Raf

If you click on the link, you'll see that most of the answers presume he meant the same thing I presumed he meant. Thus, I did him a favor by answering the question without the commas as well. Most people did not extend that courtesy. [Note: I actually did not answer on Quora because I found multiple adequate replies]

As a matter of grammar, you are mistaken. With a comma, you're saying everyone in the group has that characteristic. Take out the part that's offset by commas and you have not changed the substance of your statement. Without the commas, you're referring to a subset of the larger group. Take out the modifier and the sentence is saying something else entirely.

So I'm going into "Quora" and lifting questions so that this conversation can continue even though folks here are either reluctant or unwilling to ask certain questions. I'm cherry picking, obviously, but I do invite you to find and/or ask your own questions. How do atheists, who claim that Jesus never existed, explain the fact that hundreds of people have witnessed his resurrection and all the Apostles died for him? There's a real problem with the comma here. With the comma, the question implies atheists claim Jesus never existed. That's not true. Atheists, as a condition of atheism, could not care less whether Jesus actually existed as a historical figure. Most atheists, as far as I am aware, take it for granted that there was a historical Jesus but that he was not what the Bible claims him to be. Similarly, most Christians believe Mohammed existed but is not what the Q'uran claims him to be. This isn't rocket science. There are some atheists who hold that Jesus never actually existed, even as a historical person whose biography was exaggerated by later followers. Their case is stronger than you would think, but not as strong, I believe, as the case for an itinerant preacher whose execution gave way to legends that got WAY out of hand. Let's look at the second part of the question: "hundreds of people witnessed the resurrection." That's simply not true. Not by a longshot. It's a CLAIM, but the truth, even Biblically, is that the number was not that high. Paul makes a reference to hundreds of people seeing Jesus at once, but he does so decades after it happened and, conveniently, provides not one scrap of evidence about who those people are or how they could be contacted to verify the claim. This is not at all dissimilar to certain people who go on Twitter to declare "a lot of people are saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim." Um... Look, either name thenm or shut up. Paul didn't name them. He named a few people, but hundreds? Not even close. More significantly, the last part of the question states all the apostles died for Jesus. Not only is this untrue Biblically, it's a "legend" in every sense of the word. Biblically, you can make the case that James (son of Zebedee) was martyred. The Bible does not say why, other than that he was a follower of Jesus. Was he given a choice to renounce the resurrection and live? Book doesn't say. And that's crucial! If you were to tell me to renounce my father's name or die, I might renounce his name -- even though I know it to be true! The thought that a man in a position to know for a FACT whether the resurrection was a hoax chose to die rather than renounce the hoax would be quite convincing indeed. However, there is no Biblical or historical evidence that this ever happened. Ever. Not once. Not even James (who dies in Acts 12. Read it). The Bible does not record the death of Peter, and history's account is lacking in significant detail. Executed by Nero in 65 AD on an upside-down cross. Ok. That doesn't prove he was a witness to the resurrection. It actually does not established that Peter's execution actually happened. In fact, it does not establish that Jesus existed AT ALL. At most, if true, it establishes Peter existed, which is not in dispute. The Bible loses track of most of the apostles -- only John is believed to live late into life (unusually late for the time, but not impossibly). There is not one scintilla of evidence, Biblical or extrabiblical, that anyone was given the choice of renouncing the resurrection or suffering execution. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find reliable evidence that there even WERE 12 apostles who served with Jesus during an earthly ministry. Paul's reference to "the twelve" makes no such implication. Generally speaking, a claim does not need to be refuted until and unless SOME evidence is presented that it is in fact true. Anyone can claim anything. But if you've got no evidence to back it up, it's not on me to refute your claim. It's on you to prove it. To answer the question posed, there is no established "fact" for us to explain. Now, if you eliminate the first two commas from the question, you change it a little. Now the question is not directed at all atheists, but at a subset of atheists who believe Jesus never existed. Atheists who believe he did exist are, presumably, exempt from the question. But that makes no sense because the question applies to them even MORE if they think he did exist. Nonethless, the reply is the same: There is no evidence that the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds or that the apostles "died for him." Two apostles at most. Maybe three, if you include Paul.

God loves you. He needs you. He's relying on you to do his will and spread his word. He will never leave you. He will never forsake you. He is good. Always. He is love. He will back up his word. Don't be afraid. Do not doubt. He is stronger than those who would stand against him He is your Lord and Father. He will always love you with a deep and everlasting love. It is NOT HARD at all to rattle off an interpretation or prophecy, especially after you spend a few hours in a class telling you what it should and should not sound like! What? No "muck and mire"? Check! And suddenly No One utters those words ever. WOW! You made it up.

We did not discuss interpretation and prophecy as extensively, but the answer there is extraordinarily simple. In those so-called "manifestations," we relied on our own languages, so we can't just say "wow, how did I do that?" We did it very simply. "Extemporaneous speech" is when we are able to relate something that is unrehearsed. If you have a general idea what you are going to say but NOT a general idea of each word you are going to employ when you are going to say it, then you have engaged i extemporaneous speech. "Interpretation" and "prophecy" are, quite simply, examples of extemporaneous speech. You know ahead of time that you will speak words of edification, exhortation and comfort. You don't need to think it out ahead of time (you've likely heard dozens upon dozens of examples before you tried). You just need a general idea. Go. There is absolutely, positively nothing supernatural about this. "But I never made it up!" SURE you never made it up. "But how could I have known....?" You didn't. You made an educated guess based on available information which is, not surprisingly, quite extensive.

Agreed on all points.

gotta guess: When A Stranger Calls

Kate Capshaw Indiana Jones and the First Cash Grab We Want to Think Was Better than it Actually Was. Jonathan Ke Qan

Did not mean to imply otherwise. It should also be noted that I was a believer when I came to this conclusion, so abandoning Christianity is absolutely not necessary to reach the same conclusion I reached.

I'm just going to fall back on "we discussed this ad nauseum" and leave it at that. Feel free to DM me, WordWolf (for a believer who agreed with me) or Chockfull (for a believer who disagreed with me) if you'd like a recap. That goes for anyone reading.

I don't think one has to be a con man to have fooled himself into thinking he has spoken in tongues. To the contrary, I believe that every last one of us fooled ourselves into thinking we did it. It wasn't because we were liars or dishonest. It was because we: 1. genuinely wanted to do what we felt the Bible said was possible for us to do. 2. sincerely believed we were taught a method for doing it. 3. Basked in the mutual encouragement that congratulated each other for doing it once we got over hump of letting the sounds out. 4. Sincerely believed our teachers when they said not to believe that "Satanic" voice in the backs of our heads saying this was "just us." We talked ourselves into it. And we did it for SO MANY YEARS that to this day, some of us are unwilling to admit that we fooled ourselves as readily as we tried to fool each other. At no point do I believe this is a matter of malice. It was "wanna" beefed up by massive doses of "God said it, that settles it." But ask them what language they produced, and then sit back and wait for the excuses to fly.

But his books had a lot of pages with chapters and everything.

But he HAD to do that to protect the Christline! [WTF????]

After 30 years, you don't get to whine about spoiler alerts Bonfire of the Vanities Bruce Willis The Sixth Sense

I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no guarantee that the phenomenon he describes is an accurate reflection of the truth. I'm not saying Bullinger is flat out wrong about the idiom of permission. He could be absolutely right. But peculiar how few others have made the same observation, independently coming to the same conclusion. And is it or is it not time we started asking some serious questions about the reliability of Bullinger as a scholar? Because the man was BATS. Too soon? He was nuts. I mean, flat-earth, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. cuckoo. I humbly submit that his opinions on tons of subjects are... what's the word... suspect.

1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian. 2. "I think he would like it to be..." Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis. 3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption." A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption. Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that). So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written. There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus. The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it. But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either). The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech. A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones! God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done. And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night! So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.

Twilight Breaking Boredom Robert Pattinson Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Wrong movie. Bruce Willis voiced the Baby in Look Who's Talking. The Baby in Three Men and a Baby was a girl.

i don't suppose you guys are remotely interested in another perspective.

It is watchable. I actually enjoyed it very much. Skip the original movie though: it's a slog.

It was a product of its time.

The Shawshank Redemption Tim Robbins Bull Durham

mmph mmmpphh mmmmmphhh mmmmphhh!!!!!!!! MMMPH!!!! You are indeed entitled to your opinion and belief. You are not entitled to make assertions of fact without anyone challenging the assertion. Prove you produced a language. "It sounded like one to me" is not proof. You don't have to "ponder" what to speak to fake a language. In fact, you have to NOT, surprisingly enough. We discussed this ad nauseum in another thread. Feel free to explore it. It got a little out of hand at times (mea culpa) but the gist of the thread holds up. SIT is obscenely easy to fake.

The message was perfectly clear.

Yes. The real Charles Ingalls was a fiddle player. Michael Landon... not so much. But he faked it good. The lead actress was Melissa Gilbert, who played Laura Ingalls. He (adopted) brother, Jonathan Gilbert, played comic antagonist Willie Oleson. Katherine MacGregor played his mother, Harriet Oleson. Mrs. Oleson was the villain-like character, but again, it was more of a comic villainy. She was reportedly a real pain, but Michael Landon (star, writer of many episodes, director of many episodes, and executive producer) determined she was too good in the part to let go. Melissa Sue Anderson played Laura's sister, Mary. Anderson was nominated for an Emmy for the two episodes in which her character goes blind. Matthew Laborteaux, who has autism, played a young Charles Ingalls in one episode. Producers liked him enough to get him a regular spot playing "Albert," an orphan who is eventually adopted by the Ingalls family. About once every five to 10 episodes, you can hear the church congregation singing "Bringing in the Sheaves," referenced recently on the movie mash-up thread clues to the 1967 Batman movie.