Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Calminian said:Really? So you what do you think this real event of Christ physically dying for our sins and physically rising from the dead in 3 days was saying metaphorically?
...
Can you describe what you believe the resurrection really was?
Calminian said:Really? So you what do you think this real event of Christ physically dying for our sins
and physically rising from the dead in 3 days was saying metaphorically?
It wasnt outside the experience of the apostles nor the 500 that viewed the resurrected Christ.
There were also later resurrections performed by Paul witnessed by many.
Perhaps youre are hung up on miracles. Do you feel miracles are somehow not as real as natural events?
This is getting interesting. Which descriptions of the resurrection account do you feel are not literal? Or is it all not literal?
But thats not the question. Did it happen in the real historical sense it was described by the gospel writers?
Your language might. The gospel writers spoke if it as real and physical and historical. You seem to be saying it was not. Or that it was and wasn't at the same time. I'm not speaking to John Kerry am I?
Can you describe what you believe the resurrection really was?
Calminian said:Here we go again. Why do you feel the natural is somehow more real than the supernatural. You believe you are more real than God?
The BB is nothing more that a naturalistic speculation about origins. One could also speculate about a natural explanation for Christ appearing to witnesses after the resurrection. They might say he was never crucified in the first placethat he switched places with someone else. One could come up with a very viable naturalistic theory about the wine Jesus created. It would even be testable and repeatable. Would that disprove the His first miracle?
This is very poor reasoning.
artybloke said:There's a big brick wall of misunderstanding here. I'm not even sure it's resolvable. The idea in Calminian's head that seems unshakeable seems to be that if I say something is "metaphorical" I'm denying its reality. Depthdeception and others like myself don't see it that way at all. I think Calminian and others assume something about language that depthdeception and others including myself don't. That there is a "formal equivalence" between the world and the words used to describe it. That language is, in other words, a clear glass through which we can understand what's really happening.
Myself, I think that it's more like a piece of frosted glass; or maybe the "glass darkly" of St Paul. In his day, mirrors were made of polished glass and reflected at most 50% of what they saw, and clear glass was virtually unknown. So his insight was that we could only see reality partially, because there was always this frosted glass in front of our face. So we can't help but see the world metaphorically; we have to find images and pictures for what we see that approximate but are not exact descriptions of what we see.
This is true of all reality, but it is especially true of those "special" events that we use the metaphor of "supernatural" for (though "natural" is and inherently metaphorical a category as "supernatural.") Miracle stories attach to all kinds of people, not just to Jesus; are the miracles of the Buddha factual? No Buddhist would say it mattered; what matters is what they mean.
So when the Bible describes the resurection through the various stories of the empty tomb, it's describing an event that it it cannot put into words except through metaphor. How else can you describe this strange event except through telling stories about it? It's something that has changed your life, that has created a whole number of changed lives, there is a strange new power in your life, and there are all these rumours and stories circulating about empty tombs, encounters and visions. Nowhere in the Bible does it even attempt to give some kind of naturalistic explanation for this event, because the writers know how strange and crucial it is. They tell stories about it. Are those stories all factual? I don't know; but I know that the tradition of the resurection is so strong from St Paul to the end of the New Testament that something very powerful and beyond explanation happened.
Metaphors, stories, poems, myths, legends are attempts to see a little clearer through the frosted glass; they are not lies. Nobody but the most thoroughgoing post-modernist would deny there is a reality behind the stories and metaphors. But that reality is ultimately a mystery, and our attempts at piercing that cloud of unknowing between us and God are often prompted by fear of that mystery. Accepting that we are fallible, that a human language cannot deal with divine events (like the resurection) is surely the beginning of wisdom.
Calminian said:We can perhaps prove whether a natural flood occurred, but not a supernatural one.
Youre really out of touch with the issue. YECs are not literalists. They are exegists meaning they let the context inform us as to what the author intended to convey (and whether they are speaking literally or not). You are eisegists. You read outside ideas into the Bible and decide from that what is literal and what is not. By this method any book can be called inerrant. It basically renders the text meaningless.
david_x said:Of cource not! Can you imagine how long ago that was!
Kiddo, I really think you need to pay slightly more attention in science class.
Please...learn the science.
- When great calamities like floods and vulcanic eruptions occur that deals with the Earth's surface, a layer of residue remains on the surface. It is eventually buried. There's a similar process with tree rings. To tell the age of a tree, you can cut it down and examine how many rings there are. Furtheremore, you can tell much about the environment and even the weather through examening the rings; rings that are close together signify adverse growing conditions while rings further apart signify beneficial growing conditions. The same goes for soil. When can tell if there were a flood that literally encircled the Earth by looking for a layer of Earth that signifies an epic deluge that is found literally all over the continental crust. While there have been many localized deluges that have occurred all around the world, there is no such layer that signifies a world-wide massive Deluge.
- If fossils from dinosaurs can survive more than 65 millions years, which is rare enough as it is, then a layer of Earth roughly 65 million years younger, which is guaranteed to be left, is going to be observable.
Ah, so you cannot counter what I said, so you toss around insults. Nicely done.
And yes, people have seen the evidence of there being no layer to signify a world-wide Deluge.
It would have to reset the world to virtually exactly the state it had been before the flood, removing all the debris and rebuilding everything destroyed. Putting species, peoples, and civilisations back exactly where they had been before, doing the same things they were doing before. That requires God to intervene to a level that makes creating the initial flood look trivial, yet none of this is mentioned in the bible or anywhere else.david_x said:I'm sorry I didn't mean to insult you. Somebody really does need to talk to my Biology teacher. I see were you may have gotton confused I really didn't mean the science you talked about was wrong, i know your right, the bio-teacher was irrelivent and adolescent.
I think it is of some significance that if there never was a flood, it is weird to say there wasn't one. How do we know there isn't some strange erasing factor that hapens during/after a flood.
david_x said:I think it is of some significance that if there never was a flood, it is weird to say there wasn't one. How do we know there isn't some strange erasing factor that hapens during/after a flood.
Have you seen how much damage water does, and in this case there would have to be an awful lot of it? Not to mention the fact that the biblical account explicitly claimes that all animals and people not on the ark were killed, and yet there is no such global discontinuity in either human civilisations nor animal populations.david_x said:does anyone realize how short the flood was? 150 days does not seen like enough time to leave a print in the levels of stone and sediment!
A flood of such epic porportions always leaves evidence. That's part of geological fact.
david_x said:You know i'm getting my evidence from Genesis and common sence, were are you guys getting this info. In saying i do not directly mean it's false, i was just wandering.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?