Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[Subduction Zone]

Good, some agreement on principles.
Do you ever apply skepticism to claims made
in the bible?

I don't think that @lukethethird is a literalist at all.

 

[lukethethird]

Good, some agreement on principles.
Do you ever apply skepticism to claims made
in the bible?

Not until just now you silver penned smoothy.

 

[Audie]

Not until just now you silver penned smoothy.

Audie Invictus

 

[Audie]

I don't think that @lukethethird is a literalist at all.

Shhh

 

[BilliardsBall]

Don't give me this "supposed" BS and then make a false claim about dodging.

And what other "account". It appears that you are misusing terminology again. b

Huh? Paul claimed to be an eyewitness of the risen Christ both on Earth and in Heaven.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Josephus was a Jew, therefor the ramblings about Christ in Antiquities of the Jews was a rank forgery.

Again, what do you know about Jewish converts in the first century?

Earlier this week you claimed he was a Christian, and therefore the mention about Christ was a rank forgery.

Of course, it's not possible that Josephus was a Messianic Jew, like me, one who makes truth claims about Jesus, right? (Rolls eyes).

Again, what do you know about Judaism or first-century Judaism, compared to me, who is both Jewish and Christian and who has studied ancient Judaism probably 100 times as much as you have?

What you do seem to know something about is being hostile!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Contemporary ones?

I sincerely doubt that.
In fact, I do not believe it at all.

Well, here they are - do tell me how I took them out of context or retract your accusation:


A simple case for intelligent design

A study concluded that the cecal appendix evolved independently at least 32 separate times in mammals. What happens to statistical odds raised to the 32nd power? And what filters reduce these odds?

* The filter to store unneeded gut bacteria in the appendix until needed
* The filter to build the appendix as a rarefied storage unit
* The filter to have the enzymes and other catalysts to release the bacteria, etc. times about 30 other things we can think of from a medical/endocrine/biology perspective, raised to the 32nd power for 32 independent evolutionary changes​

"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

1) Bacteria are not fluids and do not need new systems moving/catalyzing--unless you believe they are antecedents in lines of descent to higher forms.

2) I used the word enzyme or enzymatic action in terms of bacteria are released by cecal appendices in animals based on trigger factors, we have the same issues with complexity as always, including survivability during evolution of organ, survivability of species through generations as needed appendix evolved, linkage to cell and neurological systems that prompt appendix to act, recognition of condition for appendix to act, etc. with each system of linkage multiplying the total complexity by an order of magnitude.

3) You do NOT need to learn more about this movement and catalysis--you are being rhetorical--you understand both biology and modern evolutionary theory, however, in the case of a cecal appendix evolving in 40 different lines of descent--40 lines of descent where there was survival and enhanced, complex function, than 40 evolutions of an organ into a system, than 40 cases of vestigial organs, etc. I find it unlikely and "awkward" given mechanistic evolution. I further was allowing flexibility in my abiogenesis assumptions/gedanken by acknowledging that theoretical self--replicating proto-bionts are an intermediate step. This is called "attempting to see the other side," something you might try sometime.
​

I cannot wait to see how you will flail and fail rather than admit your error. I mean, it is clear that you do not know what enzymes do, or how bacterial colonize the gut, etc.


Why would I do that?

Why do you still think that is an argument against evolution?

And if you do NOT think that 'social darwinism' is an argument against evolution in some way, why do you keep bringing it up?

And why do you think that I am a hypocrite for being against the bible condoning slavery and also eating eggs?

I WILL respond when you tell me the etymological derivation of "Social Darwinism" - hint - Google.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? Paul claimed to be an eyewitness of the risen Christ both on Earth and in Heaven.

No, he didn't. Where did you get that from?


Paul claimed to have "visions". Or delusions. He saw things. He was not an eyewitness. Do you not know what an eyewitness is? Now Paul may have believed that he saw Jesus, but his own writings tell us that what he saw did not qualify as being an eyewitness.

 

[lukethethird]

Earlier this week you claimed he was a Christian, and therefore the mention about Christ was a rank forgery.

Wrong, I never made the ludicrous claim that Josephus was a Christian.

Of course, it's not possible that Josephus was a Messianic Jew, like me, one who makes truth claims about Jesus, right? (Rolls eyes).

Again, what do you know about Judaism or first-century Judaism, compared to me, who is both Jewish and Christian and who has studied ancient Judaism probably 100 times as much as you have?

What you do seem to know something about is being hostile!

I asked what you knew about 1st century Jewish converts.

 

[Ancient Soul]

I'm not really a believer but one question that's really intriguing and could potentially be evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the fact that doubting Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but upon touching Jesus' wounds he became a believer in the resurrection. Now assuming the story is true, unless someone can provide reason to doubt that Thomas existed or reason to doubt that he was skeptical of the resurrection even if he did exist, wouldn't the fact that Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but then became a believer in the resurrection be potential evidence for the resurrection?

Your premise is flawed.

There is no proof that Thomas ever existed, or that he wrote the books attributed to him. Just like many other alleged authors of the other books in the bible, who are contested. So first this has to be proven, and not first claim he existed, then make people prove otherwise.

It's just another a man made myth, no more valid than any other man made myth.

 

[Ancient Soul]

But what if Thomas was a historical person and was skeptical until he had that encounter with Jesus? Wouldn't it be at least some evidence potentially for the resurrection?

That would be no more "evidence" than the "evidence" in the story that Batman took out the Joker.

You cannot use a fictional story to prove anything.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, he didn't. Where did you get that from?


Paul claimed to have "visions". Or delusions. He saw things. He was not an eyewitness. Do you not know what an eyewitness is? Now Paul may have believed that he saw Jesus, but his own writings tell us that what he saw did not qualify as being an eyewitness.

I wrote:

"Huh? Paul claimed to be an eyewitness of the risen Christ both on Earth and in Heaven."

Paul wrote of himself in the third person, modestly, describing a heavenly vision while also saying he was unsure if he was in Heaven at the time. Most scholars place this event where he was stoned TO DEATH. HE WAS DEAD and saw Heaven.

I know what an eyewitness is. Peter, who was an eyewitness of the risen Christ, said Paul was an apostle who wrote SCRIPTURE.

What ticks you off, why, I'm unsure, is how Paul's "delusions" formed a faith that 1/3 of the Earth subscribes too! Paul will be appreciated when you and I are long forgotten.

You keep (slavishly) insisting the Bible is untrue. PROVE IT UNTRUE by speaking respectfully to me. "Don't you know what an eyewitness is?" belies your personal insecurities. Grow up.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wrong, I never made the ludicrous claim that Josephus was a Christian.

I asked what you knew about 1st century Jewish converts.

An awful lot more than you, since I'm Jewish, felt compelled to study these exact converts before converting, and have engaged with the issues since. The evidence is clear that the gospels and NT were written early and that people who could have denied the Christ converted in the many thousands. Historians recognize how Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews parted ways circa 70 and 110 AD, showing there were many converts! After all, against Rome, they were following the well-known pacifist suggestions of the NT.

Stop asking me what I know and ask me questions to fill gaps in your understanding!

 

[lukethethird]

An awful lot more than you, since I'm Jewish, felt compelled to study these exact converts before converting, and have engaged with the issues since. The evidence is clear that the gospels and NT were written early and that people who could have denied the Christ converted in the many thousands. Historians recognize how Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews parted ways circa 70 and 110 AD, showing there were many converts! After all, against Rome, they were following the well-known pacifist suggestions of the NT.

Stop asking me what I know and ask me questions to fill gaps in your understanding!

It's becoming apparent that you don't know anything about first century Jewish conversion other than the speculation that anyone can garner from reading the NT. Many thousands is pure conjecture, as in, an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

 

[tas8831]

I WILL respond when you tell me the etymological derivation of "Social Darwinism" - hint - Google.

I WILL respond when you tell me how the nervous system catalyzes the release of good bacteria from the appendix - hint: google.

Or you could have just read my posts explaining how stupid that is. But creationists cannot allow themselves to be wrong even on trivialities. Their untoward personality traits are their own worst enemies.

 

[Ebionite]

Evidence provoded in the Bible isnt good evidence. If it were, then every religious text would have equally valid evidence to claim their supernatural occurances.

Evidence provided by women isn't good evidence. If it were, then every woman would have an equally valid claim to the ability to make sense.

 

[Ebionite]

Yes. As well as the many witnesses who saw him, as well a the witnesses who wrote about what they saw.

They were so committed by what they saw, that they suffered constant persecution, and most died violently, in poverty.

If they were pulling a scam, or perpetuating a lie, I can't imagine they would live and die like this knowing it wasn't true.

People can report what they saw without knowing that what they thought they were seeing was not actually the case.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:44-46

There's no such verse in the law of Moses, the prophets, or the psalms.

The closest is from the prophet Hosea:

After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
Hosea 6:2

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evidence provided by women isn't good evidence. If it were, then every woman would have an equally valid claim to the ability to make sense.

Or some people could just work on interpersonal relationship and communication skills.

 

[Ebionite]

Or some people could just work on interpersonal relationship and communication skills.

It was a tongue in cheek parody of your argument about religious texts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's becoming apparent that you don't know anything about first century Jewish conversion other than the speculation that anyone can garner from reading the NT. Many thousands is pure conjecture, as in, an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Interesting, I'm just back from co-leading a tour to Israel, where I explained Torah, Talmud, Jewish sects, etc. to Gentiles on the trip. You should tour with us next year!