the right religion

[kjw47]

bzzzzt wrong!
the entire world is in the dark...

Not at all--Jesus started one true religion whom he gives truths to at the proper time through his Faithful and discreet slave( lead teachers) whom he appointed over all of his belongings. And at Daniel 12:4 it shows that truths would be hidden until the time of the end( last days) which we are very far along into these last days. But its being rejected for the false truths thats been handed down from generation to generation for the last 1750 years or so.

 

[waitasec]

Not at all--Jesus started one true religion whom he gives truths to at the proper time through his Faithful and discreet slave( lead teachers) whom he appointed over all of his belongings. And at Daniel 12:4 it shows that truths would be hidden until the time of the end( last days) which we are very far along into these last days. But its being rejected for the false truths thats been handed down from generation to generation for the last 1750 years or so.

:spit:

you have nothing to qualify this to be true...just your faith...
which is worthless to me...

 

[Astravalon]

Much of the world is in the darkness.

This doesn't have anything to do with my questions.

Again, what does our not being Jesus have to do with his victory over the grave?

Why would such a critical choice, which has an eternal impact, be left in man’s hands while such trivial, cosmetic ones like eye-color, gender, etc., are not?

 

[1robin]

Go back and review your sources again. None of these even attempt to reconcile the discrepancies I listed. All they do is lay out the order in which the four gospels take place.

I imagined you only looked at the first two. I copied that list from a discussion about the crucifixion and added ones about the Chronology of the gospels. The later ones should have had every single event in the gospels in chronological order. That would include these very common ones you listed. If not for some reason I will go dig them up again.

 

[camanintx]

I imagined you only looked at the first two. I copied that list from a discussion about the crucifixion and added ones about the Chronology of the gospels. The later ones should have had every single event in the gospels in chronological order. That would include these very common ones you listed. If not for some reason I will go dig them up again.

I looked at all of them, and you'll have to do a little better. While they specify which order the gospels occur in, they don't explain why they have conflicting details.

 

[1robin]

Go for it

This is the promised full response to LIONHEART and CAMANINTX:
What evidence can the bible supply for it's supernatural claims. For the purposes of this discussion there is no reason why the witness of miracles should be separated. Since one bible miracle is just as improbable as the other than any witness to a supernatural act of God is just as valid. Raising Jesus was no more likely or unlikely than parting the Red Sea..Etc....
These are writers that recorded miracles that they had witnessed first hand within the bible.
1. The four Gospel writers were first hand witnesses to countless miraculous events. 2. Paul 3. Peter 4. James 5. Moses is believed by even skeptical scholars to have written parts of the Torah. He records many miracles. 6. Joshua 7. Samuel 8. Gad 9. Nathan 10. Jeremiah and his partner who wrote some of his works Barach Neriah. 11. Ezekiel 12. The 12 minor prophets which excludes Jonah which is anonymous. 13. David 14. Solomon
This adds up to quite a few even though I used fairly certain eyewitness accounts, some are not absolute. So I will reduce the number down to only about half of what is likely and say 30 eyewitness accounts of supernatural events in the bible. That takes care of primary first hand sources in the bible. I would add that there are tens of thousands of secondary witness’s mentioned within the bible and not one ever produced a work known of that said "I was there and that didn't happen".

Extra biblical accounts that corroborate biblical claims some supernatural, some referenced miraculous events, and some historical references to Christ.
1. Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD) 2. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas 3. Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), 4. Julius Africanus 5. Pliny the Younger 6. Emperor Trajan 7. Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), 8. Talmud 9. Lucian 10. Mara Bar-Serapion 11. The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius 12. The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus 13. The Gospel of Thomas 14. The Treatise On Resurrection 15.Acts of Pontius Pilate 16. Phlegon 17.Clement, elder of Rome 18. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch 19. Ignatius 20. Quadratus 21. (Pseudo-)Barnabas 22. Justin Martyr
Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence of Jesus
So 22 authors of extra biblical texts that confirm the bible. Quite a lot for a mere man of humble origin. These are only contemporary or near contemporary accounts.

Here is what great legal minds as well as experts in differing fields have said concerning biblical evidence and it's sufficiency:
1. William Lyon Phelps, for more than 40 years Yale's distinguished professor of English literature, author of some 20 volumes of literary studies, public orator of Yale, says: "and it may be said that the historical evidence for the resurrection is stronger than for any other miracle anywhere narrated"
2. Professor Ambrose Fleming, ..." says of the New Testament documents: "whether it is probably that such book, describing events that occurred about thirty or forty years previously, could have been accepted and cherished if the stories of abnormal events in it were false or mythical. It is impossible, because the memory of all elderly persons regarding events of thirty or forty years before is perfectly clear. "No one could now issue a biography of Queen Victoria, who died thirty-one years ago, full of anecdotes which were quite untrue. They would be contradicted at once.
3. In a book which has become a best-seller, Who Moved the Stone?, Frank Morison, a lawyer, "tells us how he had been brought up in a rationalistic environment, But when he came to study the facts with care, he had to change his mind, and he wrote his book on the other side. His first chapter is significantly called, 'The Book that Refused to Be Written,' and the rest of his volume consists of one of the shrewdest and most attractively written assessments I have ever read..."
4. The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
5. Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."
6. Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad.
7. Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."
8. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
I had to edit this and cut it very short for space but the rest can be found at:
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

To add to this mountain of textual evidence is unnecessary but I will any way.
1. 25,000 historical corroboration of biblical claims.
2. 2500 prophecies with 350 plus concerning one man. All of which that were to have been fulfilled have been in detail. The rest are future events.
3. Philosophic consistency.
4. Explanatory power.
5. Scientific claims unknown at the time they were written.
6. The testimony of billions of people who claim to have experienced a spiritual salvation event. Plus the testimony of people who have completely transformed lives such as George Foreman, Johnny Cash, the apostle Paul etc... that have written proof of the radical change.
I said this would be exhaustive but it is proving impractical. There is just too much to possibly post. Any way I can't wait to see what is appealed to in order to justify dismissing even the 10% of the totality. It simply leaves no excuse for a lack of faith. Especially considering God's perspective on the issue:
New International Version(©1984)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Shalom,

 

[1robin]

I looked at all of them, and you'll have to do a little better. While they specify which order the gospels occur in, they don't explain why they have conflicting details.

I will give you the benefit of my being in a hurry and consider your claim correct even though you seem to have a low criteria for dismissing things. I will dig into them personally but I am out of time today.

 

[1robin]

Greenleaf starts with “The fact [of Christian revelation] will here be assumed as true,” and then the concludes the Bible is true. Looks like a serious case of assuming the consequent. Not very surprising considering he was an Evangelical Episcopalian.

I spent two hours looking for this quote. The only place I found it was in a blog where a critic said that he said it. Even if he did, if not directly connected to what I quoted it is irrelevant.

Lord Lyndhurst, another Christian apologetic, said this over 100 years ago. We've come a long way since then.

I guess we hadn't discovered gravity, logic, textual scholarship, or the historical method until here lately.

Another evangelical apologist? Couldn't you find anyone less biased?

Since believing the bible makes one a Christian apologist to some degree the reference is meaningless.

Even if we accept that the New Testament reflects the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (questionable since the earliest copies are dated 100 years after the events) they don't make reliable witnesses because they conflict on several points regarding the resurrection.

That is not true they have texts dateing pre 100AD and just discovered a very crucial one from John from about 50AD. I reject your conflict claim and will address that soon.

 

[kjw47]

:spit:

you have nothing to qualify this to be true...just your faith...
which is worthless to me...

The words of revelation-Daniel written nearly 2000 years ago are passing under the worlds eyes as we speak-- that qualifies faith in truth.

 

[kjw47]

This doesn't have anything to do with my questions.

Again, what does our not being Jesus have to do with his victory over the grave?

Why would such a critical choice, which has an eternal impact, be left in man’s hands while such trivial, cosmetic ones like eye-color, gender, etc., are not?

We dont have victory over the grave--we havent died yet.
God wants each individual to choose to love him enough to live this lifetime to do his will( 1 John 2:17) while the issues raised against his sovereignty are settled once and for all time. And the prize is eternal life at a young age in perfection on a paradise earth.

 

[waitasec]

The words of revelation-Daniel written nearly 2000 years ago are passing under the worlds eyes as we speak-- that qualifies faith in truth.

no it doesn't.

 

[camanintx]

I spent two hours looking for this quote. The only place I found it was in a blog where a critic said that he said it. Even if he did, if not directly connected to what I quoted it is irrelevant.

If one starts off assuming the Harry Potter stories are true, it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed he was the chosen one.

I guess we hadn't discovered gravity, logic, textual scholarship, or the historical method until here lately.

No, but we didn't know as much about human nature as we do now.

The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony

Since believing the bible makes one a Christian apologist to some degree the reference is meaningless.

No, making unsubstantiated claims about the bible's veracity makes one a Christian apologist. Other than being Sir Anderson's personal opinion, how does this prove your point?

That is not true they have texts dateing pre 100AD and just discovered a very crucial one from John from about 50AD. I reject your conflict claim and will address that soon.

I can't wait. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is generally accepted as the old fragment of the New Testament and it only dates to 125 AD.

 

[camanintx]

This is the promised full response to LIONHEART and CAMANINTX:

I appreciate your research and have reviewed it as thoroughly as one can on the internet so here is my response. I'm breaking it up into sections because of the text limits in this forum.

What evidence can the bible supply for it's supernatural claims. For the purposes of this discussion there is no reason why the witness of miracles should be separated. Since one bible miracle is just as improbable as the other than any witness to a supernatural act of God is just as valid. Raising Jesus was no more likely or unlikely than parting the Red Sea..Etc....

These are writers that recorded miracles that they had witnessed first hand within the bible.
1. The four Gospel writers were first hand witnesses to countless miraculous events. 2. Paul 3. Peter 4. James 5. Moses is believed by even skeptical scholars to have written parts of the Torah. He records many miracles. 6. Joshua 7. Samuel 8. Gad 9. Nathan 10. Jeremiah and his partner who wrote some of his works Barach Neriah. 11. Ezekiel 12. The 12 minor prophets which excludes Jonah which is anonymous. 13. David 14. Solomon
This adds up to quite a few even though I used fairly certain eyewitness accounts, some are not absolute. So I will reduce the number down to only about half of what is likely and say 30 eyewitness accounts of supernatural events in the bible. That takes care of primary first hand sources in the bible. I would add that there are tens of thousands of secondary witness’s mentioned within the bible and not one ever produced a work known of that said "I was there and that didn't happen".

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels for a reason. Any critical analysis of these texts shows that the authors of Mark and Luke were not only aware of Matthew but copied much from it.

That means there are only two biblical sources for Jesus, Matthew and John. While these two sources tell many of the same stories, they differ in many crucial details making it questionable if either is reliable.

One also needs to consider that the gospel writers had a bias towards presenting a certain image of Jesus. These testimonies would have to be beyond question in their authenticity for a skeptic to accept them but I'm afraid they are not.

 

[camanintx]

Extra biblical accounts that corroborate biblical claims some supernatural, some referenced miraculous events, and some historical references to Christ.

1. Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD) - Mentions Christians and Christ but no miracles
2. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (c. 69 – c. 122) - Mentions Christians (Jews) and their leader "Cherstus", again no miracles
3. Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), See detailed discussion below
4. Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works. Crucifixion eclipse attributed to Thallus but no record that Thallus ever mentioned it.
5. Pliny the Younger (61 AD – ca. 112 AD) - Mentions Christians but no Christ or miracles
6. Emperor Trajan (53 AD – ca. 117 AD) - Again, mentions Christians but no Christ or miracles
7. Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD) - Again, mentions Christians but no Christ or miracles
8. Talmud (60 AD – ca. 200 AD) - Mentions Jesus and sorcery (miracles?) but says he was hanged. No other details.
9. Lucian (120 AD – ca. 180 AD) - Once again, mentions Christians but no Christ or miracles
10. Mara Bar-Serapion (73 AD ~ ca. 300 AD) - Yet again, mentions Christians and Christ but no miracles
11. The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius (140 AD – ca. 180 AD) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works
12. The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus (unknown) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works
13. The Gospel of Thomas (unknown) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works
14. The Treatise On Resurrection (unknown) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works
15.Acts of Pontius Pilate (unknown) - Most modern scholars view the Acts of Pilate as not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebuff pagan sources
16. Phlegon (2nd century AD) - No direct source. Quoted by Julius Africanus and Eusebius of Caesarea, both Christians
17.Clement, elder of Rome - Pope Clement I, need I say more?
18. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch - A Saint, really?
19. Ignatius - Is this a mistake or are you thinking of another Ignatius?
20. Quadratus - Another Christian, have you run out of independent sources?
21. (Pseudo-)Barnabas - An Apostolic Father, you're really digging here
22. Justin Martyr (AD 100–165) - Another Saint, now I know you've reached the bottom of the barrel

So 22 authors of extra biblical texts that confirm the bible. Quite a lot for a mere man of humble origin. These are only contemporary or near contemporary accounts.

22 authors. Lots of references to Christians but nobody disputes that they exist. Some independent reference to Jesus but mostly in relation to Christians which isn't unusual. Only one non-Christian reference to a miracle by Josephus so let's look at that.

The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.

Interpolation, in case you didn't know, means it was added in subsequent copies and was not in the original manuscript. Considering that it was Christians who did most of the subsequent copying, this is not very surprising.

I also would point out that not one of these was actually alive when the events in question took place. We know there were people around at that time who could write. Why isn't there even a single reference to someone that lived during these events?

 

[camanintx]

Here is what great legal minds as well as experts in differing fields have said concerning biblical evidence and it's sufficiency:
1. William Lyon Phelps, for more than 40 years Yale's distinguished professor of English literature, author of some 20 volumes of literary studies, public orator of Yale, says: "and it may be said that the historical evidence for the resurrection is stronger than for any other miracle anywhere narrated"
2. Professor Ambrose Fleming, ..." says of the New Testament documents: "whether it is probably that such book, describing events that occurred about thirty or forty years previously, could have been accepted and cherished if the stories of abnormal events in it were false or mythical. It is impossible, because the memory of all elderly persons regarding events of thirty or forty years before is perfectly clear. "No one could now issue a biography of Queen Victoria, who died thirty-one years ago, full of anecdotes which were quite untrue. They would be contradicted at once.
3. In a book which has become a best-seller, Who Moved the Stone?, Frank Morison, a lawyer, "tells us how he had been brought up in a rationalistic environment, But when he came to study the facts with care, he had to change his mind, and he wrote his book on the other side. His first chapter is significantly called, 'The Book that Refused to Be Written,' and the rest of his volume consists of one of the shrewdest and most attractively written assessments I have ever read..."
4. The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
5. Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."
6. Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad.
7. Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."
8. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
I had to edit this and cut it very short for space but the rest can be found at:
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

Other than being the opinions of a bunch of really smart people, is there anything here directly supporting biblical truth? Other people just as smart as them have also looked at the evidence and reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Does this add anything other than an appeal to authority?

To add to this mountain of textual evidence is unnecessary but I will any way.

You shouldn't have, but since you did...

1. 25,000 historical corroboration of biblical claims. - Not surprising since they were closer to those events but it doesn't prove Jesus' divinity
2. 2500 prophecies with 350 plus concerning one man. All of which that were to have been fulfilled have been in detail. The rest are future events. - Do you realize how easy it is to write fulfilled prophecy in fiction?
3. Philosophic consistency. - Not exactly unique to the Bible
4. Explanatory power. - Explaining what?
5. Scientific claims unknown at the time they were written. - Such as pi = 3?
6. The testimony of billions of people who claim to have experienced a spiritual salvation event. Plus the testimony of people who have completely transformed lives such as George Foreman, Johnny Cash, the apostle Paul etc... that have written proof of the radical change. - None of which can be reproduced or independantly corroborated.

I said this would be exhaustive but it is proving impractical. There is just too much to possibly post. Any way I can't wait to see what is appealed to in order to justify dismissing even the 10% of the totality. It simply leaves no excuse for a lack of faith. Especially considering God's perspective on the issue:
New International Version(©1984)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Shalom,

All I can say is that nothing you have presented is particularly convincing unless you already believe in Jesus.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

numbers = made up anyway

 

[Astravalon]

We dont have victory over the grave--we havent died yet.

So Jesus’s death didn’t do the trick? We have to do the dying for the victory to be procured? What was the purpose, then, of Jesus coming down here and doing all he allegedly did for mankind?

According to your bible, Jesus supposedly destroyed death (2 Timothy 1:10). Sounds like a definitive victory to me.

God wants each individual to choose to love him enough to live this lifetime to do his will( 1 John 2:17) while the issues raised against his sovereignty are settled once and for all time.

Choosing to love God or not is one thing, but Christianity usually presents it as choosing between heaven and “hell”, making the motivation fear-based rather than love-based. Therefore, the question remains as to why God will allow free choice over critical things like eternal destiny, while micro-managing trivial things like gender/eye color.

And the prize is eternal life at a young age in perfection on a paradise earth.

Eternal life, according to your bible, is not a “prize” but a “gift” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

 

[jasonwill2]

I still vote for Satanism.

Other than being the opinions of a bunch of really smart people, is there anything here directly supporting biblical truth? Other people just as smart as them have also looked at the evidence and reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Does this add anything other than an appeal to authority?


You shouldn't have, but since you did...

1. 25,000 historical corroboration of biblical claims. - Not surprising since they were closer to those events but it doesn't prove Jesus' divinity
2. 2500 prophecies with 350 plus concerning one man. All of which that were to have been fulfilled have been in detail. The rest are future events. - Do you realize how easy it is to write fulfilled prophecy in fiction?
3. Philosophic consistency. - Not exactly unique to the Bible
4. Explanatory power. - Explaining what?
5. Scientific claims unknown at the time they were written. - Such as pi = 3?
6. The testimony of billions of people who claim to have experienced a spiritual salvation event. Plus the testimony of people who have completely transformed lives such as George Foreman, Johnny Cash, the apostle Paul etc... that have written proof of the radical change. - None of which can be reproduced or independantly corroborated.


All I can say is that nothing you have presented is particularly convincing unless you already believe in Jesus.

That last part I bolded, is so true I don't think Christians often realize how unconvincing they are when they use these kinds of arguments.

 

[kjw47]

So Jesus’s death didn’t do the trick? We have to do the dying for the victory to be procured? What was the purpose, then, of Jesus coming down here and doing all he allegedly did for mankind?

According to your bible, Jesus supposedly destroyed death (2 Timothy 1:10). Sounds like a definitive victory to me.

Choosing to love God or not is one thing, but Christianity usually presents it as choosing between heaven and “hell”, making the motivation fear-based rather than love-based. Therefore, the question remains as to why God will allow free choice over critical things like eternal destiny, while micro-managing trivial things like gender/eye color.

Eternal life, according to your bible, is not a “prize” but a “gift” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Death will be destroyed when it is cast into the lake of fire, that hasnt occurred as of yet, but Jesus did win the victory over it.
If you mean hell as an eternal place of suffering--i believe that that is a false teaching by religions that do not know the true God. Sheol=hebrew= Hades=greek-- both translate-- the common grave of mankind. deut 32:4 says--all of Gods ways are justice--- there is no justice in eternal suffering for 70-90 years of sinning.
Yes eternal life is a gift--yet it also referred to us running this as a race. And one gets a prize to win a race.

 

[Astravalon]

Death will be destroyed when it is cast into the lake of fire, that hasnt occurred as of yet, but Jesus did win the victory over it.

If you mean hell as an eternal place of suffering--i believe that that is a false teaching by religions that do not know the true God. Sheol=hebrew= Hades=greek-- both translate-- the common grave of mankind. deut 32:4 says--all of Gods ways are justice--- there is no justice in eternal suffering for 70-90 years of sinning.

I totally agree that infinite punishment for finite sins is not just. :yes:
I would add, however, that I also don’t believe that being in the grave is a permanent arrangement, either. If death is the last enemy to be destroyed, anything associated with it (such as the grave and dwelling therein) would also be destroyed, I would think. Those in the grave would, therefore, be resurrected, imo.

Yes eternal life is a gift--yet it also referred to us running this as a race. And one gets a prize to win a race.

That’s likely due to the bible having contradictions, since a gift and a reward are two entirely different things. Gifts are usually freely given, whereas rewards are earned.