What is your source for that?

I'm in full possession of all my senses (most especially common sense) and my wits. I know there are no alternatives or options between Time and Timlessness. So...which one of really needs to come to our senses?

[b]You were the one who brought up the definition of temporal.So explain how any of the definitions given in M-W lead to that conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Quit acting like a first grader and start to figure these rudimentary things out for yourself. The primary definition to "temporal" is "of or relating to time as opposed to eternity." Does this definition float your little rubber ducky?

Also, you said that "temporal" is a religious term. Shirley U. Jest. Let me ask you: Does your body require sleep? Does your body require food to continue its existence? Do you require water to live? If "yes" to all the above, then you have just conceded that your body has very definite or definable limits -- that you have a limited existence. You are in fact (as we all are) finite beings. And this means we cannot be eternal in nature. Therefore, on this earth, we are be temporal beings. The Law of Excluded Middle applies here because there is no third option.

How do you know?

Ad hominem attack!

Now we need a definition for "eternity."

See definitions #1 abd #2 from M-W.

And I accept that. But your claim is that this limitation can be overcome. You have failed to provide any evidence for that.

The Law of Excluded Middle tells me there is no third alternative to Time and Timelessness.

It would be if it weren't true.

Infinite. Timelessness.

I don't see any religious connotations in the definition.

The historical event, witnessed by many, of the Resurrection of Christ.

So I can't get back to Arcangues?

How many witnessed the resurrection of Christ...and...why didn't this earth-shattering event make the headlines of that time period?

Seriously? The second definition contains the words laity, clergy and Christian; the third contains the word spiritual. And you see no religious connotation? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

We've been through this before. Even if an ancient preacher named Jesus existed (highly doubtful) there are no accounts of the resurrection outside Christian propaganda.

Hundreds according to Paul (1Cor 15:6). Also, as far as writers of the NT, we have Peter, James, John and Paul -- all eyewitnesses.

And the bigger and more pertinent question is: If Jesus did not rise from his tomb, how in the world did Christianity become a worldwide religion, since the very cornerstone to the Christian Faith is the Resurrection? Why didn't the Christ-haters of Jesus' day simply produce his body after three days? They could have shut down the entire Jesus movement in no time flat.

Just because those words are there, doesn't make temporal a religious term.

In fact, the definition that contains the words "clerical or sacred", reads thus:

lay or secular RATHER than clerical or sacred (emphasis mine).

And "spiritual" is not in my M-W definition at all.

Why would there be? Jesus appeared to HIS people, not to the world at large. Jesus made his entrance into this world in Israel, remember?

Headlines? :rolleyes:
The printing press wasn't invented until circa 1440.
It's not as though citizens could go to their local newsstands and grab a NY Times.

Come on, Greyfox...you honestly couldn't spot my attempt at humor by my use of "headlines" in that context? You seriously thought that I actually believed in the existence of NEWSPAPERS at that time? :rolleyes:

The topic of Jesus's resurrection has been a tired argument in this thread...as is Boxcar's hypothesis that the "resurrection" is the only way by which Christianity could be widespread as a religion. The truth is that this supposed resurrection does not exist at all as a historical event...even though such a stunning development could NEVER have been expected to be ignored by the annals of history.

And, as far as the "popularity" of Christianity is concerned...it is equally truthful that Rome, after it accepted Christianity as its official religion...resorted to terrifying acts of extreme brutality in its attempt to spread the "Christian beliefs" among the 'unbelievers'. To believe in different religions became a crime punishable by death...and the early Roman Christian Church practically INVENTED the act of book-burning when it came to dealing with questionable reading material. To believe that Christianity could only become widespread because of its "divine origin" is to exhibit ignorance to the ultimate degree, as far as the "history of religion" is concerned.

Yes...yes...HUNDREDS of people witnessed the resurrected Jesus, "according to Paul". And yet...the earliest written mention of the miracle-working Jesus arrived many years after his departure from the scene. Hundreds saw him arise from the dead...but no one wrote anything about him during his stay here. :ThmbUp:

Of course I knew that you knew that.
But in the absence of mass media, telecommunications, and a largely illiterate population, information would mainly be transmitted orally.
Official transcribers of history could put in and edit out whatever they wanted to.
An event such as the resurrection of any man might take 50 or more years to be written down on a parchment somewhere and even then it might be distorted as the game of telephone shows us. By that time most first hand witnesses would be dead with lifespans as short as they were in those days.
I have no problem that the Annals of History that you may be referring to have not mentioned that happening. I wouldn't expect them to.
Fortunately the Gospels were written down and offer some history for believers to seek solace in.

The written word had become quite popular as a communication tool long BEFORE the emergence of Jesus. The Greek sages predated Jesus by HUNDREDS of years, and yet...they have left their footprints throughout the "Annals of History". And they were mere mortals...who remained in their graves after death. The thought that the genuine resurrection of a dead man could be kept off the written record for 50+ years after the fact is totally bewildering to me. People usually write these things down in a more timely manner.

We disagree on that and yes I am a fan of Plato, not so much of Aristotle.
I believe, rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of citizens on the planet, before, during, and after the time of Christ were illiterate.
By 1820 only 12% of the people of the world could read.
That percentage would be far far lower a thousand years earlier and lower yet 1800 years earlier, particularly in the Middle-East.
I can't see how the written word was "quite popular" throughout most of history. If it was, I'm wrong.