1. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    02 May '18 03:53
    Originally posted by @fmf
    Doesn't this sort of 'argument' undermine the credibility of Matthew 27:51–53 rather than enhance it?
    How so? I don’t see it that way at all.
  2. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    02 May '18 03:55
    Originally posted by @fmf
    But isn't this just a case of you believe it because you believe it?
    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.
  3. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    02 May '18 03:56
    Originally posted by @fmf
    I find it unsurprising.
    Why? Taking a potshot for no apparent reason? Feeling the need to vent your frustration and anger already?
  4. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    02 May '18 03:56
    Originally posted by @romans1009
    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.
    So, yes, then isn't this just a case of you believe it because you believe the Bible?
  5. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    02 May '18 03:58
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    Do you think there is any way to establish that the account in Matt 27 is untrue?
    I don't need to. I have no reason to believe it is true until someone shows me that it is.
  6. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    02 May '18 03:59
    Originally posted by @fmf
    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?
    Something is true or not regardless of whether someone believes it, just as God’s existence does not depend upon anyone believing in Him.

    You have a remarkably hard time understanding such a simple concept.
  7. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    02 May '18 04:01
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    I guess you could also check the historical records of the time if there are any in existence.
    So, 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?
  8. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    02 May '18 04:02
    Originally posted by @romans1009
    Something is true or not regardless of whether someone believes it, just as God’s existence does not depend upon anyone believing in Him.
    And this assertion makes Matthew 27:51–53 historically true, does it?
  9. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    02 May '18 04:04
    Originally posted by @romans1009
    Why? Taking a potshot for no apparent reason? Feeling the need to vent your frustration and anger already?
    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?
  10. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    02 May '18 04:05
    Originally posted by @fmf
    So, yes, then isn't this just a case of you believe it because you believe the Bible?
    Based 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.

    Instead, the Bible says God hung the earth “upon nothing.”

    “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”

    (Job 26:7)
  11. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    02 May '18 04:05
    Originally posted by @fmf
    I don't need to. I have no reason to believe it is true until someone shows me that it is.
    What would you accept as reasonable evidence that it is true?
  12. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    02 May '18 04:05
    Originally posted by @fmf
    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?
    Yes, I haven’t checked. What’s preventing you from checking?
  13. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    02 May '18 04:07
    Originally posted by @fmf
    And this assertion makes Matthew 27:51–53 historically true, does it?
    I didn’t say that. I said something doesn’t become true or false based on someone believing in it.

    Why do you have such a hard time understanding something so simple?
  14. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    02 May '18 04:08
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    What would you accept as reasonable evidence that it is true?
    I'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.
  15. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    02 May '18 04:09
    Originally posted by @romans1009
    I didn’t say that. I said something doesn’t become true or false based on someone believing in it.
    How does Matthew 27:51–53 "become" true then?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree