Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Claire Evans]

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

Firstly, miracles have not been shown to be real and secondly, faith is needed to believe in all the false god concepts out there. Sure, you can feel like you just so happen to be applying your faith to an actual god concept, but that makes you no different than any other believer of any other religion.

We are talking about miracles according to the Bible. You'd need to know everyone who has ever claimed to have experienced a miracle and debunk it to say for a fact that miracles aren't real. Blind faith, as in just believing without evidence, is needed for some people to be part of a religion. Faith as in trusting the Lord knowing He exists is different. That is the part of the Christian faith I subscribe to.

People saw Jesus' miracles and some believed. Someone in posterity seeing wonderfully preserved documents would not do the same. That is not the same as seeing Jesus in person doing the miracles. It was the apostles who performed miracles in the name of Jesus that earned converts.

You don't give enough credit to god concepts if you think they can create universes, but can't write a book that is anymore special that what a human can write.

Well, Revelation has been written yet no one claims Jesus wrote it. You don't seem to understand that a book by Jesus is not required to have faith. I said the Holy Spirit is more effective than a book.

Anyway, Jesus could do miracles to kingdom come yet that didn't make everyone believe or repent:

Quite the claim. Before you evidence such a thing, can you point to anything outside your religious promotional material that would suggest that Jesus was real? I'm just curious. Not that I don't think he was, but I would like to illustrate that this claim has you putting the cart in front of the horse.

I don't think there is any serious historian that disputes the existence of Jesus. What is in contention is His claims of being the Son of God and resurrecting from the dead.

"CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44"

The historian acknowledged Jesus' existence but scoffed His divinity as superstition.

There's a difference between gaining followers because they have seen and gaining followers because they have faith.

Faith leads to false religions (except in your case right?). Stop pretending it is some admirable trait to have.
You might as well be arguing that ignorance or a lack of common sense are good traits.

Again, faith is needed in order for a person to have a false belief. Need proof? Ask a Muslim.

Blind faith leads to false religions and some Christians have blind faith also. It's a deeply personal thing but you were asking what Christians believe faith is.

I've always wondered if the average Muslim actually believes they have a two way relationship with Allah. There are some who believe that if things go their way, it is from Allah. If it is not, then it is not from him. It is not necessarily the case with the Christian God.

And we need to ask, "Who is Allah?"

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 864 by Clownboat]

He could have been accused of being a magician. People won't believe without faith and that is hard to come by.

You act as if this is a bad thing which strikes me as odd.

You see, faith does not lead to the Christian god, faith is required to believe in any god concept. This makes fakes faith being hard to come by a good thing IMO.

You have a very odd criteria for what is good, IMO.
Just because something is rare or hard to come by, like... say... an Ebola outbreak.. doesn't mean it's good in MY books.

Did I say all that is rare is bad? I don't understand your logic.

I just disagree with the part that it is hard to come by because I know far to many that are capable of having faith and then applying it to one of the many god concepts.

I thought you just said above that faith was hard to come by.. and therefore good. Now.. you seem to say the exact opposite. Faith ISN'T that hard to come by. So you have me confused. Is it hard to come by or isn't it hard to come by?

You are confusing me with Clownboat.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 864 by Clownboat]

He could have been accused of being a magician. People won't believe without faith and that is hard to come by.

You act as if this is a bad thing which strikes me as odd.

You see, faith does not lead to the Christian god, faith is required to believe in any god concept. This makes fakes faith being hard to come by a good thing IMO.

You have a very odd criteria for what is good, IMO.
Just because something is rare or hard to come by, like... say... an Ebola outbreak.. doesn't mean it's good in MY books.

Please quote where I said that if something is rare or hard to come by, it is then good.

I find faith, being hard to come by (which is Claire's claim and not mine, because I don't think faith is hard to come by) to be a good thing. I approve of less faith, not more of it. I even explained why, which is because faith leads to false god concepts.

Ebola outbreaks being rare is good, because like faith, I find Ebola to be bad. Them being rare or not does not affect whether faith or Ebola is good or not.

I just disagree with the part that it is hard to come by because I know far to many that are capable of having faith and then applying it to one of the many god concepts.

I thought you just said above that faith was hard to come by.. and therefore good. Now.. you seem to say the exact opposite. Faith ISN'T that hard to come by. So you have me confused. Is it hard to come by or isn't it hard to come by?

Post 864:
Claire's words: "People won't believe without faith and that is hard to come by."
Claire says it is hard to come by.
Clownboat's words: "I just disagree with the part that it is hard to come by because I know far to many that are capable of having faith and then applying it to one of the many god concepts."
Clownboat believes that faith is not hard to come by.

I was responding to Claire's claim about it being hard to come by, not agreeing with her claim. Sorry for the confusion.

Blastcat meant this comment for me, not you.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 869 by Claire Evans]

There is no other way to know Jesus but through faith.

Then explain the apostles, and the other people who knew Jesus. The people who walked and talked with Jesus, just like you walk and talk with your family/friends/loved ones. Do you say about your family that you only know through faith?

I'm talking about truly understanding Jesus. It is only after Jesus had ascended into heaven that the disciples finally realized what Jesus had come for. They didn't really understand Him when Jesus was on earth.

So...what was the whole point of Jesus being on Earth then, if understanding him while on Earth was essentially impossible? Why not just skip that step and keep Jesus in heaven?
You also didn't answer my question. If the only way to know Jesus is through faith, then do you say about your family that the only way to know them is through faith? If you answer no, then this means you put Jesus in a special category all his own.

Could people then truly understand what Jesus' mission on earth was about? Could they fully appreciate Him being God incarnate? Yes, they believed what He said but didn't fully appreciate it. Did they understand what Jesus meant when He said He would rise from the dead on the third day? The mission was to die for our sins and reconcile us with God. Jesus did not need people to understand Him to fulfill this mission. This is why the Bible says that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be the Teacher so that we can understand. So the apostles understood when the Holy Spirit entered the world for all to have.

I can see my family and we can discuss our plans. We cannot do the same with Jesus now. When we ask Him to guide us, we need to trust that He is doing that even though we cannot see and understand it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 893 by Claire Evans]



Truth claims are easy to make, harder to prove TRUE.

Obviously we need the Bible to tell us who Jesus is and what He did. However, knowing that and truly knowing Him can be completely different things.

And many Christians have NEVER once read the Bible. Over a thousand YEARS of Christianity went by before anyone thought of translating the Bible into the vernacular.

People just had to accept religious AUTHORITY.... or else.

BUT that wasn't your point.


You said that knowing the STORIES about Jesus isn't the same as "truly knowing Him".... what do you mean by "TRULY KNOWING"?

To be more specific, what "truth" are you claiming to know?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 876 by Claire Evans]

"Believe in what I say or no magic."

Hi Claire Evans.

Again, I have lots of questions.
Thanks for answering so far.... this is very interesting to me.

I have three important questions at the end of this... I'd be most grateful if you could respond to those if no others, thanks!

Thanks for writing.

Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracles.

I don't think the Oxford Dictionary is referring to a dead person being healed. You know it is referring to a living person being healed. Resurrected is the word you are looking for.

But you didn't answer the question. Do you consider someone DEAD very "healthy"?
I think "death" is an extreme form of unhealthiness, don't you?

The Oxford dictionary has this entry for the word "health" :
"1. The state of being free from illness or injury: he was restored to health"

A dead person cannot be unhealthy because, in order to be healthy, you need to be alive. I have never come across any dead person referred to as unhealthy.

Do you consider that raising someone from the dead ( if that were truly possible ) would be restoring someone's health in any way?

No. It would be restoration of life.

Aren't we just playing with words here?

Not really. There is a difference between being unhealthy and being dead.

That person may only have been clinically dead thus the word resuscitated and not resurrected.

Are you saying that when a doctor brings someone back from clinical death, that's resuscitation, but when Jesus does it, it's resurrection?

Those who are clinically dead have to receive immediate treatment to survive. Lazarus did not certainly have that. It was impossible in those days to survive clinical death.

Are we going to dispute if people Jesus brought back to life were "really dead" or "clinically dead" now? How would we know that?

It depends on how long that person was dead for. No one can survive clinical death for days without being on life support. Lazarus was dead for days. Human intervention with medical treatment is needed regarding clinical death. However, I don't think that is beyond the realm of Jesus. He could very well have resuscitated a person only before biological death within minutes of that person being clinical dead.

Who is to say that Lazarus was actually dead, by the way?

But in any case, someone in a coma doesn't have a "faith". He might have HAD faith, but being unconscious isn't thinking. And as far as I know, we have to be able to THINK in order to have faith.

That's assuming he was in a coma.

I don't think it matters too much if he was or was not in a coma. I think it's safe to say that someone in a coma OR dead isn't CONSCIOUS and can't display or profess any faith.

Are you saying that someone in a coma or dead can profess faith?

It was the faith of Martha in that she acknowledged Jesus as the son of God that resurrected Lazarus.

This is my original statement:

"Only by faith could anyone be healed by miracle."

Did I say only the faith of the one being healed?

Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't aware you meant that.
So, are you saying that even if I don't have ANY faith at all ( and I don't, by the way, I'm an atheist ) the faith of OTHERS can "heal" me?

"Others" aren't Jesus. Today Jesus can help in different ways. He could use a someone to suggest to a depressed person to get medical help and get anti-depresssants. I do not expect Jesus to help me get off my anti-depressants. He can work through modern medicine. I don't expect any believer to intercede for me either to get me off my anti-depressants. I wouldn't pray for someone to get off insulin if they are diabetic.

The Matthew 8:5–13 quote seems to indicate that Jesus is acting like a doctor would .. so this "healing" seems to be quite physical. Do I have that correct?

A doctor could not just say, "You are healed" without actually medically treating a person.

Jesus heals by some kind of god magic and doctors heal by science. Nobody has to believe anything for heart surgery to work at the local Heart Institute, but someone has to believe in .... GOD ..... in order for the Jesus magic to work.. do I have that correct?

That was then, that doesn't apply now because Jesus isn't here in the flesh.

Why do we need to believe in order for the Jesus healing to work?

Healing seems to be somewhat different to curing because it refers a spiritual element:


"In 16 years of being a doctor, I've learned this key distinction and it has revolutionized the way I practice medicine. A few health conditions are easily cured. A single bladder infection can be treated with an antibiotic, and three days later, it's cured (though you may now have a raging yeast infection). A leg fracture may be cast, and two months later, the problem is cured. A basal cell carcinoma (skin cancer) can be lopped off, never to return again.

But most health conditions are not so easily cured - things like migraine headaches, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, fibromyalgia, chronic pelvic pain, arthritis, and emphysema. Most health outcomes are much more successfully treated if they are healed from the core.

For example, you can give someone with high blood pressure three pills that barely control their hypertension, but until they learn to manage the high stress of their job in healthy ways (or quit their job), you're unlikely to "cure" their high blood pressure. The pills are merely a Band-aid.

If someone has ovarian cancer, you can cut out the cancer and treat any remaining cells with chemotherapy. But you can only "cure" cancer if the underlying physical/ emotional/ nutritional/ life imbalances are healed. Otherwise, the cancer just comes back.

In the case of chronic illness or emotional disease, "cure" is only lasting when healing happens on a deeper level."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ow ... and-curing


For example, a person gets cancer because they are bitter or experience chronic negativity. After 5 years of recession, they are considered cured. However, if they receive the peace that Jesus gives that makes the bitterness go away, the cancer won't return because they have been healed emotionally.

I never understood the requirement of belief for doing what is right. Healing people if you can is a great RESPONSIBILITY.. to NOT heal when we can is morally WRONG in my opinion. Mathew 8:5-13 almost seems to imply that Jesus would NOT have healed the servant if the owner ( I believe the man was a slave owner? ) would not have believed in the right god. Is that correct?

That centurion would not have approached Jesus for healing if he hadn't got faith. If He didn't believe Jesus could heal, he wouldn't have bothered.

You say that we need to BELIEVE in God in order to be healed by god. Doctors just do it to help people.

I think things are different today like I have discussed.

Do you see a moral dilemma here with the Jesus way of doing things?
"believe in me or no magic"



I'd say that Doctors Without Borders are WAY more ethical than Jesus in this regard. They go out of their way to help people with NO requirements, other than their great NEED.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/

If Jesus requires FAITH in order to heal people, he is threatening to withhold healing unless there is faith. That's the obvious corollary to his faith healing. It sounds like Jesus is doing a GREAT thing.. until we think about it a bit deeper. It seems that the ONLY reason Jesus would ever consider healing someone is DUE to their "faith". For example, I would not be considered worth healing if nobody would step up and proclaim a faith, I'm done. Just me having a great need of healing isn't what's important.

"Believe this or you wont get healed"

Do you understand the moral dilemma faith healing entails?

Jesus had to demonstrate that any power He has in from the Lord. The disciples received power from God to heal to demonstrate what faith could do but they had a special purpose and that was to establish the faith. As I said, Jesus heals in other ways today and that is also using modern medicine. I hope this changes the perception you have.

If no one had faith, Lazarus would not have been resurrected. The point Jesus was making with His miracles was to show what can be done if one has faith, not to impress anyone.

Imagine Jesus raising everyone from the dead! There are other examples of Jesus having resurrected people. Consult Mark 5: 21-43

I can imagine lots of things, even that.

I can imagine that when Jesus rose a person from the dead that it might have impressed someone. I can imagine that the point of a religion is that everyone will be raised from the dead, IF they only believe in the right religion. I can even imagine that resurrection really occurred like it says in the Bible. BUT... I'd like to know how we can tell it really happened?

That's the point of the thread, after all. Were these resurrections facts or fiction? Why should we believe these miraculous tales?

For me, if there was an absence of the Holy Spirit, then the resurrection could not have happened. Christianity espouses that it is only through the conquering of sin that Jesus rose from the dead. How could the Holy Spirit have any influence on if Jesus had been defeated?

Can you give me an instance in the Bible where Jesus didn't heal someone with faith?

No.

But don't forget that you are talking to an atheist. I can't just believe all of these faith healing stories are true, as there are lots of faith healing claims around today that I don't believe.

When I hear faith healing claims in the Bible, I think that they just might be like the discredited and dishonest faith healers on TV, and that doesn't impress me very much.

How do we know that Jesus actually healed ANYONE? How do we know that Jesus wasn't a faith healing charlatan like the ones on TV? They require faith, too.

( I don't take that kind of thing for granted, so I have to ask )

Absolutely. Without knowing the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to know for sure that Jesus did those miracles. Then it could just be made up stories. I cannot take anything I read at face value.

Of course we are debating in a hypothetical sense. I can't prove the Lazarus resurrection actually happened.

Oh.

Ok then. Neither can I.
I don't believe in any "resurrection" because I don't see how anyone can prove those Bible stories are really true.

It cannot be. It has to be personally proven to a person to know if it is true.

Just to be clear as to your position, I would like to ask you three questions concerning resurrection:

1. Do you believe that Lazarus actually came back from the dead?

Yes, but I can't tell you that it definitely happened. I can't know for sure.

2. Do you believe that Jesus did?

Yes

3. If so... how do you know these stories are true?

Only through the Holy Spirit do I know Jesus did rise from the dead. The irony is that what also cements my faith is the reaction to Satan to Jesus. The lack of the Holy Spirit would mean he could do whatever he wanted. There would be no stopping evil in all aspects of life. There is definitely an war being waged against God. There are so many indications that the powers that be are expecting the Anti-Christ.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

"Only through the Holy Spirit do I know Jesus did rise from the dead."

Your wrong.
I had some visions yesterday. I heard a voice and saw a shadow and it spoke to me.
He/she was an alien from another universe; and that in the distant past some of his/her ancestors created the life on our planet Earth through some experiments. He/she said that some of his/her ancestors created all the religions of the world as a psychological experiment. That some of his/her ancestors are responsible for the Jesus story.

He/she told me that the story goes like this:

Virgin birth of Maria : Some of these aliens impregnated Maria in vitro. Jesus was an genetically modified, more evolved human being capable of Psychokinesis, Telekinesis, Incredible Healing capabilities and so one.
Later the aliens implanted some fake memories in Jesus head that he was the son of God, that he is divine and so on. He started preaching about this.

After crucifixion Jesus was teleported to the mother-ship and healed by the aliens(He could have healed on his own, but they wanted his holes in the hands and legs to remain; so to be convincing)
After 3 days he was teleported back on the Earth.
Jesus when he woke up really believed he was dead and rose from the dead, this fortify his delusion he was the son of God and had a divine nature.

At the end when he ascended in the sky he was just levitated up in the sky by the aliens and after teleported to the mother-ship.

He/she felt guilty about what his/her ancestors did and felt compelled to let someone know.
He/she also told me to spread this story and told the truth, Jesus is not divine and was not resurrected.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 900 by Claire Evans]



Startling news:

Blastcat concedes a debate to a Christian !!!

A dead person cannot be unhealthy because, in order to be healthy, you need to be alive. I have never come across any dead person referred to as unhealthy.

Ok, Claire.
So, when someone dead is restored to life, you don't think his health was restored... just his life. I won't debate the semantics of this any more.

I guess you got a debate victory. I conceded the definition war. You win it.
Enjoy ... these victories are very rare.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 900 by Claire Evans]


Hi, Claire,


I put ten questions at the bottom of the post.
If you want, you can just skip to those.

I never understood the requirement of belief for doing what is right. Healing people if you can is a great RESPONSIBILITY.. to NOT heal when we can is morally WRONG in my opinion. Mathew 8:5-13 almost seems to imply that Jesus would NOT have healed the servant if the owner ( I believe the man was a slave owner? ) would not have believed in the right god. Is that correct?

That centurion would not have approached Jesus for healing if he hadn't got faith. If He didn't believe Jesus could heal, he wouldn't have bothered.

I guess that's right. I don't bother with any faith healer either. I just go to a doctor.
So, are you saying that people who go to faith healers have to have faith in order to bother going to faith healers? And... I suppose you are saying that Jesus was a REAL DEAL faith healer, and not just some charlatan about whom people wrote wild stories of his grand healings?

So, I just want to check if I understand you correctly, Claire...
Are you saying that FAITH is only required so that people will BOTHER going to a faith healer?

Is faith just the MOTIVATION that it takes to GO seek a faith healer?
Because, I could go seek a faith healer... out of curiosity, or for a study.... why is FAITH required?

You say that we need to BELIEVE in God in order to be healed by god. Doctors just do it to help people.

I think things are different today like I have discussed.

THINGS ARE DIFFERENT TODAY.

Oh... what are you saying here... that people AREN'T being "healed" by faith anymore? Could you clarify, please?

"Believe this or you wont get healed"
Do you understand the moral dilemma faith healing entails?

Jesus had to demonstrate that any power He has in from the Lord.

Had to demonstrate?. why did he have to?
Wasn't just FAITH needed?

So... are you saying that back then, FAITH wasn't needed.. but a demonstration was needed.

I'd LOVE to have a demonstration, but... NOW.. since you say that TIMES HAVE CHANGED... I would have to have just FAITH... is that what you mean?


It took DEMONSTRATIONS THEN.... and now it takes FAITH?

The disciples received power from God to heal to demonstrate what faith could do but they had a special purpose and that was to establish the faith.

So, back then, people needed to be DEMONSTRATED that God had magical powers to heal. I see.

But didn't you say that it takes FAITH to be healed by God?

As I said, Jesus heals in other ways today and that is also using modern medicine. I hope this changes the perception you have.

I don't have much of a "perception" of Jesus other than he is a book character. But you are saying that:


JESUS uses modern medicine?

Are you saying that Jesus doesn't heal by FAITH, but is a DOCTOR?

For me, if there was an absence of the Holy Spirit, then the resurrection could not have happened.

Well, we are all entitled to our beliefs, Claire. I can't debate what you believe.
BUT....

I can ask you for evidence.

How have you established that if there was an absence of the Holy Spirit, then the resurrection could not have happened?

Why should we believe these miraculous tales?

Christianity espouses that it is only through the conquering of sin that Jesus rose from the dead.

Could you explain how ESPOUSING something makes it true?

How could the Holy Spirit have any influence on if Jesus had been defeated?

I can assure you that I have NO CLUE, Claire. I'm an atheist. I don't even know what the Holy Spirit is supposed to BE.

The only reasonable answer I can give you for the question is:

YOU TELL ME.

Absolutely. Without knowing the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to know for sure that Jesus did those miracles. Then it could just be made up stories. I cannot take anything I read at face value.

How is this "Holy Spirit" a way to know?

I don't believe in any "resurrection" because I don't see how anyone can prove those Bible stories are really true.

It cannot be. It has to be personally proven to a person to know if it is true.

"PERSONALLY PROVEN"

Could you explain that a bit?

Just to be clear as to your position, I would like to ask you three questions concerning resurrection:

1. Do you believe that Lazarus actually came back from the dead?

Yes, but I can't tell you that it definitely happened. I can't know for sure.

Oh boy... that is confusing to me.

You BELIEVE but you don't know for sure.
To me, that's a complete contradiction.

If you don't know for sure.... HOW do you believe?

3. If so... how do you know these stories are true?

Only through the Holy Spirit do I know Jesus did rise from the dead.

Ok, that seems to be your most important point.

I'd like to understand what that means... I propose that I start a new thread about that.... How do we know something to be true by the "Holy Spirit".

Would you be interested?

The irony is that what also cements my faith is the reaction to Satan to Jesus.

Your belief reinforces your faith.
Yes, that makes sense.

The lack of the Holy Spirit would mean he could do whatever he wanted.

Interesting claim.
I suppose then that you must think that anyone who doesn't do whatever he wants "HAS" the Holy Spirit?

I don't do everything that I like.. and I'm an atheist. Do I "have" the Holy Spirit?

There would be no stopping evil in all aspects of life. There is definitely an war being waged against God. There are so many indications that the powers that be are expecting the Anti-Christ.

Ohhhhh I don't doubt that people believe ALL kinds of strange stuff, Claire.

I'm WAY more interested in HOW they formed those beliefs and not really what they happen to BE.

I find your ideas fascinating.
I hope you find your way into the thread about the Holy Spirit.

Now.. I realize that I ask a whole LOT of questions.. and I find it a bit frustrating because most people don't seem to answer each and every one. I don't blame them... but, maybe it's because they are scattered here and there all over my posts.

So, I just thought of a trial solution to that.... Restating the questions at the very bottom... So here goes.. these are questions that I have asked in this post. It would help me understand your position if you could answer some of them.

These are repeats:

1. Are you saying that faith just the MOTIVATION that it takes to GO seek a faith healer?
2. Are you saying that people AREN'T being "healed" by faith anymore?
3. Are you saying that back then, in Gospel days, FAITH wasn't needed.. but a demonstration was needed? It took DEMONSTRATIONS THEN.... and now it takes FAITH?
4. You said that JESUS uses modern medicine. Are you saying that Jesus doesn't heal by FAITH, but that modern medicine is actually GOD MAGIC ? Ok.. I can't really make heads or tales of this... so could you just clarify what you meant?
5. How have you established that if there was an absence of the Holy Spirit, then the resurrection could not have happened?
6. Why should we believe these "miraculous" tales?
7. You said that "Christianity espouses that it is only through the conquering of sin that Jesus rose from the dead. " Could you explain how ESPOUSING something makes it true?
8. You stated that you believe that Lazarus came back from the dead, but that you can't be sure it really happened. If you don't know for sure.... HOW and WHY do you believe?
9. How do we know something to be true by the "Holy Spirit".
10. I don't do everything that I like.. and I'm an atheist. Do I "have" the Holy Spirit?

Cheers, Claire.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 900 by Claire Evans]

Hi gang !

For those of you who are interested, I have created a new post called:

"The Holy Spirit as a way to know"

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 037#807037