Violating 'Law'

[POI]

Wild claims are a dime a dozen. We hear them all the time, and they come in all forms, shapes, and sizes. The term 'wild' is somewhat subjective in and of itself and ultimately lies within the eye of the beholder. A 'wild' claim to you may not seem so 'wild' to me, and vice versa. Further, some of these 'wild' claims are a little more believable than others. And others, are instead downright dismissed without any initial consideration what-so-ever.

In this particular case, let's investigate claim(s) surrounding deemed clinically dead bodies; which are also presumed to be decomposing, due to 'natural law'. And these claim(s) assert that these dead and decomposing bodies violated "natural law" by returning to life. (See Matthew 27:52-53 and/or John 11:44 for reference). Do we agree that these are 'wild' claim(s)? Assuming we agree here, let's trek forward...

A believer in these assertions comes along and makes the following statement:

These people were so convinced in their experience and so believable and completely credible that others have fully accepted their testimony on the basis of their character, having little or even nothing to do with the details of the telling. You tell me something unbelievable and I believe it having not seen what you saw, but believing YOU. And I tell two friends and they tell two friends, and years later a couple of folks decide that this all should be written down and preserved for posterity.

But countless people are convinced of things which are false in reality. Hence, the steadfast and earnest belief itself renders no merit as to (whether or not) the claim is actually true. So maybe this particular arguing point isn't really that convincing after all? Further, the above touches upon the "Halo Effect" and "charisma". Meaning, believable and confident people project authority and likeability, which triggers a cognitive bias where others may assume their claims are accurate. Heck, some of the recipients of these tales told may later even become inspired to write about these received upon claim(s). Further, fallacious reasoning, or the 'appeal to ethos', may be presented here. Meaning, relying solely upon the speaker/presenter(s) character, rather than instead the actual substance. This is also known as "ad verecundiam", or the "appeal to authority".

For debate: I'm not saying that 'natural law' cannot be violated. I'm instead asking why I should believe in these particular expressed 'wild' claim(s), in violating natural law?

[POI]

Keeping this on top, originally from post 43:

I'm going to submit a hypothesis... The a) falsified claim or b) the claim proven to never to have happened; isn't actually so because:

a) the claim is not detailed enough to actually investigate
b) it hasn't actually been falsified yet

And once again, doesn't matter what the writer knows or doesn't know, but only what the writer knows is the Author's words given him to write. There are many places where the writer makes it clear, that he doesn't know everything the Author is saying, but only that He's saying it.

All the prophets and apsostles also need to study the words of Scripture to learn their truth, the same as any reader of the Author's writings.

Psa 45:1
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

They are taking dictation from the Author's knowledge, not writing their own personal knowledge. They are pens in the hands of the Author. Holy pens with pure hearts to write only what Thus saith the LORD, but only pens nonetheless.

Please see above in bold red.

Well then, in that case, once again it doesn't matter whether the read believes the words are true or not. The natural man doesn't have to believe anything that superceeds natural law.

The only matter is if the words contradict established and known facts, as in this case, that the earth, she be a round, not flat.

Anyone believing the earth is flat, cannot have that proven from the Bible. And anyone knowing the earth is round, doesn't need that proven by the Bible.

The Author is not seekiing faith by revealing physical things, that no one on earth can know at the time.

Bold red above?

The Author does, that the He sits on the circle of the earth overseeing all the inhabitants as crosshoppers.

If anyone wants to know if that circle is round or flat, then they need to go elsewhere. The Author doesn't say, because it's not important to the revelation and doctrine of the Book.

Whether anyone accepts the Author decision, is also irrelavant.

Bold red above?

Correct. Unless there is any other info saying so. The Scriptures never give the exact shape nor deminsions of the earth; nor does He say such knowledge is necessary to believe His revelation and doctrine.

Bold red above?

We can say that all Scripture is written to us for one main thing: Don't do evil. The shape of the earth is irrelavant to doing good or evil.

False. The Bible contains several passages that instead focus on natural observations, physical construction, and agricultural instructions, as opposed to "moral or spiritual commandments". These verses are often categorized under biblical creation, wisdom literature, or civic and health ordinances. For example(s) - In Gen. 6:14-16 - (god gives physical dimensions for the arc), in Ex. 25-27 - (detailed architectural blueprints for building the Tabernacle are given; specifying the types of acacia wood, gold overlay, linen colors, and bronze fixtures), or how about 1 Kings 6 - (where a step-by-step physical breakdown of King Solomon’s temple construction, including wall thicknesses, window styles, and stone carvings.)?

Are you saying, that nowhere in the Bible does the inspiring author of the Bible allude to the earth's shape at all????..?? If so, I beg to differ, in Matthew 4:8. (See below for details)...

And once more, that only matters to know the factual errancy of the Book or not.

Right, which is why I brought up this passage... Does Matthew 4:8, in any (way, shape, or form), allude to the earth's actual shape? I say it does, and I explained why. (See below for details)...

Only if there is context to prove one way or the other. If not, it doesn't matter to the Author. It's His Book, not the reader's. If a reader thinks such things matter, let them write their own book already.

You stated that Jesus is not 'omnipresent', which is why he needed to be brought elsewhere to see all nations. The burden still rests upon YOU to demonstrate that the term 'very high mountain' signifies a "magical realm where all kingdoms can be viewed", rather than my argument that the term 'very high mountain' was instead more literal. Meaning, they simply had to go up high so they could view the rest of the nations. Which would be false, as no one can see the opposite side of a sphere. And if you want to add more apologetics here, in that he could still see the other side because he is not merely human, then he would have no need to 'go high' in the first place. (i.e.):

In Matthew 4:8, the phrase "very high mountain" (or "exceedingly high mountain") translates the Greek phrase ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν (oros hypselon lian):

- ὄρος (oros): Mountain
- ὑψηλὸν (hypselon): High, lofty (from hypselos)
- λίαν (lian): Exceedingly, greatly, very

[POI]

Matt. 25:31 is about 'final judgement'.

It's the judgment of nations by the Lord returned to reign over all nations.

This is why I placed it in 'quotes.' But you missed my point here... In Matt. 25, all parties are gathered. In Matt. 4, they are not. This is what makes Matt. 4:8 relevant.