Apparently, Just One More Parlor Trick

CA is very zealous for his position and I fully understand why (even though I do not agree), I am the same in this respect (very zealous for my position), even though CA doesn't agree.CA has created a topic that flat out implies that Luke must be lying because the Pharisees have no reason to object to a person from being healed on the Sabbath.Fine.CA then decides to topic this position and package the alleged miracle by Jesus as a parlor trick.Fine.I only have one response/question that I will repeat:Please substantiate what a parlor trick is ?Then transfer this definition and overlay it upon the passages of scripture cited in post 1 ?IF a parlor is a controlled environment specially prepared to deceive, then isn't a public setting the most unlikely place to pull off such a stunt/trick/deception ?

A parlor is a room generally used when you want to entertain guests. The term isn't really used anymore, though.So a parlor trick is, in short, a simple trick or illusion ment to amaze or entertain the crowd.

Then why did the gospel writer make this spit-mud miracle up ?Why didn't the gospel writer just have Jesus speak the miracle into existence ?If the gospel writer is myth-making like you have claimed then this type of twist must hurt his story.The recording of this type of miracle indicates/demonstrates honesty on the part of the writer - he wrote what happened.The basis of your criticism is a straw man, nay, more like a spectre argument, which is : because you do not know why Jesus chose to heal this way, therefore it must of never happened. You place the Son of God in a rigged litmus test box - a test that concludes He must heal a certain way for it to be a genuine miracle, but even that certain way isn't a miracle because you don't believe miracles can happen - even more so if the miracle comes via some unorthodox method.If Jesus performed a "trick for entertainment" as you have described it, then where is the entertainment for anyone (including the blind person) in seeing someone get spit-mud smeared in their eyes ?If Jesus is wise, then He is smart enough to know that this is not entertainment. Who would be entertained by the event in question ?
Certainly no Jew would be dumb enough to think this was entertainment, and certainly no Jew would be dumb enough to be fooled by a trick like this ?

Or, alternatively, it's just the sort of embellishment his audience would have expected from a story about someone working magic. So, essentially your argument is that the account is so ridiculous it must be true?Why do miracles have material components? It makes sense in Dungeons and Dragons. It doesn't make sense in real life.

Negative, it is Brian's argument that the account is so ridiculous it must not be true.

But that's generally a valid argument - ridiculous things are not generally true. So is your argument that it's true, or that it's not ridiculous?

It is true and not ridiculous. Of course you or anyone could of guessed my position.I initially criticized Brian's position to not make sense. He characterized the account as "entertainment" and "trick".Where is the entertainment ?If Jesus performed a trick, then Luke is a liar/fraud. Once again, I respect this position : Luke is honest OR a liar - nothing in between.By what basis of evidence is there to believe that Jesus performed a trick ?Answer : Subjective atheist worldview which does not believe miracles can happen. What else can Brian conclude ? Surely the text cannot mean what it says at face value ? Which brings me right back to where I started : If Luke is lying then how in the hell does this help his lie ?
That is a rhetorical question - it doesn't .

Because misdirection and embellishment are the soul of a fantastic story. The clay business makes the story seem more magical, more legendary.You clearly never read any fantasy novels.

And so called dumb fisherman have read these fantasy novels 2000 years ago.

The fundamentals of fantasy storytelling are as old as civilization.Truly you are ignorant of the most basic aspects of cultures and mythology. Maybe you could try addressing my comments with substantial responses? Thanks.

WILLOWTREE asks:

quote:

---

By what basis of evidence is there to believe that Jesus performed a trick ?

---

How 'bout the Copperfield routine, as an earlier poster put it? If Jesus is the son of God with supernatural power the clay and spit paraphernalia are obviated, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. It is not unreasonable to ask why they are used in this "miracle". The fact that they are used even though they are not needed would seem odd to most anyone, except for the sort of person who does not question anything found in the bible. I thank God every day that I am not that sort of person.

Your conclusion defies all logic and is compatible with the anger of your worldview.Myth-makers who are attempting to be believed do not create events that hurt their story.You replies lack substance to anything relevant except circular argument.FFA forum, my new topic awaits your attention.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-06-2004]

I've shown you how Luke would have expected those details to substantiate his story based on storytelling techniques of the time. Predictably you have no response but to ignore the argument. Well, that's fine.

My thought would be to reference the creation of man from clay as described in Genesis two.I personally don't think it would be odd to use props even though they aren't necessary to the performance of the miracle. There were observers and the props could have been to have an effect on them or to transmit a message to them.Admittedly, it could also be because that's the way a magician's tricks would be described in that day and age. Since we weren't there, I don't suppose we'll ever know unless the resurrection is true and he or other eye-witnesses let us know.

I did respond but it is you who have chosen to not acknowledge my reply.We are both going round and round based upon our worldviews. I like debating with you Crashfrog - this exchange has been exhausted, can we both agree on that ?