Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/1264/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html en-us Copyright 2006, Yuku feeds@yuku.com (FeedMaster) webmaster@yuku.com (WebMaster) Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:57:34 GMT Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:53:57 GMT Yuku Feeds 1.0 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Yuku http://static.yuku.com//feed/bypass/images/button-yuku.png http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/1264/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html Yuku - free hosted forums and profiles 88 31 {pics-1.1 "http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html" l gen true for "http://yuku.com" r (nz 1 vz 1 lz 1 oz 1 cz 1 ) "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" l gen true for "http://yuku.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 )) Search Search Domain q http://yuku.com/search/direct/ <![CDATA[ Re: Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish ]]> http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/10943/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html#reply-10943
R: "Unless you have real proof that god did indeed do then be quiet."

No. One might as easily say that if you don't have proof that God did not do it, then be quiet. But I'm not saying to be quiet. I'm saying that the charge of absurdity is unfounded, because it arbitrarily excluded the miraculous from the equation, when a miraculous (or remarkably providential) event is precisely what the text describes.

R: "I have read your biblical excuses... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Waterrock) http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/10943 Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:53:57 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish ]]> http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/10944/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html#reply-10944 It is the testimony itself that is in question here. The testimony cannot be used to support itself. This is yet another circular argument.

My belief is that Matthew's testimony is untrue - I'll be kind and say that he was lying rather than saying that Christ was a charlatan who fooled him. Upon what do I base this belief?... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (gystex) http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/10944 Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:43:46 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish ]]> http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/10942/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html#reply-10942 Waterrock

Quote:
For you are committing the very "circular" error of which you accuse me: building your premises on your conclusions. For isn't your objection in this case nothing more or less than the assumption that God did not do it?


Unless you have real proof that god did indeed do then be quiet.... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (raphjd) http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/10942 Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:49:55 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish ]]> http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/10941/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html#reply-10941
None of the apolgoies that Waterrock has spent hours and hours documenting help to build a case that the bible is accurate or the "word of god". Even if he Bible was actually very well and clearly written with no discernable problems, it may still not be true, the word of god, whatever.

It really makes me... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Yark Hutprancer) http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/10941 Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:42:07 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish ]]> http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/10940/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html#reply-10940
T: ... "I would of thought though, that you would realise at a skeptic's message board the burden of proof lies with you."

Not the way I see it. I'm playing defense. I'm not trying to prove the veracity of the Bible. I grant, and have been granting for some time, that many statements in the Bible cannot be proven to be true.

T: "My primary objection is that as an apology it stinks. How god did it was because god did it."

Huh?... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Waterrock) http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/10940 Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:06:04 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish ]]> http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/10939/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html#reply-10939
Quote:
For you are committing the very "circular" error of which you accuse me: building your premises on your conclusions.

True. Which means we are both guilty of it. But I look properly abashed.:rolleyes
I would of thought... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Tanstaafl) http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/10939 Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:01:08 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish ]]> http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/10938/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html#reply-10938
I, too, would laugh if the stakes were not so high. For you are committing the very "circular" error of which you accuse me: building your premises on your conclusions. For isn't your objection in this case nothing more or less than the assumption that God did not do it? And is this not as unproven as my belief that God did it? You have your belief and I have mine. But one of us has Matthew's testimony on his side, namely me. Whose first-century testimony... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Waterrock) http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/10938 Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:28:12 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish ]]> http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/10937/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html#reply-10937
Quote:
But of course the premise that Jesus possessed and used supernatural knowledge is accepted by Bible-believing Christians, as it was by the author himself, who records this incident as an example of that very thing.

LOL.
Isn't this the catch all excuse for any contradiction, absurdity or what not. Of course it's okay & right, god done it.

Great example of the famous... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Tanstaafl) http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/10937 Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:13:50 GMT <![CDATA[ Matthew 17:27 - Saint Peter's Fish ]]> http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/1264/t/Matthew-17-27-Saint-Peter-s-Fish.html
A: No. The tax involved was not any sort of income-tax; it was the temple-tax, a small token-tax dedicated to be used for the upkeep of the temple and its environs. (It was based on the bekah-tax mentioned in the records of Ithamar in Exodus 38:25-26). One coin -- to be specific, a silver tetradrachma... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Waterrock) http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/1264 Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:57:34 GMT