TXCAP4228
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Posts
- 426
Timebuilder, I am always impressed with your wisdom and maturity. In fact we agree on almost everything but this. In that spirit, I have a couple of short replies.
Soup has made some other posts that I will respond to separately.
My intent was to reply to Soup's direct statement. He made a factual error about the bible in the same post where he asked me if I had ever read it. The answer is yes, I have. I read his post to be a little condescending and I called him on it. It was not my intent to be insulting - I hope neither you nor soup took it that way.I think I know what soup was saying, and perhaps you do, too.
Lazarus was only able to rise from the dead because of Jesus. Lazarus was able to live out his life on earth, and later die a normal death. The experience of Christ was far different, in that he ascended into heaven, yet was able to appear among his followers, and converse with them, and show them the wounds that caused His death. A completely different matter, no doubt.
Since my only viewpoint is secular, this is how I approach the "lord liar or lunatic" statement. This statement is a fallacy of logic since there are other possibilities. A legitimate premise cannot be self supporting - in other words it cannot define it own truth... It would be like using a word to define itself, you know what I mean? The definition would have no real meaning. The "lord, liar or lunatic" statement exhibits this flaw. You may accept it if you want and I will certainly not criticize you for it.From a secular viewpoint you are correct. However, the Bible authenticates itself as being inerrant, precluding the possibility, at least for believers, that the accounts of Him are wrong. That leaves only the possibilities of liar, lunatic, or the true Christ, the Messiah of the Old Testament.
Soup has made some other posts that I will respond to separately.