Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[loinburger]

These people, who are infinitely more knowledgable (and in all likelihood more honest as well) than BK disagree about his turning resurrection into CPR.

Evidently BK doesn't see the need to seek expert opinion (or even a cursory Google search) on Biblical passages that disagree with his beliefs, which puts the lie to his claim that he seeks opinions on ethical dilemmas. I have difficulty believing that he would ever run the risk of having to alter his beliefs in any way.

[Ben Kenobi]

So it looks like Jesus isn't too thrilled about any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual

Marriage isn't easy. And it's neat how you excerpt the passages that are the most significant to make your case on 'context'.

Jesus could have answered the question in many ways. He chose to answer the question, by saying, "that marriage was not always this way". He pointed to the ideal of marriage as adam and eve. If you can show me how sodomy is congruent with this ideal, that would be one argument. But sodomy is explicitly rejected by the reference that God made them male and female. Why? Because that's how sexual intercourse works. Why have two sexes if homosexuality is part of the ideal?

[Thoth]

Why not? How do you explain the empty tomb?

Necrophillia?

[Ben Kenobi]

Gosh, even assuming the account is accurate, I can't possibly think of any reason for that

Why don't you try. It wasn't just the Christians. There is evidence from the Jews that something happened that made the tomb empty. There's a couple of different theories, and I'm curious as to which ones you prefer.

Of course I can't prove that Jesus DIDN'T rise from the dead. But that doesn't imply that it is equally likely that he DID, just because his friends and followers said he did.

So what are the other logical, alternatives? If we examine the situation logically, the best explanation, however improbable, is the resurrection.

As for your asinine argument re: men becoming monkeys vs. monkeys becoming men, you are simply making a verbally deft argument that has nothing to do with reality or scientific theory.

It is true. Many things which are considered to be scientific are unobserved. This is how scientific hypotheses are made. People make predictions about what we should expect to see, some of which have in fact been tested, and others, which are very difficult if not impossible to devise a test (or one that would take an enormously long time). Even simple stuff like proton decay, we simply don't know the answer.

I'm not sure why this is a zealous response as opposed to logical.

[Ben Kenobi]

These people, who are infinitely more knowledgable (and in all likelihood more honest as well) than BK disagree about his turning resurrection into CPR.

Well sure, Jews will disagree with me. DUH.

They will disagree on Christ's divinity too.

Why is it that Loinburger doesn't just put that in his post? Is he afraid that referring to Jews will cause his argument to be weaker?

[loinburger]

Well sure, Jews will disagree with me. DUH.

[Ben Kenobi]

Necrophillia?

So the guards did that to Christ?

How do you explain that the wrappings were intact?

[Ben Kenobi]

Do Jews say that the guy who hid in the tomb was resurrected, Loin? I'm pretty sure they don't.

[giblets]

Marriage isn't easy. And it's neat how you excerpt the passages that are the most significant to make your case on 'context'.

Jesus could have answered the question in many ways. He chose to answer the question, by saying, "that marriage was not always this way". He pointed to the ideal of marriage as adam and eve. If you can show me how sodomy is congruent with this ideal, that would be one argument. But sodomy is explicitly rejected by the reference that God made them male and female. Why? Because that's how sexual intercourse works. Why have two sexes if homosexuality is part of the ideal?

Let's look at the actual argument Jesus made...

6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So, in other words:
1. Whatever God joins together, man should not separate
2. Husband and wife have been joined together by God
3. Therefore man should not separate husband and wife

That's the argument against divorce Jesus made. And to back up the second proposition, he cited Genesis, where it says "the two will become will become one flesh." His argument wasn't "the ideal marriage is x", his argument was more along the lines of "man doesn't have the right to undo something God did". Jesus was explicit that celibacy is ideal so it's rather ridiculous to insist that he thought Adam and Eve were ideal.

All we can really conclude from Matthew 19 is that Jesus would consider celibacy to be preferable to a homosexual relationship.

[loinburger]

BK, have you ever read any experts' opinions/analyses about the Bible? Or do you just pull crap out of your ass whenever you encounter something that may not adhere to your beliefs?

http://bible.org/seriespage/death-and-resurrection-widow%E2%80%99s-son-1-kings-1717-24

[Ben Kenobi]

Loin, are you defending your second example? 1 and 3 are legitimate arguments, and yes I was aware of them. You also left out the only NT example.

The argument between resuscitation and resurrection isn't exactly something new.

For resurrection to occur, two things must happen. The physical body must be rejuvinated even to the point of recreation as when the body has decayed. For our resurrected body of the future, the Apostle calls this the transformation of the body of our humble state, this earthly and perishable body, into conformity with the body of his glory, a glorified resurrection body like the Lord’s. But the resurrection in this passage, like the resurrection of the body of Lazarus, was not a glorified resurrection body. It was a rejuvination to a perishable body that would again die. It required miraculous rejuvenation that reversed the processes of death like decay.

This is the critical difference between the two that your source confirms.

[loinburger]

Here's the timeline:
Ben makes an uneducated statement about the Bible
Ben is confronted with a counterexample
Without putting an ounce of thought into it (because the truth doesn't matter - Ben already has the truth at his command), Ben dismisses the counterexample
"Jews' opinions about the Old Testament aren't relevant!!!!"

To be clear, he is saying that a Jew claiming that a dead person was resurrected in the Old Testament is not relevant, because the Jew would not have said the same about Jesus. So, in other words, if a Jew doesn't say that person A was resurrected then their statement that person B was resurrected must be irrelevant. This is retarded.

[loinburger]

You also left out the only NT example.

I thought there was a possibility that you'd actually read the New Testament at some point, and would have the obvious counter-claim ready ("Jesus is God so he's allowed to resurrect people")

[Ben Kenobi]

Husband and wife have been joined together by God

Husband and wife, man and woman, adam and eve.

All we can really conclude from Matthew 19 is that Jesus would consider celibacy to be preferable to a homosexual relationship.

And right you are. Well done.

[loinburger]

It's odd that BK goes nuts about homosexuals having sex outside of marriage but rarely if ever berates heterosexual sex outside of marriage.