14 Dec 07
Originally posted by chappy1Your interpretation is a good one--I admit I never thought of it. I always assumed they were people who had died more recently (than the prophets of old). But nothing in the text infers that. Good point.
Ok then, since you know best, please tell me your interpretation of the same verse. I anxiously await your wise and vastly superior answer.
14 Dec 07
Just a couple of observations.
1. Many early Christians did not believe in a bodily ressurection. Christ's ressurection for them was more of a spiritual thing. (Even in the canonical New Testament accounts you will notice that Christ's closest friends and followers often don't recognize him.)
2. The comparison of Christ (or God) to Santa Claus is a huge stretch. No one really believes in Santa Claus past the age of 8-12. Christ may very well have been a real person and millions and millions of people believed he was the son of God. Billions believe in God today.
3. I again want to point out that the "non-believers" have as dogmatic a belief system as the "non-believers"
14 Dec 07
Originally posted by Red Night1. Many early Christians did not believe in a bodily resurrection. Christ's resurrection for them was more of a spiritual thing. (Even in the canonical New Testament accounts you will notice that Christ's closest friends and followers often don't recognize him.)
Just a couple of observations.
1. Many early Christians did not believe in a bodily ressurection. Christ's ressurection for them was more of a spiritual thing. (Even in the canonical New Testament accounts you will notice that Christ's closest friends and followers often don't recognize him.)
2. The comparison of Christ (or God) to Santa Claus is ...[text shortened]... oint out that the "non-believers" have as dogmatic a belief system as the "non-believers"
If I haven’t done so heretofore, I commend you for your continual injection of scholarship into such discussions.
2. The comparison of Christ (or God) to Santa Claus is a huge stretch. No one really believes in Santa Claus past the age of 8-12. Christ may very well have been a real person and millions and millions of people believed he was the son of God. Billions believe in God today.
I’m not sure that it’s such a stretch as you think. The sophistication level of the succeeding myth (i.e., Christ succeeding Santa) is not really a qualitative difference. Adults are more likely to invest belief in adult fairy tales, than in childish ones. If I can put it so boldly. What you have to state is how the “Christ myth” is qualitatively different from the Santa myth, not just in terms of the ages of those who are likely to believe. (Am I clear here? I’m not sure that I’ve stated it well...)
As for your “billions”—I would need a reference and a definition of “god”. (Are you counting all Hindus?)
3. I again want to point out that the "non-believers" have as dogmatic a belief system as the "non-believers".
You can point it out all you want, but you’re going to have to provide a better argument for it than you have thus far. 🙂
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by Red NightNon-believers have (as the word indicates) a NON-BELIEF. It is a lack of belief, and not a belief in the opposite.
Just a couple of observations.
1. Many early Christians did not believe in a bodily ressurection. Christ's ressurection for them was more of a spiritual thing. (Even in the canonical New Testament accounts you will notice that Christ's closest friends and followers often don't recognize him.)
2. The comparison of Christ (or God) to Santa Claus is ...[text shortened]... oint out that the "non-believers" have as dogmatic a belief system as the "non-believers"