Sauron

I'm only interested in arguments that you willing to defend yourself.

Unfortunately, that isn't what I see when I look at creation.


Telling me what other people thought is not evidence. I could use the same "evidence" to prove Islam.

But the ICR has been discredited due to their lack of scientific grounding.

aChristian

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Good night.

Sauron

Actually, I think we will have to agree that you decided not to support your claims, for whatever reason.

Clivedurdle

AChristian, I note you did not respond to my comment about a god who can stop the earth revolving for a battle but did not intervene in a little local difficulty involving six million of his chosen people and 30 million plus other people.

Slight moral contradiction - someone who has the power to sort it not taking action. That is a sin of ommission - it is in fact evil not to intervene when you have the power to do so. Oh and mumbo jumbo about free will and mysterious ways do not cut it.

Maybe it is time for you to say goodbye to your ridiculous beliefs - which by the way - I used to hold before I got tired of believing six impossible things before breakfast (apologies to Alice for getting that wrong!).

Antlerman

Respectfully, I do not play silly word games. If I lacked substantive points to make, I would not say anything. You did state in these words, "Paul said that if the historical fact of the resurrection is not true, our faith is in vain� (see post #168 in this thread). You stated it as “Paul said,� The reason I make a point of this is not to strain at minor technicalities, but the effect is you are stating in such as way as to give the impression to someone that Paul viewed it as a historical fact, something that is debatable.


That is ascribing a lot of motives to someone you’ve never met. The reasons I don’t state things dogmatically as fact is because I learned as I passed through my teens and early twenties that things I believed were “indisputable�, had in fact numerous other valid possibilities. In a word, I won’t state things as though I know them as absolute facts because I’ve been humbled too many times. As a result I am open to other possibilities, and my knowledge is ever growing because of it - which by the way is my main grievance with fundamentalism: it strives to reject different ways of looking at something and greater knowledge becomes halted.

You state that so definitively. Is it not possible that it was simply taken by someone as something other than was originally intended, and then they shared what they believed was a factual historical account with the next person, and then it spread as such from there? I see no one being deliberately dishonest in that scenario, do you? The Gnostics did not believe it was historical. That is one group of Chistians who viewed things differently back then, than what was later defined as accepted beliefs through chuch councils. Clearly they didn’t view the resurrection as rock-solid historical fact.

To state they had to have been lying is to make the implied argument that the Biblical writers would never do such a dishonest thing; therefore we should accept them as stating a fact (which ironically would of course agree with position of the one making that argument!). I don’t think “lying� necessarily had would have to have anything to do with it. There is more than one possible way to look at this.

Antlerman

I just saw this in catching up on this thread.

You're not being really serious, are you? Are you just playing around with us here, or hoping to get us to sharpen our arguments against these sorts of fringe doctrines? I won't get any more off subject than this, but I'm sensing something "off" here.

Jack the Bodiless

This is, of course, baloney. And I suspect that you know it: you certainly haven't posted anything on the thread set up for this purpose.

However, EVEN IF the historicity of the resurrection HAD been established: this would NOT make the REST of the Bible true. Billions of years of the history of the Earth and the Universe would still exist. It remains true that ancient peoples such as the Egyptians were entirely unaffected by a Great Flood that supposedly wiped them out. Biblical contradictions would remain. Failed prophecies would still be defunct. And so on.

jakejonesiv

Nope, you are wiggling off the hook that easily. 2 Peter is divinely inspired Prove your assertion.

Jake Jones

jakejonesiv

No such thing has been established.

See The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave(Hardcover) by Robert M. Price (Editor), Jeffery Jay Lowder,
There are chapters by Peter Kirby :thumbs: , Richard Carrier, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, Robert Price, Michael Martin, Theodore Drange, Keith Parsins, and Duncan M. Derrett.

It is shown that the alleged physical resurrection of Jesus as espoused by the apologetics of William Lane Craig :down: and Richard Swineburne :down: , is a very very poor explanation of the evidence.

Jake Jones

John A. Broussard

Since scientific guesses about what happened in the biblical narrative are inadequate, I wonder if you could tell me what happened in this instance:

JOSHUA10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Thank you.