Why I CANNOT Believe in The Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

Well after hearing all the other theories about the DBR , swoon Theory , Hallucination theory , the corruption theories, ect you realise it takes more to believe these than the actual accounts. Just simply reading them disproves all the silly alternate theories.

Please. No strawman arguments.

And you have so far failed the burden of proof. You do not get to claim actual accounts yet.

 

[John1.12]

Please. No strawman arguments.

But these are at best what the ' scholars ' have come up with . They cannot disprove the authenticity and reliability of the texts . They admit they all believed what they wrote . But they conclude ' swoon theory or mass ' hallucinations . This is what's at stake here . Well with any , sensible scholars. No serious scholar is questioning the writers . Just that it must have been a hallucination or the swoon theory . That Jesus really didn't die , somehow escaped the sealed tomb and appeared to the women and the 11 .

 

[Subduction Zone]

But these are at best what the ' scholars ' have come up with . They cannot disprove the authenticity and reliability of the texts . They admit they all believed what they wrote . But they conclude ' swoon theory or mass ' hallucinations . This is what's at stake here . Well with any , sensible scholars. No serious scholar is questioning the writers . Just that it must have been a hallucination or the swoon theory . That Jesus really didn't die , somehow escaped the sealed tomb and appeared to the women and the 11 .

Wrong again. We are not discussing any of those.

By the way, what the heck is "ect"?

 

[John1.12]

Wrong again. We are not discussing any of those.

By the way, what the heck is "ect"?

Well that's what the scholars are arguing. Then you get the radical skeptics , which would deny that even Jesus the historical man ever existed . But I see that up there with flat earthers ect .
Etc." is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase et cetera, meaning "and the rest." (Et means "and" in French too.)

 

[whosetosay...]

I do not believe that any Messenger of God is better than any other since as I said, “they all arise to proclaim the same religion, since there is only one eternal religion of God. Baha’u’llah wrote that the works and acts of all the Messengers of God were all ordained by God, a reflection of His Will and Purpose.105-106

Who did Baha'u'llah say Christ was?

You see one man after many cannot make a new God up. As we see through many who have tried to make god about religion rather than God about his existence personally. All these things mean nothing of themselves but only by God being in existence and his prophets can they really be about truth. Spirit and Truth exist independently of any religion. Abraham as a man knew God before anything written and even today with the messianic believers be they Christian or descendants of Judah and Benjamin they are still the largest religion in the world based on the Abrahamic promises. Truth does not change.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Why? Because I can see that your supposed test is not valid? Have you looked into why the resurrection story is likely fake?

No, because Confirmation bias explains what you believe in the scientific world and has nothing to do with what God has done in my life. You’re quite a failure at detecting spiritual matters and an expert in suppressing and explaining away the Truth.

 

[RabbiO]

Well that's what the scholars are arguing. Then you get the radical skeptics , which would deny that even Jesus the historical man ever existed . But I see that up there with flat earthers ect .
Etc." is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase et cetera, meaning "and the rest." (Et means "and" in French too.)

I think we all all know what “etc.” means. The question asked of you, perhaps with tongue in cheek, was what is “ect” which you use constantly. In fact, “ect” is the word you use right before you begin your explanation of “etc.”

 

[John1.12]

I think we all all know what “etc.” means. The question asked of you, perhaps with tongue in cheek, was what is “ect” which you use constantly. In fact, “ect” is the word you use right before you begin your explanation of “etc.”

That was deliberate .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that's what the scholars are arguing. Then you get the radical skeptics , which would deny that even Jesus the historical man ever existed . But I see that up there with flat earthers ect .
Etc." is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase et cetera, meaning "and the rest." (Et means "and" in French too.)

Once again, I am not going to use any radical skeptics. Just those whose work.has gone through the process of peer review. Do you know what peer review is? First a group of experts in the field read the paper. If they do not find any errors it is published. Then experts all around the World read it and they try to tear it apart. That tends to remove the work of any radicals.

And no, "ect" is not short for et cetera. You might want to look it up. Oh you did! And you still screwed it up!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was deliberate .

Uh huh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, because Confirmation bias explains what you believe in the scientific world and has nothing to do with what God has done in my life. You’re quite a failure at detecting spiritual matters and an expert in suppressing and explaining away the Truth.

You don't know what confirmation bias is or else you have no understanding of the sciences. Why do you think that I nave asked both you and Barry if you have a proper test for your beliefs. Neither of you do. Testing is done to remove confirmation bias.

There should be a special sin and punishment for those that accuse others of their wrong own bad actions.

 

[We Never Know]

Once again, I am not going to use any radical skeptics. Just those whose work.has gone through the process of peer review. Do you know what peer review is? First a group of experts in the field read the paper. If they do not find any errors it is published. Then experts all around the World read it and they try to tear it apart. That tends to remove the work of any radicals.

And no, "ect" is not short for et cetera. You might want to look it up. Oh you did! And you still screwed it up!

Peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

LOL,that claim has been shown to be grossly exaggerated. In fact you misrepresented that article. It is a problem in medicine.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You don't know what confirmation bias is or else you have no understanding of the sciences. Why do you think that I nave asked both you and Barry if you have a proper test for your beliefs. Neither of you do. Testing is done to remove confirmation bias.

There should be a special sin and punishment for those that accuse others of their wrong own bad actions.

What are you talking about, bro? Why are you wanting to curse yourself like that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are you talking about, bro? Why are you wanting to curse yourself like that?

You are constantly accusing others of what you do. When it comes to confirmation bias that is all that you have. You cannot think of a reasonable and rational test for your beliefs.

 

[We Never Know]

LOL,that claim has been shown to be grossly exaggerated. In fact you misrepresented that article. It is a problem in medicine.

Nope if you would have took time to read it all you would know that.
Peer review used to be the golden standard. Now its the flawed standard. Here's another....

The two researchers, Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci, wanted to test how reliable and unbiased this process actually is. To do this, they selected 12 papers that had been published about two to three years earlier in extremely selective American psychology journals.

The researchers then altered the names and university affiliations on the journal manuscripts and resubmitted the papers to the same journal. In theory, these papers should have been high quality — they'd already made it into these prestigious publications. If the process worked well, the studies that were published the first time would be approved for publication again the second time around.

What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws."

Let's stop pretending peer review works - Vox

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope if you would have took time to read it all you would know that.
Peer review used to be the golden standard. Now its the flawed standard. Here's another....

The two researchers, Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci, wanted to test how reliable and unbiased this process actually is. To do this, they selected 12 papers that had been published about two to three years earlier in extremely selective American psychology journals.

The researchers then altered the names and university affiliations on the journal manuscripts and resubmitted the papers to the same journal. In theory, these papers should have been high quality — they'd already made it into these prestigious publications. If the process worked well, the studies that were published the first time would be approved for publication again the second time around.

What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws."

Let's stop pretending peer review works - Vox

Once again, that was in the field of medicine. By the way, one thing that peer review is supposed to do is to make sure that the work is original. How did the reviewers miss this? The claim sounds A bit suspicious. What evidence was there for that claim?

By. the way, why not attack Barry for his false attacks on well respected scholars. He cannot refute them so he name calls instead.

 

[We Never Know]

Once again, that was in the field of medicine. By the way, one thing that peer review is supposed to do is to make sure that the work is original. How did the reviewers miss this? The claim sounds A bit suspicious. What evidence was there for that claim?

By. the way, why not attack Barry for his false attacks on well respected scholars. He cannot refute them so he name calls instead.

The links and results speak for themselves.

They are going on about religion. I try to stay out of religious things. That's your area.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The links and results speak for themselves.

They are going on about religion. I try to stay out of religious things. That's your area.

Yes, that you do not understand your own sources once again. Thanks for a brilliant display of fail.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, that you do not understand your own sources once again. Thanks for a brilliant display of fail.

Lol. To you peer review is like the bible is to creationists. However neither of you will accept they are flawed.

Here's another for you

The Mess That Is Peer Review, and What Should Be Done About It | BioSpace