From
Message 353:
Of course it's not important to your argument, being that you know full well the verses at 1 Peter 3:18-19 don't say a thing resembling your fallacious claim that, to summarize: "Jesus was alive in the spirit and preaching to imprisoned spirits during the three days the Bible says he was dead."
It sure does say something that resembles that, it mentions that Jesus dies in flesh, but was still alive in the spirit, and then he went and made proclamations to the imprisoned spirits. It doesn't take a genius to make sense out of that. But I guess you have to not be a complete moron.
Whenever I ask people to prove what's not in the Bible, they usually evade. That's what you're doing. All of a sudden, it's "not important to [your] argument" to show the forum where 1 Peter 3:18-19 indicates Jesus was preaching when he was supposed to be dead.
Its not important for it to say it in the way that you're requiring it to. You're acting as if the Bible has to say things specifically and explicitly in order for us to understand them. But in this case it is really easy to understand the implications of what it does say even though it isn't as explicit as you'd like.
I've already mentioned this to you in
Message 327:
quote:
FYI: There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible that say Jesus made proclamations to imprisoned spirits during the three days he was dead. If you can find such a scripture, please quote it for the benefit of the forum and show us where it says Jesus was dead when he was making the proclamations.
There's all kinds of inferences that can be made from the Bible that are not explicitly stated. We don't need to find passages that state things exactly in order to understand them as we've phrased them.
But you chose to dodge that point.
From
Message 354:
I'm sure the people down at Webster's Dictionary, whose definition of "eternal" I used in this thread, would like to hear your take on what eternal beings can do--namely, they can die and come back to life whenever they have a mind to do so.
Well that's stupid, why would they include the abilities of eternal beings in the definition of eternal? Would you also have them include the properties of red apples in the definition of the word red? Actually, I guess you would. Then you could argue that a firetruck isn't red because if doesn't have the juicy properties of an apple. That's how inane your argument is.
Be sure and tell them that bit about: At no point did it have a beginning or an end of its existence, even though its time as a living being had both a beginning or an end."
And now, in an act of ultimate desperation, you deliberately misrepresent me (aka lie) with the use of bolding and color. If you were actually interested in what I was saying, you would have done it like this:
quote:
At no point did it have a beginning or an end of its existence, even though its time as a living being had both a beginning or an end.
But we all already suspected that you weren't an honest person. Thank you for proving it.