Total Posts:186|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Could Jesus heal Amputees?

ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 7:39:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why, the atheist goes, is there no record of Jesus healing a person with a severed limb? The question itself betrays deep seated ignorance in the questioner.

The answer is of course, Jesus certainly could have regrown a limb or two. He raised people to life who had been dead for days, a regrow limb was nothing.

So then, the atheist continues, why is there no record of such a healing in the Bible?

Because my ignorant friend, there were no Amputees!

In those days, medicine and hygiene were practically unknown. A person who was so grievously injured simply did not survive. If the massive blood loss did not kill him, the shock and trauma would. And if he could get past that, the infection most certainly would kill him. There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb.

How about people born without a limb?

First thing is, babies born that way were usually not allowed to live. Life was hard then for everyone, a child like that represented such a drain on himself and everyone else that people saw it as mercy to end it's life. Infant mortality was sky high even for healthy babies, higher still for babies with health problems. Missing limbs often come with a host of other developmental issues.

A similar thing would be If Jesus had been alive today going around healing people, and you took that story into the past 2,000 years ago. What would strike an atheist of the past as odd would be that there were no accounts of Jesus healing leprosy. He would view that as highly doubtful.

No one has leprosy here today. Or the number is so small, the odds of Jesus running into one was practically nil.

The closest the Bible comes to it is when Jesus heals a man with a withered hand instantly.

Luk 6:6 - And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that [Jesus] entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
[Luke, being a doctor, is the only one who mentions which hand it is.]

Mar 3:2 - And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

Mat 12:10 - ........And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

Luk 6:8 - But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.

Luk 6:9 - Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing;......

Mar 3:4 - .......Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

Mat 12:11 - And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

Mat 12:12 - How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

Mar 3:5 - And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

Luk 6:11 - And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.

Have you noticed the similarity to our own board Pharisees? Asking questions so they might trap you, but dodging questions put to them, and then militant madness when the Bible proves to be coherent and true? From then on hating you rather than acknowledging the truth of what you said.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
ArtyMarty
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:07:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At least, like some desists, you're not claiming that your god is able to cure people these days, well done for admitting that at least ...
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:07:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
before modern medicine, people would survive lost limbs by binding and cauterising the wound. Some cultures had functional antiseptics, but not so much in Europe, which I'm more familiar with.

During the bible times, the most common war injury was blade inflicted, dismemberment for instance. Obviously the survival chances for amputees has risen dramatically in the modern era, but you're painting limb loss as certain death for the preindustrial civilisations, and that's just false. We still use their methods for stopping blood loss today. The only thing that has changed is the use of anti-biotics and intravenous blood transfusion. Tourniquets are still a thing.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
WoeJ
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:16:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 7:39:22 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Why, the atheist goes, is there no record of Jesus healing a person with a severed limb? The question itself betrays deep seated ignorance in the questioner.

No. We don't. The question posed to people who claim that "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." is legitimate is, Why won't God heal amputees. Hence the site: https://whywontgodhealamputees.com...

BTW, Hippocrates wrote about amputations in "On Joints" 4 centuries before Jesus was supposed to have lived. Marcus Sergius had a right arm amputation from injuries sustained in the Punic Wars. There were amputations and amputees.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:21:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because my ignorant friend, there were no Amputees!

So, several posters have now pointed out YOUR ignorance, showing that there were indeed amputees in that era,

So, my question is, why do you so readily call others ignorant while writing about things you clearly know nothing about?
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:22:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 8:07:23 AM, ArtyMarty wrote:

At least, like some desists, you're not claiming that your god is able to cure people these days, well done for admitting that at least ...

Oh, He's able. Assumptions usually hinder logic.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:25:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 8:22:20 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:07:23 AM, ArtyMarty wrote:

At least, like some desists, you're not claiming that your god is able to cure people these days, well done for admitting that at least ...

Oh, He's able. Assumptions usually hinder logic.

Like assuming there were no amputees in Jesus's era?
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:40:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 7:39:22 AM, ethang5 wrote:
militant madness when the Bible proves to be coherent and true? From then on hating you rather than acknowledging the truth of what you said.
Citation, didn't think so.
Off you go and clog up the forum.
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:48:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 8:07:44 AM, Smithereens wrote:

before modern medicine,....

Calling 2,000 years ago, "before modern medicine" is a bit disingenuous isn't it?

...people would survive lost limbs by binding and cauterising the wound.

And who would have done that 2,000 years ago in the deserts of Palestine? And how would they have cauterised a wound? Do you know how long it takes to build a fire and then heat metal hot enough to cauterise flesh? This is the same chronological error you all make. You keep assuming the way things are now is how they were then. And you stop thinking.

There were no hospitals, no ambulances, 1 so called doctor per million people. No nurses. No pain medication. And completely filthy conditions. You may be thinking the 15th century. But that was 1,500 years after Jesus.

Some cultures had functional antiseptics, but not so much in Europe, which I'm more familiar with.

And people would call the paramedics who would arrive in a few minutes? 2,000 years ago, who do you think would pay for care? Hardly anyone was educated. Forget the medicine, there were no medical services.

During the bible times, the most common war injury was blade inflicted, dismemberment for instance. Obviously the survival chances for amputees has risen dramatically in the modern era, but you're painting limb loss as certain death for the preindustrial civilisations,....

2,000 years ago being referred to as preindustrial, is like calling the time of Adam and Eve, pre-digital. That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?

..and that's just false.

Actually, it is true. Think it through.

We still use their methods for stopping blood loss today.

"Their" who? "Preindustrial" Ezekiel?

The only thing that has changed is the use of anti-biotics and intravenous blood transfusion. Tourniquets are still a thing.

So in nearly 2,000 years, the only thing that has changed in medicene is the use of anti-biotics and intravenous blood transfusion? Lol.

But it was not the medicine that mattered most. Today we have a system which gets the injured to care fairly quickly. We have doctors, drugs and tools on stand by. Can you imagine how many more trauma patients would die if we didn't have electricity and cars?

Think it through S.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:51:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 8:48:06 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:07:44 AM, Smithereens wrote:

before modern medicine,....

Calling 2,000 years ago, "before modern medicine" is a bit disingenuous isn't it?

...people would survive lost limbs by binding and cauterising the wound.

And who would have done that 2,000 years ago in the deserts of Palestine? And how would they have cauterised a wound? Do you know how long it takes to build a fire and then heat metal hot enough to cauterise flesh? This is the same chronological error you all make. You keep assuming the way things are now is how they were then. And you stop thinking.

There were no hospitals, no ambulances, 1 so called doctor per million people. No nurses. No pain medication. And completely filthy conditions. You may be thinking the 15th century. But that was 1,500 years after Jesus.

Some cultures had functional antiseptics, but not so much in Europe, which I'm more familiar with.

And people would call the paramedics who would arrive in a few minutes? 2,000 years ago, who do you think would pay for care? Hardly anyone was educated. Forget the medicine, there were no medical services.

During the bible times, the most common war injury was blade inflicted, dismemberment for instance. Obviously the survival chances for amputees has risen dramatically in the modern era, but you're painting limb loss as certain death for the preindustrial civilisations,....

2,000 years ago being referred to as preindustrial, is like calling the time of Adam and Eve, pre-digital. That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?

..and that's just false.

Actually, it is true. Think it through.

We still use their methods for stopping blood loss today.

"Their" who? "Preindustrial" Ezekiel?

The only thing that has changed is the use of anti-biotics and intravenous blood transfusion. Tourniquets are still a thing.

So in nearly 2,000 years, the only thing that has changed in medicene is the use of anti-biotics and intravenous blood transfusion? Lol.

But it was not the medicine that mattered most. Today we have a system which gets the injured to care fairly quickly. We have doctors, drugs and tools on stand by. Can you imagine how many more trauma patients would die if we didn't have electricity and cars?

Think it through S.

They has amputees. You're wrong. deal with it.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 8:55:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 8:48:06 AM, ethang5 wrote:
Consider this a rebuttal to your ignorant views of history: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:01:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 8:16:55 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 2/4/2018 7:39:22 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Why, the atheist goes, is there no record of Jesus healing a person with a severed limb? The question itself betrays deep seated ignorance in the questioner.

No. We don't.

Who don't what?

The question posed to people who claim that "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." is legitimate is, Why won't God heal amputees. Hence the site: https://whywontgodhealamputees.com...

That is a different question than is being addressed here. Start a thread if that interests you enough.

BTW, Hippocrates wrote about amputations in "On Joints" 4 centuries before Jesus was supposed to have lived. Marcus Sergius had a right arm amputation from injuries sustained in the Punic Wars. There were amputations and amputees.

Think woej. I meant amputees did not live long enough to be presented to Jesus for healing. But I do know back then people sometimes lost limbs. Marcus is what we would call today a rich important man. He was one of the few could afford timely care.

But the number of people back then who would have survived the loss of a limb would be vanishingly tiny. So tiny that the overwhelming odds would be that Jesus would not have likely ran into one.
WoeJ
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:09:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 9:01:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:16:55 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 2/4/2018 7:39:22 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Why, the atheist goes, is there no record of Jesus healing a person with a severed limb? The question itself betrays deep seated ignorance in the questioner.

No. We don't.

Who don't what?

The question posed to people who claim that "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." is legitimate is, Why won't God heal amputees. Hence the site: https://whywontgodhealamputees.com...

That is a different question than is being addressed here. Start a thread if that interests you enough.

The question that you are addressing is one that you have made up. You are lying for Jesus.


BTW, Hippocrates wrote about amputations in "On Joints" 4 centuries before Jesus was supposed to have lived. Marcus Sergius had a right arm amputation from injuries sustained in the Punic Wars. There were amputations and amputees.

Think woej. I meant amputees did not live long enough to be presented to Jesus for healing.

No. You didn't. You meant that there were no amputees. We can tell that by your, unqualified exclamation that" there were no Amputees!" Now you are lying about what you intended in an attempt to back-peddle from an ignorant statement.

But I do know back then people sometimes lost limbs. Marcus is what we would call today a rich important man. He was one of the few could afford timely care.

But the number of people back then who would have survived the loss of a limb would be vanishingly tiny. So tiny that the overwhelming odds would be that Jesus would not have likely ran into one.

You just made all of that up. Still lying for Jesus.
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:10:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 8:21:34 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
Because my ignorant friend, there were no Amputees!

So, several posters have now pointed out YOUR ignorance, showing that there were indeed amputees in that era,

No they haven't, but I will now point out your ignorance.

First I did not mean that people did not lose limbs, but that they died too often to be likely for Jesus to have met one. So you are ignorant for thinking I was saying no one ever became amputated.

Second, "preindustrial" is not a correct description of 33 AD. That is either disingenuous or ignorant. We know which you are.

So, my question is, why do you so readily call others ignorant while writing about things you clearly know nothing about?

I think you have your answer. My question to you is, on what do you base your certainty? You are ignorant yet certain. Did you actually believe I was saying amputees didn't exist at all?

Don't allow anger to make you a public idiot.
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:24:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 8:55:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:48:06 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Consider this a rebuttal to your ignorant views of history: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The ignorance is yours I'm afraid.

First, you are talking about a situation where a patient has a limb removed by doctors of that time in a controlled environment. How many people lived through that operation? How many lived through the violent loss of a limb? In a city as large as Jeruselem, how likely is it that Jesus would have bumped into one of the very, very, few survivors?

Second, from your site,

"As a result reports of amputations from that time period are scarce. True development of amputation and prosthetic techniques took place during the Renaissance and centuries that followed."

Which is exactly what I said. You're ignorantly trying to prove that some people lost their limbs in the 1st century. I have not opposed that. My point is that those people had such a low survival rate, that they would not have been common. Not that they didn't exist.

Even your citation says so. Think.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:28:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 9:10:24 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:21:34 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
Because my ignorant fri: No they haven't, but I will now point out your ignorance.end, there were no Amputees!

So, several posters have now pointed out YOUR ignorance, showing that there were indeed amputees in that era,



First I did not mean that people did not lose limbs, but that they died too often to be likely for Jesus to have met one. So you are ignorant for thinking I was saying no one ever became amputated.

Second, "preindustrial" is not a correct description of 33 AD. That is either disingenuous or ignorant. We know which you are.

So, my question is, why do you so readily call others ignorant while writing about things you clearly know nothing about?

I think you have your answer. My question to you is, on what do you base your certainty? You are ignorant yet certain. Did you actually believe I was saying amputees didn't exist at all?

Don't allow anger to make you a public idiot.

Actually, you have a point.

When you said, and i quote, "there were no Amputees!" I should of curse have not thought you meant "there were no Amputees!" because my brief history with you shows you lie a lot of the time.

Now, you also said the following-

"n those days, medicine and hygiene were practically unknown. A person who was so grievously injured simply did not survive. If the massive blood loss did not kill him, the shock and trauma would. And if he could get past that, the infection most certainly would kill him. There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."

Now, I know I was being presumptuous thinking that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb." meant you thought that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."- it meant that some did.

Are you really sticking to this as an excuse?
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:32:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 9:24:52 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:55:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:48:06 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Consider this a rebuttal to your ignorant views of history: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The ignorance is yours I'm afraid.

First, you are talking about a situation where a patient has a limb removed by doctors of that time in a controlled environment. How many people lived through that operation? How many lived through the violent loss of a limb? In a city as large as Jeruselem, how likely is it that Jesus would have bumped into one of the very, very, few survivors?

Second, from your site,

"As a result reports of amputations from that time period are scarce. True development of amputation and prosthetic techniques took place during the Renaissance and centuries that followed."

Which is exactly what I said. You're ignorantly trying to prove that some people lost their limbs in the 1st century. I have not opposed that. My point is that those people had such a low survival rate, that they would not have been common. Not that they didn't exist.

No, you didn't. You said none. You EXACTLY said AS A QUOTE "No Amputees existed".

Look, you messed up. You stated something you thought was true and it isn't.

You do not help your case by being someone who won't admit when they are wrong.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:34:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 9:24:52 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:55:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:48:06 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Consider this a rebuttal to your ignorant views of history: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The ignorance is yours I'm afraid.

First, you are talking about a situation where a patient has a limb removed by doctors of that time in a controlled environment. How many people lived through that operation? How many lived through the violent loss of a limb? In a city as large as Jeruselem, how likely is it that Jesus would have bumped into one of the very, very, few survivors?

Second, from your site,

"As a result reports of amputations from that time period are scarce. True development of amputation and prosthetic techniques took place during the Renaissance and centuries that followed."

Which is exactly what I said. You're ignorantly trying to prove that some people lost their limbs in the 1st century. I have not opposed that. My point is that those people had such a low survival rate, that they would not have been common. Not that they didn't exist.

Even your citation says so. Think.

Way to ignore the previous sentence: " During the middle ages, the body was marginalized and replaced by the worship of human spirituality. As a result reports of amputations from that time period are scarce. " Nothing to do with bible times.

Amputations were a thing, amputees were a thing. Jerusalem was the biggest city in it's part of the world. Statistically speaking the chances that Jesus had never met an amputee were slim. Remember that the afflicted flocked to him in their thousands. He didn't come to them they came to him.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:40:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 9:09:15 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:01:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Why, the atheist goes, is there no record of Jesus healing a person with a severed limb? The question itself betrays deep seated ignorance in the questioner.

No. We don't.

Who don't what?

The question posed to people who claim that "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." is legitimate is, Why won't God heal amputees. Hence the site: https://whywontgodhealamputees.com...

That is a different question than is being addressed here. Start a thread if that interests you enough.

The question that you are addressing is one that you have made up.

Of course. This is my thread. Are you daft?

You are lying for Jesus.

Then show how. Reality does not come out of your mouth.

BTW, Hippocrates wrote about amputations in "On Joints" 4 centuries before Jesus was supposed to have lived. Marcus Sergius had a right arm amputation from injuries sustained in the Punic Wars. There were amputations and amputees.

Think woej. I meant amputees did not live long enough to be presented to Jesus for healing.

No. You didn't. You meant that there were no amputees.

Then why would I go into an extended explanation of why people with amputated limbs had a low survival rate in that post? You can't win an argument by insisting on stupidity.

We can tell that by your, unqualified exclamation that" there were no Amputees!"

Jesus didn't cure any amputees because there weren't any amputees walking around. They almost always died from their injuries. Again, are you daft?

Now you are lying about what you intended in an attempt to back-peddle from an ignorant statement.

Right, so my comments on that post about how people who survived amputation were almost non-existent, passed over your head, or is anger and stupidity going to make you insist on being a public idiot?

But I do know back then people sometimes lost limbs. Marcus is what we would call today a rich important man. He was one of the few could afford timely care.

But the number of people back then who would have survived the loss of a limb would be vanishingly tiny. So tiny that the overwhelming odds would be that Jesus would not have likely ran into one.

You just made all of that up. Still lying for Jesus.

Yet you could answer none of the questions in my posts. You have no citations showing the survival rates for 1st century amputees. All you can do is shout out your unsupported bias like the one sided ignorant you are.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:42:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 9:40:57 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:09:15 AM, WoeJ wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:01:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Why, the atheist goes, is there no record of Jesus healing a person with a severed limb? The question itself betrays deep seated ignorance in the questioner.

No. We don't.

Who don't what?

The question posed to people who claim that "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." is legitimate is, Why won't God heal amputees. Hence the site: https://whywontgodhealamputees.com...

That is a different question than is being addressed here. Start a thread if that interests you enough.

The question that you are addressing is one that you have made up.

Of course. This is my thread. Are you daft?

You are lying for Jesus.

Then show how. Reality does not come out of your mouth.

BTW, Hippocrates wrote about amputations in "On Joints" 4 centuries before Jesus was supposed to have lived. Marcus Sergius had a right arm amputation from injuries sustained in the Punic Wars. There were amputations and amputees.

Think woej. I meant amputees did not live long enough to be presented to Jesus for healing.

No. You didn't. You meant that there were no amputees.

Then why would I go into an extended explanation of why people with amputated limbs had a low survival rate in that post? You can't win an argument by insisting on stupidity.

We can tell that by your, unqualified exclamation that" there were no Amputees!"

Jesus didn't cure any amputees because there weren't any amputees walking around. They almost always died from their injuries. Again, are you daft?

Now you are lying about what you intended in an attempt to back-peddle from an ignorant statement.

Right, so my comments on that post about how people who survived amputation were almost non-existent, passed over your head, or is anger and stupidity going to make you insist on being a public idiot?

But I do know back then people sometimes lost limbs. Marcus is what we would call today a rich important man. He was one of the few could afford timely care.

But the number of people back then who would have survived the loss of a limb would be vanishingly tiny. So tiny that the overwhelming odds would be that Jesus would not have likely ran into one.

You just made all of that up. Still lying for Jesus.

Yet you could answer none of the questions in my posts. You have no citations showing the survival rates for 1st century amputees. All you can do is shout out your unsupported bias like the one sided ignorant you are.

He's not the one claiming their were no amputees- where is YOUR evidence?
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 9:58:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 9:28:56 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:10:24 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:21:34 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
Because my ignorant fri: No they haven't, but I will now point out your ignorance.end, there were no Amputees!

So, several posters have now pointed out YOUR ignorance, showing that there were indeed amputees in that era,



First I did not mean that people did not lose limbs, but that they died too often to be likely for Jesus to have met one. So you are ignorant for thinking I was saying no one ever became amputated.

Second, "preindustrial" is not a correct description of 33 AD. That is either disingenuous or ignorant. We know which you are.

So, my question is, why do you so readily call others ignorant while writing about things you clearly know nothing about?

I think you have your answer. My question to you is, on what do you base your certainty? You are ignorant yet certain. Did you actually believe I was saying amputees didn't exist at all?

Don't allow anger to make you a public idiot.

Actually, you have a point.

More than one, but one step at a time.

When you said, and i quote, "there were no Amputees!" I should of curse have not thought you meant "there were no Amputees!"

My argument came in a post, not in a sentence. I gave the reason why there weren't any amputees. You stupidly chose not to see that and insisted that the totality of my argument resided in one sentence, all my other comments sifting past your brain like water out of a bucket with holes.

...because my brief history with you shows you lie a lot of the time.

You assume a lot of the time. You say I lie. But in each post, I show your silly assumption. You never show any lie of mine. But as we see, for you, your assumptions are truth.

Now, you also said the following-

"In those days, medicine and hygiene were practically unknown. A person who was so grievously injured simply did not survive. If the massive blood loss did not kill him, the shock and trauma would. And if he could get past that, the infection most certainly would kill him. There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."

You knew this and yet you were stupid enough to argue that claimed amputees didn't exist at all.

Now, I know I was being presumptuous thinking that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb." meant you thought that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."- it meant that some did.

Are you really sticking to this as an excuse?

Lol. This is what you have? In my analogy with leprosy, I acknowledged some existed, but would be too few to expect them to be bumped into.

You can't win, so the only thing you can do is assume the most stupid thing you can and then stubbornly insist that was my argument. Lol.

I'm pretty satisfied you're dusted.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 10:03:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 9:58:10 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:28:56 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:10:24 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:21:34 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
Because my ignorant fri: No they haven't, but I will now point out your ignorance.end, there were no Amputees!

So, several posters have now pointed out YOUR ignorance, showing that there were indeed amputees in that era,



First I did not mean that people did not lose limbs, but that they died too often to be likely for Jesus to have met one. So you are ignorant for thinking I was saying no one ever became amputated.

Second, "preindustrial" is not a correct description of 33 AD. That is either disingenuous or ignorant. We know which you are.

So, my question is, why do you so readily call others ignorant while writing about things you clearly know nothing about?

I think you have your answer. My question to you is, on what do you base your certainty? You are ignorant yet certain. Did you actually believe I was saying amputees didn't exist at all?

Don't allow anger to make you a public idiot.

Actually, you have a point.

More than one, but one step at a time.

When you said, and i quote, "there were no Amputees!" I should of curse have not thought you meant "there were no Amputees!"

My argument came in a post, not in a sentence. I gave the reason why there weren't any amputees. You stupidly chose not to see that and insisted that the totality of my argument resided in one sentence, all my other comments sifting past your brain like water out of a bucket with holes.

...because my brief history with you shows you lie a lot of the time.

You assume a lot of the time. You say I lie. But in each post, I show your silly assumption. You never show any lie of mine. But as we see, for you, your assumptions are truth.

Now, you also said the following-

"In those days, medicine and hygiene were practically unknown. A person who was so grievously injured simply did not survive. If the massive blood loss did not kill him, the shock and trauma would. And if he could get past that, the infection most certainly would kill him. There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."

You knew this and yet you were stupid enough to argue that claimed amputees didn't exist at all.

Now, I know I was being presumptuous thinking that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb." meant you thought that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."- it meant that some did.

Are you really sticking to this as an excuse?

Lol. This is what you have? In my analogy with leprosy, I acknowledged some existed, but would be too few to expect them to be bumped into.

You can't win, so the only thing you can do is assume the most stupid thing you can and then stubbornly insist that was my argument. Lol.

I'm pretty satisfied you're dusted.

Quick survey- does ANYONE not see that Ethung is trying to cover up that he made an incorrect statement?
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 10:06:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 9:42:59 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:40:57 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Why, the atheist goes, is there no record of Jesus healing a person with a severed limb? The question itself betrays deep seated ignorance in the questioner.

No. We don't.

Who don't what?

The question posed to people who claim that "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." is legitimate is, Why won't God heal amputees. Hence the site: https://whywontgodhealamputees.com...

That is a different question than is being addressed here. Start a thread if that interests you enough.

The question that you are addressing is one that you have made up.

Of course. This is my thread. Are you daft?

You are lying for Jesus.

Then show how. Reality does not come out of your mouth.

BTW, Hippocrates wrote about amputations in "On Joints" 4 centuries before Jesus was supposed to have lived. Marcus Sergius had a right arm amputation from injuries sustained in the Punic Wars. There were amputations and amputees.

Think woej. I meant amputees did not live long enough to be presented to Jesus for healing.

No. You didn't. You meant that there were no amputees.

Then why would I go into an extended explanation of why people with amputated limbs had a low survival rate in that post? You can't win an argument by insisting on stupidity.

We can tell that by your, unqualified exclamation that" there were no Amputees!"

Jesus didn't cure any amputees because there weren't any amputees walking around. They almost always died from their injuries. Again, are you daft?

Now you are lying about what you intended in an attempt to back-peddle from an ignorant statement.

Right, so my comments on that post about how people who survived amputation were almost non-existent, passed over your head, or is anger and stupidity going to make you insist on being a public idiot?

But I do know back then people sometimes lost limbs. Marcus is what we would call today a rich important man. He was one of the few could afford timely care.

But the number of people back then who would have survived the loss of a limb would be vanishingly tiny. So tiny that the overwhelming odds would be that Jesus would not have likely ran into one.

You just made all of that up. Still lying for Jesus.

Yet you could answer none of the questions in my posts. You have no citations showing the survival rates for 1st century amputees. All you can do is shout out your unsupported bias like the one sided ignorant you are.

He's not the one claiming their were no amputees- where is YOUR evidence?

It was the logic in the post. Of course, being an ignorant materialist, logic cannot be evidence for you. You need citations for things any first year logic student could figure out.

I'm looking up evidence there were no cars, electricity or medical services. As soon as I can prove that there were none of these things in the 1st century, I'll cite it.

Lol.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 10:08:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now, getting past the fat that you just can't bring yourself to admit error, let's suggest that Jesus Beebe did meet an amputee.

You believe that god has healed many people since the time of Jesus - Did god not know amputees existed?
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 10:15:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 10:03:30 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:58:10 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:28:56 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:10:24 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:21:34 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
Because my ignorant fri: No they haven't, but I will now point out your ignorance.end, there were no Amputees!

So, several posters have now pointed out YOUR ignorance, showing that there were indeed amputees in that era,



First I did not mean that people did not lose limbs, but that they died too often to be likely for Jesus to have met one. So you are ignorant for thinking I was saying no one ever became amputated.

Second, "preindustrial" is not a correct description of 33 AD. That is either disingenuous or ignorant. We know which you are.

So, my question is, why do you so readily call others ignorant while writing about things you clearly know nothing about?

I think you have your answer. My question to you is, on what do you base your certainty? You are ignorant yet certain. Did you actually believe I was saying amputees didn't exist at all?

Don't allow anger to make you a public idiot.

Actually, you have a point.

More than one, but one step at a time.

When you said, and i quote, "there were no Amputees!" I should of curse have not thought you meant "there were no Amputees!"

My argument came in a post, not in a sentence. I gave the reason why there weren't any amputees. You stupidly chose not to see that and insisted that the totality of my argument resided in one sentence, all my other comments sifting past your brain like water out of a bucket with holes.

...because my brief history with you shows you lie a lot of the time.

You assume a lot of the time. You say I lie. But in each post, I show your silly assumption. You never show any lie of mine. But as we see, for you, your assumptions are truth.

Now, you also said the following-

"In those days, medicine and hygiene were practically unknown. A person who was so grievously injured simply did not survive. If the massive blood loss did not kill him, the shock and trauma would. And if he could get past that, the infection most certainly would kill him. There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."

You knew this and yet you were stupid enough to argue that claimed amputees didn't exist at all.

Now, I know I was being presumptuous thinking that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb." meant you thought that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."- it meant that some did.

Are you really sticking to this as an excuse?

Lol. This is what you have? In my analogy with leprosy, I acknowledged some existed, but would be too few to expect them to be bumped into.

You can't win, so the only thing you can do is assume the most stupid thing you can and then stubbornly insist that was my argument. Lol.

I'm pretty satisfied you're dusted.

Quick survey- does ANYONE not see that Ethung is trying to cover up that he made an incorrect statement?

Only idiots desperately trying not to lose would think I meant none existed at all. This is like the moron who objects to the comment, "people are born with two arms and two legs" because some babies have physical deformities.

My point was that there were none recorded in scripture because they were too few to make it likely that a meeting would take place.

I mentioned this in my post, but you wish your silly assumption to be what I said. Pitiful.

Ask the board moron troll, I'm sure he won't see, and will agree with, your stupidity.
ethang5
Posts: 23,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 10:22:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 10:08:33 AM, Wizofoz wrote:

Now, getting past the fat that you just can't bring yourself to admit error,....

There has to be an error for me to admit slick. Your silly assumption isn't my error, it's yours.

..let's suggest that Jesus Beebe did meet an amputee.

??

You believe that god has healed many people since the time of Jesus - Did god not know amputees existed?

No sir. You dodged every question in my posts, just like the lame Pharisees, you have lost the argument, so now you want to ooze to yet another topic. Concede or address the questions in my posts.

I am not here to be evaluated by you. If this cannot be a debate, then it won't be anything.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 10:23:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 8:51:42 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:48:06 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:07:44 AM, Smithereens wrote:

before modern medicine,....

Calling 2,000 years ago, "before modern medicine" is a bit disingenuous isn't it?

...people would survive lost limbs by binding and cauterising the wound.

And who would have done that 2,000 years ago in the deserts of Palestine? And how would they have cauterised a wound? Do you know how long it takes to build a fire and then heat metal hot enough to cauterise flesh? This is the same chronological error you all make. You keep assuming the way things are now is how they were then. And you stop thinking.

There were no hospitals, no ambulances, 1 so called doctor per million people. No nurses. No pain medication. And completely filthy conditions. You may be thinking the 15th century. But that was 1,500 years after Jesus.

Some cultures had functional antiseptics, but not so much in Europe, which I'm more familiar with.

And people would call the paramedics who would arrive in a few minutes? 2,000 years ago, who do you think would pay for care? Hardly anyone was educated. Forget the medicine, there were no medical services.

During the bible times, the most common war injury was blade inflicted, dismemberment for instance. Obviously the survival chances for amputees has risen dramatically in the modern era, but you're painting limb loss as certain death for the preindustrial civilisations,....

2,000 years ago being referred to as preindustrial, is like calling the time of Adam and Eve, pre-digital. That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?

..and that's just false.

Actually, it is true. Think it through.

We still use their methods for stopping blood loss today.

"Their" who? "Preindustrial" Ezekiel?

The only thing that has changed is the use of anti-biotics and intravenous blood transfusion. Tourniquets are still a thing.

So in nearly 2,000 years, the only thing that has changed in medicene is the use of anti-biotics and intravenous blood transfusion? Lol.

But it was not the medicine that mattered most. Today we have a system which gets the injured to care fairly quickly. We have doctors, drugs and tools on stand by. Can you imagine how many more trauma patients would die if we didn't have electricity and cars?

Think it through S.

They has amputees. You're wrong. deal with it.

Then of course, there was this. Just to be clear, the above is you pointing out there were some who survived amputation?
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 10:25:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 10:06:27 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:42:59 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:40:57 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Why, the atheist goes, is there no record of Jesus healing a person with a severed limb? The question itself betrays deep seated ignorance in the questioner.

No. We don't.

Who don't what?

The question posed to people who claim that "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." is legitimate is, Why won't God heal amputees. Hence the site: https://whywontgodhealamputees.com...

That is a different question than is being addressed here. Start a thread if that interests you enough.

The question that you are addressing is one that you have made up.

Of course. This is my thread. Are you daft?

You are lying for Jesus.

Then show how. Reality does not come out of your mouth.

BTW, Hippocrates wrote about amputations in "On Joints" 4 centuries before Jesus was supposed to have lived. Marcus Sergius had a right arm amputation from injuries sustained in the Punic Wars. There were amputations and amputees.

Think woej. I meant amputees did not live long enough to be presented to Jesus for healing.

No. You didn't. You meant that there were no amputees.

Then why would I go into an extended explanation of why people with amputated limbs had a low survival rate in that post? You can't win an argument by insisting on stupidity.

We can tell that by your, unqualified exclamation that" there were no Amputees!"

Jesus didn't cure any amputees because there weren't any amputees walking around. They almost always died from their injuries. Again, are you daft?

Now you are lying about what you intended in an attempt to back-peddle from an ignorant statement.

Right, so my comments on that post about how people who survived amputation were almost non-existent, passed over your head, or is anger and stupidity going to make you insist on being a public idiot?

But I do know back then people sometimes lost limbs. Marcus is what we would call today a rich important man. He was one of the few could afford timely care.

But the number of people back then who would have survived the loss of a limb would be vanishingly tiny. So tiny that the overwhelming odds would be that Jesus would not have likely ran into one.

You just made all of that up. Still lying for Jesus.

Yet you could answer none of the questions in my posts. You have no citations showing the survival rates for 1st century amputees. All you can do is shout out your unsupported bias like the one sided ignorant you are.

He's not the one claiming their were no amputees- where is YOUR evidence?

It was the logic in the post. Of course, being an ignorant materialist, logic cannot be evidence for you. You need citations for things any first year logic student could figure out.

I'm looking up evidence there were no cars, electricity or medical services. As soon as I can prove that there were none of these things in the 1st century, I'll cite it.

Lol.

So him not having citations is bias. You not having citations is logic ( though you were wrong).

I'm sensing a pattern here......
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2018 10:30:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2018 10:15:43 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 10:03:30 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:58:10 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:28:56 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 2/4/2018 9:10:24 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/4/2018 8:21:34 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
Because my ignorant fri: No they haven't, but I will now point out your ignorance.end, there were no Amputees!

So, several posters have now pointed out YOUR ignorance, showing that there were indeed amputees in that era,



First I did not mean that people did not lose limbs, but that they died too often to be likely for Jesus to have met one. So you are ignorant for thinking I was saying no one ever became amputated.

Second, "preindustrial" is not a correct description of 33 AD. That is either disingenuous or ignorant. We know which you are.

So, my question is, why do you so readily call others ignorant while writing about things you clearly know nothing about?

I think you have your answer. My question to you is, on what do you base your certainty? You are ignorant yet certain. Did you actually believe I was saying amputees didn't exist at all?

Don't allow anger to make you a public idiot.

Actually, you have a point.

More than one, but one step at a time.

When you said, and i quote, "there were no Amputees!" I should of curse have not thought you meant "there were no Amputees!"

My argument came in a post, not in a sentence. I gave the reason why there weren't any amputees. You stupidly chose not to see that and insisted that the totality of my argument resided in one sentence, all my other comments sifting past your brain like water out of a bucket with holes.

...because my brief history with you shows you lie a lot of the time.

You assume a lot of the time. You say I lie. But in each post, I show your silly assumption. You never show any lie of mine. But as we see, for you, your assumptions are truth.

Now, you also said the following-

"In those days, medicine and hygiene were practically unknown. A person who was so grievously injured simply did not survive. If the massive blood loss did not kill him, the shock and trauma would. And if he could get past that, the infection most certainly would kill him. There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."

You knew this and yet you were stupid enough to argue that claimed amputees didn't exist at all.

Now, I know I was being presumptuous thinking that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb." meant you thought that "There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb."- it meant that some did.

Are you really sticking to this as an excuse?

Lol. This is what you have? In my analogy with leprosy, I acknowledged some existed, but would be too few to expect them to be bumped into.

You can't win, so the only thing you can do is assume the most stupid thing you can and then stubbornly insist that was my argument. Lol.

I'm pretty satisfied you're dusted.

Quick survey- does ANYONE not see that Ethung is trying to cover up that he made an incorrect statement?

Only idiots desperately trying not to lose would think I meant none existed at all. This is like the moron who objects to the comment, "people are born with two arms and two legs" because some babies have physical deformities.

My point was that there were none recorded in scripture because they were too few to make it likely that a meeting would take place.

I mentioned this in my post, but you wish your silly assumption to be what I said. Pitiful.

Ask the board moron troll, I'm sure he won't see, and will agree with, your stupidity.

-There were simply no people who had survived the violent removal of a limb.

-Only idiots desperately trying not to lose would think I meant none existed at all

Not sure, but I think they may be inconsistent.......

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.