Why did pagans not take any notice of Jesus?

[Godscreated]

---

 God does not work in contrary ways, so at least one of those can be dismissed between the two, now lets put the one that's left against Christianity and you can dismiss it, Christianity was here before the one left no matter which one you would dismiss originally. Why do you keep asking if I believe in certain miracles, I do believe that God provides miracles today, yesterday and from the beginning of time. Personally I do not believe it, to many inconsistent reports, it was only observed in one place and should have been seen everywhere the sun was shining at that time. It was slight cloudy, broken clouds and that is significant, the colors were filtered through the clouds and the suns perceived movement could have been from the clouds moving across the sun, I've seen stars that seemed to dance in the night sky because of thin clouds moving past the star. My greatest doubt comes from Mary supposedly doing this miracle, God is the miracle worker, He alone has the power to manipulate His creation. Science and observation along with knowing how God says He works is reasonable evidence to not believe this happened.

GC

---

---

Okay, you choose to believe in some miracle accounts while finding rational reasons to disbelieve in other accounts.  I find your "reasoning" to be circular -- "Well, Christianity is true, because Christianity is true," a type of question-begging, or, assuming the conclusion.  You have yet to provide me with a single reason why I should take any Christian belief seriously, and so, at this point, I am going to stop asking.

  What does me choosing to believe in the miracles of the Bible and being skeptical of those outside the Bible have anything to do with Christianity, you are making no sense at all and you're playing the circle game of reasoning to dispute anything I say. What you want to believe and what you should believe are up to you, I'm only answering questions you present and so far you haven't disproven any answers. When a miracle occurs it will have no rational explanation as the Fatima does, nor will there be any confusion about the miracle as with the Fatima. I have never expected an atheist would take any Christian belief seriously if you did then you wouldn't be an atheist. Christians do not have a hoard of beliefs, the essentials are few God intended it to be that way. My conclusion about this discussion is this, you are trying to assure yourself that Christianity has nothing for you, it does regardless of how you rationalize things.

GC

[Jehanne]

Okay, you choose to believe in some miracle accounts while finding rational reasons to disbelieve in other accounts.  I find your "reasoning" to be circular -- "Well, Christianity is true, because Christianity is true," a type of question-begging, or, assuming the conclusion.  You have yet to provide me with a single reason why I should take any Christian belief seriously, and so, at this point, I am going to stop asking.

  What does me choosing to believe in the miracles of the Bible and being skeptical of those outside the Bible have anything to do with Christianity, you are making no sense at all and you're playing the circle game of reasoning to dispute anything I say. What you want to believe and what you should believe are up to you, I'm only answering questions you present and so far you haven't disproven any answers. When a miracle occurs it will have no rational explanation as the Fatima does, nor will there be any confusion about the miracle as with the Fatima. I have never expected an atheist would take any Christian belief seriously if you did then you wouldn't be an atheist. Christians do not have a hoard of beliefs, the essentials are few God intended it to be that way. My conclusion about this discussion is this, you are trying to assure yourself that Christianity has nothing for you, it does regardless of how you rationalize things.

GC

I think that you are being inconsistent, say, for accepting the miracle accounts of Jesus in the Gospels, while at the same time disregarding the miraculous accounts of Jesus, say, in the Gospel of Peter, or the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana, etc, etc, etc.

[Angrboda]

I cannot disprove that the angel Gabriel did not appear corporeally to Muhammad nor that the angel Moroni did not appear to Joseph Smith, and yet, both of their "revelations" appear to be contrary to each others.  By the way, do you accept the so-called Miracle of the Sun that was witnessed by 50K individuals?

 God does not work in contrary ways, so at least one of those can be dismissed between the two, now lets put the one that's left against Christianity and you can dismiss it....

[Godscreated]

  What does me choosing to believe in the miracles of the Bible and being skeptical of those outside the Bible have anything to do with Christianity, you are making no sense at all and you're playing the circle game of reasoning to dispute anything I say. What you want to believe and what you should believe are up to you, I'm only answering questions you present and so far you haven't disproven any answers. When a miracle occurs it will have no rational explanation as the Fatima does, nor will there be any confusion about the miracle as with the Fatima. I have never expected an atheist would take any Christian belief seriously if you did then you wouldn't be an atheist. Christians do not have a hoard of beliefs, the essentials are few God intended it to be that way. My conclusion about this discussion is this, you are trying to assure yourself that Christianity has nothing for you, it does regardless of how you rationalize things.

GC

I think that you are being inconsistent, say, for accepting the miracle accounts of Jesus in the Gospels, while at the same time disregarding the miraculous accounts of Jesus, say, in the Gospel of Peter, or the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana, etc, etc, etc.

 Not at all. To accept the miracles of Jesus in the Bible is accepting things God did. Accepting the miracles from a book outside the Bible would be the same as accepting miracles just because someone said they saw this or that. Only God can produce miracles, If a man claims he has then he is a liar according to the scriptures and all my beliefs are based on the scriptures, so when people claim something it has to fit the parameters of the Bible.

GC

[The Grand Nudger]

Accepting the "miracles" of New Magic Book is different...how, exactly?

[Mister Agenda]

Because it's HIS magic book....

[fredd bear]

Because it's HIS magic book....

 This were it gets tricky.

The Catlics  have a different version of that magic book, called "The Jerusalem bible" which many Christian sects reject. More than a few state outright that Catlics  "are not true Christians"

Pity really, as Catlics are really fond  of their miracles; Eg Bernadette Soubirous and her visions of the Virgin at Lourdes,Fatima, and of course my absolute favourite, St Joseph of Cupterino,  the levitating monk. All accepted as genuine by the Catlic Church.

Australia recently gained its first saint, a nun,Mother Mary McKillop, who founded the order of St Joseph nuns, right here in my city of Adelaide..

When the Church declares a saint, it is officially stating that person is in heaven. (everyone in heaven is a saint, by definition)

Canonisation is usually a lengthy process, taking many years, The church has it own investigation people who find out everything about the aspiring saint's life. If that goes ok, canonisation can only take place once it has been established that two miracles have taken place due to the intercession of this saint. It is always  miraculous healings. So far, not one  case of a cure of spinal or brain injury, nor indeed regrowth of a lost limb.

Paragons of reason that they are, I'm sure drippy and his little band will reject Catlic  miracles outright.  


(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Joseph of Cupertino, O.F.M. Conv. (Italian: Giuseppe da Copertino; June 17, 1603 – September 18, 1663) was an Italian Conventual Franciscan friar who is honored as a Christian mystic and saint. He was said to have been remarkably unclever, but prone to miraculous levitation and intense ecstatic visions that left him gaping.[1]:iii

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino

[Jehanne]

I think that you are being inconsistent, say, for accepting the miracle accounts of Jesus in the Gospels, while at the same time disregarding the miraculous accounts of Jesus, say, in the Gospel of Peter, or the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana, etc, etc, etc.

 Not at all. To accept the miracles of Jesus in the Bible is accepting things God did. Accepting the miracles from a book outside the Bible would be the same as accepting miracles just because someone said they saw this or that. Only God can produce miracles, If a man claims he has then he is a liar according to the scriptures and all my beliefs are based on the scriptures, so when people claim something it has to fit the parameters of the Bible.

GC

So, if it is in the Bible, then, it's de facto true?  And, yet, why should I believe that the Bible is inspired, let alone inerrant?

[Godscreated]

 Not at all. To accept the miracles of Jesus in the Bible is accepting things God did. Accepting the miracles from a book outside the Bible would be the same as accepting miracles just because someone said they saw this or that. Only God can produce miracles, If a man claims he has then he is a liar according to the scriptures and all my beliefs are based on the scriptures, so when people claim something it has to fit the parameters of the Bible.

GC

So, if it is in the Bible, then, it's de facto true?  And, yet, why should I believe that the Bible is inspired, let alone inerrant?

Only God will show you that it is, I nor anyone else can convince a skeptic that the Bible is what it claims to be. I have always tried to point out that only through the Holy Spirit's guidance can one come to understand the real truth of scripture. You will believe what you want to and I can't change that so you will probably miss out on the wonders of God, but in the end you can't say you were not shown the truth. I for one hope that some day you might come to see the light of Christ and if you do the Holy Spirit is the one who will show you. There are real reasons the skeptic can't see the Bible for what it is and I believe that trust is a the center of those reasons.

GC

[Jehanne]

So, if it is in the Bible, then, it's de facto true?  And, yet, why should I believe that the Bible is inspired, let alone inerrant?

Only God will show you that it is, I nor anyone else can convince a skeptic that the Bible is what it claims to be. I have always tried to point out that only through the Holy Spirit's guidance can one come to understand the real truth of scripture. You will believe what you want to and I can't change that so you will probably miss out on the wonders of God, but in the end you can't say you were not shown the truth. I for one hope that some day you might come to see the light of Christ and if you do the Holy Spirit is the one who will show you. There are real reasons the skeptic can't see the Bible for what it is and I believe that trust is a the center of those reasons.

GC

GC,

I have taken two "too many" courses in psychology to trust that "little inner voice".  Sorry.  If God is speaking to Us via that mechanism, then he/she/it is speaking with a forked tongue.

Dawn