
right_wrong_or_something_else2.pdf |
![]()
11 Comments
Ed Babinski
4/5/2013 04:37:16 pm
Who wrote the paper?
Reply
Kevin V
4/12/2013 04:26:44 am
Hello Ed,
Reply
4/15/2013 10:52:00 am
Hi,
Kevin V
4/16/2013 07:20:16 am
Hello Ed, 4/18/2013 01:18:12 pm
Hi Kevin,
Reply
Kevin V
4/19/2013 06:20:58 am
Hello there,
Reply
4/23/2013 01:38:03 pm
The "best" explanation for "the resurrection" depends on a great many questions that remain open, none of which is as firmly closed as you suppose. We do not have access to such information.
Kevin V
5/27/2013 02:46:20 am
Wow Ed, I am not sure that you would pass a Turing Machine Test given the lack of interaction and constant repetition of your posts. Please ACTUALLY read my blog which contains answers and/or responses to every on one of the questions you raise. My answers don't need to be rebutting defeaters in every case but ONLY undercutting defeaters!!!
Ray
8/16/2015 02:19:09 pm
But not only are Jesus and Paul (subject to the constraints of 2TJ epistemic horizons) therefore 'wrong' about parousia/resurrection timing, so is the author of Daniel 12:2-7, in predicting bodily resurrection before 70, when the power of the holy people was finally shattered. If one affirms Jesus' self-consciousness as Yhwh-incarnate, vindicated via his resurrection (as you and I both do), why opt for an *extremely* overdue temporal (and to myself, therefore implausible) realization of his specific predictions at some future date, rather than some modified preteristic form of fulfillment in the first century (say, along the lines of receiving a heaven-stored, resurrection body at death, a la the Bruce/Thrall hypothesis regarding the later Paul, in 2Cor. 5:1-10, etc.)? If everyone is looking through a glass darkly, and past timing predictions have not panned out, on what basis would you modify the timing rather than the nature of fulfillment?
Reply
Kevin V
8/18/2015 03:59:07 am
Hello Ray,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2013
Categories |