Aaand we're back to the credibility of the biblical account, which haas already been admitted that it must be taken on faith as a miracle because it doesn't have any credible evidence behind it.
Upvote
0
-
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.
Why is hell even necessary?
- Thread starter DontTreadOnMike
- Start date
Aaand we're back to the credibility of the biblical account, which haas already been admitted that it must be taken on faith as a miracle because it doesn't have any credible evidence behind it.
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
here ya go
William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman Debate "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"
‪Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig‬‏ - YouTube
Four historical "facts" 1. Jesus burial 2. the discovery of his empty tomb 3. his post-mortem appearances 4. the origin of his disciples belief in his resurrection
Upvote
0
1. Sure. If Jesus existed then he surely died and was buried.
2. The Gospels themselves can't even agree on the details of this event. And even so, there's no contemporary extra-biblical evidence for this.
3. There's no contemporary extra Biblical evidence for this. Further more, Doubting Thomas refused to believe without actual concrete evidence and he was saved. Why not me? Why did God allow Thomas to see evidence but I'm condemned for asking the same question?
4. I hear this all the time. It's often stated succinctly as, "Why would the disciples have died for a lie?" People die for false causes all the time. The fact that people are fanatical enough to go willingly to their death does not mean that what they believe is true. Or are you willing to convert to Islam the next time a plane is flown into a building?
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
would you die for a lie? Not saying that people don't die for false causes that they think is the truth, but dying for a lie and knowing it's a lie. That proves that they thought the resurrection was true.
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
And what contemporary sources does it cite? When it talks of the deaths of the disciples, does it just cite the Bible?
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't know what sources but from what I remember it cites stories from a lot of sources.
Upvote
0
Some historians attribute the different accounts of the Gospels as evidence of it's authenticity. If you were creating a legend you would try to be a little more consistent, no? But the authors are just writing what they personally witnessed.
I don't know why God doesn't show himself to you but with that attitude I personally wouldn't do it.
The difference between the Twelve and Al Qaeda is the Twelve were eyewitnesses of Jesus' death and resurrection. Furthermore, there are many other eyewitnesses besides them, including enemies of Jesus. So it's a lot harder to argue that they're just another group who died for a lie. Look up William Lane Craig's talks, he'll give you much richer info than I can. Tim Keller is also a good source.
I don't know why God doesn't show himself to you but with that attitude I personally wouldn't do it.
The difference between the Twelve and Al Qaeda is the Twelve were eyewitnesses of Jesus' death and resurrection. Furthermore, there are many other eyewitnesses besides them, including enemies of Jesus. So it's a lot harder to argue that they're just another group who died for a lie. Look up William Lane Craig's talks, he'll give you much richer info than I can. Tim Keller is also a good source.
Upvote
0
Christianity does not offer a resurrection of the natural body. It offers a resurrection of a spiritual body. 1 Cor 15.
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
first resurrection is the resurrection of the just and the second resurrection is the resurrection of the unjust...
revelation 20:4-6 is the first resurrection and verse 12, 13 is the second resurrection.
Upvote
0
That does not address what Paul taught =we will have spiritual bodies, not natural ones. Also I don't think you have it correct. The first resurrection is when we are born again after we have killed our soul with our own sin. The second resurrection is after we have died physically but we continue to exist spiritually. The unjust are not raised to life, but to death.
Upvote
0
Ah so he cares more about spiting me than saving me. He sounds rather petty, imperfect, and unworthy of worship.
Upvote
0
You will be gone a long time. Christians have not had their story straight in two thousand years.
Upvote
0
I'm sorry, but you've got the wrong guy. Petty, imperfect, unworthy of worship---that would be me.
Here's food for thought: try reversing the roles of your statement. "I care more about spiting God than being saved by him."
Upvote
0
I'm sorry, but you've got the wrong guy. Petty, imperfect, unworthy of worship---that would be me.
Here's food for thought: try reversing the roles of your statement. "I care more about spiting God than being saved by him."
Well as we've been talking about for the past 20-30ish pages, I think we have yet to establish that a god exists or that a hell exists to be saved from. And if it did exist, then we would have to deal with the problem of God being incredibly evil and spiteful to send people there; especially for the "sin" of asking for proof. The same proof that Doubting Thomas asked for and received.
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
it sounds wierd I know but the second resurrection is for the unjust to rise them for their judgement, so it is accurate. the second resurrection is connected to the second death. It corresponds with Jesus’ teaching of the “resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29).
here is a link where it explains it in detail
http://www.gotquestions.org/resurrection-first-second.html
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't think so. Of course everyone falls short of the glory of God so everyone is unjust so the second resurrection is about everyone as is covered in the Matt 25:31 and following passage. It makes no sense to me that God would raise someone from the dead to kill them. I don't think that will occur.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
