• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
@Subduction Zone



Maybe, but that is why I explained elsewhere what I mean by “at least possible”

With “at least possible” I mean there is no conclusive evidence against the existence of God

With this clarification, please let me know if you disagree with this point
Okay, that is worded a bit better. "May be possible" would have been even better.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Okay, Leroy probably knows by now how he failed in some of his later claims. Let's work on the first one:


The wording of this is very poor. One can not say that the existence of a god is "at least possible". This is incorrect. It puts a huge burden of proof upon Leroy. The existence of a God may be possible. The only way to know if something is "at least possible" is if it occurs occasionally or if there is some evidence for it. No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God.
Ok what I mean is that there is no conclusive evidence against the existence of God.

If my wording was poor what combination of words do you think would have been more appropriate?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Okay, Leroy probably knows by now how he failed in some of his later claims. Let's work on the first one:


The wording of this is very poor. One can not say that the existence of a god is "at least possible". This is incorrect. It puts a huge burden of proof upon Leroy. The existence of a God may be possible. The only way to know if something is "at least possible" is if it occurs occasionally or if there is some evidence for it. No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God.

Believing in God doesn't go against believing in science. God created science. Does Science Preclude The Existence Of God? | Reasons for Jesus

Science normally addresses natural events in terms of natural causes. Whoever agrees on that (at least approximate) definition of science thereby grants that science doesn’t prove or disprove God. It just doesn’t address God’s existence. It’s not the right tool for that job.

Science can, however, address effects in nature which might have supernatural causes. In this way science could discredit or lend credit to different lines of evidence for God. Remember, “science” is usually a reference to “natural science,” and so it addresses natural events and is usually restricted to natural causes.

If we are to connect scientific data to the question of God’s existence we need a mediator, like theology, philosophy, or even art. By that understanding, Science isn’t the right tool for directly addressing God’s existence.

The data we glean from science has to be passed off to other fields to consider how it might best be interpreted if natural events/causes seem unable to account for that data. Science can identify and clarify things that are not explained or cannot be explained by natural causes.

Science can also discredit/falsify some supernatural claims by pointing out sufficient but natural cause for an event. For example, debunking magic tricks and various fraudulent religious claims like spoon bending, levitation, mind reading, etc.

The question at issue here is, not about whether science disproves God, but is more subtle: “Does science preclude God?” This is a more sophisticated question because it allows that God may exist, but to do science we have to assume/believe/conclude he doesn’t exist. Doing science makes God-belief impossible, or, at least, does it make God-belief impossible while one is conducting science?

At minimum, this is a question about methodological naturalism–must we deal strictly in natural causes, allowing only natural explanations into the mix whenever we do science? I myself am torn on that question, depending on how one understands “methodological naturalism.” At maximum, this is a question about metaphysical naturalism–does the operation or outcomes of science somehow make God’s existence impossible? I’m not torn here.

THE SHORT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS: NO, SCIENCE DOES NOT PRECLUDE GOD’S EXISTENCE. WE CAN CONDUCT SCIENCE AS WELL OR BETTER THAN OUR ATHEISTIC COUNTERPARTS PRECISELY BECAUSE WE ALLOW THAT GOD EXISTS.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What do you mean by definition?
You can easily find their educational backgrounds in wiki and see for yourself that they did not do a PhD in history or any historical discipline. Of course I can back up my claim. That's the whole reason I am linking the wiki article so that everyone can see these scholars backgrounds in education does not include any doctoral studies in history.

You do understand that to be a historian, you need a PhD in history. A degree like one below.
Graduate Degree Programs | Department of History
These scholars do not have it. As seen from their cvs or in the wiki page about them. They are not historians. Their studies on historicity of Jesus therefore have no relevance.


If someone publish a research article on a specific topic then by definition this man has the proper credentials to do so.

For example a theologian that makes his doctorate thesis on the Pauline epistols , is qualified to publish stuff about say “Corinthians” even if he doesn’t have a PHD in history.
Obviously not. Without proper training in the subject, such "research" articles published has no validity.
Your example is wrong. Here the case is more like someone with a doctoral thesis on English literature is publishing articles on Japanese architecture.
A person with doctoral degree in philosophy or divinity has no expertise relevant for doing research on topics of history.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Obviously not. Without proper training in the subject, such "research" articles published has no validity.
Your example is wrong. Here the case is more like someone with a doctoral thesis on English literature is publishing articles on Japanese architecture.
A person with doctoral degree in philosophy or divinity has no expertise relevant for doing research on topics of history.
The problem is that you are making the unsupported assumption that they didn’t had “proper training”

Which is ridiculous because in order to publish and pass the peer review process by definition you have to have “proper training”
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The problem is that you are making the unsupported assumption that they didn’t had “proper training”

Which is ridiculous because in order to publish and pass the peer review process by definition you have to have “proper training”
No you do not have to have any training if you are publishing in fake research journals. A journal of fake history run by fake historians will obviously accept fake historical work done by such fake historians.
This journal in which that article was, published is run by an editor named Robert L Webb who.. surprise... also has no degree in history.
The basic point is this... This entire field of Jesus history is a pseudo historical discipline run primarily by Christian divinity scholars with no actual expertise in history at all. They run their own journals and peer review each other. This is fine if they are doing hermeneutics and discussing theological topics, but is NOT FINE, if they start making claims on history. History is not theology, history is not literary analysis. So nothing of what they say regarding historicity can be regarded as valid... at least non Christians.
For example, here is John P Meier, often consider a leading figure in historical Jesus field. His degree: doctorate in sacred literature from a divinity school. He may be an expert in Biblical literature . but he has no expertise in determining historicity of events depicted in the said literature. That is the province of experts of history, with doctorates in history. This is the main reason why nothing here has any validity.
John P. - Meier | Department of Theology | University of Notre Dame
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
For some, but not all, Christians it does.

Christianity doesn't go against science. The book of Job mentions gravity before Isaac Newton mentioned gravity. https://carta.fiu.edu/gsc-creative/2016/04/12/3-scientific-facts-you-never-knew-were-in-the-bible/

Job 26:7
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
“He suspends the earth over nothing”. Ironically many nations believed with great conviction the exact opposite. Nothing on this earth just floats. Everything, other than the clouds themselves, are situated on some surface. As a result, naturally, ancient peoples were confident that the earth had to be suspended on something.
Some believed the earth was sitting on the back of a turtle and that that turtle was standing on a serpent. Some believed a man was holding the earth, the great Atlas himself. Still others believed the world was flat, surrounded by a dome from which the stars were hanging on strings. These are three interpretations of many.
So, when did mankind finally understand about gravity and outer space? It began with the all too familiar story of Sir Isaac Newton and his fruit-filled revelation.
Isaac Newton first published the Universal Law of Gravitation in 1687.
The book of Job in the Bible has been carbon-dated as the oldest book of the Bible: 3500 years old.
Job is the name of the author. Job was a shepherd. He raised livestock for a living. He wasn’t a scientific genius that looked up into the night sky and realized the nature of the earth. Living in the Bronze Age, the only tools available to him were simple machines of metal. As with every other book of the Bible, Job was not written from Job’s own thoughts. But, through revelation form the creator Job was able to write about the true nature of creation.
By far, God’s Word preceded mankind’s understanding.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Nope.

That is merely a reinterpretation after the fact.

How would Job have known about gravity at the time? I believe that Job 26:7 mentions gravity. If you study the context of Job 26:7 it shows that gravity is what he was talking about. https://carta.fiu.edu/gsc-creative/2016/04/12/3-scientific-facts-you-never-knew-were-in-the-bible/

Job 26:7
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

“He suspends the earth over nothing”. Ironically many nations believed with great conviction the exact opposite. Nothing on this earth just floats. Everything, other than the clouds themselves, are situated on some surface. As a result, naturally, ancient peoples were confident that the earth had to be suspended on something.

Some believed the earth was sitting on the back of a turtle and that that turtle was standing on a serpent. Some believed a man was holding the earth, the great Atlas himself. Still others believed the world was flat, surrounded by a dome from which the stars were hanging on strings. These are three interpretations of many.

So, when did mankind finally understand about gravity and outer space? It began with the all too familiar story of Sir Isaac Newton and his fruit-filled revelation.

Isaac Newton first published the Universal Law of Gravitation in 1687.

The book of Job in the Bible has been carbon-dated as the oldest book of the Bible: 3500 years old.

Job is the name of the author. Job was a shepherd. He raised livestock for a living. He wasn’t a scientific genius that looked up into the night sky and realized the nature of the earth. Living in the Bronze Age, the only tools available to him were simple machines of metal. As with every other book of the Bible, Job was not written from Job’s own thoughts. But, through revelation form the creator Job was able to write about the true nature of creation.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
How would Job have known about gravity at the time? I believe that Job 26:7 mentions gravity. If you study the context of Job 26:7 it shows that gravity is what he was talking about. https://carta.fiu.edu/gsc-creative/2016/04/12/3-scientific-facts-you-never-knew-were-in-the-bible/
He didn't. By the way, Job is another fictional character of the Bible. But even the fictional Job did not know that.

In fact those are Flat Earth verses from the Bible. Are you sure that you want to use them?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
He didn't. By the way, Job is another fictional character of the Bible. But even the fictional Job did not know that.

In fact those are Flat Earth verses from the Bible. Are you sure that you want to use them?

The Scriptures themselves tell us that the earth is round. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: Isaiah 40:22

The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg, which is also translated "circuit" or "compass," depending on the context. That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded like a ball, or arched-not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written around 700 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book On the Heavens, that the earth might be a sphere.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Scriptures themselves tell us that the earth is round. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: Isaiah 40:22

The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg, which is also translated "circuit" or "compass," depending on the context. That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded like a ball, or arched-not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written around 700 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book On the Heavens, that the earth might be a sphere.
No, we went over this a long time ago. How did you forget? The original Hebrew uses a term that describes the Earth as flat in that verse. Not spherical. Please do not conflate being "round" with being a sphere.

A compass can only draw flat circles.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
No, we went over this a long time ago. How did you forget? The original Hebrew uses a term that describes the Earth as flat in that verse. Not spherical. Please do not conflate being "round" with being a sphere.

A compass can only draw flat circles.

Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere by watching masts if ships sink down over the horizon and from the studies of the moon during an eclipse. He perspectively noted the shadow of the earth on the moon revealed that the earth was curved.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science human theories did not think creation into being

O planet exists.
It's heavens exists.
The garden nature existed.

Humans theoried a thought just like today about why firm owned presence.

Is just talking. Is just arguing about a story. Also not actual history which is natural form.

Humans still suffer stigmata. Proof it happened.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok in that case you have to show that the 1500 scholars in the poll, where guys who publish in “fake journals”.
A journal accepting research articles from divinity scholars regarding history is indulging in pseudo-historical research. Most of these scholars and the associated journals are guilty of this. There is nothing further that needs to be shown.
In summary I have shown that:-
1) Most of the scholars in question have no graduate training in history, and are instead trainity in divinity, philosophy or theology.
2) Without training in history, none of their conclusions regarding historicity of the events depicted in NT books have validity other than being mere opinions of amateur historians. This is regardless of how many articles they wrote and published on this topic in religious and theological journals.
3) So, there is no obligation on anybody to take the works of any of these scholars as works of valid history.

Hence the OP is refuted.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
But in this case the paper that I quoted is from a NT scholar. The best possible authority with regards to stuff related to the NEW TESTAMENT.

A theologian does not question if the religion is real. They start with the assumption it is real. That is the definition of confirmation bias.

The best possible authority on the NT is Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier. For Acts it's Richard Purvoe. For the Q gospel it's Goodacre. Another gospel expert is John Dominic Crossan.
For Moses it's Thomas Thompson.
Thomas L. Brodie has become an expert on John and Luke and their use of OT narratives.

If you think an apologist putting together a "study" is the best possible authority then you have no interest in what is actually true.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
A journal accepting research articles from divinity scholars regarding history is indulging in pseudo-historical research. Most of these scholars and the associated journals are guilty of this.
aja, can you prove it?

There is nothing further that needs to be shown.
In summary I have shown that:-
1) Most of the scholars in question have no graduate training in history,
no you haven't shown that
 
Top