To YngNLuvnIt from OldnWiser

Philosophy deals with ethics and existence as we know it to be whereas theology is simply a lame attempt to explain what we currently don't understand. Philosophy is factually based whereas theology creates a fiction.

The only reason we scoff at primitive beliefs such as those you refer to in your PNG example is because the science is there to demonstrate the truth. People's belief in a god to cure their ills is simply called the placebo effect

Netab,

Thanks for ignoring my previous queations. Here's another for you: why are you so determined to analyse the 'death' of The Christ? The fact is He lived and He died (which is more then most pagans would even admit).
I can't wait to see your interpretation on His resurrection. After all this is The Christ that lives today... not just then but NOW.

Shanno,

There are levels and relms above and below the "physical". How else would you explain the miraculous? Physicians to this day are still perplexed when a miracle happens in front of their eyes.

coach,
If you looked through the posts, you would see that I have answered all your queries relating to the historical Joshua. In relation to my 'agenda' - its been stated on at least two occasions in previous posts. Finally, I am not interested in discussing issues of your personal faith regarding the resurrection etc; they are articles of faith and I may not agree with them but I certainly respect them.

By the way coach, bland assertions of your faith are not good arguments for the historical veracity of Joshua and his life / times.

Hey Coach,

What about the ascension?

When did the planes crash in to the twin towers? I bet you know the answer. So its fair to suggest that if you'd witnessed Christ ascending into heaven you'd also be pretty clear on the time and date. So Coach, when did Christ ascend into heaven?

Was it on the day of his resurrection as per Luke 24 1:51 and Mark 16: 9-19? Or was it at least 8 days later as per John 20:26? Many days later (Acts 13:31) or 40 days later (Acts 1: 2-3,9)?

Surely if a book were 'inerrant' it would at least be consistent on a matter as significant as the ascension.

Netab says:

"...regarding the resurrection etc; they are articles of faith and I may not agree with them but I certainly respect them."?

How so? I thought you were interested in facts. So why is Jesus' death more important to you when His resurrection was part and parcel of His mission?

I see inconsistencies in your logic. You can't argue one fact and dismiss the other because it does not agree with your un-faith.

Shanno,

You can play this stupid game for ever - but you will never disprove the fact that Jesus lived, died and yes rose again and finally ascended to heaven in front of many witnesses.

You are free to believe or not to believe. That's how God wired you.
Belief requires "faith" but not the kind you describe. It takes WISDOM to accept that there is a greater power and a better plan than "yours" and (gradually or suddenly) submitting to 'it'.

To your (and Netab's) questions of exact dating and timing...my answer remains: who cares? How could that change the facts? How many times did recorded history make errors? When someone dies in a road accident does it matter who was at fault or how many witnesses were there, what account they each gave, which police was on duty that shift, ...? Fact remains: the person is dead.

You would think that no one could deny 9/11 - but believe you me there are many out there who will distort and re-write history - depending on what they "want" to believe. (Just look at the CIA inside job theory accepted by many Muslims today).

Faith is the belief in "facts" without necessarily proving them by our limited intellect. Why do you have faith in other things without demanding absolute proof of their validity or definite understanding of how and why "it works".

Science (observable knowledge) could explain what was once mysteries but the same science could never disprove the existence of GOD (or miracles).

Like one man healed by Jesus said: "I was blind and now I see"... spare me the details...!

Oldn“Wiser”…

“Philosophy is factually based whereas theology creates a fiction.”
I don’t believe philosophy is factually based; it is more opinion based. Also, you cannot say theology “creates a fiction” unless you can verify that fact.

You might be interested in this website: http://www.harvardhouse.com/index.htm . It may seem a little bizarre but it attempts to look at the factual credibility of claims made by theological texts.

“The only reason we scoff at primitive beliefs such as those you refer to in your PNG example is because the science is there to demonstrate the truth. People's belief in a god to cure their ills is simply called the placebo effect”
What is truth? What capacity does science have to claim truth?
In great miracles, the placebo effect cannot always be applicable.

“Luke describes Jesus' departure very briefly. The conciseness of this account is probably because Luke also spends time narrating a departure in Acts 1. It is much discussed whether this event is the same as the one in Acts 1 or is a distinct event. If it equals Acts 1, then Luke has simply summarized quickly here what took place forty days later to establish a literary tie to Acts. The possibility of literary compression makes a choice very difficult to establish (for one event, see Parsons 1987:193-94; for the options, Osborne 1984:137-38 and especially 266-70; Osborne opts for two perspectives on the one event: Lk 24 as theological and Acts 1 as historical).” http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=3&source=1&seq=i.49.24.1