Discussion:
Thoughts on miracles?
(too old to reply)
Joseph
2004-09-14 03:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Thoughts?

We all chose Jesus as our savior not only because of the words He used and
what He taught us, but mainly due to his miracles and prophecy. If Jesus
did not perform miracles, then He would simply be labeled another prophet
in the crowd and Christianity would not exist.

Having said that we can agree that miracles are a primary factor in us
believing Jesus is truly God, since no man can possibly perform the
miracles Jesus performed. If I spoke EXACTLY like Jesus to a crowd of
people, how could you easily tell me apart from Jesus as our TRUE savior?
By miracles of course.

Now consider some quotes about miracles from the New Testament:

Mark16
15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel
to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved:
but he that believeth not shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall
follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they
shall speak with new tongues. 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they
shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their
hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. 19 And the Lord Jesus, after
he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of God. 20 But they going forth preached every where: the Lord
working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.

Matthew13
58 And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.

John20
29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

Now sumarizing the verses above, it is very clear in John20 that Jesus
encouraged us to believe without seeing. It is also clear from Mark
16:17-18 that signs (miracles) will follow those who believe. And Mark
16:20 clearly states the Apostles when preaching everywhere, confirmed
their words with 'signs'. And finally Matthew13 clearly states that Jesus
did not perform miracles in areas where there was unbelief.

So looking at the above, my question for the group is, why is it that ONLY
the Catholic church experiences extraordinary signs such as it's Saints
which have clearly performed extraordinary 'signs' on countless occasions.
There are also the incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints having been dead
for centuries and never embalmed, yet remain incorrupt, flexible, with
flowing blood and pleasant smelling after being exhumed, many still on
display in Europe. There are also 'signs' in the Catholic church such as
eucharistic miracles, miraculous healings at Lourdes, the Miracle of
Fatima etc etc. ALL of these miracles or 'signs' just mentioned have been
studied for centuries by believers and non-believers alike, and all cannot
be explained. Why ONLY in the Catholic church??

Why are Protestant denominations lacking these signs? Are you one of the
ones that decides to look the other way when presented with completed
research and documentation on the miracles or 'signs' just mentioned?
Could it be any clearer to Protestant denominations that miracles are not
performed for them due to their unbelief (Matt 13) and that signs have not
followed them because of their beliefs (Mark16)?

It's time to stop looking the other way when you hear about thoroughly
investigated and publicly documented miracles, and take a look at the
facts presented. If you are SO positive that your beliefs are correct,
then you should not be the least bit afraid to look at all of the
miraculous happenings that have been going on throughout the last 2000
years. Or instead you can cleverly choose which rocks you want to leave
unturned. I know I am not going to be one of the ones who has to answer to
God on Judgement Day about ignoring the 'signs' He clearly said would be
presented to us in scripture (Mark16:17).
Andreas Höfeld
2004-09-14 11:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
Thoughts?
We all chose Jesus as our savior not only because of the words He
used and what He taught us, but mainly due to his miracles and
prophecy.
I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. I do not believe in Jesus
because of his miracles and I think neither will many in this group.
Even /you/ don't do so (even if you think so). I will show you:

Do you believe that Apollonios of Tyana (Pythargorean preacher
of the first century AD) performed the miracles that Philostratos
ascribes to him? He healed the sick, exorcised demons, resurrected
a girl that had died on her wedding and had the gift of prophesying
the future. And he ascended to heaven. So Philostratos says.

Do you believe in his teachings, do you accept his divine origin and
his relevance for your life because of his deeds? I rather suppose
you have not even heard of him (and Empedokles and the talmudic
reports of rabbis who have performed similar signs according to
ancient literature) - and you rather doubt what well-meaning
admirers ascribed to these persons.

But you believe the miracles that the bible tells about Jesus are
true. So what's the difference? It's your faith in Jesus that makes
you judge differently here, isn't it? So you believe the miracles
reported about Jesus because you believe in him as the Son of
God. True?

Now if you accepted him as Son of God and saviour because of his
miracles and believed his miracles because he is the Son of God
your argument goes in a circle. You believe in the former because
of the latter and in the latter because of the former. This can't be
what you really mean.
Post by Joseph
If Jesus did not perform miracles, then He would simply be
labeled another prophet in the crowd and Christianity would not exist.
The bible tells of many prophets (remember Elijah) to have performed
miracles. So why should be Jesus more than them just because of
his miracles?
Post by Joseph
Having said that we can agree that miracles are a primary factor in us
believing Jesus is truly God
No, we can't.

If I spoke EXACTLY like Jesus to a crowd of
Post by Joseph
people, how could you easily tell me apart from Jesus as our TRUE savior?
You don't have his beard and his sandals ;-) Just kidding. No, Jesus
was first, simple as that. What he said made people understand Gods
love and made their lives whole. If you said the same things I would
recognize you as his follower.
Post by Joseph
Mark16
15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the
gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall
be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. 17 And these
signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out
devils: they shall speak with new tongues. 18 They shall take up
serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall
recover. 19 And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was
taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. 20 But
they going forth preached every where: the Lord working withal, and
confirming the word with signs that followed.
This passage was added later to Mark's gospel. The earliest manuscripts
do not contain it. Scholars guess it was written in the 2nd century. It
is no first-hand report about Jesus.
Post by Joseph
Matthew13
58 And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.
Which is contradictory to your theory that belief is based on miracles.
Post by Joseph
John20
29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
see above to Mt 13:58

...
Post by Joseph
So looking at the above, my question for the group is, why is it that
ONLY the Catholic church experiences extraordinary signs such as it's
Saints which have clearly performed extraordinary 'signs' on
countless occasions. There are also the incorrupt bodies of Catholic
saints having been dead for centuries and never embalmed, yet remain
incorrupt, flexible, with flowing blood and pleasant smelling after
being exhumed, many still on display in Europe. There are also
'signs' in the Catholic church such as eucharistic miracles,
miraculous healings at Lourdes, the Miracle of Fatima etc etc. ALL of
these miracles or 'signs' just mentioned have been studied for
centuries by believers and non-believers alike, and all cannot be
explained.
There is not one "sign" in the meaning of transgressing natural laws
that is accepted by believers and non-believers alike. Not even all
Roman Catholics believe them. It is just that the RC church has
an official instance to register these reported "miracles" and in many
places of the world encourages the wish to believe in such supernatural
tales.

Andreas
Joseph
2004-09-16 03:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Höfeld
Post by Joseph
Thoughts?
We all chose Jesus as our savior not only because of the words He
used and what He taught us, but mainly due to his miracles and
prophecy.
I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. I do not believe in Jesus
because of his miracles and I think neither will many in this group.
Do you believe that Apollonios of Tyana (Pythargorean preacher
of the first century AD) performed the miracles that Philostratos
ascribes to him? He healed the sick, exorcised demons, resurrected
a girl that had died on her wedding and had the gift of prophesying
the future. And he ascended to heaven. So Philostratos says.
Do you believe in his teachings, do you accept his divine origin and
his relevance for your life because of his deeds? I rather suppose
you have not even heard of him (and Empedokles and the talmudic
reports of rabbis who have performed similar signs according to
ancient literature) - and you rather doubt what well-meaning
admirers ascribed to these persons.
Yes I have heard of Apollonius. There is no trusted documentation on him
doing what you say. If documentation was unquestionable or considered
divinely inspired like scripture, there would be a massive Apollonius
following, of which there is not. In fact his whole philosophy is dead and
gone because it is obvious garbage.
Post by Andreas Höfeld
But you believe the miracles that the bible tells about Jesus are
true. So what's the difference? It's your faith in Jesus that makes
you judge differently here, isn't it? So you believe the miracles
reported about Jesus because you believe in him as the Son of
God. True?
Faith is of course a primary factor in believing in Jesus. But
remember Jesus performed miracles to make the people believe. His miracles
rather reenforce my faith, assuring me I am following the TRUE Messiah.
Look at Mohammed....He claimed to have some type of union with God but has
never done a single thing to prove it above what any ordinary man can do,
therefore I know he is not the one to follow. If I came BEFORE Jesus and
spoke JUST like him, then Jesus came after me and spoke JUST like I did,
but also performed miracles which no natural man can possibly do, we all
know that everyone would follow Jesus. The ENTIRE reason for Jesus
miracles was to make people believe. Look at scripture, it's EVERYWHERE!
Post by Andreas Höfeld
The bible tells of many prophets (remember Elijah) to have performed
miracles. So why should be Jesus more than them just because of
his miracles?
Yes there are instances of miracles in the Old Testament. Moses performed
miracles as well. This was before the time of Jesus. God worked through
Moses etc so that God could reveal himself and give people guidance
before the Messiah (Jesus) came. Once Jesus came on earth, he clearly said
the law of Moses was obsolete, and that His word would replace it. Once
Jesus gave the word that He was to be followed ONLY, and we clearly see
His Apostles and Saints to follow continued their undeniable, unfakable
miracles, our faith is strengthened and we have even more faith in Jesus,
because what He said about signs following those who believe has come true
in front of our eyes. Then when we see NO other religions or beliefs
performing undeniable, unfakable miracles, the situation is obvious.
Post by Andreas Höfeld
If I spoke EXACTLY like Jesus to a crowd of
Post by Joseph
people, how could you easily tell me apart from Jesus as our TRUE savior?
You don't have his beard and his sandals ;-) Just kidding. No, Jesus
was first, simple as that. What he said made people understand Gods
love and made their lives whole. If you said the same things I would
recognize you as his follower.
My example above with ME coming before Jesus and speaking just like
him makes your reasoning here illogical.
Post by Andreas Höfeld
Post by Joseph
Mark16
15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the
gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall
be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. 17 And these
signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out
devils: they shall speak with new tongues. 18 They shall take up
serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall
recover. 19 And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was
taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. 20 But
they going forth preached every where: the Lord working withal, and
confirming the word with signs that followed.
This passage was added later to Mark's gospel. The earliest manuscripts
do not contain it. Scholars guess it was written in the 2nd century. It
is no first-hand report about Jesus.
I get a kick out of this excuse as I always hear it from time to time. We
could say that about anything in scripture since it wasn't fully compiled
until the 3rd century. In fact we could say that about anything in
history. I.e. Abraham Lincoln was never President. I never saw him and I
know no one that did. The history books have been doctored! Using "this
was added later" as your ace card doesn't cut it. It simply makes you look
foolish.
Post by Andreas Höfeld
Post by Joseph
Matthew13
58 And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.
Which is contradictory to your theory that belief is based on miracles.
As I mentioned, faith is primary, miracles simply reenforce that faith and
allow Jesus to stand out as true among all the "fake Messiahs". Scripture
says what it says, Jesus purposely didn't perform miracles in this
instance because he knew the people would not believe. Significant,
unfakable miracles like Fatima, Lourdes, miracles through the Saints etc
are NEVER seen outside the Catholic church. Why is Jesus not
performing elsewhere? VERY significant fact.
Post by Andreas Höfeld
Post by Joseph
John20
29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
see above to Mt 13:58
...
Post by Joseph
So looking at the above, my question for the group is, why is it that
ONLY the Catholic church experiences extraordinary signs such as it's
Saints which have clearly performed extraordinary 'signs' on
countless occasions. There are also the incorrupt bodies of Catholic
saints having been dead for centuries and never embalmed, yet remain
incorrupt, flexible, with flowing blood and pleasant smelling after
being exhumed, many still on display in Europe. There are also
'signs' in the Catholic church such as eucharistic miracles,
miraculous healings at Lourdes, the Miracle of Fatima etc etc. ALL of
these miracles or 'signs' just mentioned have been studied for
centuries by believers and non-believers alike, and all cannot be
explained.
There is not one "sign" in the meaning of transgressing natural laws
that is accepted by believers and non-believers alike. Not even all
Roman Catholics believe them. It is just that the RC church has
an official instance to register these reported "miracles" and in many
places of the world encourages the wish to believe in such supernatural
tales.
The miracle at Fatima and Lourdes for example did not have to be
"registered" anywhere. They were public instances witnessed by thousands,
studied by countless religous and non-religous with no answers, and people
flocked to them naturally. People are naturally fascinated with miracles
since they can only be performed by God or someone approved by God. These
miracles gather their own publicity. Non-Catholic beliefs simply do not
have these undeniable occurances that cause people to flock from all over
the world in fascination and study. If you think otherwise, then name some
BIG instances elsewhere, ones that cannot be denied and have been studied
by people of all beliefs.
Brian J Dawson
2004-09-14 21:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
Thoughts?
We all chose Jesus as our savior not only because of the words He used and
what He taught us, but mainly due to his miracles and prophecy. If Jesus
did not perform miracles, then He would simply be labeled another prophet
in the crowd and Christianity would not exist.
Having said that we can agree that miracles are a primary factor in us
believing Jesus is truly God, since no man can possibly perform the
miracles Jesus performed. If I spoke EXACTLY like Jesus to a crowd of
people, how could you easily tell me apart from Jesus as our TRUE savior?
By miracles of course.
Mark16
15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel
but he that believeth not shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall
follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they
shall speak with new tongues. 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they
shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their
hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. 19 And the Lord Jesus, after
he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of God. 20 But they going forth preached every where: the Lord
working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.
Matthew13
58 And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.
John20
29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
Now sumarizing the verses above, it is very clear in John20 that Jesus
encouraged us to believe without seeing. It is also clear from Mark
16:17-18 that signs (miracles) will follow those who believe. And Mark
16:20 clearly states the Apostles when preaching everywhere, confirmed
their words with 'signs'. And finally Matthew13 clearly states that Jesus
did not perform miracles in areas where there was unbelief.
So looking at the above, my question for the group is, why is it that ONLY
the Catholic church experiences extraordinary signs such as it's Saints
which have clearly performed extraordinary 'signs' on countless occasions.
There are also the incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints having been dead
for centuries and never embalmed, yet remain incorrupt, flexible, with
flowing blood and pleasant smelling after being exhumed, many still on
display in Europe. There are also 'signs' in the Catholic church such as
eucharistic miracles, miraculous healings at Lourdes, the Miracle of
Fatima etc etc. ALL of these miracles or 'signs' just mentioned have been
studied for centuries by believers and non-believers alike, and all cannot
be explained. Why ONLY in the Catholic church??
Why are Protestant denominations lacking these signs? Are you one of the
ones that decides to look the other way when presented with completed
research and documentation on the miracles or 'signs' just mentioned?
Could it be any clearer to Protestant denominations that miracles are not
performed for them due to their unbelief (Matt 13) and that signs have not
followed them because of their beliefs (Mark16)?
It's time to stop looking the other way when you hear about thoroughly
investigated and publicly documented miracles, and take a look at the
facts presented. If you are SO positive that your beliefs are correct,
then you should not be the least bit afraid to look at all of the
miraculous happenings that have been going on throughout the last 2000
years. Or instead you can cleverly choose which rocks you want to leave
unturned. I know I am not going to be one of the ones who has to answer to
God on Judgement Day about ignoring the 'signs' He clearly said would be
presented to us in scripture (Mark16:17).
Joseph,
Miracles are EVERYWHERE!
Just within the past two years. On the Hindu side. One of the dieties has
the head of an Elephant and is the patron of the outcast. At shrines here in
NYC and all over the world as seen on nightly news programs, the statues
where sucking up offerings of milk. Barrels where brought in just in the
Queens NY temple alone!
In a Orthodox Jewish community just above NYC a butcher (as reported in the
NY TIMES) was slicing fish when one started to talk to him in Hebrew!
I was cured of a foot problem as a boy viewing the Mass in the Episcopal
Church.
Read any monthly and weekly issue of the Christian Science Church and
healings are constantly recorded.
Read "Truth of Life" which is a Japanesse magazine published by
Seicho-No-Ie. There you will find many miracles reported by a Japanese New
Thought faith.
You ROMAN catholics don't have a unique pipeline to the Divine. Even the old
pagan religion had numerous miracle healing shrines!
You just want to feel part of an "in-group" that has a unique relation to
God!
Brian J Dawson
Joseph
2004-09-16 03:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian J Dawson
Joseph,
Miracles are EVERYWHERE!
Just within the past two years. On the Hindu side. One of the dieties has
the head of an Elephant and is the patron of the outcast. At shrines here in
NYC and all over the world as seen on nightly news programs, the statues
where sucking up offerings of milk. Barrels where brought in just in the
Queens NY temple alone!
In a Orthodox Jewish community just above NYC a butcher (as reported in the
NY TIMES) was slicing fish when one started to talk to him in Hebrew!
I was cured of a foot problem as a boy viewing the Mass in the Episcopal
Church.
Read any monthly and weekly issue of the Christian Science Church and
healings are constantly recorded.
Read "Truth of Life" which is a Japanesse magazine published by
Seicho-No-Ie. There you will find many miracles reported by a Japanese New
Thought faith.
Brian, you are missing something very important here. People LOVE to claim
miracles because it attracts attention and makes them feel like they are
somehow in union with the divine. There is a VERY key difference in the
so-called miracles you just mentioned and the miracles I refer to. Sucking
up milk, a fish talking Hebrew, supposed healings are EASILY fakable and
can EASILY be performed by a magician. They are easily disputable plain
and simple.

Take a look at miracles such as that at Fatima, the miracles that
continuously happen at Lourdes, and miracles Saints have performed time
and time again in public throughout the centuries, incorrupt bodies of
saints etc. These simply cannot be faked even by the best of magicians.

For example at Fatima 3 children said a "lady"
suddenly appeared in front of them on multiple occasions, each time
stating things perfectly in line with Catholic doctrine. This lady also
foretold a miracle would happen 3 months later "to make the people
believe" the message she was giving them. Of course the children
telling people about this attracted 70,000 from all over Europe that day,
where all (including atheists who came to laugh) agreed a miracle did
occur with the sun.

Lourdes falls into the same category where again a "lady" appeared and
spoke Catholic doctrine to a girl in Lourdes. Afterward a spring emerged
from the ground and ever since many people who have come in contact with
that water (it is no different than any other water when examined) have
had miraculous cures. The Lourdes Medical Bureau is open to ANY doctor of
ANY belief, and they all agree hands down on the fascinating and
unexplainable healings there of just about every type of incurable
illness that exists. There is a forest of crutches left there and in NO
other place in the world does this happen. A list of confirmed cures there is at
this link: http://www.lourdes-france.org/upload/pdf/en_guerison.pdf

The incorrupt bodies of people that have been in the ground hundreds of
years and were NOT embalmed are accidentally discovered from time to time
and they are lifelike, flexible, have flowing blood and actually smell
pleasant! This is miraculous alone, nevermind the miracles that have
occurred time and time again to those who have come in contact with
these remains. No one has ever been able to explain these incidents
despite intense research by religious and non-religous alike, but one
thing has ALWAYS been a common denominator here; upon looking into who
these people were, they were ALWAYS DEVOUT CATHOLICS. Many of these bodies
are on display in Europe to this day. My point is, it is VERY signficant
why these incidents, which cannot be denied as not having happened and
clearly cannot be faked, are only happening with repsect to the Catholic
church, its members, or Catholic doctrine.

I know God is capable of miracles at any time any where. What appears
to be small "personal miracles" do happen to individuals from time to
time. But these are NEVER comparable to the miracles I just mentioned and
are easily disputable. Though with the miracles I speak of above, we
either have thousands of witnesses (i.e. 70,000 in Fatima) or we have
living proof (i.e. an xray taken before and after a man enters the water
in Lourdes shows bone in two pieces before and COMPLETELY healed minutes
afterward).

My question is, why do the signficant, unfakable miracles only happen in
relation to the Catholic church or its members? If you disagree, please
provide signficant, unfakable miracles elsewhere, and please leave out
magic tricks like sucking up milk and talking fish. Show me something BIG.
Post by Brian J Dawson
You ROMAN catholics don't have a unique pipeline to the Divine. Even the old
pagan religion had numerous miracle healing shrines!
You just want to feel part of an "in-group" that has a unique relation to
God!
Brian J Dawson
Brian J Dawson
2004-09-17 03:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
Post by Brian J Dawson
Joseph,
Miracles are EVERYWHERE!
Just within the past two years. On the Hindu side. One of the dieties has
the head of an Elephant and is the patron of the outcast. At shrines here in
NYC and all over the world as seen on nightly news programs, the statues
where sucking up offerings of milk. Barrels where brought in just in the
Queens NY temple alone!
In a Orthodox Jewish community just above NYC a butcher (as reported in the
NY TIMES) was slicing fish when one started to talk to him in Hebrew!
I was cured of a foot problem as a boy viewing the Mass in the Episcopal
Church.
Read any monthly and weekly issue of the Christian Science Church and
healings are constantly recorded.
Read "Truth of Life" which is a Japanesse magazine published by
Seicho-No-Ie. There you will find many miracles reported by a Japanese New
Thought faith.
Brian, you are missing something very important here. People LOVE to claim
miracles because it attracts attention and makes them feel like they are
somehow in union with the divine. There is a VERY key difference in the
so-called miracles you just mentioned and the miracles I refer to. Sucking
up milk, a fish talking Hebrew, supposed healings are EASILY fakable and
can EASILY be performed by a magician. They are easily disputable plain
and simple.
Take a look at miracles such as that at Fatima, the miracles that
continuously happen at Lourdes, and miracles Saints have performed time
and time again in public throughout the centuries, incorrupt bodies of
saints etc. These simply cannot be faked even by the best of magicians.
For example at Fatima 3 children said a "lady"
suddenly appeared in front of them on multiple occasions, each time
stating things perfectly in line with Catholic doctrine. This lady also
foretold a miracle would happen 3 months later "to make the people
believe" the message she was giving them. Of course the children
telling people about this attracted 70,000 from all over Europe that day,
where all (including atheists who came to laugh) agreed a miracle did
occur with the sun.
Lourdes falls into the same category where again a "lady" appeared and
spoke Catholic doctrine to a girl in Lourdes. Afterward a spring emerged
from the ground and ever since many people who have come in contact with
that water (it is no different than any other water when examined) have
had miraculous cures. The Lourdes Medical Bureau is open to ANY doctor of
ANY belief, and they all agree hands down on the fascinating and
unexplainable healings there of just about every type of incurable
illness that exists. There is a forest of crutches left there and in NO
other place in the world does this happen. A list of confirmed cures there is at
this link: http://www.lourdes-france.org/upload/pdf/en_guerison.pdf
The incorrupt bodies of people that have been in the ground hundreds of
years and were NOT embalmed are accidentally discovered from time to time
and they are lifelike, flexible, have flowing blood and actually smell
pleasant! This is miraculous alone, nevermind the miracles that have
occurred time and time again to those who have come in contact with
these remains. No one has ever been able to explain these incidents
despite intense research by religious and non-religous alike, but one
thing has ALWAYS been a common denominator here; upon looking into who
these people were, they were ALWAYS DEVOUT CATHOLICS. Many of these bodies
are on display in Europe to this day. My point is, it is VERY signficant
why these incidents, which cannot be denied as not having happened and
clearly cannot be faked, are only happening with repsect to the Catholic
church, its members, or Catholic doctrine.
I know God is capable of miracles at any time any where. What appears
to be small "personal miracles" do happen to individuals from time to
time. But these are NEVER comparable to the miracles I just mentioned and
are easily disputable. Though with the miracles I speak of above, we
either have thousands of witnesses (i.e. 70,000 in Fatima) or we have
living proof (i.e. an xray taken before and after a man enters the water
in Lourdes shows bone in two pieces before and COMPLETELY healed minutes
afterward).
My question is, why do the signficant, unfakable miracles only happen in
relation to the Catholic church or its members? If you disagree, please
provide signficant, unfakable miracles elsewhere, and please leave out
magic tricks like sucking up milk and talking fish. Show me something BIG.
Post by Brian J Dawson
You ROMAN catholics don't have a unique pipeline to the Divine. Even the old
pagan religion had numerous miracle healing shrines!
You just want to feel part of an "in-group" that has a unique relation to
God!
Brian J Dawson
Joesph,
First let me state that I do not doubt that Lourdes is a source of Miracles.
I just deny that the RCC is the only source. Christian Science has been
publishing miracles for years and this is not the type such as "I prayed and
the impossible operation came out successful" type. These are folks who
don't use doctors - period. There are healing shrines in every religion.
Unfortunatly the person who founded Lourdes died of bone cancer. This is in
a way a sign that no religion posseses ultimate truth.
Concerning Fatima I believe the pope had a paper from the girls saying that
the RCC would have a pope killed and some other horrible things. When we
come close to the "Divine" whatever superstitions and fears we have get
reinforced by the miracle. Being that you are in the RCC you only hear of
those miracles. Recently it was reported that the pope performed an
excorcism and it only partially took! Perphaps this is a sign that there was
a misdiagnosis or that it is a another sign to stop being smug.
I was amazed to see trinkets being sold by members of a RCC connected with
ST Mary that where right from the problem list that Martin Luther published
years ago. You know like fragments of the true cross.
It must be remembered that out of the thousands that visit Lourdes a very
very small amount are cured. But none the less I do not discredit the
shrine.
What I wonder is if both RC, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox all believe that
the Eucharist is the actual presence of Christ then why do we need these
shrines? Granted that comes from my own prejudice as the healing I
experienced as a boy came when the priest raised the chalace and host with
the word "oh Father Almighty - World Without End".
I have always believed that this was the vision of Christ that our world was
Sacred and that he was reveiling himself in it. So why all these bandades?
Why these constrant praying to saints and Lourdes is even more extreme. We
have a saint being an intercessor to Mary to be an Intercessor to Christ.
Sounds very ROMAN to me. That is old roman style religion. But again I don't
doubt the sincerity of the staff that runs the shrine and that miracles do
occur. I would just like to see another miracle come from the RCC - That of
not being so smug and elitist.
Brian J Dawson
Joseph
2004-09-19 04:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian J Dawson
Joesph,
First let me state that I do not doubt that Lourdes is a source of Miracles.
I just deny that the RCC is the only source.
If you look in detail at the happenings at Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe etc,
this "lady" that appeared in each instance stated things PERFECTLY in line
with Catholic doctrine and ONLY in line with that doctrine. What else can
we say here?
Post by Brian J Dawson
Christian Science has been
publishing miracles for years and this is not the type such as "I prayed and
the impossible operation came out successful" type. These are folks who
don't use doctors - period. There are healing shrines in every religion.
Signficant miracles publicize themselves. People are absolutely fascinated
with them. If SIGNFICANT miracles occur ANYWHERE, people inevitably
find out about it by word of mouth. If it turns out to be truly
astounding, massive crowds gather, as in Lourdes and Fatima. We can claim
there are healing shrines all over the world in every religion, but
nothing astounding and undeniable is occurring in those religions, or the
whole world would be talking about it, inevitably! I'm looking for answers
too, and I haven't been able to find significant occurances anywhere else.
Post by Brian J Dawson
Unfortunatly the person who founded Lourdes died of bone cancer. This is in
a way a sign that no religion posseses ultimate truth.
I don't know if this statement about the founder dying of cancer is true
or not, but it tells us nothing. No one "founded" Lourdes! A "lady"
appeared to a girl there, spoke Catholic doctrine to her and then asked
her to start digging in the ground with her bare hands (in front of a
crowd who all could not see this "lady" and simply laughed at the girl).
Later a spring sprang forth from where she was digging and to this day,
this is the spring where healings continually occur. Since miracles are
from God, then God "founded" this site at Lourdes. Just because a man took
over care of the site does not mean he is "in" with God and will live
forever. He has to die sometime!

I have no idea why you equate to the founder's death to no religion
possessing ultimate truth?? We all have to die, including those who
following the truth. No one is excluded or has less to suffer.
Post by Brian J Dawson
Concerning Fatima I believe the pope had a paper from the girls saying that
the RCC would have a pope killed and some other horrible things. When we
come close to the "Divine" whatever superstitions and fears we have get
reinforced by the miracle. Being that you are in the RCC you only hear of
those miracles.
As I mentioned above, miracles INEVITABLY make it to the public when they
are astounding and undeniable. We all know that if an astounding,
undeniable miracle were to occur in any Protestant sect, or in any
non-Christian belief, they would RUN to the media to talk about it to try
and make their position that much more "true"!
Post by Brian J Dawson
Recently it was reported that the pope performed an
excorcism and it only partially took! Perphaps this is a sign that there was
a misdiagnosis or that it is a another sign to stop being smug.
Not sure of the point being made here. Exorcisms are not miracles and
really don't relate to the subject.
Post by Brian J Dawson
I was amazed to see trinkets being sold by members of a RCC connected with
ST Mary that where right from the problem list that Martin Luther published
years ago. You know like fragments of the true cross.
Not sure of the point you are trying to make here. Please explain. Thanks
Post by Brian J Dawson
It must be remembered that out of the thousands that visit Lourdes a very
very small amount are cured. But none the less I do not discredit the
shrine.
Number of cures is irrelavant. The fact that cures have continued to
occur at Lourdes repeatedly and that this has happened in NO other place
on earth is significant. Cures of a deadly disease within minutes is
simply astounding and makes the number of them irrelavant. And when
examining the water, scientists claim it is no different than any other
water they've examined!
Post by Brian J Dawson
What I wonder is if both RC, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox all believe that
the Eucharist is the actual presence of Christ then why do we need these
shrines?
Shrines are not "needed", though when signficant miracles occur somewhere,
shrines are created basically "in thanks" to God for what He has done
there, and for a place for people to come and pray and say thanks,
basically. They are not mandatory, they just happen out of respect. People
hope that more cures or other miracles will occur there afterward but that
is insignificant and does not have to happen by any means.

The real presence in the Eucharist is proven my Eucharistic miracles.
Again undeniable miracles have been witnessed and studied vigorously
relating to Eucharistic miracles over the centuries with no answers, and
other beliefs do not experience these "signs". There are several
fascinating books on Eucharistic miracles and their studies alone.
Post by Brian J Dawson
Granted that comes from my own prejudice as the healing I
experienced as a boy came when the priest raised the chalace and host with
the word "oh Father Almighty - World Without End".
I have always believed that this was the vision of Christ that our world was
Sacred and that he was reveiling himself in it. So why all these bandades?
Why these constrant praying to saints and Lourdes is even more extreme.
Not sure of where you are going here. All I can say is Jesus arrives as
the Messiah and proves to us who He is by miracles. Then His Saints
perform miracles just as astounding and unexplainable, then other
miracles happen at other sites where this "lady" appears (The Virgin Mary
obviously). Here we have miracles being performed by multiple entities
all believing in the same doctrine. Though clearly Jesus is the only one
who is actually God so only He can be worshipped. Yet the Saints and Mary
we do not want to completely ignore due to their involvement, teachings,
guidance and miracles, so they are simply VENERATED. They are prayed to as
intercessors as you said, but nothing else. An analogy: You can give an
apple to the king (Jesus), but even better, you can give that same apple
to an intercessor who shines it up, places it on a silver platter and
delivers it for you, which makes the request that much more pleasing to
the king.
Post by Brian J Dawson
We
have a saint being an intercessor to Mary to be an Intercessor to Christ.
Sounds very ROMAN to me. That is old roman style religion. But again I don't
doubt the sincerity of the staff that runs the shrine and that miracles do
occur. I would just like to see another miracle come from the RCC - That of
not being so smug and elitist.
There are already PLENTY of documented miracles that have occurred, and
you're asking for more? You should read about the existing ones first
then you won't need to ask for more. There is nothing smug about these
miracles, it's God who sends the miracles! God chooses where His miracles
occur, and if He just happens to send them in relation to the Catholic
Church, it is not the Church's fault and they are not being smug! They
have no control over it. Rather, as this has happened REPEATEDLY over the
centuries, this is a sign for all of us and we need to ask ourselves why?
The answer is evident.
Priscilla Ballou
2004-09-19 22:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
Post by Brian J Dawson
Joesph,
First let me state that I do not doubt that Lourdes is a source of Miracles.
I just deny that the RCC is the only source.
If you look in detail at the happenings at Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe etc,
this "lady" that appeared in each instance stated things PERFECTLY in line
with Catholic doctrine and ONLY in line with that doctrine. What else can
we say here?
The "happenings" were experienced by Roman Catholics. How else would
they exerience them but as they'd been trained to expect things like
that to occur?

Priscilla
Joseph
2004-09-20 03:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Priscilla Ballou
The "happenings" were experienced by Roman Catholics. How else would
they exerience them but as they'd been trained to expect things like
that to occur?
Priscilla
Look at Fatima in 1917. 3 months beforehand 3 children said publicly a
"lady" came and told them a miracle would occur 3 months later to "make
the people believe" of her coming with a message for the children. People
all over Europe get wind of this prophecy the children were claiming, and
70,000 show up at the location 3 months later. These people were of all
different beliefs, spoke different lanuguages, and didn't know each other.
Yet all interviewed, regardless of belief (including atheists) agreed that
the miracle occurred. Newspaper articles the following day attest to this.
Go look at them. Tons of non-Catholics were involved here.

Same with Lourdes. Same with those who have studied and researched the
incorrupt bodies of Saints over the years. So many non-Catholics have been
involved. Obviously others would love to discredit these things, but they
haven't been able to.
Priscilla H Ballou
2004-09-20 21:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
Post by Priscilla Ballou
The "happenings" were experienced by Roman Catholics. How else would
they exerience them but as they'd been trained to expect things like
that to occur?
Look at Fatima in 1917. 3 months beforehand 3 children said publicly a
"lady" came and told them a miracle would occur 3 months later to "make
the people believe" of her coming with a message for the children. People
all over Europe get wind of this prophecy the children were claiming, and
70,000 show up at the location 3 months later. These people were of all
different beliefs, spoke different lanuguages, and didn't know each other.
Yet all interviewed, regardless of belief (including atheists) agreed that
the miracle occurred. Newspaper articles the following day attest to this.
Go look at them. Tons of non-Catholics were involved here.
Same with Lourdes. Same with those who have studied and researched the
incorrupt bodies of Saints over the years. So many non-Catholics have been
involved. Obviously others would love to discredit these things, but they
haven't been able to.
Lots of folks firmly believe they've been abducted by aliens, too. The
human mind is a fascinating thing.

Priscilla
Warren Eckels
2004-09-18 05:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
Thoughts?
We all chose Jesus as our savior not only because of the words He used and
what He taught us, but mainly due to his miracles and prophecy. If Jesus
did not perform miracles, then He would simply be labeled another prophet
in the crowd and Christianity would not exist.
Actually, some of the other "prophets in the crowd" claimed miracles
and wonders as well -- and not all of the miracle-workers were
connected with YHWH. If considered for miracles alone, Jesus would
barely be worth mentioning.
Post by Joseph
Having said that we can agree that miracles are a primary factor in us
believing Jesus is truly God, since no man can possibly perform the
miracles Jesus performed. If I spoke EXACTLY like Jesus to a crowd of
people, how could you easily tell me apart from Jesus as our TRUE savior?
By miracles of course.
I'd look for the nailprints in your hand (or wrist).
Post by Joseph
So looking at the above, my question for the group is, why is it that ONLY
the Catholic church experiences extraordinary signs such as it's Saints
which have clearly performed extraordinary 'signs' on countless occasions.
If the saints lived before about 1520, they are part of our tradition.
Post by Joseph
There are also the incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints having been dead
for centuries and never embalmed, yet remain incorrupt, flexible, with
flowing blood and pleasant smelling after being exhumed, many still on
display in Europe. There are also 'signs' in the Catholic church such as
eucharistic miracles, miraculous healings at Lourdes, the Miracle of
Fatima etc etc. ALL of these miracles or 'signs' just mentioned have been
studied for centuries by believers and non-believers alike, and all cannot
be explained. Why ONLY in the Catholic church??
Perhaps Anglicans are not in the habit of digging up our dead, cutting
them into pieces and sending them hither and thither. We don't look
as hard, so we don't find them. And if we did find them, we would
probably call for a soil analysis. Seek not, and ye shall not find.

Please note that belief in Fatima, Lourdes, the liquefication of St.
Januarius' blood in Naples when they display it and the Virgin at
Guadalupe are not required by the Roman Catholic Church. They are not
forbidden by the Episcopalian Church.
Post by Joseph
Could it be any clearer to Protestant denominations that miracles are not
performed for them due to their unbelief (Matt 13) and that signs have not
followed them because of their beliefs (Mark16)?
The problem with that argument is that there are many Episcopalians
who believe that they have been recipients of a miracle. Pentecostals
are Protestant, yet are no slackers in claiming that miracles take
place. (Don't get me started on the snake-handlers, many of whom do
actually get bitten.)
Post by Joseph
It's time to stop looking the other way when you hear about thoroughly
investigated and publicly documented miracles, and take a look at the
facts presented. If you are SO positive that your beliefs are correct,
then you should not be the least bit afraid to look at all of the
miraculous happenings that have been going on throughout the last 2000
years. Or instead you can cleverly choose which rocks you want to leave
unturned. I know I am not going to be one of the ones who has to answer to
God on Judgement Day about ignoring the 'signs' He clearly said would be
presented to us in scripture (Mark16:17).
Miracles are impressive, but not sufficient for faith. Jesus had no
monopoly on them, and neither do the forces of good. From the Book of
Revelation:

13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,
and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the
first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down
from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of]
those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast;
saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image
to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

While Jesus' miracles are excellent and reasonably sane Episcopalians
often claim to have been favored by a miracle, my guess is that
Christianity grew for other reasons.

Christianity's appeal to subjects in the Roman Empire is discussed in
this PBS link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html

Rodney Stark, author of "The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist
Reconsiders History", mentions several Christian practices that
improved Christian survival and recruitment.

Christians did better on the demographic front. Christians did not
abandon their infant daughters. They disapproved of abortion, which
back then presented great risks to mothers as well as the unborn.
Child sacrifice was out. Christians supported their widows instead of
turning them out to beg. In times of distress, Christians shared
food; this meant that Christians survived famines more readily than
pagans.

Christianity (as well as Judaism), offered Christians a full share in
humanity. In the Roman Empire, most people were not considered
fully human. Slaves (50% of the population in Rome) were chattel.
Slave ancestry condemned you in the way that a quantity of "Negro
blood" condemned you in 1926 Alabama. Women (50% of the population
everywhere!) were chattel, subject to being beaten or divorced at will
by husbands. Men could bed whomever they pleased, while women had to
content themselves with their husband (who'd be screwing everything
else that moved). Non-citizens could be scourged upon denunciation or
ordered to carry heavy loads for a citizen for a mile. Instead of
telling the oppressed of society that the Gods ordained lesser status,
Christianity claimed that every Christian was a "royal priesthood",
inherently equal to their husbands, fathers-in-law and Emperors.

Strangely, even Roman persecutions helped the faith in general.
Christians going singing to their death typified Roman "family values"
far better than Roman practices, convincing pagans that Christians had
the Truth. Also, since emperors often contented themselves with
lopping off the most "prominent" Christians, the laity was often left
alone.

With virtues like these in such a milieu, Christ's miracles are almost
superfluous. Yet as Jews praise God at Passover with a litany of "it
would have been enough had the LORD done G, but he did H as well",
Christians can give thanks to God for all the miracles He has
performed.
Joseph
2004-09-19 03:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
We all chose Jesus as our savior not only because of the words He used and
what He taught us, but mainly due to his miracles and prophecy. If Jesus
did not perform miracles, then He would simply be labeled another prophet
in the crowd and Christianity would not exist.
Actually, some of the other "prophets in the crowd" claimed miracles
and wonders as well -- and not all of the miracle-workers were
connected with YHWH. If considered for miracles alone, Jesus would
barely be worth mentioning.
Yes, before rthe days of Jesus, Moses and others had performed miracles as
they were chosen by God to give guidance to the people as they were
awaiting the Messiah to come. Once Jesus arrived and said that
Christianity would REPLACE the Laws of Moses, from then one, only the
Catholic church has experienced miracles. In this thread I am referring to
Jesus and His successors when referring to the signs (miracles) that have
occurred throughout the centuries. If you truly feel there have been
significant, undeniable, unfakable miracles associated with non-Catholic
religions after the time of Jesus, then please post them.
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
Having said that we can agree that miracles are a primary factor in us
believing Jesus is truly God, since no man can possibly perform the
miracles Jesus performed. If I spoke EXACTLY like Jesus to a crowd of
people, how could you easily tell me apart from Jesus as our TRUE savior?
By miracles of course.
I'd look for the nailprints in your hand (or wrist).
??????
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
So looking at the above, my question for the group is, why is it that ONLY
the Catholic church experiences extraordinary signs such as it's Saints
which have clearly performed extraordinary 'signs' on countless occasions.
If the saints lived before about 1520, they are part of our tradition.
Please explain, I don't understand your point.
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
There are also the incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints having been dead
for centuries and never embalmed, yet remain incorrupt, flexible, with
flowing blood and pleasant smelling after being exhumed, many still on
display in Europe. There are also 'signs' in the Catholic church such as
eucharistic miracles, miraculous healings at Lourdes, the Miracle of
Fatima etc etc. ALL of these miracles or 'signs' just mentioned have been
studied for centuries by believers and non-believers alike, and all cannot
be explained. Why ONLY in the Catholic church??
Perhaps Anglicans are not in the habit of digging up our dead, cutting
them into pieces and sending them hither and thither. We don't look
as hard, so we don't find them. And if we did find them, we would
probably call for a soil analysis. Seek not, and ye shall not find.
Originally bodies were discovered accidentally during digs for other
purposes. That is when incorrupt bodies of Saints were first discovered in
the early AD centuries. In all instances where incorrupt bodies of Saints
were accidentally discovered, not only was it a miracle that the bodies
were incorrupt, flexible, lifelike, sweetly scented etc, but miracles were
always occurring with those who came into contact with the remains. Read
historical books on the lives of the Saints and "incorruptables" and you
will see this was the case. Once this started occurring and all noticed
that in EVERY instance it was a devout Catholic involved, the people
realized this was one of the "signs" from God for those who believe.
Thereafter when a known devout Catholic had been dead for a number of
years, they started exhuming these bodies looking for these signs going
forward. So this was all accidental initially. Funny how the incorrupt
body phenomena started after the time of Jesus! Look it up and you shall
see. It is simply fascinating.
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
Could it be any clearer to Protestant denominations that miracles are not
performed for them due to their unbelief (Matt 13) and that signs have not
followed them because of their beliefs (Mark16)?
The problem with that argument is that there are many Episcopalians
who believe that they have been recipients of a miracle. Pentecostals
are Protestant, yet are no slackers in claiming that miracles take
place. (Don't get me started on the snake-handlers, many of whom do
actually get bitten.)
Sure, these are "personal" miracles, and they do occur. I have known of a
few firsthand. God apparently allows these to happen to us personally.
Though notice these are personal, easily deniable and not astounding like
the miracles I refer to. Lourdes, Fatima, Incorruptables, actions of the
Saints etc simply cannot compare. My question is why are these signficant
miracles not seen elsewhere?
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
It's time to stop looking the other way when you hear about thoroughly
investigated and publicly documented miracles, and take a look at the
facts presented. If you are SO positive that your beliefs are correct,
then you should not be the least bit afraid to look at all of the
miraculous happenings that have been going on throughout the last 2000
years. Or instead you can cleverly choose which rocks you want to leave
unturned. I know I am not going to be one of the ones who has to answer
to God on Judgement Day about ignoring the 'signs' He clearly said
would be presented to us in scripture (Mark16:17).
Miracles are impressive, but not sufficient for faith. Jesus had no
monopoly on them, and neither do the forces of good. From the Book of
13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and
causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first
beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from
heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those
miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to
them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the
beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
While Jesus' miracles are excellent and reasonably sane Episcopalians
often claim to have been favored by a miracle, my guess is that
Christianity grew for other reasons.
Christianity's appeal to subjects in the Roman Empire is discussed in
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html
Rodney Stark, author of "The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist
Reconsiders History", mentions several Christian practices that improved
Christian survival and recruitment.
Christians did better on the demographic front. Christians did not
abandon their infant daughters. They disapproved of abortion, which
back then presented great risks to mothers as well as the unborn. Child
sacrifice was out. Christians supported their widows instead of turning
them out to beg. In times of distress, Christians shared food; this
meant that Christians survived famines more readily than pagans.
Christianity (as well as Judaism), offered Christians a full share in
humanity. In the Roman Empire, most people were not considered fully
human. Slaves (50% of the population in Rome) were chattel. Slave
ancestry condemned you in the way that a quantity of "Negro blood"
condemned you in 1926 Alabama. Women (50% of the population
everywhere!) were chattel, subject to being beaten or divorced at will
by husbands. Men could bed whomever they pleased, while women had to
content themselves with their husband (who'd be screwing everything else
that moved). Non-citizens could be scourged upon denunciation or
ordered to carry heavy loads for a citizen for a mile. Instead of
telling the oppressed of society that the Gods ordained lesser status,
Christianity claimed that every Christian was a "royal priesthood",
inherently equal to their husbands, fathers-in-law and Emperors.
Strangely, even Roman persecutions helped the faith in general.
Christians going singing to their death typified Roman "family values"
far better than Roman practices, convincing pagans that Christians had
the Truth. Also, since emperors often contented themselves with lopping
off the most "prominent" Christians, the laity was often left alone.
Thanks for the history lesson, though I still do not see this answering
the question of why the signficant miracles I mention above are not seen
in other "religions" or beliefs, or why are there not at least happenings
as astounding elsewhere? God performs or "allows" miracles for a reason.
So why would He choose to do the most astounding ones all in relation to
one church, the Catholic church? One cannot pass through this life without
asking themselves that question very seriously. You can think whatever you
want of miracles, they are important, unimportant etc etc, but the fact is
they HAVE been occurring over the centuries and the BIG undeniable,
astounding ones have ONLY occurred in relation to the Catholic church.
Post by Warren Eckels
With virtues like these in such a milieu, Christ's miracles are almost
superfluous. Yet as Jews praise God at Passover with a litany of "it
would have been enough had the LORD done G, but he did H as well",
Christians can give thanks to God for all the miracles He has performed.
Elbert Wall
2004-09-19 07:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Joseph wrote:

...
Post by Joseph
Originally bodies were discovered accidentally during digs for other
purposes. That is when incorrupt bodies of Saints were first discovered in
the early AD centuries. In all instances where incorrupt bodies of Saints
were accidentally discovered, not only was it a miracle that the bodies
were incorrupt, flexible, lifelike, sweetly scented etc, but miracles were
always occurring with those who came into contact with the remains. Read
historical books on the lives of the Saints and "incorruptables" and you
will see this was the case. Once this started occurring and all noticed
that in EVERY instance it was a devout Catholic involved, the people
realized this was one of the "signs" from God for those who believe.
Thereafter when a known devout Catholic had been dead for a number of
years, they started exhuming these bodies looking for these signs going
forward. So this was all accidental initially. Funny how the incorrupt
body phenomena started after the time of Jesus! Look it up and you shall
see. It is simply fascinating.
And what is the ancient documentation for this? We are all aware that
the RCC has cooked up tons of such rubbish for the consumption of their
followers.

Actually, you are mistaken. If you will read Ovid's Metamorphoses,
you'll find scads of miracles. You, of course, being a non-believer in
Apollo and Venus and the like, will call them "fairy tales." This is a
compliment that non-Christians pay to our own miracles from the NT.
Post by Joseph
Sure, these are "personal" miracles, and they do occur. I have known of a
few firsthand.
OK, fill us in.
Post by Joseph
God apparently allows these to happen to us personally.
Though notice these are personal, easily deniable and not astounding like
the miracles I refer to. Lourdes, Fatima, Incorruptables, actions of the
Saints etc simply cannot compare. My question is why are these signficant
miracles not seen elsewhere?
Not all of us are taken in by the stories of Lourdes and Fatima and the
rest. Perhaps you can persuade us with your own miracles.
--
Sometimes the mustard seed is all there is.
Joseph
2004-09-20 03:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elbert Wall
...
Post by Joseph
Originally bodies were discovered accidentally during digs for other
purposes. That is when incorrupt bodies of Saints were first discovered in
the early AD centuries. In all instances where incorrupt bodies of Saints
were accidentally discovered, not only was it a miracle that the bodies
were incorrupt, flexible, lifelike, sweetly scented etc, but miracles were
always occurring with those who came into contact with the remains. Read
historical books on the lives of the Saints and "incorruptables" and you
will see this was the case. Once this started occurring and all noticed
that in EVERY instance it was a devout Catholic involved, the people
realized this was one of the "signs" from God for those who believe.
Thereafter when a known devout Catholic had been dead for a number of
years, they started exhuming these bodies looking for these signs going
forward. So this was all accidental initially. Funny how the incorrupt
body phenomena started after the time of Jesus! Look it up and you shall
see. It is simply fascinating.
And what is the ancient documentation for this? We are all aware that
the RCC has cooked up tons of such rubbish for the consumption of their
followers.
Actually, you are mistaken. If you will read Ovid's Metamorphoses,
you'll find scads of miracles. You, of course, being a non-believer in
Apollo and Venus and the like, will call them "fairy tales." This is a
compliment that non-Christians pay to our own miracles from the NT.
They simply are fairy tales, with no reliable documentation or research to
back them up.
Post by Elbert Wall
Post by Joseph
Sure, these are "personal" miracles, and they do occur. I have known of a
few firsthand.
OK, fill us in.
Post by Joseph
God apparently allows these to happen to us personally.
Though notice these are personal, easily deniable and not astounding like
the miracles I refer to. Lourdes, Fatima, Incorruptables, actions of the
Saints etc simply cannot compare. My question is why are these signficant
miracles not seen elsewhere?
Not all of us are taken in by the stories of Lourdes and Fatima and the
rest. Perhaps you can persuade us with your own miracles.
There were 70,000 witnesses at the site in Fatima, Portugal, including
many atheists and other "non-believers" who came to laugh at the incident
which was foretold to happen there 3 months before. After the incident
with the sun there, all eyewitnesses agreed, including the atheists and
other non-believers, that the miracle with the sun truly occurred. The
incident was covered in full in Fatima newspapers in the days following
the miracle, and there are tons of documented interviews. The newspapaer
articles are available on the Internet and in Fatima. Is 70,000 witnesses
not enough for you? Go ahead and present just a FEW witnesses in any
court of law and it is enough to sway a jury in any particular case. But
thousands? Are you REALLY going to NOT believe thousands of witnesses?
Elbert Wall
2004-09-20 14:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
There were 70,000 witnesses at the site in Fatima, Portugal, including
many atheists and other "non-believers" who came to laugh at the incident
which was foretold to happen there 3 months before. After the incident
with the sun there, all eyewitnesses agreed, including the atheists and
other non-believers, that the miracle with the sun truly occurred. The
incident was covered in full in Fatima newspapers in the days following
the miracle, and there are tons of documented interviews. The newspapaer
articles are available on the Internet and in Fatima. Is 70,000 witnesses
not enough for you? Go ahead and present just a FEW witnesses in any
court of law and it is enough to sway a jury in any particular case. But
thousands? Are you REALLY going to NOT believe thousands of witnesses?
What exactly was the miracle of the sun? And how about your own miracle(s)?
--
Sometimes the mustard seed is all there is.
Joseph
2004-09-27 03:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elbert Wall
Post by Joseph
There were 70,000 witnesses at the site in Fatima, Portugal, including
many atheists and other "non-believers" who came to laugh at the incident
which was foretold to happen there 3 months before. After the incident
with the sun there, all eyewitnesses agreed, including the atheists and
other non-believers, that the miracle with the sun truly occurred. The
incident was covered in full in Fatima newspapers in the days following
the miracle, and there are tons of documented interviews. The newspapaer
articles are available on the Internet and in Fatima. Is 70,000 witnesses
not enough for you? Go ahead and present just a FEW witnesses in any
court of law and it is enough to sway a jury in any particular case. But
thousands? Are you REALLY going to NOT believe thousands of witnesses?
What exactly was the miracle of the sun? And how about your own miracle(s)?
Do a Google search, the Internet is consumed with PLENTY of data on the
miracle of Fatima. It was foretold 3 months in advance to the
exact time and location (impossible for any person to do) and the sun did
something that day never seen before or since, never mind the drying of
the scene from soaking wet and muddy to completely dry within minutes.
Priscilla H Ballou
2004-09-20 21:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
There were 70,000 witnesses at the site in Fatima, Portugal, including
many atheists and other "non-believers" who came to laugh at the incident
which was foretold to happen there 3 months before. After the incident
with the sun there, all eyewitnesses agreed, including the atheists and
other non-believers, that the miracle with the sun truly occurred. The
incident was covered in full in Fatima newspapers in the days following
the miracle, and there are tons of documented interviews. The newspapaer
articles are available on the Internet and in Fatima. Is 70,000 witnesses
not enough for you? Go ahead and present just a FEW witnesses in any
court of law and it is enough to sway a jury in any particular case. But
thousands? Are you REALLY going to NOT believe thousands of witnesses?
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Got any forensics?

Priscilla
Joseph
2004-09-27 03:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Priscilla H Ballou
Post by Joseph
There were 70,000 witnesses at the site in Fatima, Portugal, including
many atheists and other "non-believers" who came to laugh at the
incident which was foretold to happen there 3 months before. After the
incident with the sun there, all eyewitnesses agreed, including the
atheists and other non-believers, that the miracle with the sun truly
occurred. The incident was covered in full in Fatima newspapers in the
days following the miracle, and there are tons of documented interviews.
The newspapaer articles are available on the Internet and in Fatima. Is
70,000 witnesses not enough for you? Go ahead and present just a FEW
witnesses in any court of law and it is enough to sway a jury in any
particular case. But thousands? Are you REALLY going to NOT believe
thousands of witnesses?
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
But THOUSANDS of eyewitnesses, all who don't know each other, speak
different languages and have different beliefs? Why have they all agreed
that the same thing happened at Fatima that day? People who don't know
each other and have different beliefs have no reason to lie, and clearly
could all not have hallucinated the same thing!
Post by Priscilla H Ballou
Got any forensics?
It was raining heavily there that day and all stood in the rain and mud
awaiting the miracle. When it occurred, all screamed for their lives and
the heat was intense from the sun as it appeared to swirl and hurl toward
the earth. When over, the dirt, trees and peoples clothes were ALL
completely dry. Never has this phenomena been seen before or since, and
all there also attested to this happening.
Elbert Wall
2004-09-27 17:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Joseph wrote:
...
Post by Joseph
It was raining heavily there that day and all stood in the rain and mud
awaiting the miracle. When it occurred, all screamed for their lives and
the heat was intense from the sun as it appeared to swirl and hurl toward
the earth. When over, the dirt, trees and peoples clothes were ALL
completely dry. Never has this phenomena been seen before or since, and
all there also attested to this happening.
Can you tell us what newspapers/magazines, beyond those controlled by
the Catholic Church, carried the reports? And what about the miracles
that you say you have witnessed personally? We'd like to hear about them.
--
Sometimes the mustard seed is all there is.
Joseph
2004-10-01 02:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elbert Wall
...
Post by Joseph
It was raining heavily there that day and all stood in the rain and mud
awaiting the miracle. When it occurred, all screamed for their lives and
the heat was intense from the sun as it appeared to swirl and hurl toward
the earth. When over, the dirt, trees and peoples clothes were ALL
completely dry. Never has this phenomena been seen before or since, and
all there also attested to this happening.
Can you tell us what newspapers/magazines, beyond those controlled by
the Catholic Church, carried the reports? And what about the miracles
that you say you have witnessed personally? We'd like to hear about them.
Some of the newspapers in Fatima, Portugal that published the story the
day following the miracle at Fatima are the O Seculo and the O Day. I
believe they were secular newspapers as well. The articles were filled
with interviews from people there. Here is link that shows some of the
articles. The full articles are online and the actual newspapers are still
available in Portugal as well.

One link:
http://www.overcomeproblems.com/fatima.htm

As for miracles I've witnessed, I have not witnessed any significant
miracles such as what Jesus and His Saints have been known to perform.
Just like many people, I have personally known other credible people who
have witnessed their own personal miracles. They are hardly worth
reviewing. But one example is, someone I know was at the beach on a quiet
day, watching her baby daughter from about 20 feet away playing in the
waves. Her baby fell under, and the woman ran to get her child (who could
not come up from under the water). As she ran across the beach a man
picked the child up out of the waves, then handed the child to the woman
once she got there. She cried and held her child for a minute. Then she
looked around to thank the man and he was NO where on the entire beach
(the beach was empty that day). Most people in that situation would
stay for a minute to be sure the child was OK. Even if he decided to
leave immediately, it was too far to disappear in that amount of time.
This was not definitely a miracle, but sure seemed miraculous! We always
wondered if God allowed an appearance of a guardian angel at that moment.
I heard a similar story from another person I know well and it gave me
goosebumps.....Anyway, only God knows for sure what really happened.
Elbert Wall
2004-10-01 17:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
Some of the newspapers in Fatima, Portugal that published the story the
day following the miracle at Fatima are the O Seculo and the O Day. I
believe they were secular newspapers as well. The articles were filled
with interviews from people there. Here is link that shows some of the
articles. The full articles are online and the actual newspapers are still
available in Portugal as well.
http://www.overcomeproblems.com/fatima.htm
As for miracles I've witnessed, I have not witnessed any significant
miracles such as what Jesus and His Saints have been known to perform.
Just like many people, I have personally known other credible people who
have witnessed their own personal miracles. They are hardly worth
reviewing. But one example is, someone I know was at the beach on a quiet
day, watching her baby daughter from about 20 feet away playing in the
waves. Her baby fell under, and the woman ran to get her child (who could
not come up from under the water). As she ran across the beach a man
picked the child up out of the waves, then handed the child to the woman
once she got there. She cried and held her child for a minute. Then she
looked around to thank the man and he was NO where on the entire beach
(the beach was empty that day). Most people in that situation would
stay for a minute to be sure the child was OK. Even if he decided to
leave immediately, it was too far to disappear in that amount of time.
This was not definitely a miracle, but sure seemed miraculous! We always
wondered if God allowed an appearance of a guardian angel at that moment.
I heard a similar story from another person I know well and it gave me
goosebumps.....Anyway, only God knows for sure what really happened.
Thanks for the link. I'll try to scare up the original Portuguese.
--
Sometimes the mustard seed is all there is.
Warren Eckels
2004-09-22 03:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
Post by Warren Eckels
I'd look for the nailprints in your hand (or wrist).
??????
That's how I would tell between a person saying Jesus' words and Jesus
Himself. That option was not available before the Crucifixion.
Counting miracles would not have been a valid guide -- some people in
Iraq firmly believe that St. John the Baptist was the Messiah and some
of Jesus' non-Jewish contemporaries believed that Augustus Caesar
raised the dead.

Beyond that, I would look to the behavior of his followers, and all
indications are that they the early Christians lived with integrity in
peace, love and plenty.
Post by Joseph
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
So looking at the above, my question for the group is, why is it that ONLY
the Catholic church experiences extraordinary signs such as it's Saints
which have clearly performed extraordinary 'signs' on countless occasions.
If the saints lived before about 1520, they are part of our tradition.
Please explain, I don't understand your point.
The Anglican faith split off from the Roman Catholic faith during the
16th Century when the Pope refused to annul the marriage of King Henry
VIII and Catherine of Aragon. We don't keep as exact a record as the
Roman Catholic Church, but we share many of the same saints. There's
even an Episcopal parish in Crown Point, Indiana named after St.
Christopher -- whose existence has been called into question by
nondissenting Catholic theologians. If you want to find hymns to the
saints, ECUSA's "The Hymnal 1982" offers a better selection than most
of the Catholic hymnals published after Vatican II.
Post by Joseph
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
There are also the incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints having been dead
for centuries and never embalmed, yet remain incorrupt, flexible, with
flowing blood and pleasant smelling after being exhumed, many still on
display in Europe. There are also 'signs' in the Catholic church such as
eucharistic miracles, miraculous healings at Lourdes, the Miracle of
Fatima etc etc. ALL of these miracles or 'signs' just mentioned have been
studied for centuries by believers and non-believers alike, and all cannot
be explained. Why ONLY in the Catholic church??
Perhaps Anglicans are not in the habit of digging up our dead, cutting
them into pieces and sending them hither and thither. We don't look
as hard, so we don't find them. And if we did find them, we would
probably call for a soil analysis. Seek not, and ye shall not find.
Originally bodies were discovered accidentally during digs for other
purposes. That is when incorrupt bodies of Saints were first discovered in
the early AD centuries. In all instances where incorrupt bodies of Saints
were accidentally discovered, not only was it a miracle that the bodies
were incorrupt, flexible, lifelike, sweetly scented etc, but miracles were
always occurring with those who came into contact with the remains. Read
historical books on the lives of the Saints and "incorruptables" and you
will see this was the case. Once this started occurring and all noticed
that in EVERY instance it was a devout Catholic involved, the people
realized this was one of the "signs" from God for those who believe.
Thereafter when a known devout Catholic had been dead for a number of
years, they started exhuming these bodies looking for these signs going
forward. So this was all accidental initially. Funny how the incorrupt
body phenomena started after the time of Jesus! Look it up and you shall
see. It is simply fascinating.
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
Could it be any clearer to Protestant denominations that miracles are not
performed for them due to their unbelief (Matt 13) and that signs have not
followed them because of their beliefs (Mark16)?
The problem with that argument is that there are many Episcopalians
who believe that they have been recipients of a miracle. Pentecostals
are Protestant, yet are no slackers in claiming that miracles take
place. (Don't get me started on the snake-handlers, many of whom do
actually get bitten.)
Sure, these are "personal" miracles, and they do occur. I have known of a
few firsthand. God apparently allows these to happen to us personally.
Though notice these are personal, easily deniable and not astounding like
the miracles I refer to. Lourdes, Fatima, Incorruptables, actions of the
Saints etc simply cannot compare. My question is why are these signficant
miracles not seen elsewhere?
Outside the feeding of the multitudes in the Gospels and God declaring
that he was "well pleased" with his Son after He was baptized, all of
Jesus' miracles were personal as well.
Post by Joseph
Thanks for the history lesson, though I still do not see this answering
the question of why the signficant miracles I mention above are not seen
in other "religions" or beliefs, or why are there not at least happenings
as astounding elsewhere? God performs or "allows" miracles for a reason.
So why would He choose to do the most astounding ones all in relation to
one church, the Catholic church? One cannot pass through this life without
asking themselves that question very seriously. You can think whatever you
want of miracles, they are important, unimportant etc etc, but the fact is
they HAVE been occurring over the centuries and the BIG undeniable,
astounding ones have ONLY occurred in relation to the Catholic church.
I guess my argument is one of sample size and an anti-miracle bias
among Protestants. Anglicans suffered from two centuries of
deliberate overreaction to Catholic claims until the Oxford Movement,
much to the detriment of miracles. If Anglicans were unreceptive,
other Protestants were hostile, at least until the Azusa movement
during the early 20th Century (which developed into Charismatic and
Pentecostal movements). Simply, had God favored Protestants between
1550 and 1910 with a dancing Sun or a miraculous fount, Protestants
would have tried their hardest not to notice or would have credited
Satan.
Joseph
2004-09-27 03:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
Post by Warren Eckels
I'd look for the nailprints in your hand (or wrist).
??????
That's how I would tell between a person saying Jesus' words and Jesus
Himself. That option was not available before the Crucifixion. Counting
miracles would not have been a valid guide -- some people in Iraq firmly
believe that St. John the Baptist was the Messiah and some of Jesus'
non-Jewish contemporaries believed that Augustus Caesar raised the dead.
Beyond that, I would look to the behavior of his followers, and all
indications are that they the early Christians lived with integrity in
peace, love and plenty.
Post by Joseph
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
So looking at the above, my question for the group is, why is it
that ONLY the Catholic church experiences extraordinary signs such
as it's Saints which have clearly performed extraordinary 'signs' on
countless occasions.
If the saints lived before about 1520, they are part of our
tradition.
Please explain, I don't understand your point.
The Anglican faith split off from the Roman Catholic faith during the
16th Century when the Pope refused to annul the marriage of King Henry
VIII and Catherine of Aragon. We don't keep as exact a record as the
Roman Catholic Church, but we share many of the same saints. There's
even an Episcopal parish in Crown Point, Indiana named after St.
Christopher -- whose existence has been called into question by
nondissenting Catholic theologians. If you want to find hymns to the
saints, ECUSA's "The Hymnal 1982" offers a better selection than most of
the Catholic hymnals published after Vatican II.
Post by Joseph
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
There are also the incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints having been
dead for centuries and never embalmed, yet remain incorrupt,
flexible, with flowing blood and pleasant smelling after being
exhumed, many still on display in Europe. There are also 'signs' in
the Catholic church such as eucharistic miracles, miraculous
healings at Lourdes, the Miracle of Fatima etc etc. ALL of these
miracles or 'signs' just mentioned have been studied for centuries
by believers and non-believers alike, and all cannot be explained.
Why ONLY in the Catholic church??
Perhaps Anglicans are not in the habit of digging up our dead,
cutting them into pieces and sending them hither and thither. We
don't look as hard, so we don't find them. And if we did find them,
we would probably call for a soil analysis. Seek not, and ye shall
not find.
Originally bodies were discovered accidentally during digs for other
purposes. That is when incorrupt bodies of Saints were first discovered
in the early AD centuries. In all instances where incorrupt bodies of
Saints were accidentally discovered, not only was it a miracle that the
bodies were incorrupt, flexible, lifelike, sweetly scented etc, but
miracles were always occurring with those who came into contact with
the remains. Read historical books on the lives of the Saints and
"incorruptables" and you will see this was the case. Once this started
occurring and all noticed that in EVERY instance it was a devout
Catholic involved, the people realized this was one of the "signs" from
God for those who believe. Thereafter when a known devout Catholic had
been dead for a number of years, they started exhuming these bodies
looking for these signs going forward. So this was all accidental
initially. Funny how the incorrupt body phenomena started after the
time of Jesus! Look it up and you shall see. It is simply fascinating.
Post by Warren Eckels
Post by Joseph
Could it be any clearer to Protestant denominations that miracles
are not performed for them due to their unbelief (Matt 13) and that
signs have not followed them because of their beliefs (Mark16)?
The problem with that argument is that there are many Episcopalians
who believe that they have been recipients of a miracle.
Pentecostals are Protestant, yet are no slackers in claiming that
miracles take place. (Don't get me started on the snake-handlers,
many of whom do actually get bitten.)
Sure, these are "personal" miracles, and they do occur. I have known of
a few firsthand. God apparently allows these to happen to us
personally. Though notice these are personal, easily deniable and not
astounding like the miracles I refer to. Lourdes, Fatima,
Incorruptables, actions of the Saints etc simply cannot compare. My
question is why are these signficant miracles not seen elsewhere?
Outside the feeding of the multitudes in the Gospels and God declaring
that he was "well pleased" with his Son after He was baptized, all of
Jesus' miracles were personal as well.
Post by Joseph
Thanks for the history lesson, though I still do not see this answering
the question of why the signficant miracles I mention above are not
seen in other "religions" or beliefs, or why are there not at least
happenings as astounding elsewhere? God performs or "allows" miracles
for a reason. So why would He choose to do the most astounding ones all
in relation to one church, the Catholic church? One cannot pass through
this life without asking themselves that question very seriously. You
can think whatever you want of miracles, they are important,
unimportant etc etc, but the fact is they HAVE been occurring over the
centuries and the BIG undeniable, astounding ones have ONLY occurred in
relation to the Catholic church.
I guess my argument is one of sample size and an anti-miracle bias among
Protestants. Anglicans suffered from two centuries of deliberate
overreaction to Catholic claims until the Oxford Movement, much to the
detriment of miracles. If Anglicans were unreceptive, other Protestants
were hostile, at least until the Azusa movement during the early 20th
Century (which developed into Charismatic and Pentecostal movements).
Simply, had God favored Protestants between 1550 and 1910 with a dancing
Sun or a miraculous fount, Protestants would have tried their hardest
not to notice or would have credited Satan.
There were people of all religions and all beliefs at Fatima the day of
the miracle in 1917. They came from all over Europe, including atheists
who came to laugh. With 70,000 there, clearly there were Protestants there
as well. This miracle was performed for EVERYONE. Even the atheists agreed
in interviews published in the newspaper the following day that the
miracle happened (articles are still available). The most interesting
thing about Fatima is 3 children said a "lady" appeared to them, told them
many things (which turned out to be perfectly in line with Catholic
doctrine) and then forecast the miracle that would occur 3 months later.
When the miracle DID occur at the exact time and location 3 months later,
this points back to the intelligence that gave the children the
information on the miracle that would happen. Who was she and how could
she have foretold an incident 3 months in advance when ordinary people
can't even forecast where a hurricane will land a few days in advance? Her
message was in-line with Catholic doctrine so she was obviously not Satan
and obviously wasn't showing favor towards other beliefs.
Sam
2004-09-29 02:57:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:57:58 -0400, Joseph <***@email.com>
wrote:

|>
|>Thoughts?
|>
|>We all chose Jesus as our savior not only because of the words He used

We have no idea what He said. There were no tape recorder,
stenographs, etc. What we have are what was handed down after Christ
died.

|>and
|>what He taught us, but mainly due to his miracles and prophecy.

Maybe some do chose to believe in Christ due to that, but don't assume
everyone or even most do.

|>If Jesus
|>did not perform miracles, then He would simply be labeled another prophet
|>in the crowd and Christianity would not exist.

If all I had to go by was something that happened 2,000 years ago,
then I wouldn't believe either. Christ's miracles didn't happen just
when He walked the earth, but in my life they have happened several
times.

|>Having said that we can agree that miracles are a primary factor in us
|>believing Jesus is truly God, since no man can possibly perform the
|>miracles Jesus performed.

His followers also performed miracles.

Christ is a living God, not someone who left the planet 2,000 years
ago and is out playing golf while His people suffer.
Joseph
2004-10-01 02:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam
|>
|>Thoughts?
|>
|>We all chose Jesus as our savior not only because of the words He used
We have no idea what He said. There were no tape recorder, stenographs,
etc. What we have are what was handed down after Christ died.
Of course we know what He said, it was quoted in scripture.

Most knowledge you and I have attained so far in life has been through the
research and documentation of others. When we were in school, the
information taught to us was learned and researched by someone else. Every
history class we took was from information gathered and handed down to us,
and we accept all of them. Why should we doubt them? It is normal and
acceptable for us to accept them. Same goes for scripture. Oh, but you are
one of the ones that picks and chooses what he wants to accept that was
handed down to fit what you want to believe, right? Why don't we say Abe
Lincoln never existed either while we're at it, because I have no video or
tape recordings of him!
Post by Sam
|>and
|>what He taught us, but mainly due to his miracles and prophecy.
Maybe some do chose to believe in Christ due to that, but don't assume
everyone or even most do.
Oh so even though scripture refers to countless miracles, and other
science books thoroughly cover the incorrupt bodies of Saints, and other
books cover miracles of the Saints, and newspapers have articles which
cover the miracle at Fatima, you don't believe them?
Post by Sam
|>If Jesus
|>did not perform miracles, then He would simply be labeled another
prophet |>in the crowd and Christianity would not exist.
If all I had to go by was something that happened 2,000 years ago, then
I wouldn't believe either. Christ's miracles didn't happen just when He
walked the earth, but in my life they have happened several times.
Look at Fatima in 1917. How can you disbelieve 70,000 witnesses?
Post by Sam
|>Having said that we can agree that miracles are a primary factor in us
|>believing Jesus is truly God, since no man can possibly perform the
|>miracles Jesus performed.
His followers also performed miracles.
Are you referring to Saints? Yes they did.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...