Firstly Doc, thank you for your detailed reply (post 63), I do appreciate your keeping your promise to me. Secondly, nevertheless, it’s poor hermeneutics to focus almost entirely upon the Old Testament, to the near exclusion of the New Testament. In Biblical hermeneutics we should instead use the NT to interpret the OT and never vice versa. Thirdly, I’ve seen absolutely no rebuttal to any of my major points, so please reply to the use of the word ‘apostles’ at
Acts 2:43, ‘Peter and the 11’ rather than ‘Peter with the 119’ at
Acts 2:14 and the Greek ‘ma pantes’ at
1st Corinthians 12:29-30 as well as the thief on the cross. Fourthly, you’ve dismissed
1st Corinthians 15:6 rather than disproved it. My point here was that because 500 people witnessed the resurrected Christ, these 500 people were saved, for how can this epistle be speaking of 500 people who witnessed Christ’s resurrection and yet remained lost and unbelievers in the resurrection. At the start of
1st Corinthians 15:2-4, we’re told that the resurrection is the single central most factor in believing the gospel, so in context verse 6 is telling us that these 500 who witnessed the greatest event in history are followers of Christ (saved). Finally, your lengthy post ducks every one of my key points. Debate involves facing your opponents best arguments, not ducking them and introducing more of your own, so please do try to engage with my arguments. Thanks Doc.
Threaded Mode
