Thou shall not kill?

[Chronos]

[Brakeman]

Ancient writers claimed..

Why do you believe ancient writers?

Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Other stories of gods came from the same area and are even older with ther own tradition, or are you saying that it's your demographic, and your tradition?

It sounds pretty darn weak either way, You're aware of that right?

[JeffPT]

Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life? 

[Truth OT]

by Alzy

You don't "prove" what writings mean unless it says something that can be proven. We read them within the context and we analyze them and subject them to analysis in order to come to an idea of what we think that they might have meant. What we don't claim is that we know what the author meant with certainty and that every other interpretation is wrong. Unless we have actual proof that the interpetation is wrong.

Do you come to your interpretations from studying the text. Yes.

Can you claim that others are wrong about their interpretations. No. At least not honestly.

Not unless you have some means of objectively varifying that your conclusions are true. And again, you don't.

In claiming that you know what the authors meant, and what the scriptures actually mean; you are claiming to know what your god means; and without any reason for doing so.

You're just being obtuse. To imply that one cannot be objective and correct in pointing out errors in interpretation is in many ways an ignorant cop out. The texts themselves are the means by which verification can be obtained in almost all biblical subject matter.
Let me be clear, in most instances the texts themselves tell the reader what the authors meant! Therefore, when claims about what the scriptures say are put forth those claims can be examined by the texts. For instnce, it is claimed that the devil was once an angel named Lucifer. This claim can be dissected and debunked using the scriptures because the scriptures make no such claim. 

[Truth OT]

Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life?

Determing truth, NO. Biasing my opinions, YEP.

[Brakeman]

Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life?

Determing truth, NO. Biasing my opinions, YEP.

You can self bias your outward postulates, but what you really believe, is based upon what you value as evidence. I'm pretty sure one doesn't choose to believe stuff, they either do, or they don't, based on their own evidence.

[velkyn]

Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life?

Determing truth, NO. Biasing my opinions, YEP.

I find this contradictory since you said this earlier

I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are inn fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.

 

Your three things don't fit into this demand for evidence. Why do you demand evidence for one but not the other?

[Truth OT]

Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

Do you generally use those 3 things to determine truth versus fiction in your life?

Determing truth, NO. Biasing my opinions, YEP.

I find this contradictory since you said this earlier

I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are in fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.

 

Your three things don't fit into this demand for evidence. Why do you demand evidence for one but not the other?

I’m a bit confused at what you see as contradictory. Initially I said that preachers, vicars, etc. who dare claim to be authority figures need to prove proof of their authority. I stand by that. How does me saying that one’s (specifically mines in this instance) demographics, traditions, and personal desires bias one’s opinions, but are not used to determine fact stand against what I said previously?

[velkyn]

I’m a bit confused at what you see as contradictory. Initially I said that preachers, vicars, etc. who dare claim to be authority figures need to prove proof of their authority. I stand by that. How does me saying that one’s (specifically mines in this instance) demographics, traditions, and personal desires bias one’s opinions, but are not used to determine fact stand against what I said previously?

you demand evidence from someone to prove their validity.  Why do you not require the same of that which you believe in?  What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?  Something that can't be anything else but the miracle you would demand of those others in authority.   

[Truth OT]

you demand evidence from someone to prove their validity.  Why do you not require the same of that which you believe in?  What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?  Something that can't be anything else but the miracle you would demand of those others in authority.

For me to prove that what I believe is true, I, like anyone else must be able to demonstrate why. I cannot prove that the Bible that I happen to believe in is true.
What the Bible demonstrates as it relates to those who speak for God is that those individuals typically were able to exhibit miraculous signs that aided in confirming that their words were in fact given them by God. 

Your question of: "What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?" is very fair. The only thing that I can say in response and be honest in the process is that according to the writings, my God has on various occasions revealed Himself through the miraculous in the sight of men. This answer of course leads to the issue of just how much if any credence we should lend to those writers.

[velkyn]

For me to prove that what I believe is true, I, like anyone else must be able to demonstrate why. I cannot prove that the Bible that I happen to believe in is true.
What the Bible demonstrates as it relates to those who speak for God is that those individuals typically were able to exhibit miraculous signs that aided in confirming that their words were in fact given them by God.

Sorry, but no, TOT. You believe tha the bible does such a thing.  I only see a bunch of stories that claim these things but do not demonstrate that any of this is true.   

Your question of: "What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?" is very fair. The only thing that I can say in response and be honest in the process is that according to the writings, my God has on various occasions revealed Himself through the miraculous in the sight of men. This answer of course leads to the issue of just how much if any credence we should lend to those writers.

Indeed.  You go by anecdotes and for what reason?  I can understand that it is very hard to acknowledge that fellow believers might not tell you the truth or that their truth is easily explained by other methods.   

[Alzael]

You're just being obtuse.

Ad hominem.

To imply that one cannot be objective and correct in pointing out errors in interpretation is in many ways an ignorant cop out.

Strawman. Not what I said. I did not say that one cannot be objective. I said that without actual objective evidence of what the author meant, it is wrong in any sort literary interpretation to claim that only yours is correct. You have no means of knowing the authors intentions. You don't even know who the authors are or when they were written with certainty.

See, I notice that you refrained from responding to my question about your bible quotes. What about the people who interpret what the bible says about Jesus being the Son of God differently from you? They can quote verses too, they can interpret things as well. Where is your objective proof that their interpretation is wrong?

I assume you ignored this flaw simply because you have a lot on your mind right now. I'm certain it wasn't because you're just like every other dishonest theist that comes around who can't defend his own positions without voluntarily debasing any intellectual integrity he might have.

Right, Truthy?

The texts themselves are the means by which verification can be obtained in almost all biblical subject matter.

And since everyone interprets it differently, you need to have some means besides just what the text says to show that yours is the one that is absolutely correct. Otherwise all sides are equally right. So again, where is your evidence?

Let me be clear, in most instances the texts themselves tell the reader what the authors meant!

And are often contradicted by other texts, even when people agree on what the text says. You're still not helping your position any, Truthy. It still comes down to the only evidence you have is what you think it means.

Are you going to address this or keep slinking around the issue?

For instnce, it is claimed that the devil was once an angel named Lucifer. This claim can be dissected and debunked using the scriptures because the scriptures make no such claim. 

Agreed, however not relevant. The issue is how one interprets the correctness of the scriptures. Not using the scriptures to provide evidence for other claims.

So basically we've got an ad hominem, a strawman, some very poor dodging (my fault, I mean an accidental omission because you were so busy), and something that has no relevance to the conversation.

Also still nothing that defends against the initial issue of you speaking for god.

I wish I could say this was a surprise,Truthy.

[hypagoga]

A friend of mine ask me to read this article http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html and all i could think about is Leviticus 19:18. does any one see any other flaws in this argument?

The first thing that popped into my head reading the article was Animal Farm.

Their commandments:
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.

They were all summarized to "Four legs good, two legs bad", since the animals might have a hard time remembering them all.

But of course we know how these were changed to suit the pigs power and corruption:
No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.

And ultimately replaced with:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
Four legs good, two legs better!

No, the god of the bible was a murdering son of a bitch, and regardless of the kill/murder/without cause bullshit, it is inescapable hypocrisy. A nice summary is here, with the question marks indicating large numbers of people that weren't specifically enumerated.

[12 Monkeys]

missing on the list is the 60 million or more Indians in the new world.

[Truth OT]

You're just being obtuse.

Ad hominem.

To imply that one cannot be objective and correct in pointing out errors in interpretation is in many ways an ignorant cop out.

Strawman. Not what I said. I did not say that one cannot be objective. I said that without actual objective evidence of what the author meant, it is wrong in any sort literary interpretation to claim that only yours is correct. You have no means of knowing the authors intentions. You don't even know who the authors are or when they were written with certainty.

See, I notice that you refrained from responding to my question about your bible quotes. What about the people who interpret what the bible says about Jesus being the Son of God differently from you? They can quote verses too, they can interpret things as well. Where is your objective proof that their interpretation is wrong?

I assume you ignored this flaw simply because you have a lot on your mind right now. I'm certain it wasn't because you're just like every other dishonest theist that comes around who can't defend his own positions without voluntarily debasing any intellectual integrity he might have.

Right, Truthy?

The texts themselves are the means by which verification can be obtained in almost all biblical subject matter.

And since everyone interprets it differently, you need to have some means besides just what the text says to show that yours is the one that is absolutely correct. Otherwise all sides are equally right. So again, where is your evidence?

Let me be clear, in most instances the texts themselves tell the reader what the authors meant!

And are often contradicted by other texts, even when people agree on what the text says. You're still not helping your position any, Truthy. It still comes down to the only evidence you have is what you think it means.

Are you going to address this or keep slinking around the issue?

For instnce, it is claimed that the devil was once an angel named Lucifer. This claim can be dissected and debunked using the scriptures because the scriptures make no such claim. 

Agreed, however not relevant. The issue is how one interprets the correctness of the scriptures. Not using the scriptures to provide evidence for other claims.

So basically we've got an ad hominem, a strawman, some very poor dodging (my fault, I mean an accidental omission because you were so busy), and something that has no relevance to the conversation.

Also still nothing that defends against the initial issue of you speaking for god.

I wish I could say this was a surprise,Truthy.

The meaning of words within the immediate context in which they were written does in fact act as objective evidence about the meaning of that which the author has written. Why do you deny this?
Knowing the identity and intent of the author can be out great value in many settings, not all. Where concepts are being discussed that be be understood in multiple ways, the author's background is of paramount importance, however when the author is telling a story by recanting events, it's not so vital.
 
As far as your question about people that interpret what the Bible says about Jesus being the Son of God differently that do I I ask; What are there interpretations and how do we differ? If they were to say that Jesus is not said to be the Son of God by the scriptures, I'd call them incorrect because the scriptures blatently declare that to be the case. It is unmistakable and nothing is in need of being interpreted as it relates to Jesus being God's Son. As far as Jesus being God, the "Son" version, that idea has to be read into the scripture because such an idea is not blatantly and unmistakable present in the writings. So point a). The scriptures say Jesus is the son of God is not up for debate, it's fact, while point b.) The scriptures teach that Jesus is God, the Son is debatable because such a concept is not expressly stated and it goes against the Shema that much of scripture screams out.   
 
You stated that "the issue is how one interprets the correctness of the scriptures." To which my response is that the correctness of the scriptures is not something disernable by interpretation, but the messages, whether correct or not, can be gleaned from the pages in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. This enables readers like you and me to take in claims about what the Bible says by people, whether those people are believers, agnostics, or atheists, and say, "yep, that's right", or call BS.
 
What you call speaking for God is no such thing, so no matter how often you repeat that errant assertion, or tell it out, it won't suddenly become true and correct. 

[Graybeard]

If I may go back to the original question:
the site say

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder.

This is true. There are about 5 words covering methods of unnatural death in Hebrew.

Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice.

This is a deception. and in the Lying for Jesus category.
Yahweh accepts child sacrifice in the Bible, and gives an instance of where human sacrifice to another god, defeats Yahweh.

The righteous judgement spoken of cannot be justified at all. God has 42 children killed by a bear for calling a prophet "Baldy-head" How righteous is that? He has pregnant women disembowelled for happening to be of another tribe. The list goes on.

[Alzael]

The meaning of words within the immediate context in which they were written does in fact act as objective evidence about the meaning of that which the author has written. Why do you deny this?

Because you're wrong. This might work if you want to claim a completely literal interpretation of the bible. However that opens up a huge host of other problems for any interpretations you want to make.

Unless you're going to make the huge mistake of claiming a literal translation, then you can't hold up what's said as objective evidence. Evidence, yes, but not objective evidence. This is especially true in a book that relies so heavily on metaphor and literary device, not to mention one that makes so many fantastic claims.

For example, the bible says that prayer can move mountains. Was this a metaphor or did the author actually mean that he thought it would really happen? Just from the text it could easily go either way, especially since we're talking about a man who likely believed in all-powerful god.

To use your "son of god" bit as another example. That is a title that is actually given to a lot of things. In the OT it is used several times to refer to other people and things as well. Technically, if Christianity is true then we are all the sons/daughters of god. Most Christians though interpret this to mean that he is the literal son of god; as in he was born from god and is divine. Using the context of that passage one could take many interpretations as to the meaning of son of god.

Knowing the identity and intent of the author can be out great value in many settings, not all. Where concepts are being discussed that be be understood in multiple ways, the author's background is of paramount importance, however when the author is telling a story by recanting events, it's not so vital.

Except you know nothing about the authors. You don't even know if what you're reading has been altered or changed from the original. You know absolutely nothing about it. Even when and where it was written is rather tenuous.

So point a). The scriptures say Jesus is the son of God is not up for debate, it's fact, while point b.) The scriptures teach that Jesus is God, the Son is debatable because such a concept is not expressly stated and it goes against the Shema that much of scripture screams out.   

This is you weaseling around. When Christians say that Jesus is the Son of God, they refer to his divinity.

Yes, it does say literally that Jesus if the son of god. However your position was that reading the scriptures and taking them for their word was the way to understand their meaning. So you have told me that it says son of god (which I agree with, as irrelevant as it is). But what is the actual meaning of it. And how do you prove it? You keep avoiding this.

Does it mean that he is divine, or is it using the term like it's used in most of the OT. How do you justify which one you believe it is? You said that you use the scriptures to correct people that misrepresent their meanings. But you've avoided talking about their meanings as you've interpreted them. If you're going to stick with "it's debatable" then obviously you're not in any position to be correcting people on much of anything as your method of interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.

You stated that "the issue is how one interprets the correctness of the scriptures." To which my response is that the correctness of the scriptures is not something disernable by interpretation, but the messages, whether correct or not, can be gleaned from the pages in the overwhelming majority of circumstances.

Except that the messages can't be gleaned in most circumstances, as I've pointed out. We have several thousand different varieties of Christianity to prove that. All of which sound the same as you. All of which claim that others are misrepresenting what the bible actually says.

What you call speaking for God is no such thing, so no matter how often you repeat that errant assertion, or tell it out, it won't suddenly become true and correct.

Correct or not, so far it's pretty much gone unopposed by you. So perhaps I do have a point?

What then do you call it? When you claim an interpretation of gods scriptures and that those who don't read it the way you do are wrong, even though you still can't prove it?

To put words into someones mouth means  to interpret what someone said so that the words mean what you want and not what the speaker wanted. Since you don't know what the speaker actually intended, aren't you doing exactly this?

[Truth OT]

Alzy,

Yes, it does say literally that Jesus if the son of god. However your position was that reading the scriptures and taking them for their word was the way to understand their meaning. So you have told me that it says son of god (which I agree with, as irrelevant as it is). But what is the actual meaning of it. And how do you prove it? You keep avoiding this.

Does it mean that he is divine, or is it using the term like it's used in most of the OT. How do you justify which one you believe it is?

What do I believe it means you ask? Here's the answer: It means God, as opposed to any male sire, is the progenitor of Jesus, just as God was the progenitor o Adam. Therefore Jesus is God's son.
Here's the justification: Luke 3:38 where it speaks of Adam s God's so s well.

[12 Monkeys]

you demand evidence from someone to prove their validity.  Why do you not require the same of that which you believe in?  What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?  Something that can't be anything else but the miracle you would demand of those others in authority.

For me to prove that what I believe is true, I, like anyone else must be able to demonstrate why. I cannot prove that the Bible that I happen to believe in is true.
What the Bible demonstrates as it relates to those who speak for God is that those individuals typically were able to exhibit miraculous signs that aided in confirming that their words were in fact given them by God. 

Your question of: "What authority has your god if there is nothing like a miracle or some hard evidence like that to support it?" is very fair. The only thing that I can say in response and be honest in the process is that according to the writings, my God has on various occasions revealed Himself through the miraculous in the sight of men. This answer of course leads to the issue of just how much if any credence we should lend to those writers.

Why has your God been so silent for 2000 years? I can have visions,does not mean they are anything more than a vivid imagination. Geez they must be true cuz my visions tell me there is no God.

[Alzael]

What do I believe it means you ask? Here's the answer: It means God, as opposed to any male sire, is the progenitor of Jesus, just as God was the progenitor o Adam. Therefore Jesus is God's son.
Here's the justification: Luke 3:38 where it speaks of Adam s God's so s well.

Which neither addresses nor responds to anything. It still leaves every point I made standing. How do you know this? The verse that you quoted simply says "Son of God" again. The issue wasn't whether it says "Son of God". The issue was how, out of the many different ways of translating the phrase, you determine that yours is the right one from what the text says. The passage you quoted does not address this. You said that the only right way to do this was to read what the passages said exactly. So I'm waiting for you to demonstrate it.

Not only does this fail. But it's a very sad attempt at a dodge, Truthy. Much like most of what else you seem to say when asked to actually justify yourself.

If you were so clearly right in your interpretations (as you claim to be, especially since you feel it is your duty to correct everyone else) why is it so hard for you to defend them? Perhaps you should consider this for a bit before making another post like this.

[Truth OT]

What do I believe it means you ask? Here's the answer: It means God, as opposed to any male sire, is the progenitor of Jesus, just as God was the progenitor o Adam. Therefore Jesus is God's son.
Here's the justification: Luke 3:38 where it speaks of Adam s God's so s well.

Which neither addresses nor responds to anything. It still leaves every point I made standing. How do you know this? The verse that you quoted simply says "Son of God" again. The issue wasn't whether it says "Son of God". The issue was how, out of the many different ways of translating the phrase, you determine that yours is the right one from what the text says. The passage you quoted does not address this. You said that the only right way to do this was to read what the passages said exactly. So I'm waiting for you to demonstrate it.

Not only does this fail. But it's a very sad attempt at a dodge, Truthy. Much like most of what else you seem to say when asked to actually justify yourself.

If you were so clearly right in your interpretations (as you claim to be, especially since you feel it is your duty to correct everyone else) why is it so hard for you to defend them? Perhaps you should consider this for a bit before making another post like this.

I guess my last reply was a bit weak and lazy.
To try to directly address your question of: "how, out of the many different ways of translating the phrase (son of God), you determine that yours is the right one from what the text says."

First, let's address what those many different ways of understanding what "the son of God" can be.
I mentioned the offspring/progenitor relationship and you mentioned that it could be a title given to a lot of things, some I'll mention below.
a). Israel (Ex 4:22; Hosea 11:1)
b). an extra terrestrial being (Genesis 6:2 ????; Job 1:6)
c). those with faith in Jesus that had become "clothed" with the Anointed One whom Jesus gave the power to be called sons of God. (Gal. 3:22-29; John 1:12-13)
d). the offspring of a progenitor (Luke 2:38)
e). the heir or inheritor of that which belongs to or is under the control of the Father (Luke 20:13-15; Gal. 3:29)

Now, based on all the examples that are given in reference to what sons of God are in the scriptures, it appears that the idea of an interpretation that this means that Jesus was born from God and therefore is divine and the same as God is foreign to all the writings and is therefore an understanding that is nonsensical based on the information readers are supplied by the scriptures on this subject.
So, what can the phrase mean or which meaning/meanings make the most sense based on the texts of scripture? C.), is the sole one on the list that doesn't fit in the case of Jesus. Any of the other 4 understandings could be correct individually and even collectively.

Unless you're going to make the huge mistake of claiming a literal translation, then you can't hold up what's said as objective evidence. Evidence, yes, but not objective evidence. This is especially true in a book that relies so heavily on metaphor and literary device, not to mention one that makes so many fantastic claims.

For example, the bible says that prayer can move mountains. Was this a metaphor or did the author actually mean that he thought it would really happen? Just from the text it could easily go either way, especially since we're talking about a man who likely believed in all-powerful god.

Ff not completely objective evidence (in all circumstances), at least strong circumstantial evidence in the other cases, right?
As far as prayer moving mountains goes, from the context of the statement it really, and I mean really looks like it is not metaphorical. No "likes" or "as" was employed. We see no analogy being used, all we have is the statement that "In solemn truth I tell you that if any one shall say to this mountain, 'Remove, and hurl thyself into the sea,' and has no doubt about it in his heart, but stedfastly believes that what he says will happen, it shall be granted him."

[12 Monkeys]

so everything with like or as is NOT metaphor? but everthing else is?

[pianodwarf]

so everything with like or as is NOT metaphor?

That would be correct.  A statement using "like" or "as" is not a metaphor, it is a simile.   

[Graybeard]

As far as prayer moving mountains goes, from the context of the statement it really, and I mean really looks like it is not metaphorical. No "likes" or "as" was employed. We see no analogy being used, all we have is the statement that "In solemn truth I tell you that if any one shall say to this mountain, 'Remove, and hurl thyself into the sea,' and has no doubt about it in his heart, but stedfastly believes that what he says will happen, it shall be granted him."

It must disturb you TOT that not one Christian in history has reached the standard of Christianity required to throw a mountain.

Do you think the entire population of Christendom has doubts in their hearts, and if you do, will those people get to heaven?

[changeling]

I know what happened.
The original Greek transcripts said "I tell you that if any one shall say to this ROCK, 'Remove, and hurl thyself into the sea,' and has no doubt about it in his heart, but stedfastly believes that what he says will happen, it shall be granted him."

So it was a misstranslation of the word rock.

[Truth OT]

As far as prayer moving mountains goes, from the context of the statement it really, and I mean really looks like it is not metaphorical. No "likes" or "as" was employed. We see no analogy being used, all we have is the statement that "In solemn truth I tell you that if any one shall say to this mountain, 'Remove, and hurl thyself into the sea,' and has no doubt about it in his heart, but stedfastly believes that what he says will happen, it shall be granted him."

It must disturb you TOT that not one Christian in history has reached the standard of Christianity required to throw a mountain.

Do you think the entire population of Christendom has doubts in their hearts, and if you do, will those people get to heaven?

As I have said before I do not believe the entire population of Christendom is even promised a Heavenly inheritance. The promise is LIFE, the Heaven promise was only made to a select few.
As it pertains to having enough faith to move mountains, I believe that ability was one given again, to a select group and lived nearly 2000 years ago. They were make promises that others simply were not. They were given abilities that others were not, and it is them who are said to the the ones reigning with the Anointed One, others are not.

[velkyn]

As I have said before I do not believe the entire population of Christendom is even promised a Heavenly inheritance. The promise is LIFE, the Heaven promise was only made to a select few.
As it pertains to having enough faith to move mountains, I believe that ability was one given again, to a select group and lived nearly 2000 years ago. They were make promises that others simply were not. They were given abilities that others were not, and it is them who are said to the the ones reigning with the Anointed One, others are not.

so why are there no external accounts of them doing such things *either*?

[Truth OT]

As I have said before I do not believe the entire population of Christendom is even promised a Heavenly inheritance. The promise is LIFE, the Heaven promise was only made to a select few.
As it pertains to having enough faith to move mountains, I believe that ability was one given again, to a select group and lived nearly 2000 years ago. They were make promises that others simply were not. They were given abilities that others were not, and it is them who are said to the the ones reigning with the Anointed One, others are not.

so why are there no external accounts of them doing such things *either*?

Good question. I really don't know the answer. Maybe the stories of the saints abilities were fabrications. Maybe they were simply spread by oral repetition. Maybe the tumultous events, the wars, and the overall volitility that engulfed mid to late 1st century Palestine is the reason other accounts of the miraculous no longer exist. Perhaps there are other accounts that have yet to be uncovered.

[velkyn]

Good question. I really don't know the answer. Maybe the stories of the saints abilities were fabrications. Maybe they were simply spread by oral repetition. Maybe the tumultous events, the wars, and the overall volitility that engulfed mid to late 1st century Palestine is the reason other accounts of the miraculous no longer exist. Perhaps there are other accounts that have yet to be uncovered.

TOT, you are reaching here. You got it in one but had to give other possibilities which get progressively more improbable.  You are expecting me to consider that only these certain stories are mysteriously missing because of  no one bothered to write them down or that it was too chaotic for anyone to have written them down or that we haven’t found them yet.  How many years shall we keep searching?  And since we have lots of “gospels” written in the first century, it’s rather bizarre that no one bothered with the stories of disciples themselves, even while starting the whole set of myths that they wrote the first four “gospels”.