If Jesus Could Heal the Sick and Raise the Dead

Great Debates
361

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The pertinent question is what kind of dialog can begin to change things? How do we do that while still preserving people’s constitutional rights? It’s easy to make fun and feel intellectually superior. Real solutions are more complicated.
[/QUOTE]

Constitutional rights? I don’t think I mentioned anything about making laws to force people not believe in odd things. And while I don’t feel particularly superior to anyone, I certainly am glad I don’t believe such preposterous things, although I probably have a few things I take for granted myself without thinking about them. Gravity for example. I expect it to work and it does. Fancy that.
As to solutions, I don’t know how to make people use the brain they were born with other than debating with them. My morals don’t allow for brainwashing unlike most religions.

362

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Typically, a Jew is no more focused on waiting for the Messiah than a UCC member is on the Second Coming
[/QUOTE]

Don’t they set a place at their table just incase the Messiah comes over? But OK point taken, the Messiah to them is not God, just a man, that required a prophet to come before to him.

Thanks, it was a unfortunate choice of words due to what I heard about the Moslem’s God, that Allah does not have a Son, but is a complete and singular God.

363

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think we can see that we are still growing, still learning, still trying to put the principles that resonate for us into day to day practice. That means we can, indeed must, take responsibility for our actions rather than justify them or blame them on the actions of others. But we can still believe. You’ll see me using the term “believing provisionally” more and more and thanks for that. :slight_smile:
If we believe provisionally then we choose provisionally too don’t we?

[/QUOTE]

Choosing provisionally is an excellent way to put it. It is certainly possible for us to make moral choices which don’t turn out so well, and repenting them - and more importantly, changing them - is the right thing to do.

Now that’s solved, what other impossible problem should we go after? :slight_smile:

364

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Don’t they set a place at their table just incase the Messiah comes over? But OK point taken, the Messiah to them is not God, just a man, that required a prophet to come before to him.

[/QUOTE]

Once a year, on Passover, as part of a very ritualistic dinner. Yes, wine is poured for Elijah, but we’re smart enough to drink it when he doesn’t show. :slight_smile: Besides for that, except for some sects, no one is running around writing books about the coming of the Messiah and preaching that it is imminent.

While it is possible that very early traditions had God having children (see Genesis) by the time of the Romans that was considered absurd and blasphemous. Not so for the pagan cultures of the time. I just read a play by Plautus, from about 200 BCE, which involved Jupiter disguising himself as a general, shtupping his wife, and causing her to become pregnant with two children, one his, one Jupiter’s, of different ages who get born at the same time. It seems more likely to me that this kind of culture is the parent to the son of god meme - not the Jewish one, which had a more sophisticated notion. Christmas trees aren’t the only thing you Christians got from the pagans.

365

[QUOTE=Uzi]
Constitutional rights? I don’t think I mentioned anything about making laws to force people not believe in odd things. And while I don’t feel particularly superior to anyone, I certainly am glad I don’t believe such preposterous things, although I probably have a few things I take for granted myself without thinking about them. Gravity for example. I expect it to work and it does. Fancy that.
As to solutions, I don’t know how to make people use the brain they were born with other than debating with them. My morals don’t allow for brainwashing unlike most religions.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t accusing you of anything. We have seen good examples on this board of atheists who cry logic and reason while spouting their own unsupported beliefs about how things are. My point is, if debate is going to be successful then we need to learn what language to use to make it as effective as possible. Yes?

Some of the language on this board seems to be headed in that direction while others just like to spew their distaste for all things that smack of spiritual beliefs. I don’t find that especially helpful.

366

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Choosing provisionally is an excellent way to put it. It is certainly possible for us to make moral choices which don’t turn out so well, and repenting them - and more importantly, changing them - is the right thing to do.

Now that’s solved, what other impossible problem should we go after? :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Well if we could get Bush and cronies out of the white house within the next couple of months I’d say the whole world would thanks us and we’d probably get a plaque or something.
At least the talk show circuit would be lucrative. I can just dream about telling Hannity and ORielly to EAT ME!! or something equally eloquent.

367

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Choosing provisionally is an excellent way to put it. It is certainly possible for us to make moral choices which don’t turn out so well, and repenting them - and more importantly, changing them - is the right thing to do.

Now that’s solved, what other impossible problem should we go after? :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

On a more serious note, I’m convinced thats exactly what Christ intended. He knew, and even said, that we weren’t ready for all he had to teach, and said some were more ready than others. I believe he understood that the journey was an ongoing process. It’s in a lot of what he said.

368

So let me get this straight–when he says that he’ll be back while some of those here are still living, and then doesn’t show up for 2000 years* , that’s a symbolic parable or some other weak shit, right, but “the journey is an ongoing process” (which he never remotely said in so many words) can be assumed in “a lot of what he said.”

Wouldn’t it be much more logical to posit that (assuming he existed) he was a delusional country preacher in a repressive culture who made some wise comments about poor people and humility and outdated Jewish laws and such (and also made some crackpot comments about who he was and what was going to happen in some delusional fantasies) that some miserable oppressed followers of his cobbled a whole religion around? Isn’t this a simpler, more elegant explanation of the NT than all this half-assed rationalizing of contradictions and nitpicking of isolated passages and pretending it’s all very comprehensive and cohesive but just a wee bit beyond our weak minds to grasp in only 2000 years*?

  • Cue Tom to point out the arithmetic flaw in this bombastic exaggeration of time elapsed, horrifying him and outraging him into a multi-post harangue. Wake me when it’s over, please.
369

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]

  • Cue Tom to point out the arithmetic flaw in this bombastic exaggeration of time elapsed, horrifying him and outraging him into a multi-post harangue. Wake me when it’s over, please.
    [/QUOTE]
    If you do not want me interrupting your rants with facts, stop making it a point to poke me with sticks.

If you wish to insult me or pick a fight with me, take it to the BBQ Pit.

370

No, I used a bit of hyperbole (that I believe is still allowed in here, for some posters at least) and wished to pre-empt your nonsense by pointing out myself that it, like my previous statement of “a century of so,” was not intended to be taken literally nor discussed for a few dozen posts simply because you couldn’t find an easier target to poke with a stick.

Do you want to explain in your own pompous “factual” style how we’re still few years short of 2000 years, even with the disclaimer? Go right ahead. If not, keep your opinions of me to yourself, take my mild poking, and stay on topic, please.

I can’t be arsed to open a Pit thread tonight, though if you keep on butting in here to flex you mod muscles, I might find a few minutes in my busy schedule. You’re giving me ideas all over the place.

371

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
So let me get this straight–when he says that he’ll be back while some of those here are still living, and then doesn’t show up for 2000 years* , that’s a symbolic parable or some other weak shit, right, but “the journey is an ongoing process” (which he never remotely said in so many words) can be assumed in “a lot of what he said.”

Wouldn’t it be much more logical to posit that (assuming he existed) he was a delusional country preacher in a repressive culture who made some wise comments about poor people and humility and outdated Jewish laws and such (and also made some crackpot comments about who he was and what was going to happen in some delusional fantasies) that some miserable oppressed followers of his cobbled a whole religion around? Isn’t this a simpler, more elegant explanation of the NT than all this half-assed rationalizing of contradictions and nitpicking of isolated passages and pretending it’s all very comprehensive and cohesive but just a wee bit beyond our weak minds to grasp in only 2000 years*?

  • Cue Tom to point out the arithmetic flaw in this bombastic exaggeration of time elapsed, horrifying him and outraging him into a multi-post harangue. Wake me when it’s over, please.
    [/QUOTE]

I think “2000 years” is a reasonable trope for “1,974 years and still waiting” – there’s a rather cynical and outre comment that one reason that women tend to adore Jesus is that He can keep loving them for 2000 years before His Second Coming. :wink:

There is, however, an issue that does require dealing with in your argument, and divested of all the hostility and histrionics, I’d like to see if we can again address it civilly.

As Diogenes and I pointed out substantially earlier in this thread, almost everyone concurs that the Gospels, and Matthew in particular is what I want to focus on here, were of fairly late composition. And yes, there was a common expectation that the Second Coming would happen in the near future at that time; that’s one of the main reasons nothing still preserved got reduced to writing about His life until at least 30 years later, with most of it more like 50 years later.

However, the issue is whether He actually forecast it as a near future event, or if that’s what people read into what He did say. And I would submit to you that there’s a plethora of evidence supporting the assertion that the author of Matthew is guilty of slamming a bunch of teachings on related subjects into long discourses that were evidently compiled by him from things Jesus said at different times and places. In short, he mixed together teachings that Luke documents as having happened at a number of discrete times to produce the Sermon on the Mount and the other long sermons in Matthew. Notably, Matthew 24-25 includes stuff about the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, and stuff about Jesus’s return, as though they were to be contemporaneous events. But is this the way Jesus taught them?

I’m prepared to discuss on the topic of “the Gospels accurately portray Jesus, and it’s clear from them that he was wrong” or “we can’t know a whole lot about Jesus (even if he really lived, much less the miracles and rising from the dead bits) because the Gospels were written so much later and probably threw in a bunch of made-up legend” – but you need to take your pick which we’re doing.

The two concepts are incompossible: if one is accurate, the other cannot be.

372

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]

  • Cue Tom to point out the arithmetic flaw in this bombastic exaggeration of time elapsed, horrifying him and outraging him into a multi-post harangue. Wake me when it’s over, please.
    [/QUOTE]

He did not say anything about your arithmetic. That was a cheap shot.

But in fact, Jesus did tell his followers he would return in glory before all of his listeners had died. How long ago was that?

Well, to be precise, Jesus was apparently born in 4 BC (or BCE). That’s right, before. It would seem that Denis the Short (I forget his Latin name) was off by 4 years when he calculated his birth for the purposes of the new calendar that begins with the birth of Christ. So apparently Jesus would have been about three already in the year we call 1 AD (or CE).

Now, Jesus died either at 30 or 33 (depending again on how you interpret the Gospels — really clear documents you know!.

So presumably, he told his followers somewhere around 30 AD that he would return before all of them had died.

So either he was wrong or there is some old Jewish man who is OVER 1977 years old who is still waiting for him to return.

373

[QUOTE=Valteron]
He did not say anything about your arithmetic. That was a cheap shot.

But in fact, Jesus did tell his followers he would return in glory before all of his listeners had died. How long ago was that?

Well, to be precise, Jesus was apparently born in 4 BC (or BCE). That’s right, before. It would seem that Denis the Short (I forget his Latin name) was off by 4 years when he calculated his birth for the purposes of the new calendar that begins with the birth of Christ. So apparently Jesus would have been about three already in the year we call 1 AD (or CE).

Now, Jesus died either at 30 or 33 (depending again on how you interpret the Gospels — really clear documents you know!.

So presumably, he told his followers somewhere around 30 AD that he would return before all of them had died.

So either he was wrong or there is some old Jewish man who is OVER 1977 years old who is still waiting for him to return.
[/QUOTE]

Excellent points, Valteron. I think most Dopers are aware of the calculation error already (the name he went by was Dionysius Exiguus, and you gave the accurate translation). It might be noted that 4 B.C. is not the definite date, but the latest of a rather broad range (~15 years) of possible dates.

And you will no doubt be amused to know that there is one group which actually believes that there’s a disciple of Jesus still alive from back then, fulfilling that prophecy. (Presumably he and the Wandering Jew exchange Rosh Hoshanah cards each year! ;))

However, I’d refer you to my previous response to PRR, with this added note: As far as I can tell, the “this generation” prophecies are both in Luke, without parallels in the other Gospels (and I’ll welcome correction on that): at 9:27 and 21:31-32.

In the first case, the comment is, “Some who stand here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God.” But “the Kingdom of God” is a slippery concept – sometimes it appears to be talking eschatology, a Last Days righteous-rule sort of thing, other times it’s referencing making God supreme within oneself. The context here is important, too: Jesus has just been speaking of the cost of discipleship, and the quote immediately precedes the account of the Transfiguration, which comes as close as anything reported as historical in Scripture to the transcendent Kingdom concept made real.

The second quote is: “Hey, check out this fig tree – in fact, all the trees. When you see them in bud, you know that summer’s coming. Likewise, when you see the signs I just got through talking about, know that God’s Kingdom is near. In fact, I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all this stuff will have happened.” But again this appears to either reference the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, or some nebulous stuff about storm clouds gathering.

And it’s worth noting that Jesus repeatedly said, “Be prepared for the coming of the Son of Man in Glory. Because no man knows when it will happen, even I don’t know when it will happen – only God the Father knows. Therefore, I say to you, be ready!”

This post sounds, even to me, like special pleading to excuse a failed prophecy. Rather, what I am trying to suggest is, like the Millerite Adventists of the 1840s, the original Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other groups, many early Christians, in a wish-fulfillment fantasy, mixed together various things Jesus had said, to suggest an early Parousia (nice technical term for Second Coming in Glory), not because he’d actually predicted that (on which I’m neutral to doubtful) but because it was what they wanted to believe.

“If I gave you time to change my mind, I’d find a way to leave it all behind…” :slight_smile:

374

cosmosdan almost missed your post, being scrunched at the top like that.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I thought our being forgiven had to do with how well we forgive others.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I meant salvation is based on faith. Apparently we will be judged by our own standards of forgiveness.

Again we come down to what Jesus taught. Which in short is Love God, and that love your fellow man. The question comes about on how to love a person who is a homosexual.

It’s a good point, but then again I’m not sure SSM is a ‘basic human right’, it certainly was not in a society. I’m not sure that gays are denied any rights, certainly not in the sense that women and blacks were.

You assume correctly, I am sincere. Much of Jesus’ works are casting out demons, and instructed us to do so also. It’s not just some obscure reference but one of the major activities that Jesus did as he visited towns. Jesus would not have done that if there were no such things as demons IMHO.

As for using it to justify the unjustifiable it is something I have to look into even in the context of demonic possession.

Bold mine. Perhaps this is the issue, it is NOT a right I want or need for myself.

375

kanicbird: It would be getting us way off track in a thread that has already turned into a commuter flight to Jose Marti Airport, to discuss gay rights at length. But try these two propositions:

  1. No, SSM is not, strictly speaking, a right in any historical sense. Rather, it’s the application to gay people of a right most people would claim: “The right to marry the willing person of one’s choice, there being no bars such as consanguinuity, age, current marriage, etc.” To say that they have equal rights now, i.e., the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (same laundry list of bars), is to blithely wave away the clear and obvious difference: that straight people can marry the person they love, and gays cannot. Equal rights calls for giving them substantively equal rights. Otherwise, what we’re doing is equivalent to the old Soviet argument: “Our elections are just as free as American ones. All citizens vote for the candidate of their choice!” And the fact that they have only one choice if they know what’s good for them is immaterial. Apply the Golden Rule to it: what if you were a member of a heterosexual minority in Gaytopia, and their laws said you could only marry someone of the same sex? Would you not be offended at being barred from marrying your opposite-sex beloved? Do unto them as you’d want them to do unto you, if the tables were turned.

  2. I think no one believes that inheritance, family health plans, etc., are rights in the strict sense. But once again, the issue is one of equal treatment: if my property will pass to my spouse on my death without probate hassles, and I am able to put my spouse and children on my group medical insurance, then Otto or Valteron should be able to do likewise.

And the rest of your post answering cosmosdan is pretty much solid IMO. Let’s pass on the whole issue of casting out demons. (Although a couple of recent wisecracks aimed at Valteron remind me that we’re arguing this on a message board where Tubadiva and company in sober fact cast out Satan!! :p)

376

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Do you want to explain in your own pompous “factual” style how we’re still few years short of 2000 years, even with the disclaimer? Go right ahead. If not, keep your opinions of me to yourself, take my mild poking, and stay on topic, please.

I can’t be arsed to open a Pit thread tonight, though if you keep on butting in here to flex you mod muscles, I might find a few minutes in my busy schedule. You’re giving me ideas all over the place.
[/QUOTE]
On topic? I was leaving you alone, completely, and now you want to accuse me “butting in” after you take an egregious swipe at me?

As Mod, I am telling you to quit picking fights. If you choose to see that as “picking on you” or “abusing” my powers, please recall that this is the second time tonight that you have attempted to insult me when I had done nothing to “interrupt” your posts and had made no insult to you.

If you think that it is “abusing” his powers for the cop to run in the kid who is throwing stones at him, that is your problem, not mine, and I while I have never used my authority to abuse a poster, I am quite willing to exercise my authority to maintain a certain (strained) level of civility in this Forum.

I do not know why you are picking fights, but you will not be permitted to battle them out in this Forum.

377

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
cosmosdan
Again we come down to what Jesus taught. Which in short is Love God, and that love your fellow man. The question comes about on how to love a person who is a homosexual.
[/QUOTE]

Well since we all fall short my suggestion would be to allow them the same respect, human rights and dignity that we want for everyone.

No? In some societies slavery was not considered a denial of rights, denying woman and others the right to vote seemed okay. I’m not calling SSM a separate category from marriage. I’m talking about the human right to have a monogamous loving and sexual relationship with someone you feel that way about and who shares those feelings. Heteros take that right for granted and all the privileges that go with it. Not recognizing their marriage is an act of oppression that creates undue emotional and financial hardships without one decent reason to do so, other than “yeah but this verse says” That’s not good enough.

That’s fine, but are you inferring that homosexuals are possessed by demons? Is it more of “I don’t know” Maybe they’re possessed by demons, isn’t any more of a justification than “Maybe that’s what this verse means”

I wouldn’t recommend spending much time on that. I’m saying there are no solid reasons anywhere to deny gays the right to marry.

You don’t want the right to marry a person you are in love with and attracted to? Do you want someone else to decide you don’t have that right or would you rather it were up to you?

378

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m talking about the human right to have a monogamous loving and sexual relationship with someone you feel that way about and who shares those feelings.
[/QUOTE]

Why stop there, what are your thoughts on poly-marriage? Should any number of consenting adults be allowed to form such unions with each other? And I promise not to go into unions between man and animals. What is the difference between standard hetro marriage and poly marriage except the numbers involved?

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You don’t want the right to marry a person you are in love with and attracted to? Do you want someone else to decide you don’t have that right or would you rather it were up to you?
[/QUOTE]

and

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Do unto them as you’d want them to do unto you, if the tables were turned.
[/QUOTE]

I resisted putting this down, and I really am sorry if this hurts any feelings, it is not my intention in posting this. My views on homosexuality is based on ‘do onto others’. If I found myself gay I would want someone to try to ‘cure’ me of it. To me that would be a true expression of love from God. Just like how someone cares enough to help me out of my own sinful situations. But now will consider your post about denial of rights during that process. Though I’m still not in the boat with ‘rights are being denied’ at all.

379

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Why stop there, what are your thoughts on poly-marriage? Should any number of consenting adults be allowed to form such unions with each other? And I promise not to go into unions between man and animals. What is the difference between standard hetro marriage and poly marriage except the numbers involved?
[/QUOTE]

Now you’re venturing into cultural. I repeat, it has to do with the state of the heart rather than the physical act. If several people could live together harmoniously in a poly marriage I have no problem with that. Once again, it’s not my place to judge their motives. If they are not harming me or mine in any way then it’s not my call to make. The fact that in our country it has been labeled illegal has more to do with religious prejudice than anything else. IMO that kind of thing is often used as a tool for male dominance which goes against the basic human dignity I spoke of. There needs to be equality.

I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put in and your willingness to listen. It seems that ultimately you believe that being gay is some emotional or genetic flaw or perhaps possession , that people need to be cured from. My suggestion is that you truly consider the source of that belief. What does science suggest? What does society suggest? Does the gay community seem much like the hetero community, with good people and bad people, people who make great loving contributions and selfish bastards. What does a gay persons capacity for acts of loving compassion say about the spirit within them according to the Bible. I’d even suggest that you watch a movie titled Holiday Heart where Ving Rhames plays a gay man who attends church and helps others.

If that belief is based on your interpretation of a few verses in the Bible and nothing else then you must consider the possibility of a wrong interpretation. Just tending to believe something is one thing but that belief put into actions that deeply affect the lives of others brings with it a lot of personal responsibility.

You may know of have known someone with an addictive personality who either drank to excess or took drugs. We want them to be cured too. We want them to be a positive influence on the lives of those around them rather than a destructive one. We might try to talk to them and do what we can to help. At some point we might have to leave them to face the consequences of their own choices. Nowhere in that process would we deny them the same basic human and civil rights extended to all other people. We would punish specific actions that were harmful to others but other than that they would still have equal rights to seek to be cured or not. The gay community is not extended that courtesy or allowed that dignity.

Again, my sincere thanks for your time and efforts.

380

[QUOTE=Uzi]
But because it is institutionalized in a large religion somehow it becomes rational and those who question it are the loons. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

For what it’s worth, I don’t think you or anyone else a loon for questioning it. Being a skeptic is (usually) a good thing.