Or Jesus just took a shortcut and zombified him. No one noticed the difference because hygiene wasn’t all that good back then.
God dwells inside the flesh of Jesus, connected and feeding off to the flesh of Mary. Jesus restored a crippled hand and leperacy. God dwells within us, within our corrupted flesh, Paul testifies to that and the war that goes on inside him ‘I do things I should not and don’t do things I should’. So God is willing and able to work inside our corrupted flesh. In some ways it’s just a covering we get to use to mess up before we learn the ways of God/Love. Like giving a child a cheaper toy tablet knowing they will damage it instead of a expensive ipad.
To me the reason is clear, God seeks to use us, work through us. Yet our society has taught that healing miracles don’t happen. Indoctrinated since childhood into this false belief system it is hard for the believer to overcome this and God will not always override a person’s free will. God will allow the believer to believe that the healing are small and internal and that’s what will be.
Yes God can heal and restore body parts and is very willing. Believers will see it with their own eyes because it does happen and God is overjoyed to show it. Non-believers will not see such things, it is blocked out from their vision. Non-believers will see what they desire to see, no miracles even if one happens right infront of them they will not see it. Scriptures testify to this see the stoning of Stephen in acts for one such example.
Congrats on one of the fastest growing threads 
Have any believers claimed to see the restoration of amputated limbs? How could that be concealed from non-believers? Either the limb was amputated, or it wasn’t; it was restored, or it wasn’t. Belief or lack thereof doesn’t change those facts.
Why would god do such a thing? Surely miracles are some of his best PR, why would he keep his light under a bushel?
I have read Acts 7, which details the stoning of Stephen, and found nothing that supports your claim that god hides miracles from non-believers. Please post the relevant passages here if I have overlooked something.
Miracles are private - smitings are public.
According to the Bible, any of those people (and more) really are lesser people, as they are forbidden to enter the holy place, because they would defile it. Quoth Leviticus:
I’m sorry if this has already been addressed. I’ve only read the first page and have no idea what form the thread has taken since.
Mary’s DNA wasn’t corrupted. She was conceived immaculately, so Jesus’s DNA wouldn’t have been corrupted either. Thus, God could miracle some flesh onto Jesus without any sin-block.
I have no problem conceding that my argument doesn’t hold up. It was just a random thought, and I would be interested in hearing other Christians tackle the problem.
One thing I find interesting is with Jesus healing, he physically touches them whereas a physical touch would not be occuring now since God is no longer in a physical form.
Consider Romans 9:21. An eternity of being pain free and complete in exchange for a short time of suffering on this cursed world. I’ll take that trade anyday. This world has nothing that can bring me endless joy apart from God.
Yes, How can it be that some people see things that others can’t. God controls everything. As to why, God provides what you believe to be true. If you believe there is no God or healing power, God will let you live in the exact reality you believe in. Your belief does not negate His power to heal and God will do what He pleases,which is to heal others regardless of your belief. If you believe you are a person in flesh that will die, that’s what will happen, if you believe however you are a child of God and therefor immortal then you will get eternal life.
God is far more active and powerful in our world, yet it is hidden from those who don’t believe. That statement alone shows the power of God.
Miracles were not some of His best PR actually some of His worst. When Jesus healed the recognition was normally from those who believed they would be healed already, so no PR to be gained. For others they attacked Jesus for healing or didn’t acknowledge the healing by failing to come back. Those who believe already got the healing they knew they would get from God, those who didn’t believe continued to not see or believe even when they themselves were healed.
Again God is allowing us to decide in what type of world we want, one with God and His miracles or one without them.
[/quote]
I have read Acts 7, which details the stoning of Stephen, and found nothing that supports your claim that god hides miracles from non-believers. Please post the relevant passages here if I have overlooked something.
[/QUOTE]
Bold mine they refused to hear as they didn’t want to know the truth and therefor didn’t see it, but saw Stephan stones to death instead of taken up to eternal life (raptured if you will).
How did covering their ears prevent them from seeing the glory of god? Would they not also have to cover their eyes? How could they run at Stephen with their eyes covered?
THIS, THIS is why we need a like button!
Jesus speaks of blindness several times in the Gospels. (those who have eyes may see etc.)
To put what I state into a modern example. Your friend may come over tomorrow, healthy and walking. All his life he may have been a cripple confined to a wheelchair. You may have know him as a cripple, you may have helped him into his chair, may have brought him to the Dr. Yet tomorrow he walks in totally healthy.
As a non-believer your mind/soul can not accept this and will block out all that has to do with the wheelchair. You will remember your time with him but not the wheelchair. To you he has always been healthy and that’s what you will accept, missing the miracle. If he tried to tell you, you simply will not hear, you will basically cover your ears to it and only hear what you can accept in the world you have created for yourself.
Are you sure about that ? I know she’s supposed to have conceived Jesus immaculately, but I’m not aware of her being portrayed as anything other than a regular Jewish gal in the book. Probably smoking hot, as Israeli chicks are wont to be, but immaculate and sinless ?
Bullshit. Show us a real life occurrence.
If all you’re looking for a some sort of spiritual discussion that’s great. When you go and overtly link your own spiritual musing to the actual material world the rest of us (not just the atheists) are completely justified in expecting evidence to back up your arguments. Why exactly, given we can see, experience and test the world, should we rely on your personal opinion? Why should we give it preference over other spiritual traditions like Pythagoreanism? Just because you say so? Just because you’ve personally experienced something? Those are poor things to base an argument on.
Actually, they taste good because evolution selected humans that would crave them. But I admire your adventurous spirit.
Devastatingly true. It also allows the person to believe they’re healthy-living, hard-working, chaste, and pious (even when they’re not) because so far, they’re fine. Not exactly a 1-to-1 relationship with religion, though, as most sick, poor, rape victims don’t revel in their fate, but atheists are often quite pleased with their lot in life. Probably because it’s a mental state independent from outside influence (…or is it??? :eek:).
Sudden remission of cancer is a natural occurrence. Apparently, the regeneration of fingertips is a natural occurrence. If you want to prove a supernatural occurrence, it must be something that cannot be explained via natural processes. (There’s going to be some grey area here, but if you can get into the grey area, that’s an achievement in and of itself.) The real problem you’re having isn’t that atheists don’t accept evidence, it’s that you don’t have any.
No dead person has ever mentioned a life after death. It’s funny how only living people go on and on about it.
All apologetics are inherently bullshit.
You’ve already heard other religious dopers weigh in about your theory, and they’re not fans. In fact, most religious people don’t dare question God’s judgment about who to heal and how. The other religious people mostly accept that the picture of God you are painting is nonsense. If you’re looking for someone to just reinforce your worldview, try your church’s Bible Study. The internet is the biggest marketplace of ideas ever created, and this bazaar doesn’t give gold stars for participation.
There’s been a lot of No True Scotsman references in the thread, but this is a No True Scotsman argument!
<Sigmund Freud Accent> Vhy don’t you tell me about your relationship vis you father?</Accent>
Can’t argue with that logic.
Why does this make me want to masturbate more?..
No troll is this amusing. Also, most trolls are not so quick to climb up on a cross.
Not in every case, I think
Would that not impact whether any kind of healing (or indeed miracle) could take place, or not? (as opposed to only affecting whether amputees could be healed)?
I’ve heard claims of an artifical hip being transformed back to real bone, but the hard evidence supporting the assertion was not forthcoming.
I believe I am Spider-Man, why can’t I do whatever a spider can?
The Immaculate Conception is Mary being conceived without Original Sin, so she could carry baby Jesus. The Virgin Birth is about Jesus. People often get those two confused.
Nope, you would still resort to either “well it’s just a concidence” or “hey someone wrote that after the fact” counters.
In fact, the Bible does contain detailed fullfilled prophecies with real names and places. Of course, atheists reject this. One example are the Tyre prophecies. Atheists completely ignore the fact the prophecies detailed that the city would be destroyed, and the exact method of destruction:
Ezekiel 26:12
Alexander’s workers actually laid the broken-up pieces of Tyre in the water exactly as prophecied. Very detailed, but atheists retreat to the argument that a city named Tyre exists in that region. Nevermind if it’s not in the exact area as the original Tyre or that it never became a big city again as predicted. Really weak sauce.