HoosierGuy28

Silent Dave,


Now that's definitely an interesting question. My answer would have to be "no". It was necessary for Christ to have died to fulfill OT prophecy. Jesus also acknowledged this before his death.

Thanks for the question

Joel

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: HoosierGuy28 ]</p>

Mageth

There's a very basic problem with your argument. The "idiom" can be used to overcome the three days problem, as I've already indicated. It does not, however, overcome the three nights problem. One has to resort to the "yearly sabbath" explanation to overcome that.

And one wonders, of course, if this was a prophecy that Jesus was using to impress on us his Messianic qualities, why the description in the Bible needs such wangling explanations to make sense. Why doesn't at least one (or preferably all) of the gospels give a detailed, unambiguous, non-contradictory account of the events surrounding the resurrection? (This is only one of several ambiguous and/or contradictory details of the resurrection in the Gospels).

HoosierGuy28

Mageth,

Actually that is wrong. That use of an idiom would suggest that it could be any part of 3 days, which as I have pointed out several times already, was perfectly acceptable and commonly used in that culture. If you need more evidence than that, then I would recommend the book I cited in a previous post which will explain it in greater detail.

Joel

Perchance

No problem .

By whose definition, though? Would a person need to somehow keep all the Ten Commandments? Is just belief in Jesus enough? What standard are you thinking of for this? Sincerity can be judged by many different ones.

Yes, and one of the most bitter tends to be over who is a "true Christian" and who isn't. That's one reason I'm not sure what you mean by a "sincere Christian."

Well, thank you for the compliment! I hope you don't mind my tacking on more questions.

-Perchance.

Mageth

Actually that is wrong. That use of an idiom would suggest that it could be any part of 3 days, which as I have pointed out several times already, was perfectly acceptable and commonly used in that culture.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt of the idiom accounting for three days, but it does not account for three nights and the "missing night" in the gospels. Can you explain how it could account for three nights rather than just declaring me wrong without explanation?

Cipher Girl

Hi Joel

In case you missed my earlier question I'll restate it.

If god is all powerful, all good, and all knowing, then why does evil exist in the world?

No logical fallacies in the answer please.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Cipher Girl ]</p>

Buffman

Joel

I have no doubts whatsoever that the Bible is the Word of God. I don't need any additional proof because personal experience has already shown that to be true.

First, thank you for attempting to provide definitve answers to my queries. A very challenging task even for the most devout and credentialed believer in the supernatural. Unfortunately, after over 2,000 years of attempting to find any verifiable evidence to support such claims, they have been unable to do so. Thus they are still unable to differentiate fact from fiction...but continue to claim that they don't need verifiable facts, only faith.


Second, since I tend to believe that I have had more personal experiences than you have, does that mean that my experiences can validate and justify my non-supernatural beliefs and make your religious beliefs less than valid/reliable? I believe that is what you have just claimed. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your statement.

In other words, is personal experience your sole proof for the existence of the supernatural? Obviously you would not be wise to start down that slippery slope. Nor, IMHO, would it be wise to claim that some sort of supernatural world controls the natural world.

I await your opinions concerning my initial query about the formation and divinity of the various Christian Bibles.

Dr Rick

Hello, Joel;

Please allow me to welcome you to the Sec Web, too. You've been bombarded with many posts and challenges, and it's nice of you to take the time and effort to respond to them as you do.

Once again, welcome.

Rick

DigitalDruid

Joel, you wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I can appreciate your attempt at humor (at least I am thinking it is meant to be humorous)

I appreciate you putting in substantial effort to recognize humor. That is creditable considering uptight apologetics are not exactly famous for sense of humor. You sound so serious, so sure of "all you need to do is read the bible" mantra. All you have done so far is try to justify the bible on the authority of the Bible. If the circle is the perfect figure (as the ancient Greeks thought) then I guess circular logic is the perfect logic.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Actually, I personally would not tell God "no"

Earlier you said you would "definitely not be VERY compelled to ever tell God ‘No." One statement is categorical; the other is qualified. Notice the shift in emphasis? But why should I complain. Wriggling out of tight spot with ingenuity is a hallmark of Christian apologetics.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Also, skepticism can be good at times, but it is possible to have too much skepticism. If you have to ask an infinite number of "whys" or "why nots", you probably won't get too far.

Let’s not even talk about infinite skepticism (?) when you do not even show a trace of it. All you keep chanting like a mantra is "just read the bible" and how your firm views are based on "personal experience". Other religions would substitute their scriptures ("just read the Vedas") . And "personal experience" is notoriously unreliable. My personal experience tells me the sun orbits the earth. That’s what people believed for more than a thousand years.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; First, I am not an animal. If you want to consider yourself an animal, then by all means think that way
This suspiciously sounds like the epithet hurled at Darwin during the famous Oxford Meeting. You must be fond of historical phrases.
Ever read Biology? Remember Plant kingdom and Animal kingdom? But I am sorry there is no human-kingdom in the classification! Ignorant scientists!. But I got worse news for you. Don’t tell anyone but we have common ancestry with the apes. What a scandal, huh?

Yes I am an animal. I do not look like a plant. My guess is so do you.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I have heard and researched many such claims made and I have yet to find any that are even slightly impressive.
Would you care to share which sources you studied and why you think these are not even slightly impressive? That would be impressive. Since you claim you have done research, you should not have a problem doing this.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;If you want to understand something, study the source. If you want to understand the Bible/Christianity, then pick up a Bible and talk to some Christians

Again I got bad news for you. I studied the source and it has been a major factor in my atheism.
A relevant historical aside: Martin Luther in the hey days of Reformation asserted all you need is read the Bible and everything would be crystal clear. Catholic Erasmus politely (if reluctantly) pointed out that the ambiguities in the Bible would lead fragmentation of Protestantism into many sects. That was an understatement. It lead to dozens and dozens of Protestant sects.
So my question to you is which of these Christians (that hold contradictory views even in core concepts such as trinity) should I consult?

Regards.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalDruid ]</p>

john_v_h

Joel, on October 20 you said
The next day, in reply to another question, you said
Does this mean that God made two perfect creations, humans and angels? Or is free will insufficient to perfect a creature, and if so, what else is required?

Secondly, why would God create humans for "glory and fellowship" when he already had the angels? Don't the angels live with God in heaven where they continually praise him?