Re: Are the New Testament miracles plausible?

Rod wrote:
> David wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 6:51 am, The Real Doctor <ubergeek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>> On 30 Apr, 01:46, David <pchristain...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 29, 6:12 pm, The Real Doctor <ubergeek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Miracles are always implausible. It goes with the territory.
>>>>> ...
>>>> My meaning is that the New Testament miracles never
>>>> happened.
>>> Oh, right, so it's just another lead-in to the "NT miracles were
>>> actually political conversions" claims, then?
>>>
>>> Count me out of this.
>>> ...
>>
>> You anticipate too much; that's why our conversations
>> never go anywhere.
>>
>> d.c.
>>
>
>
>   Allow me to ask this question then; how will it effect the quaker
>   communtiy as a whole if it is found that Christ did not die on
>   the cross, or even much worse, that he did in fact die on the cross
>   but as a sacrifice for the jews only ?
>
>   Would this not shake even the stoutest quakers spiritual
> foundations ?

I am not a Quaker nor do I speak for Quakers as a whole. This is just my 
personal response.

If I found incontrovertable proof that Jesus did not in fact die on the 
cross, i would still be amazed that there was incontrovertable proof that 
Jesus existed.

I I then found incontrovertable proof that Jesus died onthe cross but it
was 
for the Jews only, in one way I would be relieved. It would free me from
the 
nagging guilt I feel whenever I feel I am not Christian enough - there
would 
be no basis for the Christian religion and I could then choose to adopt
the 
Jewish religion (which woudl then mean I was covered by the sacrifice, btu

still had to hold all the Jewish laws) or I could just get on with life 
knowing that I was no longer subject to a whole bunch of quite silly rules
& 
regulations.

Yowie