Jesus "heals" A Daughter- Remotely!

lol what is this schizo nonsense. I genuinely wonder what is going on in Stephen’s head as head reads scripture like this

Lovely analysis Stephen.

Realistic interpretation.

And Matthew...Who was this guy...Could Matthew have known Jesus, If Jesus was executed in 33AD...And even if he did, the stories were made up decades later.

Read and weep Mag1can.

Ur a moron lol

it’s hilarious that this is what atheism boils down to these days

If "Ur a moron lol." and "schizo nonsense" is what theistic counterargument boils down to these days, it clearly indicates that you have no logical counterargument to Stephens interpretation of bible stories.

And the word scripture is a 14th century Latin derivative, meaning to write, and does not in any way make 2000 year old hand me down bible stories remotely factual...To think otherwise is indictive of delusory conditioning...Which to be fair is never the fault of the misinformed, as such misinformation is self perpetuating...If you teach your kids non-sense then they will grow up believing in non-sense, and they are likely to misinform their kids too.

And so we end up in a intellectually refined and progressive present day environment whereby gullible fools still argue the toss and fight and kill all for the sake of 2000 year old misinformation that is based wholly upon an illogical hypothesis that relies upon the existence of a universal magician.

"lol what is this schizo nonsense" https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/xe/jesus-heals-a-daughter--remotely?comment_number=2

That's an absolute shite rebuttal, Mag1cman Mag1cman.

You see, there’s a big question for me here:

Do I even WANT to spend the time refuting Stephen’s nonsense?

And at the moment, the answer is no.

Well I am content to let it just sit there for anyone interested to decide for themselves: miracle or just a simple story about survival?

I thank you for not burying my op under pages of posts that neither refute it nor can argue with it. It makes a refreshing change.

Only Dumb Fucks can watch TLC's 7 Little Johnstons and still believe in God.

What is a Gentile?

SirAnonymous wrote:

What is a Gentile?

None Jew.

Are Canaanites Jewish?

"Gentile" is in fact an English word from the Latin gentilis meaning tribe or family...Somewhat misappropriated by religious organisations to mean the opposite.

As such the word gentile is not applicable to much earlier Jewish narratives.

Yet another example of the fraudulent and deceptive dogma to be found in latter day religious publications.

Yes, the word "Gentile" doesn't mean the same thing as its root word. However, I'm not seeing what your point is. What is the deception here?

Well, from my point of view, it was just another example of power brokers deceiving the gullible by presenting latter day manuscripts as the words of some mysterious earlier prophet type...Gentile is an English word, as is "The Bible" that gets readily quoted, and so neither can be accurate reiterations of 2000 year old hearsay and gossip.

Yes, Gentile is an English word, and English translations of the Bible are in English and not in the original Hebrew and Greek. That is what happens when you translate something. However, merely being translated does not make something unreliable. I still don't see what the deception is. I don't see any Christians claiming that English translations are the original and not translations (Possibly excepting a few crazy people, because there's always a few crazy people). What is the false claim being made? How does the use of the English word Gentile in English translations relate to this false claim?

It was simply one example of the theo-political deceptions of globally expanding religious power houses.

There are no original texts, only supposed translations of original texts from about the 2nd/3rd centuries onwards, as most of the claims made about the life of Jesus, post date his execution and are based upon the supposed hearsay of ex-disciples, who are then subsequently credited with authorship.

Search any subject or disciple in books or on line and what you find is latter day supposition and imagery that is clearly influenced by European culture and European religious organisations.

Biblical tales became and still are to a large degree, the basis of European theo-political ideological oppression and propaganda that has spread worldwide.

I'm seeing a divide in your posts. You started by making a specific claim about the word Gentile and are now making more general claims about the Bible. That's fine, but I don't see how the two are connected. What is deceptive about using the English word Gentile in English translations? What is the false claim being made there?

There are no original texts, only supposed translations of original texts from about the 2nd/3rd centuries onwards, as most of the claims made about the life of Jesus, post date his execution and are based upon the supposed hearsay of ex-disciples, who are then subsequently credited with authorship.

Do you know what textual criticism is? Do you know how historians determine whether an ancient historical document is reliable or not?

Those questions might be a little vague, so here's more vague questions, but from a different perspective that might make my point a little clearer. Consider some ancient historical event A and some ancient document B. What would you expect the documentary evidence for A to look like? How would you know if B was an accurate copy of the original document or not?

The thing is with events, is that they occur before they are recorded, so unless there is undeniable on the spot evidence available then records are inevitably going to be suppositional and open to biased representation, corruption and exaggeration, especially as the documenter is likely to be biased and under pressure from some greater authority, and of course we also know that after the event eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate...So for example any records relative to the 33 year existence of Jesus will inevitably always be recorded after the event and likely as not recorded by a biased recorder, using suppositional evidence...So lets refer to this as document A... What will A look like...Well, some sort of ink medium on some sort of paper/ parchment surface, though the easiest way to find out is for you to show me actual first hand records that were written down between the years 0 to 33 AD...Do such records exist?...If not then every document compiled post 33 AD is unlikely to be accurate and more likely to be biased and corrupted...And so, fast forward a thousand years and more via the Mediterranean and Central Europe and we are presented with a fanciful Anglicised, translated, transcribed and exaggerated for the umpteenth time "Bible" put together by biased theo-political scribes for the purposes of social coercion and control..."Gentile" was just an example of such corrupt documentation, that people are still to this day, generationally conditioned to accept as being an undeniably accurate account of the the words of Jesus...Whereas we have no idea or way of knowing what Jesus actually uttered.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're looking for two things in historical documents. First, that they are contemporary with the events and/or people, and secondly that they are from unbiased sources. A few questions:

1. Do you think historians use that same standard when evaluating ancient documents and events?
2. What percentage of people and events accepted by said historians do you think meet that standard? Or perhaps in a different way, if you're reading a textbook on ancient history, how much of what's in that book do you think would meet that standard?
3. When you say that the sources should be from 0 to AD 33, do you mean that we would need to have found surviving manuscripts from that time, or just that the original manuscript was written at that time?
4. What do you mean by suppositional evidence? If someone met Jesus and later wrote a document in AD 34 after Jesus' execution, I don't see how that would be suppositional or any less reliable than a document written a year earlier before Jesus' execution.

"Historians" can only reiterate, copy and/or reinterpret from older texts and records...So the standard is pre-set, and will be reinterpreted and judged according to the wants and needs of the historians and their peers.

Reinterpretation is what it is and cannot tells us anything new that is more likely to be factually correct.

In the case of events that occurred between 0 and 33 AD, we must be honest and say that it is impossible to know exactly what Jesus uttered or did.

So, if you were to ask me what my wife did and said a year ago and precisely where, then I couldn't tell you with any accuracy...In fact most will have been forgotten, other than perhaps a few more significant events that I might recall, but still with no guarantee of accuracy.

The Gospel of Matthew for example, is a perfect example of supposition, where authorship and time and place of authorship cannot be agreed upon by scholars and historians...So compiled by persons or persons unknown several decades after the death of Jesus, supposedly from the eyewitness accounts of a supposed disciple named Matthew...The Gospels of Luke, John and others similarly...Though reputedly, the whole of the New Testament was compiled in Koine Greek sometime after the Jesus event by authors unknown and attributed to supposed disciples of Jesus...Though if this is to be accepted as accurate then the compilation of the New Testament could have happened any time in the 400 hundred years or so following Jesus's death.

1. The word dogs here is κυναρίοις and κυνάρια (meaning "little dogs/puppies/house dogs"). This is not an insult. If you look at Mt. 7:6 the word dogs is κυσίν (meaning "dogs/those who are despised"). This appears again in Rev. 22:15 as κύνες. This is an insult. In light of this, when Jesus says, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs", you wouldn't feed the pets first in a house you'd feed the children then the pets. Notice her response: “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” She admits she is not one of the children, i.e. Israelite, however she is still in the Master's house. The Master isn't here for her, yet, but He will eventually make His way to her. That's why He says that she has great faith.
2. When is Jesus ever wanted by the Romans? It's the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes that wanted Him dead. Even Pontius Pilate questions them when they hand Him over and when the Jews choose Barbaras over Jesus, he states that He did no wrong.
3. Your use of the term "demon-possessed" is also lacking. As throughout the OT, prophets are usually called names to discredit them. This happens to be one of those times. Yet, when there's Legion and it gets cast out it's clearly a demon(s) possession. Do you have examples of the term being used just because someone is a pagan?
4. Seeing as she was a Canaanite and not an Israelite, that would make her a Gentile.

All that proves is Jews and gentiles suffered from demon possession andJesuswascapable of treating both. No one challenges his miracles in the Bible.

What does that have to do with my response to the original post?

It prove both Jews and gentiles suffered from demon possessions and Jesus was able to treat both.

Never denied that Debby. Thanks though.

With over 2 billion Christians. Just imagine how many were saved from demon possessions?

I know that, Debby. The Church actively participates in it all the time. What's your point?

Just imagine how many were saved from demonpossession?