What I believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is the meaning of words.
You claimed: ". . . Christ explicitly said the only sign we need is His resurrection," as an argument against considering any other evidence.
The word "explicit" means:
explicit |ikˈsplisit|
adjective
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt : the speaker's intentions were not made explicit.
Explicitly is the adverbial form of the adjective. It modifies the verb "said" in your statement. That means that what Jesus "SAID" must be stated clearly and in detail. An analogical reference to Jonah's adventure in the belly of a great fish does not lend itself to clarity and detail of the meaning. Using a euphemism such as "in the ground" for the much simpler, clearer phrase "dead and buried" also does not lend itself to clarity and detail. It's great literature, but it is not a clear and concise statement that you implied Jesus said. A clear and concise statement would be: Jesus said: "The only sign you need that I am the son of God is the fact that I was dead and was buried, am now resurrected." That's explicit. Unfortunately, Jesus did not say that... and I am not going to put those words in His mouth.
That's amazing. I had no idea Rome was teaching such careless errors regarding the very words of Jesus Christ. Christ spoke in parables so that those who were His sheep would hear Him and understand, while those whose eyes had been blinded to the truth could only come up with "not explicit" and "open to interpretation."
Parables, by their very nature, have to be interpreted to uncover their meaning. They are NOT explicit.
Fails? Went underground?
Mere demonstrations of how a parable can be interpreted in another way than what you think.
Who are you? Dan Brown?
One who follows the scholarship and science... and recognizes that words mean things.
It seems that Roman Catholics will go to almost any length to rationalize bowing down to the stock of a tree.
They do? Couldn't prove it by me. I'm not Catholic.
Perhaps it's time for you to consult your catechism...
Sorry, I don't have one.
994 - But there is more. Jesus links faith in the resurrection to his own person: "I am the Resurrection and the life."544 It is Jesus himself who on the last day will raise up those who have believed in him, who have eaten his body and drunk his blood.545 Already now in this present life he gives a sign and pledge of this by restoring some of the dead to life,546 announcing thereby his own Resurrection, though it was to be of another order. He speaks of this unique event as the "sign of Jonah,"547 the sign of the temple: he announces that he will be put to death but rise thereafter on the third day.548
Mere demonstrations of how a parable can be interpreted in another way than what you think.
lol. Apparently the RCC catechism doesn't think this parable can be interpreted any other way but according to the clear and explicit metaphor Christ chose to employ.