New Page 0

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Does it matter if we think in terms of micro- vs. macro-evolution?"

Creationists do not reject changes within kinds.

Make-believers like: Barbarian, Alate_One, PlastikBuddah do not have a biblical worldview.

[Did Humans Really Evolve from Ape-like Creatures?: Biblical Starting Assumptions by David Menton] "God tells us that on the same day He made all animals that walk on the earth (the sixth day), He created man separately in His own image with the intent that man would have dominion over every other living thing on earth (Genesis 1:26–28). From this it is clear that there is no animal that is man’s equal, and certainly none his ancestor...."

Barbarian, Alate_One, PlastikBuddah are we equal to animals?

"...Thus, when God paraded the animals by Adam for him to name, He observed that “for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:20). Jesus confirmed this uniqueness of men and women when He declared that marriage is to be between a man and a woman because “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). This leaves no room for prehumans or for billions of years of cosmic evolution prior to man’s appearance on the earth..."

Barbarian, Alate_One, PlastikBuddah are we just another animal in the animal parade? Was Jesus wrong when he confirmed the uniqueness of man? Were there prehumans before Adam and Eve?

"...Adam chose the very name “Eve” for his wife because he recognized that she would be “the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). The apostle Paul stated clearly that man is not an animal: “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Corinthians 15:39)..." Did Humans Really Evolve from Ape-like Creatures?

Barbarian, Alate_One, PlastikBuddah is Eve (human) the mother of all humans? Or was great-great-grandma an ape-like being?

Was the apostle Paul wrong? We are one kind with

beasts?

Response to comment [from other]: "...Where is the evidence that we did not evolve from animals?"

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Dem bones are gonna walk around, now hear the word of the Lord..."

"...Though many similarities may be cited between living apes and humans, the only historical evidence that could support the ape ancestry of man must come from fossils. Unfortunately, the fossil record of man and apes is very sparse. Approximately 95 percent of all known fossils are marine invertebrates, about 4.7 percent are algae and plants, about 0.2 percent are insects and other invertebrates, and only about 0.1 percent are vertebrates (animals with bones). Finally, only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consists of primates (humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs).

Because of the rarity of fossil hominids, even many of those who specialize in the evolution of man have never actually seen an original hominid fossil, and far fewer have ever had the opportunity to handle or study one..." Full text: What Is the Evidence for Human Evolution?

Response to comment [from other]: "Historical evidence is only one part of the picture...evolution of other organisms is conceded as fact..."

No. Read the entire article (re: observational evidence: jaws and teeth, skulls, leg bones, foot bones, hip bones, etc.). Humans did not evolve from ape-like beings. Creationists do not reject changes within kinds. They reject pond scum to people evolution. Evolution is of course a theory not fact.

See:

Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures?

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Its a theory that has resisted all attempts at falsification."

Actually, the

ones who falsify evidence (Piltdown man, Lucy, Neanderthal man) are on your side of the debate.

[Only Three Ways to Make an “Apeman”] "Knowing from Scripture that God didn’t create any apemen, there are only three ways for the evolutionist to create one:

Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”

Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.

Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.

These three approaches account for all of the attempts by evolutionists to fill the unbridgeable gap between apes and men with fossil apemen..." Only Three Ways to Make an “Apeman”

Your disbelief says more about you and your sin (Jer 17:9, Ro 1:28).

[Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures? by Dr. David Menton] "In one of the most remarkably frank and candid assessments of the whole subject and the methodology of paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam (a distinguished professor of anthropology) suggested the following:

Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy." Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "...every change to a population's genome can only ever degrade the information available. Thus evolution from fish to people is impossible..."

Response to comment [from other]: [Jaws and teeth, skulls, leg bones, foot bones, hipbones, etc.] "Uh...problem is, Serpent...that every one of those are entirely consistent with evolution."

[Jaws and Teeth] "Because of their relative hardness, teeth and jaw fragments are the most frequently found primate fossils. Thus, much of the evidence for the ape ancestry of man is based on similarities of teeth and jaws.

In contrast to man, apes tend to have incisor and canine teeth that are relatively larger than their molars. Ape teeth usually have thin enamel (the hardest surface layer of the tooth), while humans generally have thicker enamel. Finally, the jaws tend to be more U-shaped in apes and more parabolic in man.

The problem in declaring a fossil ape to be a human ancestor (i.e., a hominid) on the basis of certain humanlike features of the teeth is that some living apes have these same features and they are not considered to be ancestors of man. Some species of modern baboons, for example, have relatively small canines and incisors and relatively large molars. While most apes do have thin enamel, some apes, such as the orangutans, have relatively thick enamel. Clearly, teeth tell us more about an animal’s diet and feeding habits than its supposed evolution. Nonetheless, thick enamel is one of the most commonly cited criteria for declaring an ape fossil to be a hominid.

Artistic imagination has been used to illustrate entire “apemen” from nothing more than a single tooth. In the early 1920s, the “apeman” Hesperopithecus (which consisted of a single tooth) was pictured in the London Illustrated News complete with the tooth’s wife, children, domestic animals, and cave! Experts used this tooth, known as “Nebraska man,” as proof for human evolution during the Scopes trial in 1925. In 1927, parts of the skeleton were discovered together with the teeth, and Nebraska man was found to really be an extinct peccary (wild pig)!" Jaws and Teeth

Is Dr. Menton wrong about jaws and teeth?

Response to comment [from an atheist]: [Apelike being and human] "...[S]imilarities are far more than the simply obvious ones that can plainly be seen today and from fossils..."

[Chimp genome sequence very different from man by David A. DeWitt] "...[W]hat is this great and overwhelming "proof" of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years! The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.

Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40-45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called "insertions" or "deletions" because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence....This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species...

Comparison between a base substitution and an insertion/deletion. Two DNA sequences can be compared. If there is a difference in the nucleotides ([example, see fig.] an A instead of a G) this is a substitution. In contrast, if there is a nucleotide base which is missing it is considered an insertion/deletion. It is assumed that a nucleotide has been inserted into one of the sequences or one has been deleted from the other. It is often too difficult to determine whether the difference is a result of an insertion or a deletion and thus it is called an “indel.” Indels can be of virtually any length.

To put this number into perspective, a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such full pages of text to equal 40 million letters! So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human..." Chimp genome sequence very different from man http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/09/05/chimp-genome-sequence

"If the argument was that ONLY humans evolved, and nothing else did, well, that would be a tough case to sell. But what about all the OTHER animals, SD? The fossil records of some other animals is more complete...suggesting that, whether humans evolved or not, these others certainly did."

Which animal do you believe man came from? "...[C]himpanzees are only ninety-seven per cent gorillas; and humans are also ninety-seven per cent gorillas. In other words we are more chimpanzee-like than gorillas are..." Human/chimp DNA similarity continues to decrease: counting indels http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/similarity.asp

Response to comment [from other]: "You seem to be suggesting that man is not an animal. You are incorrect from the start. You also seem to imply that evolutionary theory suggest man came from chimp or gorillas. Your lack of knowledge is frightening."

"Evolutionists commonly teach that humans and chimpanzees are both basically "cousins" and have a common ancestor in our past. If you go back far enough all life likely has a single common ancestor in the evolutionary view. This, of course, does not mesh with Genesis 1-2 (DeWitt, pg. 39)."

"It is scary, the cultural weakness that creo-thought represents puts the West at a dangerous disadvantage compared to more progressive and rational peoples."

Is it rational to add assumptions in order to maintain the story of evolution? It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe God in the first place.

All similarities are not equal:

"There are additional important aspects to comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes. A high degree of sequence similarity does not necessarily equate to proteins having exactly the same function or role. For example, the FOX2P protein which has been shown to be involved in language has only 2 out of ~700 amino acids which are different between chimpanzees and humans. While this might seem trivial, consider exactly what those differences are. Humans have an asparagine instead of a threonine at position 303 and then a serine that is in place of an asparagine at 325. Interestingly, the latter change opens up a potential protein kinase C phosphorylation site and thus potentially significant differences in function/regulation. In most cases, we tend to think that differences in amino acid sequence only alter the three dimensional shape of a protein. FOX2P demonstrates how a difference in one amino acid can yield a protein that is regulated differently or has altered functions. There are many others. Therefore, we should not be too quick to trivialize even very small differences in gene sequences. Further, slight differences in non-coding regions also can impact DNA binding proteins and thus how protein levels are regulated. In such cases, the high degree of similarity is meaningless because of the significant functional differences that result..." What About the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA? by David A. DeWitt.

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "The same definition that covers for example, dog "kinds", puts humans and chimps in the same "kind.""

Your biblical illiteracy is showing again, Barbi. God created man separately in His own image. Man is to have dominion over every other animal (Genesis 1:26–28).

Response to comment [from other]: "...[M]ost of us respect fellows like Alate, Selaphiel, Barbarian, others. I certainly don't shut my ears to every piece of reason that they offer..."

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "A species is defined as organisms that can and do reproduce viable offspring in nature."

"...[M]ost paleoanthropologist ...believe that there was at least some degree of cross-fertilization between Neanderthals and modern humans...(1) fossil evidence that Neanderthals lived in close association and integration with modern humans (2) cultural evidence that Neanderthal behavior and thought was fully human. The amount of evidence in these two areas is extensive." The Neanderthal: Our Worthy Ancestors by Marvin Lubenow.

By the way, nice new name

--same bad theology.

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "What are you trying to say with this...菌柄小人物 ? It seems like nonsense."

That's Japanese for 'meathead'. あなたがとんちきだ。

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Japanese chicken scratches] "

Barbie. 寫字寫的好奇怪."

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "[S]tipe doesn't know what it is in Japanese slang, either..."

You're too

cool for school.

Could you teach the rest of us?--"You know, like nunchuku skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills... Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills." ~ Napoleon Dynamite

Your Google Japanese translation skills...ooh la la.

He's an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, surrounded by mystery

----oh right, and he hates Christians

( Gen. 49:23; Job 1:9; Job 2:4, 5; Job 12:4, 5; Psa. 11:2; Psa. 37:32; Psa. 38:20; Psa. 42:3, 10; Psa. 44:15–18, 22; Psa. 56:5; Psa. 69:10–12; Psa. 74:7, 8; Psa. 94:5; Psa. 119:51, 61, 69, 78, 85–87,95,110,157,161Prov. 29:10, 27; Isa. 26:20; Isa. 29:20, 21; Isa. 51:12, 13; Isa. 59:15; Jer. 2:30; Jer. 11:19; Jer. 15:10; Jer. 18:18; Jer. 20:8 v. 7.; Jer. 26:11–14; Jer. 50:7; Amos 5:10; Hab. 1:13; Matt. 5:10–12, 44 Luke 6:26, 27. Matt. 10:16–18, 21–23, 28; Matt. 20:22, 23; Matt. 23:34, 35; Matt. 24:8–10; Mark 8:35 Luke 17:33. Mark 9:42; Mark 13:9, 11–13; Luke 6:22, 23; Luke 21:12–19; John 12:42; John 15:18, 19; John 16:1, 2; John 17:14; Acts 4:16–20; Acts 5:29, 40–42; Acts 7:52; Acts 8:4; Acts 28:22; Rom. 8:17, 35–37; 1 Cor. 4:9–13; 1 Cor. 13:3; 2 Cor. 4:8–12; 2 Cor. 6:4, 5, 8–10; 2 Cor. 11:23–27; 2 Cor. 12:10; Gal. 4:29; Gal. 6:12, 17; Phil. 1:12–14, 28, 29; Col. 1:24; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Thess. 2:2, 14, 15; 2 Thess. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:8, 12; 2 Tim. 2:9, 10, 12; 2 Tim. 3:2, 3, 12; 2 Tim. 4:16, 17; Heb. 10:32–34; Heb. 11:25–27, 33–38; Heb. 12:3, 4; Heb. 13:13; Jas. 2:6; Jas. 5:6, 10; 1 Pet. 3:14, 16, 17; 1 Pet. 4:3, 4, 12–14, 16, 19; 1 John 3:1, 13; Rev. 2:3, 10, 13; Rev. 6:9–11; Rev. 7:13–17; Rev. 12:11; Rev. 17:6; Rev. 20).

Response to comment [from an "agnostic"]: "...[A]nd if you knew how to think for yourself, you wouldn't have to constantly post bible verses that are at odds with reality."

The Neanderthals: Our Worthy Ancestors, Part II: The Fossil and Archaeological Evidence by Marvin Lubenow] "Humans are alleged to have evolved from the australopithecines—a group of extinct primates. In other words, we evolved from beings who were not only outside of our species, but were also outside of our genus. Hence, the evolutionist must create categories, species, or intermediate steps between the australopithecines and modern humans in an attempt to create an alleged evolutionary sequence. Fossils that are very similar are placed in one species. Fossils with some differences from the first group are placed in another species.

Evolutionists must create species, whether they are legitimate or not, in an attempt to show the stages or steps that they believe we passed through in our evolution from lower primates. Hence, most evolutionists today place the Neanderthals in a species separate from modern humans..." Also see: Neanderthal burial practice, Neanderthals and modern humans buried together, archaeological evidence (e.g. tools, jewelry, art, graphic symbols, music, complex multi-component forms [e.g. adhesive]) The Neandertals: Our Worthy Ancestors, Part II: The Fossil and Archaeological Evidence.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Barbarian. That study you cited, used computer simulations. It did not show any Neanderthal child skulls with large browridges and other features. It also did not bother to tell us what differences were found between the child skulls of Neanderthals and modern humans."

They made jewelry for their wives. Perhaps he's jealousy because they were more charming than

he is.

"...[T]he idea that larger human brains mean greater intelligence has tended to remain (see Neuroscience and intelligence 2009). But the rather inconvenient fact that the Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do now has not been permitted to get in the way of evolutionary thinking..." Those Enigmatic Neanderthals: What Are They Saying? Are We Listening?

God fearing Bible believers make the best scientists:

Leonardo da Vinci 1452 – 1519 (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Nicolaus Copernicus 1473 – 1543 (formulated a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology)

Francis Bacon 1561 – 1626 (developed the Scientific Method)

Galileo Galilei 1564 – 1642 (contributed to the science of motion / articulated laws of nature / father of modern observational astronomy, physics, science)

Johannes Kepler 1571 – 1630 (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

Isaac Newton 1643 – 1727 (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Louis Pasteur 1822 – 1895 (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

Albert Einstein 1879 – 1955 (developed the special theory of relativity / discovered relationship between Energy and Mass (E=MC2) / contributed to Newton’s theory of gravitational pull / explaned the Brownian movement of molecules / laid the foundation of the photon theory of light / contributed the theory of radiation and statistical mechanics / developed the quantum theory of a monatomic gas / accomplished work in connection with atomic transition probabilities and relativistic cosmology)

Same empirical data--different interpretations.

See:

[URL="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html"]Do real scientists believe in Creation? [/URL]

Response to comment [from other]: "The real question is what their position would be today."

Define science. Are you speaking of operational or historical science? "The examples of science used in the textbooks show only operational (observational) science. This type of science, which makes observations and repeated experiments in the present, allows us to produce technology that benefits mankind. Evolution does not fit within the definition of operational science and should be classified as historical (origins) science..." full text: What is Science? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "Evolutionary theory is both an operational and a historical science..."

"Ge 1:1. Did physical death come before Adam's sin?

[Did physical death come before Adam's sin?] "Absolutely. For millions of years before..."

If physical death is not the result of Adam's sin (Ro 5:12, 1 Cor 15:20-22), what did Christ's death on the cross accomplish? 1 Cor 15:3-4.

"If it was to save us from physical death, He failed...[W]e know that Adam's death was spiritual, not physical. He died that day, as God said he would. Spiritually, not physically."

If Adam's sin only brought spiritual death not physical death, did Christ's death only remedy spiritual death not physical death?

[No victory over physical death (Ro 6:9; Re 1:18)] Physical death needs no "remedy."

Where is your hope? Ps 130:5, 147:11, Ps 33:22, 112:7, 119:166, Jer 17:7, Lam 3:26, 1 Pe 3:15.

Why are you ashamed of the gospel? Ro 1:16. Why are you ashamed of his word? Jer 8:9, Ps 119:31

A Christ who came for no real purpose? A Christ who did not achieve victory over physical death? Ro 6:9; Re 1:18. How is that Jesus able to provide hope for the believer?

You attempt to undermine Jesus' work on the cross (Ga 1:6). Hope in the Jesus of the Bible saves (Lev. 17:11, Heb. 9:14, Zech. 9:11).

"Einstein’s religious ideas include almost none of the core religious beliefs you have..."

I'm not an apologist for Einstein, Jefferson, etc. I am arguing Judeo-Christian values not theology.

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Did you or did you not include Einstein’s name in a list of “God fearing Bible believers (that) make the best scientists’?"

By the way, an intellectual ascension to the facts of the Bible does not save a person (James 2:19-20). Trust in the person of Jesus Christ saves a person (Ro 10:9).

You'll notice that the PlastikBuddah, Alate_One, Barbarian types acknowledge Jesus. They want him to go away (Mk 1:24). A Christian received his word and the truth with joy (Ac 11:1, Jn 14:6, Jn 1:1).

[From link] "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
Einstein: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

I do not know if Einstein came to a saving faith before death. If one needed intelligence to get into heaven, he'd probably make it. Man is not in need of more intelligence. He is in need of a Savior (2 Ti 1:10).

Response to comment [from other]: "...[Y]ou don't know that he [Einstein] was a God-fearing man..."

Why, do you worship his bobblehead? You're here "for entertainment", remember?

"...[I]f you're going to claim that Einstein supports your case, then he'd better believe everything that you do..."

Who cares what I believe? :idunno: What did God say?

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Serpentdove says you need not profess any belief in the core elements of Christianity to be accepted as Bible-believers."

Who cares what I say? What does God say?

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "Christ died to save each of us from that spiritual death...[n]ot a mere physical death....Christ saved no one from a physical death; He did something much greater."

Not great enough to conquer physical death (Ro 6:9; Re 1:18). Why should others hope in your Jesus?

"He died and rose again."

Was Christ raised physically, literally, and bodily?

"Great enough for me."

The believer will be raised spiritually (Col. 2:12) and physically (John 11:23, 24).

"...[I]t doesn't say "physically", does it?"

Job 19:26, Jn 5:28, Jn 6:44, 11:25, Ac 4:1, 2 Cor 4:14, Col 3:4, 1 Thess 4:14, Ro 14:9, 1 Cor 15:3, 12-19, 15:18, Phil 3:21, Jn 14:3, Jn 17, Re 20:12

See:

The Results of Denying Bodily Resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1878

Response to comment [from other]: "My parents were both big time believers. They are both also dead."

1 Thess 4:13.

"Uh, I'm pretty sure they are not sleeping. I was with my Mom when she died. A bit beyond sleep. When people sleep they breathe, have heart and brain activity. She did not."

The apostle Paul is being polite. If you prefer worm food so be it.

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Is the fear of death the motivation for your belief?"

Sweet merciful death (Heb 2:15, 2 Cor 5:8). I'm motivated by Christ's love (1 Jn 4:19).

"...[Y]ou are scared to face death without a crutch."

I agree with Mac Powell. "I don't need a crutch. I need an ambulance." We die to ourselves to live for him (Ro 6:4).

See:

You Christians Need a Crutch

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "...[W]e'll have our same bodies"

The believer will have a glorified body (Rom. 8:29, 30).

"If Jesus came to save us from physical death, He failed."

Natural death has been conquered (Ro 6:9; Re 1:18) and abolished (2 Ti 1:10) by Christ. One day it will finally be destroyed (Ho 13:14; 1 Co 15:26).

Was Christ raised physically, literally, and bodily?

Response to comment [from other]: "How can it have been abolished in the present if people still physically die? Eventually death is no more as it's destroyed if it's the last 'enemy' to go, but not currently."

I think Satan asked the same thing:

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel [2 Tim. 1:10].

"Now this is a verse that deserves great emphasis.

“Who hath abolished death” is literally since He has made of none effect death. Death means something altogether different to the child of God—Christ made it of no effect. Now, God did not eliminate death. Remember that Paul is writing this letter from prison where the sentence of death is upon him. But Paul is not talking about physical death. He means spiritual death, eternal death, which is separation from God. Christ has indeed abolished spiritual death so that no sinner need go to a place where he’ll be eternally separated from God. Christ is our Mediator, the one Mediator between God and man. God is satisfied with what Christ has done for us. The question is: Are you satisfied? Or are you trying to save yourself by your own good works? Let me repeat what I have said before: Man cannot be saved by perfect obedience, because he is incapable of rendering it. He cannot be saved by imperfect obedience, because God will not accept it. There is only one solution to the dilemma, and that is the One who said, “… I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)." McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 5:462

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "You could have saved a lot of time by just admitting it the first time I told you this."

J. Vernon McGee taught a physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus. What is your belief? Do you believe in a physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "You could have saved a lot of time by just admitting it the first time I told you this."

You've already said this. Again, J. Vernon McGee taught a physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus.

"That's nice."

That's more than "nice". That is our faith and our hope. Why do you call yourself a Christian when you deny the physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus?

"...[i]f you'd admitted that the "death" Jesus saved us from was a spiritual death..."

Christians believe in a physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus.

"I'm a Christian"

"...I believe that the death we are saved from is a spiritual one." [Do you believe in a physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus?] "I think you're wrong about that."

That is because you are a deceiver and an antichrist.

[The Results of Denying Bodily Resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 by John MacArthur] "The first thing that happens if you deny bodily resurrection is one Christ is not risen..."But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen." In other words, while you're sort of gingerly and glugglygoing along saying we don't believe in bodily resurrection, what about Christ? If dead men don't rise, then guess what, Christ didn't rise because you just said dead men don't rise..." The Results of Denying Bodily Resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 by John MacArthur

Christ is 100% man and 100% God.

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "How did a thread directed to the question of whether evolution is a fact get sidetracked onto who is dead and who is faking it and whether they have neato bodies and whether serpentdove needs a crutch or an ambulance?"

Mac Powell needed more than a crutch. So do I...All of me...Why not take all of me....Barbarian exposed his horns.

We are now discussing full incarnation.

"...[H]ere that's the basis of his [the apostle Paul's] argument. If you say dead men don't rise what have you done to Christ? He's a man. If you make that the postulate, then you've eliminated His resurrection." Full text: The Results of Denying Bodily Resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 by John MacArthur

...Can't you see...I'm no good withouuuut you...

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: ""...[A]re you still confusing yourself with God?"

"The key to remember is that Paul connects the bodily resurrection of men with the bodily resurrection of whom? Christ. Those are inseparable. And those two things are both sides of the same coin as it were all the way through his thought..." The Results of Denying Bodily Resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 by John MacArthur

Tip toe through the tulips...

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "It is disappointing how people cobble together phrases like this to try to salvage some sensibility about the nature of God..."

Ba, ba, ba, ba, ba,
Ba, ba, ba, ba, ba,
ba bada da da da,
Da, da, da, da, da
Bo, doot, doot, doot, do, do, do, do, do...(too many notes)

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "Just tell her to go back to the politics forum and stay there."

When the cat is away the rats will play (Mt. 15:9, Mk 7:8, 9, 7:6, 7, Col. 2:8, Eph 5:11).

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "I'm pleased you now accept the resurrection of Jesus..."

Why would you be pleased that I accept the physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus when you do not? 2 Jn 7-11. The believer has the hope that he/she will be raised like Jesus.

The resurrection of Jesus has everything to do with our physical death. The believer will be raised spiritually (Col. 2:12) and physically (John 11:23, 24). Where is your hope?

You answered: "I think you're wrong about that." http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2484069#post2484069

"Serpent tries a little quote-mining to make it appear that Barbarian thinks something he does not."

Barbarian speaks in the third person again--and Jimmy likes Elaine.

Are you able to debate without committing a straw man fallacy?

Stawman.

I did not argue that Jesus was not resurrected. I argued that Jesus was resurrected physically, literally, bodily. You said he was not. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2484069#post2484069

"...but that has nothing to do with the fact that we will still physically die."

Stawman.

I did not argue that people do not physically die. I argued that natural death has been conquered (Ro 6:9; Re 1:18) and abolished (2 Ti 1:10) by Christ. One day it will finally be destroyed (Ho 13:14; 1 Co 15:26).

The believer will be raised spiritually (Col. 2:12) and physically (John 11:23, 24). This is the Christian hope. Because you deny this, I had asked where you get your hope.

[Why would you be pleased that I accept the physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus when you do not? 2 Jn 7-11. The believer has the hope that he/she will be raised like Jesus.] "...[W]hen I first mentioned it..."

You did not mention that Jesus was raised physically, literally, bodily. In fact, you rejected this truth. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2484069#post2484069

Strawman.

You know that I know Jesus was raised physically, literally, bodily. :peach:

Strawman.

I did not argue that people do not die physically. I argued that Jesus conquered (Ro 6:9; Re 1:18) abolished (2 Ti 1:10) and one day will finally destroy death (Ho 13:14; 1 Co 15:26).

You spiritualize the Bible. I do not. We will be raised spiritually (Col. 2:12) and physically (John 11:23, 24).

[You rejected the physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus.] "No, I told you it was a fact."

You answered: "I think you're wrong about that." http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2484069#post2484069

You disagreed that Jesus was raised physically, literally, bodily. This of course undermines the gospel. You attempt to diminish Christ's work on the cross (1 Cor 15:3-4).

"You [Barbarian] said: "...I believe that the death we are saved from is a spiritual one." (Serpent questions the doctrine of the resurrection)"

Strawman.

I have not questioned the resurrection. I argued that Jesus was raised physically, literally, bodily. You argued he was raised spiritually.

[Barbarian quote] "I think you're wrong about that...(I restored, in red, the context you deleted to make it seem I doubted the resurrection)..."

"Serpent tries a little quote-mining to make it appear that Barbarian thinks something he does not."

They are your exact words. Barbarian speaks in the third person again--and Jimmy likes Elaine.

[Strawman arguments] "It's not too bright to lie about things still on the board..."

What is "...still on the board..."? Jesus was either raised physical, literal, bodily or he was not. The Christian knows he will be raised spiritually (Col. 2:12) and physically (John 11:23, 24). We do not attempt to undermine the gospel (1 Cor 15:3-4).

The point remains. You seem unable to argue your point without committing a strawman fallacy.

"It appears that serpent (at least for the last few posts) acknowledges a physical resurrection."

Strawman.

I have not argued against Jesus' physical, literal, bodily resurrection. You did. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2484069#post2484069

You have reconsidered your view? You now believe in a physical, literal, bodily resurrection?

"I'm still puzzled as to why she didn't accept it from the start."

Strawman.

I argued for (not against) a physical, literal, bodily resurrection from the start.

Strawman.

I did not argue that people do not die physically. I argued that Jesus conquered (Ro 6:9; Re 1:18) abolished (2 Ti 1:10) and one day will finally destroy death (Ho 13:14; 1 Co 15:26).

How about the devil? Do you believe in a literal devil? Is he a person out to destroy you?

"[Do you believe in a physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus?] (Serpent questions the doctrine of the resurrection)"

Strawman.

I did not question the resurrection of Jesus.

You did.

You said: "...I believe that the death we are saved from is a spiritual one."
I asked: "Do you believe in a physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus?"
You answered: "I think you're wrong about that."

"I restored, in red, the context you deleted to make it seem I doubted the resurrection..."

Strawman.

I did not attempt to distort your position. I quoted your words exactly.

"Barbarian notes that serpent now accepts a physical resurrection of Jesus...I'm still puzzled why you questioned it."

"If you did, you weren't very clear about it. I'm guessing that you didn't accept it at first..."

Proof please.

Proof please.

Strawman.

You know my actual position and dismiss it.

[Is there a literal devil?] "The devil is not concerned with our physical existence..."

I did not ask if the devil is concerned with our physical existence. I asked if a literal devil exists. Is there a literal devil who seeks to destroy you and me? Since you rejected the physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus, I'd like to move on to the devil...Can't wait to get to the virgin Mary--if we ever get to the virgin Mary.

See:

The Results of Denying Bodily Resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 by John MacArthur