Quite often? This is routine? Then there can't be anything special about Lazarus and Jesus doing it.
Rational Faith
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
Your Christian roots are showing, Dex.
"Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it." (Proverbs 22:6 NIV)
JLM, I am with Dexter on this one. I cannot recall any report of people being raised from the dead. I think if a child is "frozen", they may not be clinically dead. Just heart rate/brain waves slow - not sure. Motar would likely know - ER Nurse.
I think being raised from the dead is an experience unique to Jesus & Lazarus. That was one of the miracles Jesus performed - raising Lazarus from the dead to confirm that he is the Messiah.
Actually, it's common to many religions. Here's a partial list:
Resurrection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I turned from it decades ago and have no expectation of ever turning back. I don't believe it's the way I should go. In fact I don't believe it's the way anyone should go.
Understood, Dex. Nonetheless, the spark of Christ is evident in your life.
Maybe to you. I think that's just me.
Yep, then he had an epileptic fit and hallucinated some weird things, changed his name to Paul, and wrote a bunch of nonsense that's been messing with people's heads ever since.Saul thought as much.
Cliffy, Jesus was not calling Peter "the rock". Rather, Jesus was speaking of Peter's confession of faith.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? V. 16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. V. 17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. V. 18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Confession of Christ as Savior is "the Rock" and foundation.
Jesus' disciples performed miracles after Jesus ascended into heaven. Perhaps to ensure no one would think these disciples were having epileptic fits.
Acts 3 Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” 7 And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 8 So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them—walking, leaping, and praising God. 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God. 10 Then they knew that it was he who sat begging alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.
Dexter, if you had lived during Jesus' years on earth and shortly thereafter - being a witness to miracles - do you think then you would have believed Jesus' claims about himself?
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? V. 16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. V. 17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. V. 18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Confession of Christ as Savior is "the Rock" and foundation.
Dexter, Perhaps you are right. Just one epileptic and shazaam! Christianity was born.
Jesus' disciples performed miracles after Jesus ascended into heaven. Perhaps to ensure no one would think these disciples were having epileptic fits.
Acts 3 Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” 7 And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 8 So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them—walking, leaping, and praising God. 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God. 10 Then they knew that it was he who sat begging alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.
Dexter, if you had lived during Jesus' years on earth and shortly thereafter - being a witness to miracles - do you think then you would have believed Jesus' claims about himself?
Assuming I'd be there knowing what I know now and not sunk in the superstitious credulity of that pre-scientific and mostly illiterate age, no. Because (a) I'd have witnessed no miracles, miracles don't happen, those stories are fabrications, and (b) we have no idea what Jesus claimed about himself, all we have are reports of what others claim he said two generations and more after his time, and they're mostly fiction too. I'd have witnessed just another charismatic apocalyptic preacher, and they were probably a dime a dozen at the time, occupation by foreign empires often produced such people (cf Daniel, Isaiah, Revelation) in ancient times.
Do you remember "The How and Why Wonder Book of Atomic Energy" from the 1960's, Dex? Here's an exerpt:
"The ancient Greek philosophers wondered what would happen if we took some solid matter - like stone or metal - and kept grinding it up into finer and finer powder. Some said that no matter how tiny the particles became, it would always be possible to break them up into still smaller particles by grinding harder. They believed that matter was made of a stuff called hyle (which is Greek for 'stuff'), and that this was smooth right through and could be divided up endlessly. Others said that no matter how hard or long we ground, we could not get the particles smaller than a certain size. They believed matter was made of separate hard lumps called atoms (which is Greek for 'can't be cut'), and that these were the smallest things or particles there were. The second group was nearer to the truth, of course. Matter usually does consist of atoms. But they were wrong in thinking there was nothing smaller than an atom. And they certainly picked the wrong name for their fundamental particle. The atom can be cut." http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/e_Atomic%20Energy.pdf
Some of the ancient Greeks were scientific, literate and Christian:
"Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. News of this reached the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he arrived and saw what the grace of God had done, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord. Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." (Acts 11:19-26 NIV)
Ancient Greeks - combining reason and faith.
No, never saw it as far as I can recall, though the information in the excerpt you provided is familiar to me.
They weren't scientific as we understand the term, they thought they could figure things out just by thinking about them, they didn't grasp that they had to test their ideas against how nature really behaves. They were not much into experimenting. But even so, I don't see what your point is here. cj44's question was about me being in 1st century Palestine, not Greece, and in both places the numbers of people who were scientifically oriented and literate were tiny, the cultures as a whole were not. I am correct to say things like "the superstitious credulity of that pre-scientific and mostly illiterate age."
Rational faith is not about numbers, locations or eras, Dex. Reason and belief integrate in individuals the world over and throughout human history.
Personally, I am one who engages both head and heart in my experience of life. I would not endorse or trust any leader or leadership candidate who ruled from head or heart exclusively, as disaster would not be far behind.
Well, you can twist the words of this literary plagiarized forgery all you want, it is meaningless gibberish to anyone who cares to study the history of it. There is a Gospel of Peter and the other apostles, including Mary Magdalene. They were left out for purely political reason by the Caesars who had the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John written to suit their political agenda. It is not rational to believe these tales as literal truth in view of the evidence to the contrary.
Pauls stuff was pure Greek and his teaching was exactly opposite to the usurpers modern drivel.
The biggest half of science is thinking.
Iron and steel and screw threads, Greek fire, projectiles, electro plating, medicine all science all results of long experimentation. Science began with the rational mind.
Rational faith isn't about anything at all, the phrase is meaningless. Language is such that it's easy to give the appearance of rationality while being quite irrational.
"Rational faith" is being discussed outside this forum, Dex. A Google search produces about 23,300,000 results. That is a significant number of discussions about "nothing at all."
The Beatles were as popular as Christianity in their day. Would it be rational to think they were bearers of god's word? Religion is ego based. It appeals to the emotions. Rationality has nothing to do with it. It is about as rational as teen age girls screaming at a Justin Bieber concert.
Hmmm. I wonder if motar and cj44 were those kinds of girls in their day?