Randy wrote (quotes from two posts):
Oh, there IS evidence, alright...lots of it. But not coercive evidence that FORCES you to believe.
and:
Heh...funny how archaeology keeps finding stuff that proves rather than disproves the Bible, isn't it? If they find Arimathea (like they have found Sodom and Gomorrah), what will your excuse be then?
With regard to the first quote, would "adequate", "convincing", "undeniable", sufficient", or "confirmed" serve as synonyms for "coercive" evidence? If not, why not? Are you really still beating the God respects our freedom too much to provide compelling evidence for the more outlandish things we are supposed to believe in the Christian scheme drum? You know that dog won't hunt.
As for the second quote, why speak of excuses? If archaeologists ever do locate Arimathea, what of it? Has anyone ever said that there is no contact whatsoever between Biblical narratives and history? Why would the discovery of Arimathea make the Gospel accounts more compelling? So a place may someday be found to have existed and some guy is said to have come from there. Big deal. It wouldn't suggest anything about the truth or falsehood of the resurrection stories in the Gospels. And isn't the resurrection the point of this thread?
Oh, there IS evidence, alright...lots of it. But not coercive evidence that FORCES you to believe.
and:
Heh...funny how archaeology keeps finding stuff that proves rather than disproves the Bible, isn't it? If they find Arimathea (like they have found Sodom and Gomorrah), what will your excuse be then?
With regard to the first quote, would "adequate", "convincing", "undeniable", sufficient", or "confirmed" serve as synonyms for "coercive" evidence? If not, why not? Are you really still beating the God respects our freedom too much to provide compelling evidence for the more outlandish things we are supposed to believe in the Christian scheme drum? You know that dog won't hunt.
As for the second quote, why speak of excuses? If archaeologists ever do locate Arimathea, what of it? Has anyone ever said that there is no contact whatsoever between Biblical narratives and history? Why would the discovery of Arimathea make the Gospel accounts more compelling? So a place may someday be found to have existed and some guy is said to have come from there. Big deal. It wouldn't suggest anything about the truth or falsehood of the resurrection stories in the Gospels. And isn't the resurrection the point of this thread?
