Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Do you believe in zombies?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe texts all say the same thing CP, so you're just being disingenuous.
There are 2 quakes, one upon jesus death and the saints resurrection, and one after the sabbath upon jesus resurrection.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI give up. Believe what you want. I have asked repeatedly for you to provide the actual text, but all you do is repeat the same thing over and over and only provide your own "version". Troll on!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThere are obviously 2 earthquakes CP, the saints are resurrected at jesus death (Matthew 27:51-52) during the first earthquake, "the tombs were opened and the bodies of many saints were raised." Jesus isn't resurrected until three days later after the sabbath (Matthew 28:2) during the second earthquake when the women came back to see the tomb. Yes it says they came out of their tombs after jesus resurrection, but it clearly says that they were resurrected prior to his resurrection.
Theologically, this is a non-issue - if you think they were raised and stayed in their tombs until after Christ was raised, fine. Seems silly to me on a couple other bases but it isn't significant to the doctrine. Even if we assume you're correct - so what? it does no harm to the doctrine of resurrection that there were some strangely raised saints who were extraordinarily patient."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThe passage doesn't support two earthquakes. I do see why you think the resurrections are before Christ's but I suspect this is an artifact of the Greek - the clause appears much later than an English clause normally would.
Theologically, this is a non-issue - if you think they were raised and stayed in their tombs until after Christ was raised, fine. Seems silly to me on a couple other bases but it isn't significant to the doctrine. Even if we assume you're correct - so what? it does no harm to the doctrine of resurrection that there were some strangely raised saints who were extraordinarily patient.
All of this is so silly anyways. Jim is trolling and we all know it.
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostHe's technically correct - if all you cited were cases. Case law isn't strictly speaking a 'law' and certainly not an affirmative law. He's saying that no legislature has enacted a law making abortion legal. He might be right - dunno or care because that's a mistake. Rights are presumed unless contravened by law - there aren't many affirmative laws and in our system, few would be necessary.
He's stuck on 'for' - which indicates an affirmative law. Your point, that abortion has been legalized, is perfectly valid and correct - you guys are talking past each other here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThe passage doesn't support two earthquakes. I do see why you think the resurrections are before Christ's but I suspect this is an artifact of the Greek - the clause appears much later than an English clause normally would.
Theologically, this is a non-issue - if you think they were raised and stayed in their tombs until after Christ was raised, fine. Seems silly to me on a couple other bases but it isn't significant to the doctrine. Even if we assume you're correct - so what? it does no harm to the doctrine of resurrection that there were some strangely raised saints who were extraordinarily patient.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAlways a red flag when someone keeps refuses to cite the readily available text but insists on providing their interpretation of what it says instead.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mossrose View PostIt actually would make a difference in light of Jesus being "the first-fruit" of resurrection.
All of this is so silly anyways. Jim is trolling and we all know it.
Jim's answering better - no, I don't think he's just trolling. Overly combative, probably - but most everyone in this thread has been."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by mossrose View PostIt actually would make a difference in light of Jesus being "the first-fruit" of resurrection.
All of this is so silly anyways. Jim is trolling and we all know it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI don't see how you see only 1 earthquake. Are you saying that the earthquake mentioned at Jesus death on the cross, is the same quake mentioned at his resurrection when the women returned to his tomb."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostI presume you mean Matt 28:2? If you (general) read it the way you (personal)are trying to, you can make a case for two earthquakes. The original passage, as I stated, does not support this (this is why CP keeps harping on citing the passage so we can see what exactly you mean). Taken together, I think the correct reading is that 27:52 is out of chronological order (common in ancient texts) and only one earthquake occurs - and that the saints are raised subsequent to the Resurrection.
But my original question concerned resurrection in general, whether christians actually believed that dead corpses were raised, physically fully intact, or did they believe that the resurrection was a spiritual event. Many seem to believe its a spiritual resurrection, but this passage in Matthew would seem to contradict that idea.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostEh, yes and no. That's actually something a number of scholars have brought up, but since these saints were merely resuscitated to earthly life, and not resurrected into their glorified bodies Jesus is still the first fruit. Unless you believe they were resurrected to their glorified bodies. Is that a view you hold?
I don't know. Ive read both explanations. Jesus would not be first-fruit, in my mind, if they were glorified.
I tend toward a resurrection into an earthly body that died again later, like Lazarus.
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
15 responses
69 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 09:46 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
148 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
Yesterday, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
101 responses
544 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 01:57 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,016 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Comment