Snowbird <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<yWr%b.11935$h44.1248971@stones.force9.net>...
> Jerzy Jakubowski wrote:
>
> > dgenglish@hotmail.com (dave e) wrote in message news:<10ffa4e4.0402251455.6a6303dd@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>Snowbird <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<HJN_b.11469$Y%6.1079250@wards.force9.net>...
> >>
> >>>Uncle Davey wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>So, umm, what's your scientific theory of the resurrection, then?
> >>>
> >>>I never claimed to have one. Nor did I claim that one was necessary.
> >>>
> >>>-
> >>>Wayne
> >>
> >>Three errors common to medical pseudoscience today, can equally well
> >>be applied to the Biblical accounts of the resurection.
> >>
> >>1. Patient's initial condition is not carefully diagnosed (Was Jesus
> >>actually dead, prior to the reported resurection?)
> >>
> >>2. Patient's final condition is not properly evaluated (Did Jesus
> >>actually come back to life, after he reportedly died?)
> >>
> >>3. The case study is entirely bogus. The patient never existed, as
> >>claimed.
> >>
> >>Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > That's not quite what I had in mind in my question for Snowbird.
> >
> > Wayne, why is a scientific theory of the new creation not necessary
> > when a scientific theory of the first one was?
>
> The theory of evolution is not a theory of creation of the universe.
> Resurrection is not a 'new creation' of the universe and is a faith issue.
>
> -
> Wayne
But the New Testament talks about the universe dissolving with fervent
heat and a new heaven and earth appearing, so how is that not a 'new
creation' of the Universe?
Which bits of the Bible do you believe and which bits don't you
believe?
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|