Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then I do think we need to revisit some of those arguments.

Right now I would like to continue to sharpen my sword regarding the Resurrection of Christ. That is my focus, and so far, so good.

Why are you keen to exclude the public from seeing or contributing to the discussion? We can either continue the in a new thread or pick up where we left off in ‘The battle of evolution and creationism’?

Because I don't want to get in to a 5 way discussion with it, which is exactly what will happen.

You must admit it seems terribly convenient that God no longer brings about miracles now we’re in a less superstitious age, with instant communication all over the world and access to medical and scientific knowledge, which would have seemed miraculous to those of the biblical era. The RC Church still records miracles but they’re lightweight compared with nature being controlled and folk jumping out of graves all over the place the way it apparently happened two-thousand years ago.

Jesus told Thomas during his post-mortem appearance "You have seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those who have not seen, and still believe". Modern day Christians are the ones that are blessed, because we have not seen. One of the elements of the Christian faith is in fact....FAITH....and if you are strong in your beliefs in the Christian faith, even if God showed any kind of miracle that will convince the average skeptic, Christians would say "Well, we knew it all the time". Personally, I don't need any miracles from God to convince me that he is as real as reality itself. Don't need it. And many other Christians don't need it as well.

What do you mean ‘And’? You’ve chopped a sentence out of the paragraph; if you reinstate it then I’m sure the relevance will become apparent.

And = so what?

Well of course, but that’s quite beside the point that I’m making, which is that with all those cadavers wandering about it would have had a historical impact that went far beyond those who are disposed to mysticism and religious beliefs.

Then you would be on here attempting to explain away these appearances in the same way you are attempting to explain away the appearances of Christ. Nothing would change. As mentioned previously, there isn't this missing link that you people seem to want to convince yourself with.

But of course it isn’t history, its theology. Scientists and biologists aren’t scratching their heads over the claim and school children don’t learn about The Day the Graves Opened in history discussions.

Maybe because events that are said to have happened in history aren't part of scientific inquiry....and children don't learn about The Day the Graves Opened in the same way they don't learn about "God may of did it" theories.

It’s just a faith based subject

So is evolution and abiogenesis, and these are actually said to be "naturalistic", yet neither one has been proven and both are faith based.

, and a trivial one for believers: a load of dead people hiking their way to the city is irrelevant compared with the Resurrection, the main object of their belief.

If God exists, then dead people rising is not that big of a deal. If God didn't exist, and dead people began to rise...now that would be something.

But from a historical and scientific perspective it is a case of life from non-life, the very thing that theists say cannot happen!

Huh?

So who saw the holy men come into the city; who were the witnesses? And did the holy men remain alive, or did they return to their graves?

The scripture does not say.

I’m not sure. Either they believed it was Jesus, whether or not it was Jesus; or they were complicit in a ruse; or the testimonies of the Evangelists are copies of copies that were enhanced or otherwise not faithfully reproduced.

According to Paul, they certainly believed it. So we have a source that is independent of the Gospels, and even PREDATE the Gospels concerning what the disciples believed. So once again, do you believe that the disciples believed in the Resurrection based on post-mortem appearances?

No, of course I’m not, but that’s how he tells it. And that’s why it looks like fabrication.

Well if he wrote it down at the precise moment that it was happening, one would think he would get more in depth with the story. It doesn't seem to make sense for him to write it down as it was happening, and then skip immediately back to the story of Jesus, all while this was happening right before his eyes.

But that is how it reads.

Yeah...to you...I never even CONSIDERED interpreting it like you did...I guess that is why we have so many denominations of Christianity.

As I’ve said, in historical terms the coming to life of many dead saints is more miraculous and of greater importance than the controversy concerning an empty tomb and witness statements of those claiming a miracle in the case of one individual, regardless of the hysteria that followed him.

But the witness statements themselves are historical, and if we are going by the historicity of witness statements then the history should be in favor of the case which has more history of the incident, right? So lets just mark the dead saints resurrection off as a big ole giant question mark, and lets focus on the witness statements of the Resurrection of Jesus', you know, the one that is responsible for Christianity being the world's largest religion and all.

So it is written.

Exactly

That’s a good question. Perhaps they wanted to believe they did.

How can you want to believe something that you didn't know would happen?

 

[George-ananda]

The doctors were apologist working with the supposed healer.

Sources about these doctors ?(or you're wrong!)

Psuedoskepticism again is what I'm suspecting.

 

[outhouse]

Sources about these doctors ?(or you're wrong!)

Psuedoskepticism again is what I'm suspecting.

It is on the person making the statement to prove their point.

He has to back his claims.


I already posted information showing the lady was viewed as a fraud :yes:

 

[George-ananda]

It is on the person making the statement to prove their point.

Fine, so prove your point/statement: The doctors were apologist working with the supposed healer.

He has to back his claims.

And you don't?

I already posted information showing the lady was viewed as a fraud :yes:

I saw nothing there about doctors in cahoots.

 

[outhouse]

But here you go

Faith healing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

claims of reproducible effects are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation.


A study in the British Medical Journal investigated spiritual healing, therapeutic touch and faith healing. In a hundred cases that were investigated, no single case revealed that the healer's intervention alone resulted in any improvement or cure of a measurable organic disability


There have been case studies of claims made. Following a Kathryn Kuhlman 1967 fellowship in Philadelphia, Dr. William A. Nolen conducted a case study of 23 people who claimed to have been cured during her services.[61][62][63][64][65] Nolen's long-term follow-ups concluded there were no cures in those cases.[66][67] Furthermore, "one woman who was said to have been cured of spinal cancer threw away her brace and ran across the stage at Kuhlman's command; her spine collapsed the next day, according to Nolen, and she died four months later."[68] In 1976, Kuhlman died in Tulsa, Oklahoma, following open-heart surgery.[69][70]

 

[outhouse]

Fine, so prove your point/statement: The doctors were apologist working with the supposed healer.


.

If you ever decided to research anything you debate, you would not have to ask inane questions.


Kathryn's wiki link takes you to a doctors website who backed her, who claims he is an apologist

ten healing miracles

 

[George-ananda]

But here you go

Faith healing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

claims of reproducible effects are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation.


A study in the British Medical Journal investigated spiritual healing, therapeutic touch and faith healing. In a hundred cases that were investigated, no single case revealed that the healer's intervention alone resulted in any improvement or cure of a measurable organic disability


There have been case studies of claims made. Following a Kathryn Kuhlman 1967 fellowship in Philadelphia, Dr. William A. Nolen conducted a case study of 23 people who claimed to have been cured during her services.[61][62][63][64][65] Nolen's long-term follow-ups concluded there were no cures in those cases.[66][67] Furthermore, "one woman who was said to have been cured of spinal cancer threw away her brace and ran across the stage at Kuhlman's command; her spine collapsed the next day, according to Nolen, and she died four months later."[68] In 1976, Kuhlman died in Tulsa, Oklahoma, following open-heart surgery.[69][70]

Still nothing about doctors in cahoots.

You've provided no evidence to support your statement: The doctors were apologist working with the supposed healer.

Kuhlman seems dubious to me, but I'm truly curious about your statement and have seen no sources that support it.

 

[outhouse]

More you say?


Admission of Fraud | thebereancall.org


....Kathryn Kuhlman rented hundreds of wheelchairs for her big crusades ... she didn't stop the service to explain that the person being wheeled to the front in a wheelchair was only someone with back trouble. ... It happens in my own ministry” (Stewart, Only Believe. Shippenburg, Pa.: Destiny Image, 1999, pg. 115, 130.

 

[George-ananda]

Kathryn's wiki link takes you to a doctors website who backed her, who claims he is an apologist

ten healing miracles

Did you read the article? Where does the doctor claim to be an apologist?? He just claims to be an investigator and sees no reasonable normal explanation for these healings.

 

[outhouse]

Did you read the article? Where does the doctor claim to be an apologist?? He just claims to be an investigator.

"Is there a god" "10 healing miracles" headlines the page. That is an apologist.


Does that look like a science page or a athesit blog


You do know faith healers are dangerous people that kill many through false hope?


Do you think it is smart to stick up for them?

 

[George-ananda]

"Is there a god" "10 healing miracles" headlines the page. That is an apologist.

So you now take back your statement that the doctor said he was an apologist.

Does that look like a science page or a athesit blog

You selected the page not me. From what I can see it has articles from all sides.

You do know faith healers are dangerous people that kill many through false hope?

That probably happens but not what I'm addressing here. I'm addressing: 'are there ever healings that can not be reasonably explained through any normal means'.

Do you think it is smart to stick up for them?

I'm only sticking up for facts such as 'are there ever healings that can not be reasonably explained through any normal means'.

I'm not a fan of Kuhlman but higher powers may respond sometimes to the innocent prayers of the devotees.

 

[outhouse]

So you now take back your statement that the doctor said he was an apologist.

.

NO.

The site flat states it is religious in nature. Christian to be exact.

Apologist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something

 

[outhouse]

You selected the page not me. From what I can see it has articles from all sides.

.

Really? can you back that? I dont think so.

The websites NAME is "is there a god" and promotes that belief.

By definition and common sense, that is apologetic.

 

[George-ananda]

NO.

The site flat states it is religious in nature. Christian to be exact.

Apologist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something

I see. Only atheist sites are trustworthy. If a site takes a Christian, Hindu, pro-Paranormal etc. view then they are apologetic and can't be accepted as providing honest factual information about miracles.

Can atheist sites be apologetic towards an atheistic worldview?

So we can only provide sources from sources that don't accept miracles. Why do you even bother even asking for sources?

Good night.

 

[outhouse]

I see. Only atheist sites are trustworthy. If a site takes a Christian, Hindu, pro-Paranormal etc. view then they are apologetic and can't be accepted as providing honest factual information about miracles.

.

So biased sites provide the same kind of methodology as scientific sites???





What the hell is an atheist site? Do you mean a scientific site :biglaugh:

 

[allright]

The doctors were apologist working with the supposed healer.


There is nothing there that is credible evidence.

There is nothing there that science would look at.



There is nothing verified to be true. If I lay hands on someone and they get better with time, is it a miracle too?

Provide evidence even one of them was an apologist

The testimony of 7 cardiologists, several fron the medical board at Harvad isnt credible

Science cant look at x-rays, mri's, blood tests etc, lab results

 

[outhouse]

Provide evidence even one of them was an apologist

The testimony of 7 cardiologists, several fron the medical board at Harvad isnt credible

Science cant look at x-rays, mri's, blood tests etc, lab results

I think it is all hearsay.

Prove 7 cardiologist actually said anything. Links and sources please.


WE know a real doctor did a follow up and none were cured. WE know she was a fraud.

 

[outhouse]

I researched this and it looks like Davis was lying.

He "Davis" stated he would not tell them who his original doctor was. So he probably never had the surgury.

Knowing kathryn was a fraud, it makes sense now.

 

[allright]

I researched this and it looks like Davis was lying.

He "Davis" stated he would not tell them who his original doctor was. So he probably never had the surgury.

Knowing kathryn was a fraud, it makes sense now.

right thats why the surgeon had him examined by a panel of 7 cardiologists to investigate a surgery that he knew never happened.

Also you dont have a clue whether Kathryn Kuhlman was a fraud or not. How may of our books with the testomonies of people who were healed have you read

 

[outhouse]

right thats why the surgeon had him examined by a panel of 7 cardiologists to investigate a surgery that he knew never happened.

Also you dont have a clue whether Kathryn Kuhlman was a fraud or not. How may of our books with the testomonies of people who were healed have you read

You have provided nothing, so you have proved nothing.

I said supply sources.


I have. And it shows she was a obvious fraud.