Easter vs Science

[Webers_Home]

.
A portion of the scripture reference below is deliberately revised. Watch for
it.

● John 20:29 . . Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have
believed; blessed are the gullible who have not seen and yet have believed."

The Bible, as a document, cannot be accepted into evidence to prove that
Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to life. No, that would be
like handing over the deed to the Trump Tower to a strange man merely
on the basis of himself saying he bought it.

Carl Sagan once remarked "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence." In other words, the scientific mind accepts neither hearsay, nor
nor sophistry, nor circular reasoning; rather, insists upon empirical evidence.

The Bible claims, in so many words, that Jesus Christ's crucified dead body
was restored to life. Okay; but unless we're shown something solid to
corroborate the Bible's claim; then reason, logic, and common sense
demands that the Bible's claim be thrown out of court as spurious nonsense;
viz: a myth.

Faith is believin' what you know ain't so.
(Mark Twain)

NOTE: It's ironic that Jehovah's Witnesses and normal Christians bicker over
the details of Jesus Christ's resurrection when neither can produce sufficient
empirical evidence to substantiate their claims.
_

 

[Windmill Charge]

The Bible, as a document, cannot be accepted into evidence to prove that
Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to life

Really. Strange how many legally qualified Christians have over the years looked at scripture and concidered it more than adaquete as an explanation.

The words used by atheist historians are equally interesting. They accept the gospels as evidence for Jesus's life, death, burial and on the resurrection carefull say that the discipled believed they had met with the risen Jesus.
A case of not wanting to accept that which destroyes their atheism.

 

[marksman]

.
A portion of the scripture reference below is deliberately revised. Watch for
it.

● John 20:29 . . Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have
believed; blessed are the gullible who have not seen and yet have believed."

The Bible, as a document, cannot be accepted into evidence to prove that
Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to life. No, that would be
like handing over the deed to the Trump Tower to a strange man merely
on the basis of himself saying he bought it.

Carl Sagan once remarked "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence." In other words, the scientific mind accepts neither hearsay nor
circular reasoning; rather, insists upon empirical evidence.

The Bible claims, in so many words, that Jesus Christ's crucified dead body
was restored to life. Okay; but unless we're shown something solid to
corroborate the Bible's claim; then reason, logic, and common sense
demands that the Bible's claim be thrown out of court as spurious nonsense;
viz: a myth.

Faith is believin' what you know ain't so.
(Mark Twain)

NOTE: It's ironic that Jehovah's Witnesses and normal Christians bicker over
the details of Jesus Christ's resurrection when neither can produce sufficient
empirical evidence to substantiate their claims.
_

I really don't see that bickering between JW's and "normal" Christians has anything to do with the truth.

The resurrection of Jesus has many pieces of evidence to back up the claims of scripture but no evidence for anything will be valid unless you are prepared to accept that there can be evidence.

As the scriptures say "the natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit" even if you are a JW.

 

[Webers_Home]

Strange how many legally qualified Christians have over the years looked at
scripture and concidered it more than adaquete as an explanation.

Adequate explanations ≠ Adequate evidence.

In other words: the explanations themselves would have to be proven
credible before the Bible's testimony on its own behalf can be accepted into
evidence. Taking a defendant's word for it that what he says is true, carries
very little weight with intelligent jurists.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.

As the scriptures say "the natural man cannot discern the things of the
Spirit"

You believe the above is true simply because the scriptures themselves
testify that what they say is true. Don't you see how futile it is quoting
unverified scriptures to prove that unverified scriptures are true? What
empirical evidence do you have at hand to corroborate the scriptures'
claim that Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to life?
_

 

[marks]

Adequate explanations ≠ Adequate evidence.

In other words: the explanations themselves would have to be proven
credible before the Bible's testimony on its own behalf can be accepted into
evidence. Taking a defendant's word for it that what he says is true, carries
very little weight with intelligent jurists.
_

Among other things, prophecy authenticates the Authorship. I wouldn't take lightly what One says about a resurrection Who has shown their knowledge outside this space/time continuum.

Much love!
mark

 

[CoreIssue]

.



You believe the above is true simply because the scriptures themselves
testify that what they say is true. Don't you see how futile it is quoting
unverified scriptures to prove that unverified scriptures are true? What
empirical evidence do you have at hand to corroborate the scriptures'
claim that Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to life?
_

I feel there is more than enough verification.

Unlike science whose unchallengeable truths get challenged and changed frequently.

 

[marksman]

.

You believe the above is true simply because the scriptures themselves
testify that what they say is true. Don't you see how futile it is quoting
unverified scriptures to prove that unverified scriptures are true? What
empirical evidence do you have at hand to corroborate the scriptures'
claim that Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to life?
_

I have to admit that I have never found it futile quoting scripture on any occasion. Such an assertion confirms the verse that I quoted about the natural man and his inability to discern the things of the Spirit.

As we are talking about a vast subject, I suggest that you find the evidence for yourself as you do not accept what other people say. All you have to do is google "Did Jesus rise from the Dead" and it will keep you occupied for at least a month with the evidence that comes up.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
There exists no empirical evidence sufficient to prove that the crucified dead
body of Christianity's Jesus Christ was restored to life in real life.

Christians of course accept the Bible as a record of real-life supernatural
events; while objective, unbiased thinkers only see the Bible as proprietary
religious literature that's no more credible than the Koran or the Book Of
Mormon; and I've no doubt that sensible courts of law would agree with the
objective, unbiased thinkers because that's how sensible courts operate; i.e.
objectively without passion, without prejudice, and without bias.
_

 

[Windmill Charge]

Adequate explanations ≠ Adequate evidence.

In other words: the explanations themselves would have to be proven
credible before the Bible's testimony on its own behalf can be accepted into
evidence. Taking a defendant's word for it that what he says is true, carries
very little weight with intelligent jurists.
_

Which is what historians have already done.
Your arguements are I don't believe the bible.
Yet historians and archelogist have demonstrated that it is accurate and a reliable witness.

What expert testimony would you accept?
A linguist able to speak fluently 45 languages who studied ancient inscriptions in there language and whose analysis of grammer in the bible says the OT is exactly what it says it is.

An Archeologist who thought the NT was written 100of years after the event yet who discovered that Luke discribed and correctly named the political and geographic situation of the towns he and Paul visited. This scientist said Luke is 'Always' accuracte.

Do you want the conclusions of lawyers who have examined and commented on the bible, or detectives, or historians, or philosphers.

Who's evidence that the bible is trustworthy would you accept?

 

[marksman]

Which is what historians have already done.
Your arguements are I don't believe the bible.
Yet historians and archelogist have demonstrated that it is accurate and a reliable witness.

What expert testimony would you accept?
A linguist able to speak fluently 45 languages who studied ancient inscriptions in there language and whose analysis of grammer in the bible says the OT is exactly what it says it is.

An Archeologist who thought the NT was written 100of years after the event yet who discovered that Luke discribed and correctly named the political and geographic situation of the towns he and Paul visited. This scientist said Luke is 'Always' accuracte.

Do you want the conclusions of lawyers who have examined and commented on the bible, or detectives, or historians, or philosphers.

Who's evidence that the bible is trustworthy would you accept?

Add to that the many characters spoken of in the bible that have found to be referred to in other secular historical books at the same time as the Bible states they were around.

And note that he has not taken advantage of all the material on the internet on this subject, suggesting that he cannot handle the truth so he is avoiding it like the plague.

All he has done is to make claims without a scrap of evidence, just generalized assumptions that we are supposed to be impressed by and which he believes overrides anything of any consequence or proven.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

All he has done is to make claims yada, yada, yada

Let's not gossip people. Please confine your comments to the topic.

Thank You
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
"Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good
as dead-- since he was about a hundred years old --and that Sarah's womb
was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise
of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully
persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised." (Rom 4:19-21)

The Bible says that Abraham was "persuaded" which is quite a bit different
than faith in something for which you have no good reason to believe is true.

Abraham had the advantage of empirical evidence by means of several close
encounters of a third kind, so to speak. Today we call those kinds of things
apparitions; which some might go so far as to say are simply the result of an
overactive imagination and/or episodes of schizophrenia.

But it goes without saying that close encounters like those experienced by
Abraham, Moses, and others in the Old Testament and the New, would be
very convincing.

Well; where's our close encounters? Christians today are expected to believe
that the supernatural aspects of the Bible are true sans any personal, one on
one, contacts with their God whatsoever.

I encounter Christians all the time claiming they have a so-called personal
relationship with Jesus Christ when all they really have is an imaginary
playmate.

A rather smug Baptist that I encountered back down the road said he knew
the Bible was true because he talked with God only that morning. So I asked
him: Please tell me about the timbre of God's voice; was it bass, baritone, or
tenor? Did He talk fast or slow? Did He enunciate His words clearly? Did He
have an accent? The self-assured Baptist couldn't reply.

You see, that man had a head full of canned responses all set to go, but he
had not even one personal encounter with God under his belt to validate his
beliefs. When Christians like that quote the Bible, they might just as well be
quoting captions from the pages of a Marvel comic book because they're just
an echo; repeating things they've heard, read, or been told without really
knowing what they're talking about.
_

 

[marksman]

.


Let's not gossip people. Please confine your comments to the topic.

Thank You
_

I don't know where you got this quote from but I did not make it.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Adequate explanations ≠ Adequate evidence.

In other words: the explanations themselves would have to be proven
credible before the Bible's testimony on its own behalf can be accepted into
evidence. Taking a defendant's word for it that what he says is true, carries
very little weight with intelligent jurists.

EXACTLY! And this, exactly, is WHY, I, by the grace of God, DON'T FALL FOR THE TOMFOOLERY THIS, IS.

Let me correct the emphasis...
Exactly! And THIS your statement, exactly, is why, i, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, don't and won't fall for the FOOLISHNESS THIS your statement, IS.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Many of the Christians that I encounter online and offline are cowards. They
simply cannot allow themselves to accept that they believe in supernatural
things and events that cannot be proven true. They strive to appear
intelligent, wise, and informed; while living in fear of being found out that in
reality they're just as superstitious as a Hindu, a Muslim, and/or a Buddhist.

Easter is not a time to argue, it's a time to turn the other cheek. So instead
of fighting with their critics, Christians should try to sympathize with them
instead because to the honest, non biased, non prejudiced, non passionate,
open mind; the Bible is merely another religious story book whose credibility
is just as questionable as the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, and/or the Koran:
thus useless as legitimate evidence that a Jesus Christ's crucified dead body
was restored to life in real life. The Bible can only be used to claim the event
took place in real life; and leave to every individual's own conscience as to
whether it actually did.

● John 20:29 . . Jesus said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you
have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

The Greek word for "blessed" in that passage means, among other things;
fortunate. Yes, people should consider themselves fortunate to believe just
from the Bible alone that a Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored
to life in real life because its claims are the sum total of evidence that
they're likely to ever see for themselves before they pass on.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Who's evidence that the bible is trustworthy would you accept?

"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so." (Mark Twain)

Every so often I get asked how I know that my religion is right. My answer
is: I don't know if it's right. Then of course they want to know why I believe
in my religion if I don't know whether it's right.

That's a fair inquiry. Most of the people who ask me those kinds of questions
are genuine; they're not trying to trip me up and make a fool out of me.
They are honestly curious. So I tell them, in so many words, that though I
don't know if my religion is right, my instincts tell me it is; in other words: I
cannot shake the conviction that it's right.

"I have never seen what to me seemed an atom of truth that there is a
future life, and yet, I am strongly inclined to expect one." (Mark Twain)

Twain logically concluded that there is no afterlife, but his instincts did not
agree with his thinking; and I dare not criticize him for that because even
my own religion requires that I believe in my heart rather then only in my
head.

"For with the heart one believes, and is declared innocent" (Rom 10:10)

Why do people believe what they believe? Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Bahá'í,
Hare Krishna, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Judaism,
Voodoo, Wiccan, Jain, Druze, Native American, etc, etc, etc. The answer?
Because it grips their heart-- the core of their being --which is very different
than persuading someone with logic and reasoning.

People brought into a religion by logic and reasoning can just as easily be
taken away by logic and reasoning. But someone whose heart is gripped by
their religion, is not so easily removed.

So, when people believe the Gospel's claim that a Jesus Christ's crucified
dead body was restored to life in spite of all the world's reason and logic to
the contrary; they can take comfort in knowing that their religion is not
supposed to make sense.

"Unto the Greeks, foolishness." (1Cor 1:23)

"My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom
. . that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men." (1Cor 2:4-5)
_

 

[Windmill Charge]

.
"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so." (Mark Twain)
_

That might be mans definition, but it is not Gods:- 11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

It is not wishing something was true. There is an element of trust, but that is based on the evidence that God is real and that he is faithfull.

 

[prism]

The Bible claims, in so many words, that Jesus Christ's crucified dead body
was restored to life. Okay; but unless we're shown something solid to
corroborate the Bible's claim; then reason, logic, and common sense
demands that the Bible's claim be thrown out of court as spurious nonsense;
viz: a myth.

I see, at the bottom of this, 'reason, logic and common sense' are the Supreme Judge, passing a ruling on God's Word as "Guilty! on the grounds of being Nonsense." See where that gets a person on the Day of Judgment.

You are playing on the field of Empiricism, which is eye oriented and deals with Facts.
God is playing on a different field, one that is ear oriented and deals with Truth.

Jesus is not going to die and resurrect repeatedly for us to observe empirically, but He did die and resurrect bodily and was witnessed by over 500 among whom some have given their verbal witness of His life, teachings, death and resurrection. And it is no fable when upon believing a person's life is radically changed from hating God and Christians to loving others and serving God, ...Twain and the other armchair philosophers not withstanding.