Amputee Healings?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]THEY ARE?!?!?!? Good heavens. I take it all back.
[/quote]

Let me know what you think of this, please.

http://clearsight.businesscatalyst.com/the-enlightenment-of-jesus.htm
[/quote]

Jesus always knew who he was, it didn’t take baptism for him to know.[/quote]

Then how do you explain Luke 2:52?[/quote]

Luke 2:40. Jesus was filled (not half-way, but filled) with wisdom. Moreover, Jesus increased not unlike the sun who increases from morning to midday in brilliance. Although the sun does not increase in brilliance, it seems so to men.

This would be the same for Jesus, this is a generalized over look of it. It goes much deeper, but I don’t feel like writing a research paper on it at the moment.

Jesus was full of wisdom from conception. The growing in stature and wisdom was what men saw in Jesus. [/quote]

Except the scripture says Jesus grew in stature and wisdom, not that men incorrectly thought he was growing in stature and wisdom.[/quote]

Lol, no to them he grew in stature and wisdom. He was already filled with wisdom. Then to men he grew. [/quote]

Except that’s not what the scripture says. It very clearly states that he actually grew in wisdom and stature, and NOT that people only thought he grew in wisdom and stature. Big difference.

462

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible. >>>[/quote]They do? Well blow me down (strong words from Popeye), A couple thousand years of new covenant history has been breathlessly waiting for elder forlife to skip along and tell us which canonical candidates seem real to Him. I hope the Holy Spirit is pickin up some pointers here.
[/quote]

Don’t take my word for it, the large majority of biblical scholars agree with me that the bible is fundamentally historically incorrect.

I guess none of them have felt the Holy Spirit, and all are spiritually dead like me.

463

[quote]forlife wrote:<<<I guess none of them have <<<>>> the Holy Spirit, and all are spiritually dead like me.[/quote]I had to adjust that a bit, but he can be taught boys n girls.

464

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]

Which ones?[/quote]

See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.[/quote]

Don’t want a primer, I want to know which letters are you referring to. Are you making reference to the Deuteronical books?[/quote]

1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Letter of Aristeas, Ladder of Jacob, Eldad and Modad, Lives of the Prophets, Psalm 151, Book of Enoch, Epistle of James, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.

Apocrypha, Anagignoskomena, Pseudepigrapha, Antilegomina, etc. Not to mention disputed letters in the current bible like Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (per Luther), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Philemon (per Baur), etc.

I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible.

People made shit up then, and they make shit up today. The bible is far from the historical document that people like to believe. Everything in it, and everything excluded from it, are suspect.

I’m not going into detail beyond that. If you want more info, there’s a ton at the Wiki references I provided earlier.
[/quote]

It’s not a historical document. It’s plain folly to look at it that way. If that’s what your taking it as, then no wonder.
It’s a book of faith of truth, not a history book. The meaning is more important then the events.

465

[quote]forlife wrote:

The difference is in the conclusions science draws with this assumptions, vs. religion. IF those assumptions are true, science can prove its claims. However, the same is not true for religion.
[/quote]
Science doesn’t make claims. It derives hypothesis and tests them. Scientists make claims sometimes based on some data, but it’s hardly complete.
The main difference between science and religion, is that historically, science has been mostly wrong about it’s conclusions. Religion isn’t technically in the business of drawing those conclusions. Some people do, but it’s a misuse.

467

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]

Which ones?[/quote]

See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.[/quote]

Don’t want a primer, I want to know which letters are you referring to. Are you making reference to the Deuteronical books?[/quote]

1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Letter of Aristeas, Ladder of Jacob, Eldad and Modad, Lives of the Prophets, Psalm 151, Book of Enoch, Epistle of James, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.

Apocrypha, Anagignoskomena, Pseudepigrapha, Antilegomina, etc. Not to mention disputed letters in the current bible like Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (per Luther), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Philemon (per Baur), etc.

I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible.

People made shit up then, and they make shit up today. The bible is far from the historical document that people like to believe. Everything in it, and everything excluded from it, are suspect.

I’m not going into detail beyond that. If you want more info, there’s a ton at the Wiki references I provided earlier.
[/quote]

It’s not a historical document. It’s plain folly to look at it that way. If that’s what your taking it as, then no wonder.
It’s a book of faith of truth, not a history book. The meaning is more important then the events. [/quote]

The truth is inextricably tied to the accuracy of the recorded events.

If Jesus wasn’t actually resurrected in a historically factual sense, the doctrine based on this historical fact is unfounded.

468

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]

Which ones?[/quote]

See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.[/quote]

Don’t want a primer, I want to know which letters are you referring to. Are you making reference to the Deuteronical books?[/quote]

1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Letter of Aristeas, Ladder of Jacob, Eldad and Modad, Lives of the Prophets, Psalm 151, Book of Enoch, Epistle of James, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.

Apocrypha, Anagignoskomena, Pseudepigrapha, Antilegomina, etc. Not to mention disputed letters in the current bible like Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (per Luther), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Philemon (per Baur), etc.

I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible.

People made shit up then, and they make shit up today. The bible is far from the historical document that people like to believe. Everything in it, and everything excluded from it, are suspect.

I’m not going into detail beyond that. If you want more info, there’s a ton at the Wiki references I provided earlier.
[/quote]

It’s not a historical document. It’s plain folly to look at it that way. If that’s what your taking it as, then no wonder.
It’s a book of faith of truth, not a history book. The meaning is more important then the events. [/quote]

The truth is inextricably tied to the accuracy of the recorded events.

If Jesus wasn’t actually resurrected in a historically factual sense, the doctrine based on this historical fact is unfounded.[/quote]

Depends on the truth… The fact that the bible isn’t a history book doesn’t mean it does not contain historical facts, it means that depending on the book, the historical facts matter more or less. Certainly in the gospels the fact that Jesus existed, proclaimed the gospel died and ressurected are facts that must be true for them to be valid. Now if that happened the day before, during or after the ‘day of preparation’ is less important. It happened about about that time period.
Now, for instance in the case of Sampson for instance, it doesn’t matter if he killed a thousand men with the jaw bone of an ass as much as the moral that Sampson was chosen by God to lead, he disobeyed and became a slave, but ultimately he still executed God’s purpose for him by destroying a the Philistines.
Whether or not the Sampson story is 100% historical fact doesn’t matter. The fact remains that even if God chooses you, you can still disobey, even if you disobey, you can fulfill his purposes; though you’ve damned yourself. Further, you can still repent even after the damage has been done. Of course you can pull it apart and read it even deeper, but you get the picture.

469

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]

Which ones?[/quote]

See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.[/quote]

Don’t want a primer, I want to know which letters are you referring to. Are you making reference to the Deuteronical books?[/quote]

1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Letter of Aristeas, Ladder of Jacob, Eldad and Modad, Lives of the Prophets, Psalm 151, Book of Enoch, Epistle of James, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.

Apocrypha, Anagignoskomena, Pseudepigrapha, Antilegomina, etc. Not to mention disputed letters in the current bible like Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (per Luther), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Philemon (per Baur), etc.

I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible.

People made shit up then, and they make shit up today. The bible is far from the historical document that people like to believe. Everything in it, and everything excluded from it, are suspect.

I’m not going into detail beyond that. If you want more info, there’s a ton at the Wiki references I provided earlier.
[/quote]

It’s not a historical document. It’s plain folly to look at it that way. If that’s what your taking it as, then no wonder.
It’s a book of faith of truth, not a history book. The meaning is more important then the events. [/quote]

Bullshit.[/quote]

See my response to forlife.

470

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]

Which ones?[/quote]

See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.[/quote]

Don’t want a primer, I want to know which letters are you referring to. Are you making reference to the Deuteronical books?[/quote]

1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Letter of Aristeas, Ladder of Jacob, Eldad and Modad, Lives of the Prophets, Psalm 151, Book of Enoch, Epistle of James, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.

Apocrypha, Anagignoskomena, Pseudepigrapha, Antilegomina, etc. Not to mention disputed letters in the current bible like Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (per Luther), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Philemon (per Baur), etc.

I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible.

People made shit up then, and they make shit up today. The bible is far from the historical document that people like to believe. Everything in it, and everything excluded from it, are suspect.

I’m not going into detail beyond that. If you want more info, there’s a ton at the Wiki references I provided earlier.
[/quote]

It’s not a historical document. It’s plain folly to look at it that way. If that’s what your taking it as, then no wonder.
It’s a book of faith of truth, not a history book. The meaning is more important then the events. [/quote]

The truth is inextricably tied to the accuracy of the recorded events.

If Jesus wasn’t actually resurrected in a historically factual sense, the doctrine based on this historical fact is unfounded.[/quote]

Depends on the truth… The fact that the bible isn’t a history book doesn’t mean it does not contain historical facts, it means that depending on the book, the historical facts matter more or less. Certainly in the gospels the fact that Jesus existed, proclaimed the gospel died and ressurected are facts that must be true for them to be valid. Now if that happened the day before, during or after the ‘day of preparation’ is less important. It happened about about that time period.
Now, for instance in the case of Sampson for instance, it doesn’t matter if he killed a thousand men with the jaw bone of an ass as much as the moral that Sampson was chosen by God to lead, he disobeyed and became a slave, but ultimately he still executed God’s purpose for him by destroying a the Philistines.
Whether or not the Sampson story is 100% historical fact doesn’t matter. The fact remains that even if God chooses you, you can still disobey, even if you disobey, you can fulfill his purposes; though you’ve damned yourself. Further, you can still repent even after the damage has been done. Of course you can pull it apart and read it even deeper, but you get the picture.[/quote]

It’s important, for 2 reasons:

  1. If some of the “miracles”, like Sampson slaying 1,000 men, aren’t factual, but were made up and dishonestly perpetrated as being factual, it says something about the character of the men presenting these stories as actual facts. If they lied or were sincerely mistaken about some of those stories, they may have lied or been sincerely mistaken about others stories as well, like Jesus walking on water or appearing to Mary Magdalene after being killed. Not that it’s a foregone conclusion, but it does cast reasonable doubt.

  2. The large majority of biblical scholars agree that only the very basics of Jesus’ life are historically accurate. Stories of the nativity and his resurrection are NOT considered to be reliably historically accurate. And those very stories are central to the beliefs that many people have about Jesus. If the historical facts on these pivotal issues are wrong, the beliefs based on those facts are wrong as well.

472

So Push, you’re a biblical literalist? As in, Moses actually parted the Red Sea, Joshua caused the sun to stand still, Methuselah lived to be 969, the earth was created 4,000-5,500 years before the birth of Christ, etc.? How about the unsubstantiated anachronisms, like late armor, iron picks and axes, etc.? Or enormous battles with tens of thousands of casualties but strangely no confirming accounts in any other historical documents, etc.?

Do you really want to go there?

474

[quote]forlife wrote:

It’s important, for 2 reasons:

  1. If some of the “miracles”, like Sampson slaying 1,000 men, aren’t factual, but were made up and dishonestly perpetrated as being factual, it says something about the character of the men presenting these stories as actual facts. If they lied or were sincerely mistaken about some of those stories, they may have lied or been sincerely mistaken about others stories as well, like Jesus walking on water or appearing to Mary Magdalene after being killed. Not that it’s a foregone conclusion, but it does cast reasonable doubt.

  2. The large majority of biblical scholars agree that only the very basics of Jesus’ life are historically accurate. Stories of the nativity and his resurrection are NOT considered to be reliably historically accurate. And those very stories are central to the beliefs that many people have about Jesus. If the historical facts on these pivotal issues are wrong, the beliefs based on those facts are wrong as well.[/quote]

I am so glad you brought this up.

  1. If the “fact” that homosexuality is not proven to be 100% determined by genetics (or any percentage for that matter) but rather is dishonestly pushed as an excuse to explain and justify deviant behavior, it says something about the character of the men presenting these stories as actual facts. If they lied or were sincerely mistaken about this one detail they may have lied or been sincerely mistaken about others as well. Not that it’s a foregone conclusion, but it does cast reasonable doubt.

  2. The large majority of people with any intellectual capacity agree that while genetics may predispose an individual to certain behaviors and illnesses, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, high risk behavior such as thrill seeking or gambling, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. it in not way insures that they must indulge in these behaviors or ultimately suffer from these diseases. If, in fact, any degree of genetic predisposition does not prove to drive one to have indiscriminate sex with strangers in public places like restrooms and rest stops, or force one to wear a leather thong, nipple rings and a ball gag during a “gay pride parade”. If the genetic predisposition claims for gay behavior on these pivotal issues are wrong, the beliefs based on those facts are wrong as well.

Maybe, just maybe you being drawn to the Glory Hole has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with you deviant list for male man juice.

475

[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< Maybe, just maybe you being drawn to the Glory Hole has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with you deviant lust for male man juice. >>>[/quote]I have to go on record as disapproving of this way of dealing with forlife.

476

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< Maybe, just maybe you being drawn to the Glory Hole has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with you deviant lust for male man juice. >>>[/quote]I have to go on record as disapproving of this way of dealing with forlife.
[/quote]

There are times when you have to turn an abuser’s own weapons against them.

The absurdity of FL’s statements cannot be left unchallenged. The idea that by casting doubt upon any story, message or event listed in the Bible, whether it was written to be taken as literal or as allegory, you can therefore negate the message, belief and religion of millions of peoples worldwide is simply going too far.

He went too far, and I found it insulting.
Did I go too far? Why yes, yes I did.
Did he find it insulting? I hope so.
Maybe, just maybe, he will be stung enough by the reflection in the mirror that I tried to set up for him that he will think a little longer before posting such nonsense in the future.

And by the way, Tiribulus, I have to go on record as disapproving of your overwhelming legalism and the way you deal with Brother Chris, Pat, and any other fellow Christians that do not follow your exact playbook.

I have answered your questions in private. You chose to condemn me in public.
Again, for the record, you disappoint me.

477

[quote]forlife wrote:
So Push, you’re a biblical literalist? As in, Moses actually parted the Red Sea, Joshua caused the sun to stand still, Methuselah lived to be 969, the earth was created 4,000-5,500 years before the birth of Christ, etc.? How about the unsubstantiated anachronisms, like late armor, iron picks and axes, etc.? Or enormous battles with tens of thousands of casualties but strangely no confirming accounts in any other historical documents, etc.?

Do you really want to go there?[/quote]

WOW forlife! Still here battling the believers?! Good for you but this thread is getting pretty fucking silly now.

The mystics can and will believe anything that they please as logic and reality do not apply. We might as well be talking about Darth Vader and Star Wars.

478

@JEATON
It was a simple statement. Not a condemnation, but it is clear from your response in the pm that you’re a typical modernist liberal trying to help God be relevant in today’s world. He doesn’t need or want your help by widening His door for Him. I can take the forlifes, cappednplanits and Makavalis of the world all day. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to do. It’s the people who misrepresent the gospel of God and dishonor His name and character that try my patience.

Nobody can negate my faith. Not every forlife on earth. Nobody.

I couldn’t care less what he thinks and the fact that he’s gay has almost no bearing on my view of him whatsoever. To me he’s a lost man going to the same hell I was were it not for the unimaginable grace of a merciful God. I am capable of all the evil and depravity of Satan himself minus the restraining power of the Holy Spirit in my life and so are you. Your protests to the contrary go hand in hand with your self righteous treatment of him.

479

Tiribulus
05/07/11
12:50 AM

Tiribulus wrote:
You’ll forgive my incurable suspicion, but my background in polemics taught me that terminology and language can make things appear as they aren’t. I’m not accusing you of anything and I hope the best. You have no idea how sincerely I mean that. Catholic, protestant, neither? What do you believe concerning the bible, the triune God who inspired it, Jesus of Nazareth’s claims of divinity, the Holy Spirit’s true person hood, salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ alone (or salvation at all?). What of the bible do you NOT believe? You owe me nothing and I will not be offended if you ignore this message and have me wait and discern, but I’m curious.

Jeaton responds:
I love the chance to share with others. My regret is that my life is so very “complicated” at the moment that I fear I may start something that I am unable to give the full measure it deserves.

Let me begin by saying that any confusion I may cause for you undoubtedly stems from the fact that I am a very flawed human. One of my few redeeming qualities is that I truly want to be a better person. I know that I can never earn the gift of grace and salvation that Christ paid for, but that does not mean that I should not daily strive to do so.

I think that you will find that on the most important issues, you and I, and most of the other Christians that contribute to the board are in agreement. I believe in the Holy Trinity and marvel at the duel nature of Christ in being both human and divine. I believe in the life, death and resurrection. Actually, I believe that all else is secondary to this.

I know that when I am struggling with an issue to the point of overwhelm that I can in my heart call out to God and ask him to fill me with his Holy Spirit, to send me the comforter, and I am instantly comforted, flooded with love. I am equally mystified by my ability to drift back out of this state of love and back into the chaos of life in mere moments if I am not vigilant.

My affiliation is Baptist. Where I differ is in the literal interpretation of some aspects of the Old Testament. Honestly, when I contemplate The Big Bang, the precision, beauty and total lack of chance, I could not imagine anything more Godly. I often wonder how many beautiful, bright, searching souls we turn away at the gates because we demand that they suspend the use of their beautiful God given minds and accept the “six day creation story.” And please know that if anyone chooses to believe this story literal and not allegory that I have absolutely no problem with that as well. Until someone can convince me that either version can materially affect my ability to serve God by allowing him to serve others through me I refuse to allow it to be a point of contention.

C S Lewis, in “Mere Christianity” warned how we as the body of Christ should not bicker in the open with one another about the differences between our affiliations as this impedes our ability to spread the Gospel. Once we help someone to accept Jesus as their personal Savior there will be plenty of time to debate the other.

Having said all this, do not be surprised if you see me seem to contradict myself sometime in the future. Like any child, I occasionally become angry with my Father and act out for attention.

I look forward to hearing from you and diving deeper. Sleep is calling for the moment.

Take care,

jeaton

So, can you show me where I dishonor God’s name and character?
Self righteous?
Where do I deny my (many) faults?

480

For Life, having read and reread my post I do now feel that it was too harsh. My intent was to be “over the top” but I fear that I flew well past that.

I am sorry for my tact and words.
Please forgive me my meanness. I will try to do better in the future.