Except it doesn't, as I just demonstrated. You go and trust the car to stop because you know the law, and you've seen people stop before. In the same way, you know the facts of the Bible- that Jesus died and rose again, and what He wanted- and you act on them.
The analogy fails because only the latter is imported. We have not seen Jesus but we have seen cars stop at a red light. The amazing leap in logic here is trying to say the Bible is fact because the Bible says so. That's begging the question in full force.
Jesus' rebuke to Thomas helps prove my point in another way. Jesus said bless those who have not seen yet believed. What is the unseen evidence he is talking about? It isn't the Bible.....it didn't even exist at that time. He was referencing himself because he knew billions of Christian would accept the Resurrection based on Faith.
Yes, he needed to see the facts for himself rather than hearing testimony about it from multiple trustworthy people. He's an exception to the rule. You got that part right.
Thomas' doubt shows why Faith cannot be based on fact. Once he touched Jesus it became impossible to have faith.
The only reason Thomas believed was because He needed to see it for himself, that had nothing to do with fact. He needed to see it personally, rather than hear it from other sources. He was basically being selfish, similar to when the Pharisees asked for a sign in Matthew 12. The bit about Thomas and Jesus has nothing to do with faith.
You just completely contradicted your claims. First you said:
"....he needed to see the facts for himself ."
Then you say he needed to see it for himself but:
"...that had nothing to do with fact."
Then you say the verses about Thomas have nothing to do with faith??? You're the one who brought it up to try and prove faith is based on fact!
__________________ This will be offensive free space for four days.
The analogy fails because only the latter is imported. We have not seen Jesus but we have seen cars stop at a red light.
We have the Bible, and the testimony of many, many people who did see Jesus. All analogies fail because they don't perfectly represent the entire argument, they illustrate a particular point. You haven't rebutted the particular point I'm illustrating. If anything, you've reinforced it.
The amazing leap in logic here is trying to say the Bible is fact because the Bible says so. That's begging the question in full force.
I've said that our faith is based on fact, not that the Bible says the Bible is a fact. Nice straw man there, get your opponent's argument straight before you label begging the question. There's plenty of evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible, and if you care to go into it, start a thread in Christian Apologetics. I don't believe in the reliability of the Bible because the Bible says so.
Jesus' rebuke to Thomas helps prove my point in another way. Jesus said bless those who have not seen yet believed. What is the unseen evidence he is talking about? It isn't the Bible.....it didn't even exist at that time. He was referencing himself because he knew billions of Christian would accept the Resurrection based on Faith.
We have the Bible. We also have a ton of evidence that shows the Bible to be reliable. Your verse, as I have already stated, will contradict the last two bits if you interpret it the way you do. How do you know it was a rebuke?
Thomas' doubt shows why Faith cannot be based on fact. Once he touched Jesus it became impossible to have faith.
Thomas' doubt shows nothing of the sort... it showed a stubborn heart that wasn't willing to accept what was going on. You think his friends didn't try to tell him that Jesus rose? And anyway, how would you respond if you were told that someone was alive after so long? Doctors were recently amazed by a guy who lived without any brain damage after his heart stopped beating for 15 minutes, imagine the reaction after 3 days or more.
You just completely contradicted your claims. First you said:
"....he needed to see the facts for himself ."
Then you say he needed to see it for himself but:
"...that had nothing to do with fact."
Seeing facts has nothing to do with faith being based on fact. The two are a separate issue.
Then you say the verses about Thomas have nothing to do with faith??? You're the one who brought it up to try and prove faith is based on fact!
I brought the entire bit up as a context for the last two verses. I don't believe in posting just the one or two verses I like that support what I want. I believe in citing the entire context of what I'm using as support.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
See? Evolution is true! Computers are way better than spears!
If you has questions for Theology, I has answers. Shoot me a PM with your questions.
Good grief man. You said the red light analogy works because the Bible is the evidence.......then you claim you never said the bible is fact simply because the bible says so. Really? Go back and count how many times you claimed the bible is the evidence of the facts our faith is supposedly based on. You even claimed the bible is the only reason we know of Jesus. Every single time holes are blown in your argument we get nothing but twisting and backpedaling.
The closest definition of faith we have is Heb 11:1 and it is very clear. Why anyone views their personal agendas as being more important than even the clearest of scripture is way beyond my ability to understand. (unsubscribe from thread)
__________________ This will be offensive free space for four days.
Good grief man. You said the red light analogy works because the Bible is the evidence.......then you claim you never said the bible is fact simply because the bible says so. Really? Go back and count how many times you claimed the bible is the evidence of the facts our faith is supposedly based on.
How I'm using the Bible in my defense is no different from how you are using Hebrews to define faith. If you have a problem with that, then your Hebrews excuse is out also.
You even claimed the bible is the only reason we know of Jesus. Every single time holes are blown in your argument we get nothing but twisting and backpedaling.
Yes, we, here, today. Not people 2000 years ago. And the Bible is a perfectly reliable source for facts. If you disagree, then bring it to Christian Apologetics. Of course the Bible is the only reason we know of Jesus, it's not like we're going to trust a 2000 year old verbal tradition.
The closest definition of faith we have is Heb 11:1 and it is very clear. Why anyone views their personal agendas as being more important than even the clearest of scripture is way beyond my ability to understand. (unsubscribe from thread)
The definition of faith is found throughout the Bible, not just in Hebrews, and this isn't my personal agenda speaking. You are making an ad hominem attack in an attempt to discredit what I have to say simply because you don't agree, and that is not a discussion.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
See? Evolution is true! Computers are way better than spears!
If you has questions for Theology, I has answers. Shoot me a PM with your questions.
Linear Mode
