Post Reply
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jesus & Original Sin
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 3:07PM #41
jlb32168
Posts: 13,213

Jun 24, 2011 -- 9:14PM, Webers_Home wrote:

Yep, I'd say it's just as impossible to generate a male human being without the Y chromosome as it is for the surface tension of fresh water to support the weight of a grown man walking upright. Miracles are fundamental to Bible Christianity— they're entry level, kindergarten stuff. If somebody can't believe in miracles, then they are certainly going to have problems with the remainder of Christianity's supernatural aspects.


Now you see the fruitlessness of debating with some posters, Webers_Home.


It’s not unlike the atheist who wants to debate whether or not the “a Virgin shall conceive” passage and whether or not it applies to the Virgin Mary and Christ or another child in Esaias/Isaiah’s time and then says that before the debate begins, supernatural things like virgins having babies, don’t occur because they're biologically impossible. 


Why start a theological debate at all if one isn't going to allow, even for the purpose of debating a question, if the supernatural might exists.  It's simply an example of not debating in good faith.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 5:17PM #42
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Jun 25, 2011 -- 3:07PM, jlb32168 wrote:

It’s not unlike the atheist who wants to debate whether or not the “a Virgin shall conceive” passage and whether or not it applies to the Virgin Mary and Christ or another child in Esaias/Isaiah’s time and then says that before the debate begins, supernatural things like virgins having babies, don’t occur because they're biologically impossible.


Mary's virgin conception was an amazing act of God; but there's a rather obscure one in the Old Testament that I like even better; which no doubt our friend LittleLes will enjoy thoroughly.


†. 2Ki 20:8-11 . . Hezekiah asked Isaiah: What is the sign that the Lord will heal me and that I shall go up to the House of the Lord on the third day?  Isaiah replied: This is the sign for you from the Lord that the Lord will do the thing that He has promised: Shall the shadow advance ten steps or recede ten steps? Hezekiah said: It is easy for the shadow to lengthen ten steps, but not for the shadow to recede ten steps. So the prophet Isaiah called to the Lord, and He made the shadow which had descended on the dial of Ahaz recede ten steps.


To make the Sun's shadow go backwards, Earth's eastward rotation must first be stopped, and then reversed to westward. Just think of that. Our planet spins at approximately 1,036 miles per hour at the equator. In machinist's terms, that's called the surface speed. But the surface speed isn't constant for every place on the globe. It diminishes with each degree of latitude that we move away from the equator because the distance around the world, along a line of latitude, is quite a bit less at, say, Alaska than it is in Malaysia. If you have a globe handy, look at the size of a circle of latitude that passes through each of those locations and it's immediately apparent that Malaysia's circle of latitude is much larger in diameter than Alaska's.


So if the same 24 hours elapses during a complete rotation of any given circle of latitude, then the surface speed of the smaller ones has to be slower than the bigger ones because the larger ones have more distance to travel in the same 24 hours as the little ones. Earth's rpm is fairly constant. But the surface speed at any given location on the sphere is directly proportional to the cosine of the latitude.


I don't know where Ahaz's dial was located so we'll just use Jerusalem for a point of reference. The latitude at Jerusalem is 31° 46' North. A circle of latitude at that location is roughly 21,154 miles in circumference. Dividing that by 24 hours equals 881.42 mph. That's about Mach 1.16, which is very close to the maximum air speed of an F14 Tomcat flying at sea level.


You can probably imagine what the inertia of an automobile traveling at 100 miles per hour would do if the driver were to suddenly slam on the brakes. It would put his passengers through the windshield if their seat belts aren't fastened; and every loose item in the car would fly forward including the pet dog. Well, just imagine the force generated by an average-weight human body traveling at 881.42 mph.


If a 125-pound woman were a rifle bullet traveling at a muzzle velocity of 881.42 mph (1,292.75 feet per second); the force her body would generate upon impact with a brick wall would be about equal to 3.25 million foot-pounds of energy; and totally liquefy the woman's remains so completely that you think she spent nine hours in a junkyard metal shredder. She'd just be a moist splat— a bloody stain of liquefied bone and flesh.


So God had to overrule the laws of physics for the sun dial miracle so no one would go through the windshield when He first of all stopped, and then reversed, the earth's rotation. Then He had to stop it once more, restart it, and bring it up to speed again in its original direction; and all without toppling anything or rolling babies out of their cribs.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 7:31PM #43
LittleLes
Posts: 9,905

jlb posted:


>>It’s not unlike the atheist who wants to debate whether or not the “a Virgin shall conceive” passage and whether or not it applies to the Virgin Mary and Christ or another child in Esaias/Isaiah’s time and then says that before the debate begins, supernatural things like virgins having babies, don’t occur because they're biologically impossible. <<


 


>>Why start a theological debate at all if one isn't going to allow, even for the purpose of debating a question, if the supernatural might exists.  It's simply an example of not debating in good faith.<<


RESPONSE:


Does "debating in good faith" require one to accept something as true no matter how unreasonable before it is proven?


If you say you saw a cow flying over your house and it's miracle, do I have to begin by accepting that a cow did indeed fly over your house to be "debating in good faith?


If you had witness statements and photographic evidence of the cow flying over your house, then we might debate its miraculous nature.


If something is contrary to nature,  its fact  has to be established first, not just "allowed for the purpose of debate."


Sorry, that's not the way debating works in the real world.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 7:47PM #44
LittleLes
Posts: 9,905

Jun 25, 2011 -- 5:17PM, Webers_Home wrote:


.

Jun 25, 2011 -- 3:07PM, jlb32168 wrote:

It’s not unlike the atheist who wants to debate whether or not the “a Virgin shall conceive” passage and whether or not it applies to the Virgin Mary and Christ or another child in Esaias/Isaiah’s time and then says that before the debate begins, supernatural things like virgins having babies, don’t occur because they're biologically impossible.


Mary's virgin conception was an amazing act of God; but there's a rather obscure one in the Old Testament that I like even better; which no doubt our friend LittleLes will enjoy thoroughly.

†. 2Ki 20:8-11 . . Hezekiah asked Isaiah: What is the sign that the Lord will heal me and that I shall go up to the House of the Lord on the third day?  Isaiah replied: This is the sign for you from the Lord that the Lord will do the thing that He has promised: Shall the shadow advance ten steps or recede ten steps? Hezekiah said: It is easy for the shadow to lengthen ten steps, but not for the shadow to recede ten steps. So the prophet Isaiah called to the Lord, and He made the shadow which had descended on the dial of Ahaz recede ten steps.

To make the Sun's shadow go backwards, Earth's eastward rotation must first be stopped, and then reversed to westward. Just think of that. Our planet spins at approximately 1,036 miles per hour at the equator. In machinist's terms, that's called the surface speed. But the surface speed isn't constant for every place on the globe. It diminishes with each degree of latitude that we move away from the equator because the distance around the world, along a line of latitude, is quite a bit less at, say, Alaska than it is in Malaysia. If you have a globe handy, look at the size of a circle of latitude that passes through each of those locations and it's immediately apparent that Malaysia's circle of latitude is much larger in diameter than Alaska's.

So if the same 24 hours elapses during a complete rotation of any given circle of latitude, then the surface speed of the smaller ones has to be slower than the bigger ones because the larger ones have more distance to travel in the same 24 hours as the little ones. Earth's rpm is fairly constant. But the surface speed at any given location on the sphere is directly proportional to the cosine of the latitude.

I don't know where Ahaz's dial was located so we'll just use Jerusalem for a point of reference. The latitude at Jerusalem is 31° 46' North. A circle of latitude at that location is roughly 21,154 miles in circumference. Dividing that by 24 hours equals 881.42 mph. That's about Mach 1.16, which is very close to the maximum air speed of an F14 Tomcat flying at sea level.

You can probably imagine what the inertia of an automobile traveling at 100 miles per hour would do if the driver were to suddenly slam on the brakes. It would put his passengers through the windshield if their seat belts aren't fastened; and every loose item in the car would fly forward including the pet dog. Well, just imagine the force generated by an average-weight human body traveling at 881.42 mph.

If a 125-pound woman were a rifle bullet traveling at a muzzle velocity of 881.42 mph (1,292.75 feet per second); the force her body would generate upon impact with a brick wall would be about equal to 3.25 million foot-pounds of energy; and totally liquefy the woman's remains so completely that you think she spent nine hours in a junkyard metal shredder. She'd just be a moist splat— a bloody stain of liquefied bone and flesh.

So God had to overrule the laws of physics for the sun dial miracle so no one would go through the windshield when He first of all stopped, and then reversed, the earth's rotation. Then He had to stop it once more, restart it, and bring it up to speed again in its original direction; and all without toppling anything or rolling babies out of their cribs.

Cliff
/



RESPONSE:


Or the story is just a story. Do you believe the miracles in Harry Potter novels? Why not?











Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 8:06PM #45
SeraphimR
Posts: 9,295

Jun 25, 2011 -- 5:17PM, Webers_Home wrote:


.

Jun 25, 2011 -- 3:07PM, jlb32168 wrote:

It’s not unlike the atheist who wants to debate whether or not the “a Virgin shall conceive” passage and whether or not it applies to the Virgin Mary and Christ or another child in Esaias/Isaiah’s time and then says that before the debate begins, supernatural things like virgins having babies, don’t occur because they're biologically impossible.


Mary's virgin conception was an amazing act of God; but there's a rather obscure one in the Old Testament that I like even better; which no doubt our friend LittleLes will enjoy thoroughly.



†. 2Ki 20:8-11 . . Hezekiah asked Isaiah: What is the sign that the Lord will heal me and that I shall go up to the House of the Lord on the third day?  Isaiah replied: This is the sign for you from the Lord that the Lord will do the thing that He has promised: Shall the shadow advance ten steps or recede ten steps? Hezekiah said: It is easy for the shadow to lengthen ten steps, but not for the shadow to recede ten steps. So the prophet Isaiah called to the Lord, and He made the shadow which had descended on the dial of Ahaz recede ten steps.



To make the Sun's shadow go backwards, Earth's eastward rotation must first be stopped, and then reversed to westward. Just think of that. Our planet spins at approximately 1,036 miles per hour at the equator. In machinist's terms, that's called the surface speed. But the surface speed isn't constant for every place on the globe. It diminishes with each degree of latitude that we move away from the equator because the distance around the world, along a line of latitude, is quite a bit less at, say, Alaska than it is in Malaysia. If you have a globe handy, look at the size of a circle of latitude that passes through each of those locations and it's immediately apparent that Malaysia's circle of latitude is much larger in diameter than Alaska's.



So if the same 24 hours elapses during a complete rotation of any given circle of latitude, then the surface speed of the smaller ones has to be slower than the bigger ones because the larger ones have more distance to travel in the same 24 hours as the little ones. Earth's rpm is fairly constant. But the surface speed at any given location on the sphere is directly proportional to the cosine of the latitude.



I don't know where Ahaz's dial was located so we'll just use Jerusalem for a point of reference. The latitude at Jerusalem is 31° 46' North. A circle of latitude at that location is roughly 21,154 miles in circumference. Dividing that by 24 hours equals 881.42 mph. That's about Mach 1.16, which is very close to the maximum air speed of an F14 Tomcat flying at sea level.



You can probably imagine what the inertia of an automobile traveling at 100 miles per hour would do if the driver were to suddenly slam on the brakes. It would put his passengers through the windshield if their seat belts aren't fastened; and every loose item in the car would fly forward including the pet dog. Well, just imagine the force generated by an average-weight human body traveling at 881.42 mph.



If a 125-pound woman were a rifle bullet traveling at a muzzle velocity of 881.42 mph (1,292.75 feet per second); the force her body would generate upon impact with a brick wall would be about equal to 3.25 million foot-pounds of energy; and totally liquefy the woman's remains so completely that you think she spent nine hours in a junkyard metal shredder. She'd just be a moist splat— a bloody stain of liquefied bone and flesh.



So God had to overrule the laws of physics for the sun dial miracle so no one would go through the windshield when He first of all stopped, and then reversed, the earth's rotation. Then He had to stop it once more, restart it, and bring it up to speed again in its original direction; and all without toppling anything or rolling babies out of their cribs.



Cliff
/





There is more than one way to skin a cat. 


All you have to do is carefully modify the refractive properties of air and bend the sunlight to appear in a different location.


Or activate the orbiting mirrors put in place by a cooperative alien civilization for such a contingency.

People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important.


P.J. O'Rourke
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 11:07PM #46
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Jun 25, 2011 -- 8:06PM, SeraphimR wrote:

There is more than one way to skin a cat. All you have to do is carefully modify the refractive properties of air and bend the sunlight to appear in a different location.


Very good. I hadn't thought of that. Not as exciting as reversing rotation; but certainly more expedient.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 12:23AM #47
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Jun 25, 2011 -- 7:47PM, LittleLes wrote:

Do you believe the miracles in Harry Potter novels? Why not?


Harry is about magic; not miracles.


People are funny about the things they believe in. Carl Sagan, for example, was confident there's intelligent life out there somewhere in the void, yet had not the slightest empirical evidence to support his belief.


I like Mark Twain's definition of belief; it goes like this : Faith is a man believin' somethin' he knows ain't so. (chuckle) Who can really explain why some people believe one thing while some people believe another. For example, atheists believe there is no supreme being out there, yet possess not the slightest empirical evidence to support their belief. They say Christians believe in a myth; while it never seems to occur to the atheists that, like Carl Sagan, it's not impossible that it might be themselves who are believing in a myth.


Which one of us has enough empirical evidence to prove the other wrong in a court of law? Christians or the atheists? In reality, neither has enough empirical evidence to prove the other wrong, yet each doggedly insists themselves right.


That reminds me of two children taunting each other. One says : You moron; you're dumber than turnip greens! The other responds : I know you are; but what am I? (chuckle) And on and on it goes; back and forth with neither giving an inch.


BTW: before we get any further afield from the O.P. than we already are; I should clue you into something. I'm not interested in arguing whether the Bible is true; I'm only interested in arguing what it says; you know, like a Jane Austin book club. So if apologetics is your bag; I'm afraid you've come to the wrong thread.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 8:15AM #48
LittleLes
Posts: 9,905

Jun 26, 2011 -- 12:23AM, Webers_Home wrote:


.

Jun 25, 2011 -- 7:47PM, LittleLes wrote:

Do you believe the miracles in Harry Potter novels? Why not?



Harry is about magic; not miracles.

People are funny about the things they believe in. Carl Sagan, for example, was confident there's intelligent life out there somewhere in the void, yet had not the slightest empirical evidence to support his belief.


I like Mark Twain's definition of belief; it goes like this : Faith is a man believin' somethin' he knows ain't so. (chuckle) Who can really explain why some people believe one thing while some people believe another. For example, atheists believe there is no supreme being out there, yet possess not the slightest empirical evidence to support their belief. They say Christians believe in a myth; while it never seems to occur to the atheists that, like Carl Sagan, it's not impossible that it might be themselves who are believing in a myth.


Which one of us has enough empirical evidence to prove the other wrong in a court of law? Christians or the atheists? In reality, neither has enough empirical evidence to prove the other wrong, yet each doggedly insists themselves right.


That reminds me of two children taunting each other. One says : You moron; you're dumber than turnip greens! The other responds : I know you are; but what am I? (chuckle) And on and on it goes; back and forth with neither giving an inch.


BTW: before we get any further afield from the O.P. than we already are; I should clue you into something. I'm not interested in arguing whether the Bible is true; I'm only interested in arguing what it says; you know, like a Jane Austin book club. So if apologetics is your bag; I'm afraid you've come to the wrong thread.


Cliff

/







RESPONSE:



>>Harry is about magic; not miracles<<


Is there a difference? Changing the water into wine to keep the party going, etc. And with all those alleged physical cures, was it ever reported that Jesus restored a severed limb? Why not?



>>I'm not interested in arguing whether the Bible is true<<


Your certainly quote it enough. That's wise because you'd lose. The Bible contains a small amount of historically true information and a lot of legend and folklore and other nice yarns.


>>So if apologetics is your bag; I'm afraid you've come to the wrong thread.<<


History is my bag, not legendary yarns.


>>before we get any further afield from the O.P. than we already are<<


The OP began with the question of if Jesus had Original Sin. The "stain of Original Sin" concept began with Augustine's mistranslation of Romans 5, the "in whom" (all have sinned) error. From it Augustine developed his Original Sin story.


The simple answer to your original post is that since the stain of Original Sin story is just a story and based on an error is scriptural translation expanded by Augustine in the West , Jesus was not so stained with what doesn't exist.


As I posted elsewhere on the Eastern Orthodox  and Original Sin threads , the EO Catholics never had Augustine's writings, so they don't believe in Original Sin for Jesus or anyone else. Hence, they have no Immaculate Conception story either.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 10:25AM #49
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Jun 26, 2011 -- 8:15AM, LittleLes wrote:

was it ever reported that Jesus restored a severed limb? Why not?


At the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-9, the Lord cured only one man. Had it been me that penned the "story" I would have had him curing everybody around the pool that day.


But, it needs to be remembered that the Bible's Christ never acted on his own initiative nor independently of his master's wishes. Though Christ may have liked to heal everybody there that day, it was the Bible's God who singled out that one particular man.


†. John 5:19 . . I tell you the truth; the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.


†. John 5:30 . . By myself I can do nothing


†. John 9:4 . . I must work the works of Him that sent me.


The Lord's master had an ulterior motive. Healing that paralytic man led to His emissary becoming embroiled in a Sabbath dispute with local Judaism; and subsequently to even heavier issues than that, eventuating in the Jews seeking to assassinate the Lord for calling God his own father and for insinuating he was equal with God.


Christ and the paralytic man were pawns in a maneuver to deliberately instigate a confrontation with Judaism and God's son; during which the Lord spoke only the words his Father prompted him to say so that God was Judaism's real opponent in that incident. They saw only Jesus, but behind the scenes was the Old Testament's Yhvh pulling the strings and yanking the chains.


†. John 12:49 . . For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a mandate, what I should say, and what I should speak


The answer to your question is quite simply that when the Lord was here, he conducted himself as a servant rather than as an independent agent or a loose cannon; for example :


†. Luke 4:25-27 . . I tell you truly, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land; but to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zarephath, in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.


However, the Lord performed a pretty good number of miracles that aren't recorded in the reports (John 20:30) so it's quite possible he did restore some severed limbs.


Jun 26, 2011 -- 12:23AM, Webers_Home wrote:

I'm not interested in arguing whether the Bible is true; I'm only interested in arguing what it says; you know, like a Jane Austin book club. So if apologetics is your bag; I'm afraid you've come to the wrong thread.



Jun 26, 2011 -- 8:15AM, LittleLes wrote:

That's wise because you'd lose.


I take comfort in knowing I'm supposed to lose at the game of apologetics.


†. 1Cor 2:4-5 . . And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power of God.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 12:16PM #50
LittleLes
Posts: 9,905

Cliff posted:


>>For example, atheists believe there is no supreme being out there, yet possess not the slightest empirical evidence to support their belief. They say Christians believe in a myth; while it never seems to occur to the atheists that, like Carl Sagan, it's not impossible that it might be themselves who are believing in a myth.<<


RESPONSE:


You seem locked in on atheism vs Christianity as an "either-or" alternative.


Have you considered agnosticism which claims that it cannot be known if there is or is not a God.


Another interesting point of view is that of deism. Deism believes in the existence of God, but denies the credibility of revelation because of it's errors, contradictions, and magical nature.


 


>>Which one of us has enough empirical evidence to prove the other wrong in a court of law? Christians or the atheists? In reality, neither has enough empirical evidence to prove the other wrong, yet each doggedly insists themselves right.<<


RESPONSE:


That might depend on who the judge is.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook