Easter vs Common Sense

.
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.
_

Are you saying that you don't believe He was resurrected??

The bible is evidence of peoples faith, not that it was correct or valid.
One can test whether the documents have validity internally and by their references.

Many people claimed the bible was wrong about the Kings in Israel, about who did what
when, when it has turned out to be simple testimonies of what happened, with varying
emphasis.

.

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

Thank You.
_

Demonstrative evidence is sufficient in matters of spirituality.


1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So the easter bunny is not real because Carl Sagan doesn't believe in it?

Carl Sagan was an interesting character. No claims were more extraordinary than his own. No claims were more wanting for empirical evidence than his own. He simply took the majority opinion of his peers and ran with it. This got him lots of grant money to make lots of TV shows and make a bigwig of himself with.

.

Proving some things in the Bible are true beyond a shadow of sensible doubt
doesn't eo ipso prove that all things in the Bible are true beyond a sensible
doubt. In other words: true by association.

For example: it's easily proven beyond a shadow of sensible doubt that
Pontius Pilate was a prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26/27
to 36/37.

However, that fact does not prove beyond a shadow of sensible doubt that a
Jesus Christ's crucified dead body was restored to life during Pilate's time.
Just because the one is mentioned in the New Testament does make the
other mentioned true. In point of fact, some of the best fiction usually works
true-life stuff into its narrative.

For example: nuclear weapons are true-life. The countries of Russia and
America are true-life. The movie Doctor Strangelove has nuclear weapons in
the narrative and it has the countries of Russia and America. Does that
make Doctor Strangelove a true-life story? No.
_

The world has always equivocated faith with foolishness and it always will. In order to walk on water, you must get out of the boat. They never will.

Sez who?

Mister Clemens had his own personal definition for just about everything. I would not think that very good grounds for trying to build a reputation as a great communicator upon. Several adjectives come to mind for him, but I will refrain from mentioning them here.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Without faith, it is impossible to please God.....

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

.... with 15 ton piles of 'empirical' evidence tossed about everywhere, it is impossible for faith to exist in any way, shape, or form.

By refusing to allow for the possibility of anything that we can't see, taste, or smell, man has damned his poor soul to hell. It is amazing that he ever discovered electricity.

.

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.
_

There are some logical time frame proofs about Jesus.
His disciples only followed Him for 3 years. They had no clue he was going to
die to establish His Kingdom, they thought it was the overthrow of Israel.
They all scattered in fear, and confusion, a quick trial and execution and all
was lost. When Jesus rose, they simply dismissed this until they all saw.
And even then things did not add up, until the Holy Spirit fell, and God moved.

Everything sprung from this event. So convinced Stephen was of everything, he
got totally fed up with the pharisees and just let rip, and was killed as a result.
But he did not care, because he knew he was going to be with Jesus who had risen
a few months previously.

Now personally Jesus's message is blunt. Accept, repent and follow or nothing else
will work or make sense. Without a heart change, it literally does not matter.
When ones heart changes, the book opens up into something with life and eternity.
That is the Kingdom and that is its ultimate proof, when it comes to ones heart.

.
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.
_

First of all, Mark Twain must have had no idea what faith is! Faith is believing what you know is so!

Second, have you ever considered Josh McDowell's work on the resurrection - Evidence that Demands a Verdict?

Third - Saying what you do about not using the Bible as evidence for the resurrection has some merit perhaps, but not really. The Bible is written evidence written at the time (or soon after) the events happened. As such it surely can be used for evidence.

How do you go about proving something historically? By written evidence and artifacts, etc. - I have heard scholars say there is more evidence for Jesus' resurrection than that Abraham Lincoln was a president of the US. (But I bet that is stretching the evidence a bit! LOL!

You're incorrect here.

Reason and logic demand nothing of the sort. Reason leads to examination of the evidence, internal and external. Logic is a set of principles used within reason. What "logic" would say is, "Back up the claim", not "Back up the claim with external evidence". Common sense is subjective, and its claims are not relevant because it has no objective claims. Common experience may say, "Dead bodies don't come back to life" but that is not proof of anything.

Common experience may (and does) lead to an a priori bias that rejects the claim of resurrection without examining the evidence. In other words, the claim never gets a fair hearing.

What is also at work, but which isn't often identified in such discussions, is the sin nature's resistance to spiritual truth. The resurrection is not merely a claim; it is the claim. It has moral implications, and humans love their sin more than they love truth.

What is your objective here?

Can you explain color to a blind person? Or sound to a deaf?

Neither can spiritual truths be understood by those spiritually blind and without the Holy Spirit light within them.

The Bible tells us this clearly...

1 Corinthians 1:23 ►

The 'Shroud of Turin' cannot be disproved. 'Without faith it is impossible to please God' Heb 11:6.