02 May '18 03:53>
Originally posted by @fmfHow so? I don’t see it that way at all.
Doesn't this sort of 'argument' undermine the credibility of Matthew 27:51–53 rather than enhance it?
Originally posted by @fmfHow so? I don’t see it that way at all.
Doesn't this sort of 'argument' undermine the credibility of Matthew 27:51–53 rather than enhance it?
Originally posted by @fmfNo, it’s a case of I believe it because the Bible is the Word of God and has proven to be reliable and trustworthy.
But isn't this just a case of you believe it because you believe it?
Originally posted by @fmfWhy? Taking a potshot for no apparent reason? Feeling the need to vent your frustration and anger already?
I find it unsurprising.
Originally posted by @romans1009So, yes, then isn't this just a case of you believe it because you believe the Bible?
No, it’s a case of I believe it because the Bible is the Word of God and has proven to be reliable and trustworthy.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI don't need to. I have no reason to believe it is true until someone shows me that it is.
Do you think there is any way to establish that the account in Matt 27 is untrue?
Originally posted by @fmfSomething is true or not regardless of whether someone believes it, just as God’s existence does not depend upon anyone believing in Him.
So you believe the faith that things like Matthew 27:51–53 are true must come first and then... things like Matthew 27:51–53 become true, is that what you mean?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerSo, if there are no historical records of the time in existence, then subscribing to the assertion you are making that, words to the effect of 'if it's in the Bible, then it must be true', is the only way there is to establish that the account in Matthew 27:51–53, including the bit about many people rising from the dead, is historically true?
I guess you could also check the historical records of the time if there are any in existence.
Originally posted by @romans1009And this assertion makes Matthew 27:51–53 historically true, does it?
Something is true or not regardless of whether someone believes it, just as God’s existence does not depend upon anyone believing in Him.
Originally posted by @romans1009I asked you about the fact that other three Gospels don't mention the things in Matthew 27:51–53 and you said you were not sure if they did or not. Are you still not sure?
Why? Taking a potshot for no apparent reason? Feeling the need to vent your frustration and anger already?
Originally posted by @fmfBased on the Bible having proven to be reliable and trustworthy. If the Bible said the moon was made of green cheese or the earth rested on Atlas’ shoulders or on the backs of tortoises, it wouldn’t be reliable and trustworthy.
So, yes, then isn't this just a case of you believe it because you believe the Bible?
Originally posted by @fmfWhat would you accept as reasonable evidence that it is true?
I don't need to. I have no reason to believe it is true until someone shows me that it is.
Originally posted by @fmfYes, I haven’t checked. What’s preventing you from checking?
I asked you about the fact that other three Gospels don't mention the things in Matthew 27:51–53 and you said you were not sure if they did or not. Are you still not sure?
Originally posted by @fmfI didn’t say that. I said something doesn’t become true or false based on someone believing in it.
And this assertion makes Matthew 27:51–53 historically true, does it?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI'll tell you when I come across it. I will go and have a look for some of those 'historical records of the time' you told me to check. If I find something that I reckon is "reasonable evidence", I will let you know.
What would you accept as reasonable evidence that it is true?
Originally posted by @romans1009How does Matthew 27:51–53 "become" true then?
I didn’t say that. I said something doesn’t become true or false based on someone believing in it.