Apparently, Just One More Parlor Trick

Hello CA :The Jews did take issue of what was done. The text also tells their reasons; that it was done on the Sabbath. Luke recorded the events the way it happened. Your proclivity to use the text to conclude the reverse of what the text was written to communicate evidences the filter of your worldview. Pilate himself said the Jews delivered up Jesus out of "envy".If Jesus performed a trick then this makes both He and Luke deceivers/liars/frauds. Where on Earth does the notion that Jesus was a "good and wise " teacher come from ?

Hello CA :If the truth is on your side then I think there is a little too much anger in this response.Do you know what phylacteries are ?Do you know what the Pharisees/Jews did to circumvent the Law and travel on the Sabbath ?Of course you do, then you also know that Pharisees/Jewry, by their traditions, kept the letter of the Law but violated the spirit.
"....who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel".CA :Would you, without using scripture, substantiate what exactly is a parlor trick ?Then, transfer what you produce 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 ?

It doesn't....thats the point. This is why Jesus continually called them on this nonsense. This is why Jesus shamed them by pointing out that they would pull their mule out of a ditch on the Sabbath but condemn Him for healing a daughter of Abraham.What I respect about your position is that you take sides clearly.
Luke is either a liar/fraud OR he is telling the truth - nothing in between.Pharisees hated Jesus and even Pilate recognized that they delivered Him up out of envy. IF Jewry could miss the placement of Enoch into their canon and include Solomonic works, then it is no stretch to believe they also missed the Messiah.I believe you still owe me a response to the latter portion of my previous reply/response.

I particpated respectfully and simply disagreed with your implication that Luke is a liar/fraud, and all you can do is go to the extreme of branding me a antisemite.Where is the antisemitism CA ?You have set yourself on this "high-don't-challenge-me-horse". As if nobody else knows anything about Jewry.Where is the antisemitism in my position ?You were the one who desecrated Holy Writ by the implications of post 1 and no theist said a thing about that.Antisemitism means I have hated Jewry for no other reason other than the fact that they are Jews. What are you talking about ?I have participated in a perfectly acceptable manner. You played the race card at the drop of a hat, which was meant to deflect away from my pointy and uncomfortable arguments.....in that much you have succeeded.You have completely ignored the section of post about parlor tricks...I wonder why ?Our dance is over due to your hatred of Evangelicals.I challenge anyone to SHOW me the antisemitism in anything I wrote, then by the same standard/criteria judge what CA wrote.Willowtree.

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 ?

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 ?

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

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 .

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

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 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 ?

"not needed"There is the problem. That is your subjective opinion based upon the claims of previous posters.The spit-mud miracle demands that nobody put Jesus into their "must be this way" box. Atheists do not believe in miracles anyway, so why the hoopla over a "unorthodox" one ?IF you or I could figure Jesus out then He isn't God.Preceding posters have described the miracle as entertainment.Where is the entertainment ?

Berry :I have supplied reasons why Jesus chose to heal this way. Until you acknowledge them I see no reason to repeat them. Or maybe you just don't like/accept what I said.

Brian: I am well as the euphoria that you caused is still present. Thanks.Back to business - ok ?If the gospel writer is myth-making like you have claimed then this type of twist must hurt his story.Brian quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said it was a myth, I have no idea where you get this from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I got this from previous posts of yours that claim the N.T. writers were engaged in myth-making.CA has completely ignored me on this, maybe you won't :IF a parlour 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 ?Brian, why do you interpret the text to be the work of a magician ?How is it that you cannot be fooled by the claims of Luke unlike a zillion other people ?Why can't the text be accurate, rather, what is your evidence/rationale for Luke claiming a miracle was performed when it was a cruel trick ?

Brian : Allow me to answer the question about Ahab.Did God lie ?IF He IS God then whatever He does IS righteous.Until you comprehend the meaning of the above statement no answer I supply can be accurate despite who might be asking the question.The Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus in His words with their infamous question about taxes. This question of yours is similar in nature.With that now said : God, from the text in question, lets everyone know the way He operates : Rebel against Him and He might make you believe something that is not true.Hebrews 3 speaks about the "deceitfulness of sin". This means the worst ingredient that comes with sin is its ability to make you believe something that is not true. The essence of being decieved is that you believe something is true - BUT IT IS NOT TRUE.The event of Ahab has God showing anyone who cares what He might do to those who give Him the finger. What God did to Ahab is the way God gives the finger back to those who flip Him off.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-15-2004]