Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof

@kellyjay said
I wouldn't go so far as to say unscientific, the part that is scientific acknowledges that it couldn't happen unless there was divine intervention, confirming it was an act of God. Which is what we have to say when all such types of events like those mean, only God could.

So saying this is an event could only take place because God did it, doesn't disprove God, it only shows that if done, God did it.

How about it Kellyjay.
Are you a flatearther, or do you cherrypick like sonship ?
Your holy, holy book says the Earth is a disc, with a firmament and windows to let in the water from space. Is that true ?

@caissad4 said
How about it Kellyjay.
Are you a flatearther, or do you cherrypick like sonship ?
Your holy, holy book says the Earth is a disc, with a firmament and windows to let in the water from space. Is that true ?

Quote what you are talking about.

@kellyjay said
Quote what you are talking about.

Can't give a direct answer.
Typical.

@caissad4 said
Can't give a direct answer.
Typical.

I asked you to quote the verses you are talking about and you are complaining I cannot give a direct answer, typical.

Yesterday showed all the characteristics that I would usually expect from a particular Tuesday.

Typical.

@caissad4

So you do cherrypick.
Good play.

Why is it a good play?
And why am I cherry picking to read a sixty sixty book ancient library with many literary devices (the Bible) like an adult ?

And I'll trade you a question.
So you cannot believe that Christ rose from the dead to be your Savior because you would have to believe in a flat earth ?

@DeepThought

The problem with this is that you are accepting that the accounts say different things, but insisting on taking them both literally anyway.

Where is there a problem ? There is no major problem I think. I see two concise and focused traditions told from two angles. And major contradictions I do not see.

I came to the Old Testament by way of realizing that Jesus Christ, whose integrity was to me beyond questioning, appeared to take Genesis seriously. So it was the New Testament first, learning to trust Christ that His integrity and wisdom were incomparable, coupled with noticing that He took Genesis as truth.

Is there something in Genesis 1 and 2 which makes it impossible for you to believe the Son of God died and rose that your sins may be forgiven, and that you may be eternally reconciled to God?

I don't follow the flat earth debate. But I hear people today speak of "sunrise" or "the sun went down". Such language is not unscientific. It is perhaps scientifically emprecise. The sun didn't rise. The earth rotated.

People complaining that the Bible said "the ends of the earth" or "the circle of the earth" makes it unscientific are missing the mark.

Even when John in Revelation says he saw the stars fall to the earth, he evidently means what was considered "stars" were shooting down in mass. Is it impossible that he has a vision of a massive meteor shower? Maybe his prophetic vision was of millions of chunks of manmade space debris plunging down in the night sky. Don't be over smug, modern man.

The language is imprecise scientifically according to modern science at times. This does not mean it is speaking wrong things.

Then you are speaking wrong things when you talk about "cutting and pasting" or "downloading" or "uploading". Some future generation might view your speech today as unscientific.

@sonship said
@caissad4

So you do cherrypick.
Good play.

Why is it a good play?
And why am I cherry picking to read a sixty sixty book ancient library with many literary devices (the Bible) like an adult ?

And I'll trade you a question.
So you cannot believe that Christ rose from the dead to be your Savior because you would have to believe in a flat earth ?

Most of the intelligent Christians on this forum are not Bible literalists.
A true Bible literalist would be a flatearther.
Most of the intelligent Christians on this forum are not flatearthers.
Kellyjay is apparently still deciding, lol.
Christians have a wide variety of beliefs.
What I "believe" about Christian beliefs is only a belief.

@caissad4

Most of the intelligent Christians on this forum are not Bible literalists.

You would have to precisely define "Bible literalist".
Does that mean I cannot believe the parable of "the prodigal son" because I am a Bible literalist?
Does that mean I cannot believe in hundreds of other parables which are either said to be or obviously ARE, because I am a "Bible literalist" ?

A true Bible literalist would be a flatearther.

I don't think so at all.
I think what is going on is you want to pin a fad on all Christians who take the Bible seriously as the "normal" standard of believer.

I don't follow "flat earth" debates. My conscience would tell me that I am slinking away into a red herring to distract from the major themes of the Son of God's redemptive death and resurrection.

Most of the intelligent Christians on this forum are not flatearthers.

I don't know that either.
I don't know of any Christians participating in this Forum since I have been here who debated about non-spherical planet.
Name three.
Name ONE.

Kellyjay is apparently still deciding, lol.

I doubt that. lol. But surprises happen.

KellyJay do you think a non-spherical planet is a major tenet of the Holy Bible ?
For the record?

Christians have a wide variety of beliefs.

But the central core belief about the Son of God's life, death, resurrection, salvation and Lordship are common.
I think in evaluating our common beliefs you should start with the most important ones.

Someone said it is like diving into a swimming pool.
If you dive into the shallow end you are likely to get scrapped.
Better to dive into the middle where it is getting deeper.

Where lesser important contraversies are is unsafe to start your critique of the Bible's truth.
It is better to go with the repeated matters where it emphasizes the crucial centrality of what is being taught.

What I "believe" about Christian beliefs is only a belief.

There is such a thing as truth being the target of a belief.
If you say only belief exists that is I think too existential.
And there are things which you take seriously and not in the total ambiguity of relativity.

The New Testament Gospels are written as historical accounts. And the writers apparently wanted the contemporary audience to CHECK with still living (at that time) eyewitnesses.

Here is an example of Mark encouraging (or Mark recalling Peter to ) refer to people who could confirm OR deny what was being conveyed.

And they compelled a certain passerby coming from the country, Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to take up His cross. (Mark. 15:21)

There is no reason for Mark to include this detail accept he is writing history. "If you want to confirm the truth or falsity of what I just told you, check with the specific people here NAMED - "Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus".

This is biographical writing.

Luke informs that he gathered his journalistic Gospel from eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-4)

@caissad4 said
Most of the intelligent Christians on this forum are not Bible literalists.
A true Bible literalist would be a flatearther.
Most of the intelligent Christians on this forum are not flatearthers.
Kellyjay is apparently still deciding, lol.
Christians have a wide variety of beliefs.
What I "believe" about Christian beliefs is only a belief.

Some examples of stupid Christian teachings:
1. That the earth is flat
2. That creation was a literal 6, 24 hr periods
3. That the bible contains no contradictions
3. That God is there to solve all their problems
4. That their prayers always work
5. That the Jews are no longer Gods chosen people, Christians are
6. That all other religions are heading for damnation
7. That Jesus died for Christians
8. That professions of faith lead to certain eternal life
9. That all who profess faith, live righteously and do good works.
10. That only Christians can do good works
11. That theories of evolution is the work of Satan
12. That all nonChristians will be tormented for eternity.

Since "the Jesus Seminar" lots of people have been led to not trust the Gospels as historical.

Here we see in writings predating the four gospels (Paul's epistle to the church in Corinth) - Paul recommending in public that most of 500 people were still then alive to confirm or deny what he was teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.

" ... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

And He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve;

Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep." (See First Corinthians 15:3-6)

This is in the 15 year range of the events of Christ's execution. This is too short of a time for a mythical legend to develop. As you can see, his audience is informed that most of gathering of 500 eyewitnesses were still alive to confirm or deny what Paul was stating PUBLICLY.

It doesn't necessarily make the resurrection true, perhaps.
It does show that in a short fifteen some years latter it was commonly testified to that His rising from the grave did happen.

They believed it.
And Paul told Agrippa that this was common talk around Jerusalem. It was not something that happened hidden off in a corner.

"For the king knows about these things, to whom also I speak freely, for I am persuaded that none of these things have escaped his notice; for this has not been done in a corner." (Acts 26:26)