Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[tonechaser77]

Lol. You certainly keep firing away with the same appeal to authority which I have obviously already addressed Randy. However, I expect nothing less from apologists since they've been using the same tiring fallacies for centuries. Why don't you try submitting some evidence. Oh that's right, you can't submit something that doesn't exist!

[Randy Carson]

No, rob. Eve disobeyed God knowingly. You can argue about whether she had full knowledge of what "sin" was, but it doesn't change the fact that she was clear on God's command about eating the fruit:

Genesis 3:1-2
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

So, Eve knew God's command, and she disobeyed Him, anyway.

If she had no knowledge of good or evil, she would not be able to determine that disobeying gods command was bad.

If it is your opinion that Eve had NO knowledge of good or evil whatsoever, then why does the next few verses say:

Genesis 3:6
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Eve knew:

1. the tree was "GOOD for food"
2. GOOD to look at ("pleasing to the eye")
3. GOOD for gaining knowledge ("desirable for gaining wisdom").

Clearly, there are at least three ways that Eve knew that something was "good"; thus, we can see that she did have some basic understanding of "good" and "evil" and from this alone she should have been able to grasp that disobeying God was NOT good - especially in light of His warning that they would die if they ate of that tree.

This is just another attempt to make God a moral monster by blaming Him for our human failings.

[abaris]

1. The New Testament uses the word "Church" 114 times, so yeah, the Church existed before the writing of the New Testament was completed.
2. Ignatius of Antioch gives us the name of that Church, the "Catholic Church" in a letter he wrote in AD 107.
3. The word "bishop" is derived from the Greek word "episcopoi" - a word that is very much in use in the pages of the New Testament.

I was talking about real history. Archeological finds included. Not bible proves bible and christian claims. Catholic mean nothing else than the whole church. Which is an overstatement given the schisms existing right from the get go.

And I'm, still talking to a wall as far as as real history is concerned. So don't be suprised if nobody is impressed by you "fact" finding mission.

[Randy Carson]

Lol. You certainly keep firing away with the same appeal to authority which I have obviously already addressed Randy. However, I expect nothing less from apologists since they've been using the same tiring fallacies for centuries. Why don't you try submitting some evidence. Oh that's right, you can't submit something that doesn't exist!

The Jesus Myth Theory: A Response to David Fitzgerald
By Tim O'Neill

[Randy Carson]

1. The New Testament uses the word "Church" 114 times, so yeah, the Church existed before the writing of the New Testament was completed.
2. Ignatius of Antioch gives us the name of that Church, the "Catholic Church" in a letter he wrote in AD 107.
3. The word "bishop" is derived from the Greek word "episcopoi" - a word that is very much in use in the pages of the New Testament.

I was talking about real history. Archeological finds included. Not bible proves bible and christian claims. Catholic mean nothing else than the whole church. Which is an overstatement given the schisms existing right from the get go.

And I'm, still talking to a wall as far as as real history is concerned. So don't be suprised if nobody is impressed by you "fact" finding mission.

The following is from what is known as a "hostile witness":

Protestant Scholar on the use of the Proper Name "Catholic"

One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.  

"As regards ‘Catholic,' its original meaning was ‘universal' or ‘general' ... As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

[abaris]

Come on, inform yourself.

I am talking about science, history, archeology, not protestant vs catholic. It's obvious, you've never been to Rome, but that's not even necessary. The only thing needed is google. And if you're going to deny that there have been numerous schisms before Constantine, Theodosius and even much later, I'm not taking any word you say into any kind of consideration. The Goths, holding much of Northern Italy were followers of Arianus, just to give one example.

And by the way, the Greek as well as the latin word katholicos or catholicus just means "on the whole".

[Randy Carson]

Come on, inform yourself.

I am talking about science, history, archeology, not protestant vs catholic. It's obvious, you've never been to Rome, but that's not even necessary. The only thing needed is google. And if you're going to deny that there have been numerous schisms before Constantine, Theodosius and even much later, I'm not taking any word you say into any kind of consideration. The Goths, holding much of Northern Italy were followers of Arianus, just to give one example.

There were numerous heresies almost from the beginning. In each case, the Church sorted it out. Does this seem difficult to you?

[abaris]

There were numerous heresies almost from the beginning. In each case, the Church sorted it out. Does this seem difficult to you?

Yes, they crushed them. After they came to power. Which would be after emperor Theodosius.

Once again, get your timeline in order.

[Mr.wizard]

If she had no knowledge of good or evil, she would not be able to determine that disobeying gods command was bad.

If it is your opinion that Eve had NO knowledge of good or evil whatsoever, then why does the next few verses say:

Genesis 3:6
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Eve knew:

1. the tree was "GOOD for food"
2. GOOD to look at ("pleasing to the eye")
3. GOOD for gaining knowledge ("desirable for gaining wisdom").

Clearly, there are at least three ways that Eve knew that something was "good"; thus, we can see that she did have some basic understanding of "good" and "evil" and from this alone she should have been able to grasp that disobeying God was NOT good - especially in light of His warning that they would die if they ate of that tree.

This is just another attempt to make God a moral monster by blaming Him for our human failings.

I don't think they are using "good" in the context of morality, I liken that to a baby putting something shiny in there mouth because it looks appealing. Besides if they understood that obeying god was good and they understood dying was bad (which seems unlikely since they were the first two people and never experienced death.) why would they deliberately disobey god?

[Mr.wizard]

If it is your opinion that Eve had NO knowledge of good or evil whatsoever, then why does the next few verses say:

Genesis 3:6
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Eve knew:

1. the tree was "GOOD for food"
2. GOOD to look at ("pleasing to the eye")
3. GOOD for gaining knowledge ("desirable for gaining wisdom").

Clearly, there are at least three ways that Eve knew that something was "good"; thus, we can see that she did have some basic understanding of "good" and "evil" and from this alone she should have been able to grasp that disobeying God was NOT good - especially in light of His warning that they would die if they ate of that tree.

This is just another attempt to make God a moral monster by blaming Him for our human failings.

I don't think they are using "good" in the context of morality, I liken that to a baby putting something shiny in there mouth because it looks appealing. Besides if they understood that obeying god was good and they understood dying was bad (which seems unlikely since they were the first two people and never experienced death.) why would they deliberately disobey god?