Gospels

[Dex]

The Gospel according to Matthew says (27:52-54) 'the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints who slept rose up and came out of their graves after His resurrection, and went into the Holy City and appeared to many'. Do you believe this happened? If Yes: How could this amazing event have escaped everyone else's notice, even the other evangelists? If No: How could the author of Matthew get away with such a lie?

[InTheFlesh]

I'm not going to go back and forth with you anymore because you have illustrated that all of your points are only opinions. Since I didn't make any of the claims, I don't have to provide proof. I believe it to be true. If you don't, it's you against them, let me know how you make out.

And also,
You must have missed the scripture I posted?
that was my point about the man not passing 120.
Before that scripture, man lived much more than 120yrs.

[Jerada Davidhefter]

Before the termination of this ridiculous debate, I must ask, did Adam, having lived 930 years, continue to age, or stop that whole process once he began to notice wrinkles? Imagine the difference between a fifty and a hundred-year old. Adam would have to be at least eighteen times that difference.

Or, did God give him the gift of eternal youth? But if he had that, he wouldn't die at all. There are some logical fallacies in this bit of scripture, (MUCH unlike any other entry) and would love some clarification.

[Fisherking]

I am not aware of any case where this principle [Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.] has been falsified.

This does not hold true on a quantum scale.

Just because something is beyond our measuring capabilities (size) doesn't mean things are popping into existence from nothing. Many hope that is what is happening, but to say the principle of causality doesn't hold true on the quantum scale seems to be a case of wishful thinking.

Fisherking claims that the cause of the universe must necessarily be eternal. Why is that? The universe could have been created by something that has subsequently ceased to exist.

It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings.Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

As the uncaused cause, X would have to be a necessary being by definition (as apposed to contingent) that cannot not exist.

Fisherking further claims that to have created the universe, X would have to have been intelligent....personable.....a will

"As Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions.{57} A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Moreover, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality, since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind. This same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate de novo a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator."http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... stion.html

If the universe was intended to produce life, one would expect it to have been a bit more efficient at the task.

How much is a bit? If the task was to produce life, the task was completed....

[McCulloch]

Just because something is beyond our measuring capabilities (size) doesn't mean things are popping into existence from nothing. Many hope that is what is happening, but to say the principle of causality doesn't hold true on the quantum scale seems to be a case of wishful thinking.

Perhaps, but from what I read, it seems to be the case. Or maybe it was something else. I don't know. However, it is intellectually dishonest to fall back on goddidit for every idunno.

It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings.
As the uncaused cause, X would have to be a necessary being by definition (as apposed to contingent) that cannot not exist.

How do you know that the uncaused causal agent is a necessary being? If it had not existed, then nothing else would have come into existence, but even that does not make it absolutely necessary. Further, if it had not existed, could not some other uncaused causal agent exist. Is there a limit of one on uncaused causal agents?

If the universe was intended to produce life, one would expect it to have been a bit more efficient at the task.

How much is a bit? If the task was to produce life, the task was completed....

If you plant a 6,000 acre orchard intended to produce fruit and after 60 years of tending and growth, you produce a single crabapple, rotten to the core, would you say that the orchard fulfilled its expectations?

[McCulloch]

As Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions.

There are two types of causal explanations does not imply that there are only two types of causal agents.

A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation.

Or it can be left unaccounted for.

Moreover, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality, since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations.

I am not aware that minds are timeless. My mind, for instance, seems quite mired in time.

[BroOfChrist]

There are about 850 denominations on this earth. Nowadays, so many churches proclaim to have the true gospel. Many say the gospel is music, or just the word of God, but they don't understand what is the true gospel Jesus Christ came to preach 2000 years ago. We have to understand through the Bible because there cant be 850 different gospels.

Ephesians 3:6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God's grace given me through the working of his power.

Then only through the gospel we can be heirs of God, members of one body and sharers in the promise. Also, Paul mentioned that he was a servant of this gospel. Then what is this gospel?

Romans 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

As stated above, his ministry was to proclaim the gospel. However the following verse says he was a minister of a new covenant!..

2 Corinthians 3:6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Then what does this mean? Paul had two ministries? Absolutely not. The gospel is the new covenant. then what is the new covenant?

Luke 22:15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.

Luke 22:19-And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Then, clearly we can see that the new covenant is the Passover feast. Then, what is the gospel? it is the Passover! If we do not keep the Passover, we can not say we have the true gospel in our church. If we keep another gospel (passover), we will sin against God.

Galatians 1:6-I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel (passover)— which is really no gospel(passover) at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel (passover) of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel(passover) other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel (passover) other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

We must keep the Passover and preach the Passover. Communion and Eucharist is a different gospel from the one the Apostles preached. They never kept communion or sacrament or Eucharist. They kept the true gospel- Passover.

1 Corinthians 5:7-Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

Which festival did Apostle Paul keep and teach to keep? The Passover Festival!
If we want to be heirs of God, sharers in the promise and one body in christ, we must keep the Passover. God bless you all.

[InTheFlesh]

Before the termination of this ridiculous debate, I must ask, did Adam, having lived 930 years, continue to age, or stop that whole process once he began to notice wrinkles? Imagine the difference between a fifty and a hundred-year old. Adam would have to be at least eighteen times that difference.

Or, did God give him the gift of eternal youth? But if he had that, he wouldn't die at all. There are some logical fallacies in this bit of scripture, (MUCH unlike any other entry) and would love some clarification.

Do we even have any proof about Adam?
So how can you know how long he lived?

[McCulloch]

Do we even have any proof about Adam?
So how can you know how long he lived?

I don't think that Adam really existed nor that anyone lived 930 years but for those who actually believe that the Bible is literally true,

So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

[InTheFlesh]

Do we even have any proof about Adam?
So how can you know how long he lived?

I don't think that Adam really existed nor that anyone lived 930 years but for those who actually believe that the Bible is literally true,

So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

I understand that you don't have any proof that Adam lived,
but how do you know he didn't exist?

[McCulloch]

I understand that you don't have any proof that Adam lived,
but how do you know he didn't exist?

The Bible, the authoritative holy text, inspired by the very creator of the universe tells us that many dead people rose from their graves at the time of Jesus' death and that the first human, Adam lived 930 years. These two rather unlikely claims are contrary to what we know about the history of the first century, the finality of human death, the evolution of the human species and the longevity of humans. I should say that before accepting such claims, you should have a bit more support than, it was written in a book and the ever popular weak apologetic, you cannot prove it didn't.