Finestwheat
02-20-2007, 02:16 AM
The biggest issue with the unsaved after they get over the strictly naturalistic view is accepting the Christian view because they say there is not enough evidence. But would more evidence be righteous or magical fantasy? Gary Habermas totally won the discussion against Richard Carrier (http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm), leaving Reginald Finley of Internet Infidels to ask after the discussion was over why couldn't Jesus show more evidence?
Think about it. Jesus lived and walked on earth, then he died in Israel, not in North America or China or anywhere else. Therefore, in context His resurrection is also in Israel where the Church was born. Would it be contextual appropriate for Jesus to be resurrected in North America or China when they had no three year experience of His ministry? By the question Regi poses we see his lack of provocativeness in thinking through his question. He seems to be flippant as the best word that I can think of to describe his question.
Additionally, one needs to see clearly the fact that nothing in nature happens all by itself (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm), therefore, the uncreated must have created, and Jesus did say He was uncreated by saying He is the alpha and the omega and existed before the foundations of the world. Paul said He existed with God the Father and the Spirit in Phil. 2 (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/thewayofthelord.htm) as the only ever uncreated being. Whenever the term God is used it always connotes the personal uncreated being who is all-knowing and all-seeing with eternal knowledge.
Think about it. Jesus lived and walked on earth, then he died in Israel, not in North America or China or anywhere else. Therefore, in context His resurrection is also in Israel where the Church was born. Would it be contextual appropriate for Jesus to be resurrected in North America or China when they had no three year experience of His ministry? By the question Regi poses we see his lack of provocativeness in thinking through his question. He seems to be flippant as the best word that I can think of to describe his question.
Additionally, one needs to see clearly the fact that nothing in nature happens all by itself (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm), therefore, the uncreated must have created, and Jesus did say He was uncreated by saying He is the alpha and the omega and existed before the foundations of the world. Paul said He existed with God the Father and the Spirit in Phil. 2 (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/thewayofthelord.htm) as the only ever uncreated being. Whenever the term God is used it always connotes the personal uncreated being who is all-knowing and all-seeing with eternal knowledge.