn't happen randomly as he was passing alon minding his own business, he made the decisions to raise the dead, create the wine, feed the crowds etc.It wasn't something that just happened without his knowledge or desire to do it. And it wasn't something that anyone else could do. *He* did it. Or so the story goes.

Is this supposed to be an answer to the idea that He did it through God's power? If so it's wildly wrong.

JC did them. Whether he used the power given to him by god, the White Witch of Gondor or the power of a magic ring, the story is that he did them.ABE. Maybe an analogy that you're fond of will help. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Nobody said Jesus didn't do them.

There are always multiple sides to any argument, and I found this one quite well done: Refutation Of Richard CarrierThe "blue fairy" analogy is priceless!

Yes they did.

Even you must know he can't possibly have meant Jesus had no part in it or that he himself would have had no part in the miracle he postulated. Maybe he will come along and correct me but, although his wording is unfortunate, when we speak of God working through us we are doing the actions but God is supplying the power. The missionary preaches the gospel but if the person converts it is God's power that has delivered the message to his heart. The disciple tells the paralyzed man to get up because he's healed, but it's God's power working through the disciple that did the healing. Jesus told the boy to distribute the bread and fish but it was God's power working in Jesus that multipled the food for the crowd.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

These word acrobatics only occurs because you guys try to hold impossible contradictions together as though they were totally sensible.The 'logical’ position is that when JC performs a miracle - note that that is what we say - it's him that's doing it with his own powers.
But the problem is, he's only a mortal man that will eventually die like everyone else, so there has to be another word game that can be played that allowshim to act like a god whilst not being one. I know, we'll say that another god is doing it through him. Pure Hollywood.But also,he's not a puppet, he's a man making his own choices...yeh, right. That all makes total sense.

It would appear that way to any observer. Some scriptures state otherwise, however: Of course, honest skeptics such as yourself are unimpressed with scripture as a supporting argument. One side would assert that the Gospel of John is an authentic explanation, whereas the other side would simply claim that John was written, edited, and redacted by men with differing motives and ideologies from the other three Gospel accounts. Additionally, you would claim that human understanding has evolved quite a bit from when these original accounts were written. I did find an interesting review of the Gospel of John online, however. In A Nutshell...Shmoop articles are authored by teachers (high school or college level), Ph.D. and master's students (e.g., Stanford, Harvard, and Yale). They base the articles on credible academic sources and then cite the source. Shmoop also provides citations for students...definitely not written by conservative apologists! What difference would it make if the vessel died or not? Is it so hard to grasp that the human allowed God to work through him?