Easter vs Common Sense

[GHClarkII]

.
A portion of the scripture 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
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 physical aspects of Jesus Christ's resurrection when neither can produce
sufficient empirical evidence to substantiate their claims.
_

The Bible isn't subject to man's reasoning. You cannot justify reason or the empirical basis for science without assuming the God of scripture as your starting point. Besides, science can prove nothing. Science by it's very nature (all sciences) are inductive. They logically can only show that certain observation s of certain events are consistent with each other. That's the very best. One can not ever prove a historical claim by science. There is no control, no model, and no way to know all the variables. Your standards are nonsense. You could not prove anything from history (which includes anything that happened before this exact second) by empirical means.

You are welcome to try to continue this discussion, but I assure you that you'll only talk in circles until you start with the scriptures as your axiom. They alone provide the necessary basis to interpret reality and make experience intelligible.

May God be the Judge

 

[AuntieAnt]

.
Carl Sagan once remarked "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence."
_

Carl Sagan sure has his extraordinary evidence now.

 

[maxwel]

.
A portion of the scripture 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
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 physical aspects of Jesus Christ's resurrection when neither can produce
sufficient empirical evidence to substantiate their claims.
_

Heaps of Steaming Nonsense:



Historical Evidences:

Christ's resurrection is generally proven in debate through historical evidences - the same criteria we use for other historical events.
To place a different burden of proof upon this event than we require of other historical events is simply to verify your own bias and presupposition... which is in no way indicative of either good history or good science.

There is more than enough compelling historical evidence for the resurrection to hold up quite well, even in rigorous academic debate with professional historians and philosophers.


Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

Extraordinary Claims
The proposition that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a clever sounding bit of rhetoric, but it has nothing to do with sound logic. It is NOT a logical argument. It is an emotional plea. In purely logical terms, an "extraordinary claim" requires only SOUND EVIDENCE, the same as any other claim. And since the term "extraordinary claim" has no specific definition, we aren't even in a position to call ANYTHING an extraordinary claim in the first place, at least not with any certainty.

Extraordinary Evidence
To reiterate, we are not dealing with a logical argument here, but an emotional plea. It is nothing more than an emotional plea, a purely rhetorical means to raise the burden of proof to an unattainable level. We can even prove it's merely an attempt to raise the burden of proof to an unattainable level, as "extraordinary evidence" has no actual definition. The atheist intentionally chooses a measuring bar which has no actual, specific height, and no actual, specific definition, and thus it can simply be moved at will. Because the bar of "extraordinary evidence" can be moved at will, the goal of reaching it can never be attained. It is a con. It is a meaningless jumble of words meaning nothing at all. However, it probably does introduce us to the pinnacle of atheist debate - a nonsensical expression with fluctuating and impossible demands, demands which can never be met by anyone, not even the atheist. The atheist never places such high demands upon his own arguments, even when he makes "extraordinary claims" based on little more than presupposition.

The atheist takes two nonsensical, arbitrary, and fluctuating phrases, hammers them together into a Frankenstein of idiocy, and then holds them up as the very epitome of truth.

It is pure nonsense.

Pure nonsense from all angles.


..

..

 

[oyster67]

Pleeease tell us that us that you do not actually subscribe to the nonsense in your own OP and are just playing dumb for the sake of discussion.

 

[kaylagrl]

.



Here is one of my favorites:

It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

For example:

The Jehovah's Witnesses sincerely believe with all their heart that Jesus
Christ's crucified dead body wasn't restored to life; it's still deceased and
squirreled away on Earth somewhere in a condition and a location known
only to God.

Normal Christians sincerely believe with all their heart that Jesus Christ's
crucified dead body is no longer dead; it's alive, having been restored to life
and it's no longer on Earth but up in heaven with God.

Jehovah's Witnesses are sure that what they know about Jesus Christ's
crucified dead body is true; while normal Christians are sure that what they
know about Jesus Christ's crucified dead body is true; which means that the
confidence of at least one of them is on track for terrible, terrible disappointment.

_

.
which means that the
confidence of at least one of them is on track for terrible, terrible disappointment.

Yep, you're right and that would be the JW. Their beliefs aren't backed up by the Word, the Christians beliefs are.

 

[kaylagrl]

.



No personal questions folks. Please confine your comments to the topic.

Thank You.
_

So I'm hearing a "no"...

 

[Webers.Home]

.

The Bible is written evidence written at the time (or soon after) the events
happened. As such it surely can be used for evidence.

The credibility of the Bible as written evidence is just as questionable as
Sanskrit, the Koran and the Book of Mormon. To objective minds, the Bible's
witnesses are merely characters in a religious story book and it makes about
as much sense to take their word for anything as listening to Mr. Collins in
Jane Austin's novel: Pride And Prejudice.
_

 

[AuntieAnt]

.



The credibility of the Bible as written evidence is just as questionable as
Sanskrit, the Koran and the Book of Mormon. To objective minds, the Bible's
witnesses are merely characters in a religious story book and it makes about
as much sense to take their word for anything as listening to Mr. Collins in
Jane Austin's novel: Pride And Prejudice.
_

How are you attempting to teach spiritual matters with earthly concepts? Are we in the flesh or in the spirit?

 

[Webers.Home]

.

The Bible tells us this clearly...

Quoting one of the Bible's claims to validate other of its claims is
sometimes called circular reasoning. It's akin to acquitting an accused man
on the basis of him claiming he didn't do it.
_

 

[oldethennew]

a True Christian doesn't need 'empirical-evidence',
but only the gift of The Holy Spirit...

 

[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 Sanskrit, 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.
_

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

To make a believer waiver in their faith is to bring encouragement to one who lacks faith.

Are you seeking to refute God?
Or
Are you seeking to find God?

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

Before you can take the small piece of debris out of your brothers eye you must first remove the large piece of debris out of your own eye.

If you want to understand true Christianity seek to know God through his Word. But even before doing this you have to humble yourself. You do not sound humble.

Most people who come to the Lord have not done so because they were able to humble themselves.
They came to the Lord because the humbling was done for them.

.
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 Sanskrit, 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.
_

 

[Dino246]

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.

"Proven" according to what standard? These things are either true or they are not. "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder. For one who is convinced that such things are true, they have been proven. For one who is not convinced, they have not been proven. Of course, all things will be revealed at the end of the age, but we aren't talking about that. "Proof" in the here-and-now is only available in mathematics and, in a different sense, the court system. This is neither. This is a world of assertion and supporting evidence.

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.

Have you read, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"? If not, I strongly suggest that you do.

Easter is not a time to argue, it's a time to turn the other cheek.

From where do you get that? When we are insulted, we are to turn the other cheek. It has nothing to do with "Easter".

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 Sanskrit, 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.

There is a massive difference between accepting that such is how the other person views the Bible, and holding that view ourselves.

As for "honest, non biased, non prejudiced, non passionate, open mind", the other person doesn't have one!

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.

That is the claim of the non-believer in his attempt to undermine the Christian. The wise Christian stands on truth and does not embrace the false claim of "neutral ground".

 

[oldethennew]

JOB 11:7.
Can you by searching find out God? can you find out The Almighty unto perfection?

PS. 68:11.
The Lord gave The Word: great was the company of those that published it.

HEB. 4:12.
For The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

1TIM. 3:16-17.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

to the 'natural-man', Spiritual things are foolishness'.
to the 'Spiritual-man, Spiritual things are REALITY.

we thank our dear, sweet, Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for His most blessed gift
of Devine-Holy-Faith.
amen...

 

[FollowHisSteps]

.


yada, yada, yada, yada.

That's all from the Bible; which to the objective mind is just another religious
story book no different than Sanskrit, the Book of Mormon, and/or the
Koran. It would probably be accepted in Sunday school, but no doubt be
laughed out of court as inadmissible "proof" that a Jesus Christ's crucified
dead body was restored to life in real life.

The Bible can't be used to prove 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.

● 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 Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to
life because its claims are the sum total of proof they're likely to ever see for
themselves before they pass on.
_

Hi Webers,

There is a simple truth. You have enough to believe if you want to. And if you
do not, enough to be secure in your conviction.

God is not interested in proof. You may not have realised this is Gods world not
ours and He makes the rules. Gods intention is to keep you happy where you are
if that is your true state of your heart. The real bright question is who is the Creator
after, what is His will and His way.

And the answer is something we are totally conflicted over, love.
Tina Turner summed up mans attitude to love, "What's love got to do with it, its just
a second hand emotion."

The eternal perspective is different, and the Lord is interested in people who want to
listen and learn. Those who pass by will be judged, but equally they take their fate
into their own hands.

Gods way is tough, and costs everything we are, and asks us to become something
different than we are. If people thought proof founded this, they are very wrong, because
there is only security here because you know Gods nature and intentions which put simply
is very subjective and very reliant on each persons perception.

God could show himself plainly to man. Israel showed what happens with this.
He can talk about love one to one and the cross. Look at the church and wars to know
what happens to this. So this path is very personal and very unique.

I wonder if you understand this or how open you are to the ways of God in Christ?

 

[maxwel]

a True Christian doesn't need 'empirical-evidence',
but only the gift of The Holy Spirit...

Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit


This is true.

The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is more than enough evidence to compel a warranted belief.
However, if we want to look for other evidences of God, there ARE other evidences of God.

For Christians reading this, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is a perfectly logical and rational evidence for your belief.
You never need to feel inadequate defending this, just because you cannot measure it or take a picture of it.
The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is considered a "foundational belief" or a "basic belief."
Foundational or basic beliefs are things which humans all know, but which are so foundational that they have no deeper, antecedent evidence than their own existence.

These are called "foundational" beliefs because they are not built atop any other foundation,
they ARE the foundation.

An example of a foundational belief would be the knowledge that you are alive, and that you exist.
Other examples would be things like: you know you have a head, you know the people around you are real and not your imagination, you know the universe was not created 10 minutes ago.

There are things we just KNOW, and which we are RATIONAL to just KNOW.
These are called foundational beliefs, or basic beliefs.
All humans have these foundational beliefs which HAVE NO FURTHER EXPLANATION OR PROOF... but which all humans just "know", and which we are just and rational to believe.

The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is one of these foundational beliefs.

We KNOW the Holy Spirit is within us, and communicates with us, and gives us COMPLETE PROOF for the existence of God.
We experience this, personally, and we KNOW it is real...
just as we know we are real, and the ground beneath us is real.


Conclusion:
1. The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is all the proof a Christian needs; it is considered a type of "foundational belief", and it is both logical and rational to hold certain "foundational beliefs" which have no antecedent proof beyond themselves.

2. The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is a proof only for the BELIEVER; it is not intended to be a proof for the unbeliever. It is not intended to be something we can prove in debate, and which we can weigh and measure. It is given to us as a personal and foundational belief.

It is not something we can debate, and it is not something we need to debate.
It is something quite personal we are given, but which gives us complete certainty as we actually EXPERIENCE God.

3. To debate with the unbeliever, there are many OTHER evidences available which we CAN weigh and measure.

4. So God has actually given us a great multitude of evidences; many which can be studied, debated, weighed, and measured... and one which is even more powerful, and which requires no measurement because it instantly generates a personal "foundational" belief... through a personal experience of God himself.

...

 

[AuntieAnt]

It's written in 1 John 2:27, "As for you, the Anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His Anointing teaches you about all things and as that Anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in Him."

The sheep recognize the Shepherd's Voice.

 

[azamzimtoti]

.


yada, yada, yada, yada.

That's all from the Bible; which to the objective mind is just another religious
story book no different than Sanskrit, the Book of Mormon, and/or the
Koran. It would probably be accepted in Sunday school, but no doubt be
laughed out of court as inadmissible "proof" that a Jesus Christ's crucified
dead body was restored to life in real life.

The Bible can't be used to prove 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.

● 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 Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to
life because its claims are the sum total of proof they're likely to ever see for
themselves before they pass on.
_

I'd have to agree with Weber here.

 

[oyster67]

Spiritual things are generally not like observable things when it comes to studying them. This does not make spiritual things less real than observable things. In CS Lewis's mind, the fact that spiritual things were eternal was good reason for considering them as more real.

Faith is the tool for discerning spiritual things.

Science is the tool discerning observable things.

You can sometimes observe the fruit of spiritual things, but Hebrews 11 explains that the proper tool to use for discerning spiritual things is faith.