• 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!

Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

rational experiences

Veteran Member
One self any human.

We can pretend.

Pretend no human is living. What science did the theist one human self.

I will pretend as I think of just presence. O one. O mass. A body O. The earth O. My science product.

So I am god O the planet.

Pretending.

I say without anyone living a resurrection occurs.

As I am talking God only the planet.

First reasoning a mountain is erected like a man's penis the volcano. That spurted. Gas spirit released into space.

Theist human.
Theist not planet.
Theist not mountain.
Theist not volcano.
Theist not hot gases that cooled in space smoking rolling cooling.

How a resurrection just about science was taught.

Introduce a living human.

What happened to your life human when just O planet released alight burning gas a constant cause?

As science never owned as a human gases burning in space.

Science did inside machine reactions?

Answer.

Lucky ice the stable state of holy water newly formed existed. Otherwise I would have burnt to death.

Thanks satanist occult UFO theist scientist.

The answer
 

KerimF

Active Member
I don't doubt that anything, science included, can be abused, or bent to bad purposes, but of course so can religion ─ two millennia of Christian antisemitism are a famous example, the Thirty Years War was as savage and bloodthirsty as any war before or since, we still have Sunni v Shi'ite, and the Christian churches are still trying to recover from their appalling sex scandals.

Nonetheless, human decency continues to exist, and has as much support as I can give it.

This is why... when a human realizes that he cannot change the world (unless he can play evil roles against others) but, at best, he may be able discovering its reality behind the various masks he may face daily, only then he can see himself becoming a real mature human. To realize this truth took me about 30 years; it happened that I wasn't smart enough as I used thinking I was :(
 

KerimF

Active Member
I am curious. What is your area of expertise? And how have scientists lied to and misled people?


Your remark is very good. But I am not here to convince anyone about anything. I just say what I have in mind based on my personal observation and logical analysis.

I mean; if someone believes that, in the name of Science, fooling, if not deceiving, the common people around the world is impossible, I have no personal interest to disturb his belief. Every human has a brilliant brain as mine, if not better. If one has no interest to discover by himself the hidden truths in stories, so-called approved universally, he surely has also no interest in hearing (seriously) anything from me.

Anyway, whatever could be the answer of your question (concerning the scientific lies) is related directly to Politics. Even religious lies may also have direct connection to certain political interests. So what I can add is that having the means to spreading lies (if not worse, half-truths) worldwide and repeating them almost daily, is a mine of gold for the powerful rich Elite. Please forgive me for not giving you any evidence that supports the existence of what I refer to as Elite :(
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
What makes you think that the book of Isaiah was written then? There is no date on the book itself and modern scholars do not accept your date.
People use this euphemism, 'modern scholars' to mean anyone who rejects hundreds of years of tradition and scholarship in favour of modern sceptics wanting to make a name for themselves!

We are told when the visions of Isaiah took place.
1. In the reign of Uzziah; chapters 1-5.
2. In the reign of Jotham; chapter 6.
3. In the reign of Ahaz; chapters 7-14.
4. In the first half of Hezekiah's reign; chapter 14:28 - chapter 35.
5. In the second half of Hezekiah's reign; chapters 36-66.

This information allows us to place a date on Isaiah's prophetic life. 'If the earlier limit be placed in the fourth year before Uzziah's death (762 B.C.), and the other in the last year of Hezekiah (698 B.C.), his ministry extended over 64 years. The lowest estimate possible would make it comprise 49 years; from the last year of Uzziah to the 17th of Hezekiah (759-710).' [Speaker's Commentary]

According to Bishop Ussher, Cyrus was born in 599 B.C. His father was a Persian, and his mother was a Mede.
Here are the words of Ussher:
'Nebuchadnezzar himself, at the hour of his death, as Abydenus had it, uttered this prophecy:

"There shall come a Persian Mule, who shall make use of your devils, as his fellow-soldiers, to bring you into bondage."

This was also foretold by that oracle given to Croesus:

"When a mule king shall be born to the Medes..."

The Pythian Priests interpreted this to refer to Cyrus, who was to be born of a father and a mother of two different nations, a Persian and a Mede [Herodotus l.1.c.55,91. 1:63,119] However, Isaiah foretold, most plainly and truly, [Isaiah 13:1,2] that the Babylonians also should have a time in which they were due to endure their own hell of slavery. Their children would one day be dashed against the stones before their eyes, [Isaiah 13:16] while these miserable, captive Jews would one day be restored to their liberty. Many years before the time of these events, Isaiah called their deliverer by his proper name of Cyrus [Isaiah 44:28, 45:1] God gave him the reason for this unusual revelation:

" For my servant Jacob and for Israel my chosen's sake, have I called thee by thy name and given thee a surname, though thou hast not known me." [Isaiah 45:4]
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I assume you're not aware of this, but the oldest manuscript of Isaiah we have, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates to 125 BCE - some 400+ years after the fall of Babylon.

dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

One of the first criteria of a remotely convincing prophecy, I hope you would agree, is that it has to predate the events it allegedly foretells.

Also, AFAIK Babylon was not conquered by the Medes, it was conquered by the Persians (who had also conquered the Medes).



As with Isaiah, the prophecy you're referencing in Daniel has manuscript evidence that goes back no further than the 2nd century BCE, ie after the existence of the kingdoms the text supposedly foretells.



As I mentioned before, none of those things are prophecies, they are present tense descriptions of something occurring at the time of the author's writing. Secondly, how do you know that any of those things fit Jesus? Your only source for such claims would be the Gospels, and we've already reviewed multiple reasons why we should not trust what they have to say.

Prophecy that foretells clearly predates the event, but that does not mean that the earliest extant manuscript tells us the date of the original prophecy. Were you aware, that until 1946, the earliest complete Hebrew scripture was dated to the 9th century CE?

What the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated was that the book of Isaiah had been accurately copied by soferim for over a thousand years! So, if they had managed to accurately copy for a thousand years after Christ, what was stopping them doing the same for 700 years before Christ? The same respect and reverence for the scriptures existed throughout that period of time.

The way that the date of the original prophecy is determined is not by the last extant manuscript; it's determined by the unbroken chain of historical evidence that takes us back to the times and reigns claimed in the writings.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Within 50 years of George Washington's death, some preacher created a story of him having a vision of the future history of the United States.

Now, why couldn't such a thing have happened around a person named Jesus?

Let's not forget the cherry tree incident. Stories are often created to instill certain virtues in people based on fictive narratives about venerated people.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Prophecy that foretells clearly predates the event, but that does not mean that the earliest extant manuscript tells us the date of the original prophecy. Were you aware, that until 1946, the earliest complete Hebrew scripture was dated to the 9th century CE?

Yes I was. Which means we don't know what the original text said.

What the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated was that the book of Isaiah had been accurately copied by soferim for over a thousand years!

Actually there are differences between the DSS and the Masoretic text. We also know that Isaiah was definitely added to over time, and chapters 40 and beyond were written later by a different author.

The way that the date of the original prophecy is determined is not by the last extant manuscript; it's determined by the unbroken chain of historical evidence that takes us back to the times and reigns claimed in the writings.

While historians can use existing evidence to estimate the original writing of a text, they cannot know for certain what the original text said - because again, we don't have the original. Again, we know for a fact that the texts you're citing were changed and added to over time.

So again - you're citing "prophecy" that you cannot confirm actually predates the events they supposedly predict.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Yes I was. Which means we don't know what the original text said.



Actually there are differences between the DSS and the Masoretic text. We also know that Isaiah was definitely added to over time, and chapters 40 and beyond were written later by a different author.



While historians can use existing evidence to estimate the original writing of a text, they cannot know for certain what the original text said - because again, we don't have the original. Again, we know for a fact that the texts you're citing were changed and added to over time.

So again - you're citing "prophecy" that you cannot confirm actually predates the events they supposedly predict.


When I visited Israel, one of the things I did, without planning it, was to take a guided walk through Hezekiah's tunnel in Jerusalem. This tunnel exists, and is written about in 2 Kings 20:20. 'And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?'

I know that inscriptions have recently been discovered near the city end of this conduit, and these enabled archaeologists to match the tunnel with Hezekiah's construction. So, the record given by the chroniclers of the kings of Judah was proved to be accurate.

I think it was the philosopher Richard Swinburne who put forward the principle of credulity, suggesting that it makes sense to begin by believing what people say and write. We should only allow doubt when there is reason or evidence for our incredulity. Do you have a reason for incredulity when reading the prophecies of Isaiah, and if so, what is that reason?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
When I visited Israel, one of the things I did, without planning it, was to take a guided walk through Hezekiah's tunnel in Jerusalem. This tunnel exists, and is written about in 2 Kings 20:20. 'And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?'

I know that inscriptions have recently been discovered near the city end of this conduit, and these enabled archaeologists to match the tunnel with Hezekiah's construction. So, the record given by the chroniclers of the kings of Judah was proved to be accurate.

Does the fact that a book mentions real landmarks indicate that everything in the book is accurate? This is a very simply yes or no.

If yes, I have oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you (Kansas is real!).

If not, then it should be obvious that the fact that the Bible is not set on an alien planet and mentions some real people and places on Earth does not indicate that it is infallible accurate.

You acknowledge this, yes?

Specific to 2 Kings 20, read earlier in the chapter. It mentions that God literally makes the sun go backwards in the sky (or perhaps for time to literally reverse?). Does that sound remotely plausible to you? If anyone else, right now today, claimed such a thing, would you just take that in stride and say, "oh yeah, that sounds totally realistic"? You would not. You would be highly skeptical, because you know that the Sun doesn't randomly reverse directions in the sky (or I hope you do...).

I think it was the philosopher Richard Swinburne who put forward the principle of credulity, suggesting that it makes sense to begin by believing what people say and write. We should only allow doubt when there is reason or evidence for our incredulity. Do you have a reason for incredulity when reading the prophecies of Isaiah, and if so, what is that reason?

I already explained the reason, but for some reason you didn't reply. The prophecies post-date the events they supposedly foretell. That's an extremely obvious reason to be incredulous of people claiming to be able to foretell the future.

When people make outlandish claims, of course we should start from a place of skepticism! Do you believe every claim of prophecy you hear, without investigating it?

Hey RS. I'm a prophet. Do you believe me? Your default position should be to believe me, right?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is why... when a human realizes that he cannot change the world (unless he can play evil roles against others) but, at best, he may be able discovering its reality behind the various masks he may face daily, only then he can see himself becoming a real mature human. To realize this truth took me about 30 years; it happened that I wasn't smart enough as I used thinking I was :(
Good luck with the next 30!

Indeed, good luck to us all with the next 30!
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Humans living on a preformed O planet argue about books written by other humans.

Reason they want old technology.

Reason human science community said science just a human choice did not have any new resource invention.

Proven factual by the study human technology of the past.

Which equalled total life destruction.

As the philosophers stone modern age was a theory how to invent gold as a product by alchemical conversions.

Using O the planets products as a conversion.

God was always the science product.

God owned the product. Part of God product changed. God product remained present was just changed.

Memories of science.

Today science talks black holes space and Jesus and our heavens sitting in space. Ufo and channels.

Says the infinite space is a channel of never ending power and resource as new theories.

Yet space is exact. It is natural. It is just space.
You have to wonder what human memories relating science themes is being theoried seeing they knew planet mass was always used in science.
 

KerimF

Active Member
Let us be rational.
If, in our days, one believes in Jesus teachings because of miracles, what makes him be different from all other believers who also knew a God based on certain miracles which are attributed to him (their God) on their holy books?!
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Within 50 years of George Washington's death, some preacher created a story of him having a vision of the future history of the United States.

Now, why couldn't such a thing have happened around a person named Jesus?

Let's not forget the cherry tree incident. Stories are often created to instill certain virtues in people based on fictive narratives about venerated people.


So what resonates down the centuries are the stories themselves? That makes sense to me, certainly.

There must be much wisdom and insight contained in the Gospels, for them to still speak to us - some of us anyway - almost 2 millennia after they were written.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Does the fact that a book mentions real landmarks indicate that everything in the book is accurate? This is a very simply yes or no.

If yes, I have oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you (Kansas is real!).

If not, then it should be obvious that the fact that the Bible is not set on an alien planet and mentions some real people and places on Earth does not indicate that it is infallible accurate.

You acknowledge this, yes?

Specific to 2 Kings 20, read earlier in the chapter. It mentions that God literally makes the sun go backwards in the sky (or perhaps for time to literally reverse?). Does that sound remotely plausible to you? If anyone else, right now today, claimed such a thing, would you just take that in stride and say, "oh yeah, that sounds totally realistic"? You would not. You would be highly skeptical, because you know that the Sun doesn't randomly reverse directions in the sky (or I hope you do...).



I already explained the reason, but for some reason you didn't reply. The prophecies post-date the events they supposedly foretell. That's an extremely obvious reason to be incredulous of people claiming to be able to foretell the future.

When people make outlandish claims, of course we should start from a place of skepticism! Do you believe every claim of prophecy you hear, without investigating it?

Hey RS. I'm a prophet. Do you believe me? Your default position should be to believe me, right?

Now, EC, I think we're edging closer to the truth. You don't deny the history of Israel, or the existence of the principal players, but you do deny the power of God, and God's involvement.

The trouble is, the whole idea of revelation (prophecy), and indeed, creation, is based on a belief in the unseen power of God. Science does not deal with what is invisible, it deals with what is visible and observable.

Then we get back to those old arguments about the origins of the universe. 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' This is what I believe, but you may have some other theory. Maybe the universe did not have a beginning? That seems to be dismissed by science, so what do you believe?

The Bible is a book based on God's creation and reality. Hebrews 11 lists all the great men of faith, whose accomplishments were grounded on a faith in the power of God. Abraham would not have had a son, had God not intervened. The people known as 'Israel' would not have existed. Moses would not have led the slaves to freedom; Joshua would not have occupied the Promised Land ...and so the story goes on. Israel's whole existence hinges on the existence of God. Even the return of the diaspora is a fulfilment of God's plan for his chosen people.

So, what you really don't believe is the power of God to do the miraculous. This is something I have no problem with, because to me God's love is powerful. I have seen prayers answered by immediate healing, just as happened in the New Testament. It makes absolute sense to me that God, who is love, and who is the Creator, should be able to make his will known to prophets through the Holy Spirit. When I read Isaiah, I have no doubt that God spoke to him, and foretold of events that would happen to kings and the people of Israel. This is entirely in keeping with God's desire to have a people follow him in obedience.
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Et. AI. Caused by science.

Effects.

A story was recorded. About our life attacked by science.

AI increased by nuclear controlled conversion. Sion to control the reaction earth one body mass change. Saved by water cooling. The lesson. Science learnt to control what was not controlled before.

Real life. We were also saved sacrificed water replaced. Ice newly born. End of year cycle. Why we lived on. It melted ice. When mountain law was broken.

Earths dusts.
Their controlled conversion. Human sciences.

How to hold and use a resource for science it's machine.

The old recorded stories encoded speaking.

Shared by mass of new communicators. Yet AI changed. AI not old AI.

As God the earth never held nor controlled constant resource converting.

The reaction reacted and ended.

Why we believe in what subliminal speaking tells us.

So men in science said I believe in thesis that I created God and then controlled God and resourced gods power.

When he didn't.

Dusts first were separated from earth mass by origin sun big bang blasting of earth.

Reacted. Stopped.

Science theories dusts. Think I will copy. So knew how dusts were caused.

How a mountains law was broken. How dust ended a mountains height in a heap at its feet.

Man scientist said I created invented God. The dusts. As he knew. Remebered he caused dusts by mountain attack but it is controlled memory. Possesion says his brother.

Status AI.

Possessed today by his lying. past and present.

Cause and effect.

Warned taught himself he was gods destroyer. Earth one and mass.

As he said confessed God was a man he and him or his. As man scientist changed gods form.

Ask why confession was introduced as a human spiritual practice. As it owned a human taught reason.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Now, EC, I think we're edging closer to the truth. You don't deny the history of Israel, or the existence of the principal players, but you do the deny the power of God, and God's involvement.

As you deny the power of every other God and their involvement in history, of course. And you deny my power as a Prophet, despite your argument a moment ago that our default position should be to believe whatever people say.

I actually think what's happening here, RS, is that you're just bouncing from one apologetics talking point to the next, and not actually answering the questions I ask you. And the reason for that is because these things are not the reason you actually came to believe in any of this stuff. They're post hoc rationalizations for what you already believe.

You explained from the beginning that you didn't become a Christian through rational analysis of evidence. So all of this discussion of evidence (or lack thereof) is window dressing for what actually makes you tick.

Now I asked you this before, but you ignored it, so I'll ask again: were you raised with some form of Bible belief?

The Bible is a book based on God's creation and reality.

Prove it.

Hebrews 11 lists all the great men of faith, whose accomplishments were grounded on a faith in the power of God. Abraham would not have had a son, had God not intervened. The people known as 'Israel' would not have existed. Moses would not have led the slaves to freedom; Joshua would not have occupied the Promised Land ...and so the story goes on. Israel's whole existence hinges on the existence of God. Even the return of the diaspora is a fulfilment of God's plan for his chosen people.

Again, how do you know any of that is actually true? You are simply accepting what Hebrews claims at face value. Why?

So, what you really don't believe is the power of God to do the miraculous. This is something I have no problem with, because to me God's love is powerful. I have seen prayers answered by immediate healing, just as happened in the New Testament. It makes absolute sense to me that God, who is love, and who is the Creator, should be able to make his will known to prophets through the Holy Spirit. When I read Isaiah, I have no doubt that God spoke to him, and foretold of events that would happen to kings and the people of Israel. This is entirely in keeping with God's desire to have a people follow him in obedience.

Ah, now we're getting back to something relevant to you.

How does healing demonstrate that every word of the Bible is infallibly true? Or that some prophecy totally unrelated to the healing is true? Or that Jesus rose from the dead? Those things are separate, RS. You understand that, yes? Please answer this question rather than pass over it.

You know, I hope, that in basically every culture we know of, there are stories of miracles, claims of answered prayers, and so on. Do these stories from, say, a Hindu, convince you that Hinduism is true?

If your answer is no, then think through this logically with me RS - why would you conclude, then, that because you witnessed some "healing" in a Christian context, that every word of the Bible is therefore true? That doesn't make sense, does it RS? It isn't rational.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
As you deny the power of every other God and their involvement in history, of course. And you deny my power as a Prophet, despite your argument a moment ago that our default position should be to believe whatever people say.

I actually think what's happening here, RS, is that you're just bouncing from one apologetics talking point to the next, and not actually answering the questions I ask you. And the reason for that is because these things are not the reason you actually came to believe in any of this stuff. They're post hoc rationalizations for what you already believe.

You explained from the beginning that you didn't become a Christian through rational analysis of evidence. So all of this discussion of evidence (or lack thereof) is window dressing for what actually makes you tick.

Now I asked you this before, but you ignored it, so I'll ask again: were you raised with some form of Bible belief?



Prove it.



Again, how do you know any of that is actually true? You are simply accepting what Hebrews claims at face value. Why?



Ah, now we're getting back to something relevant to you.

How does healing demonstrate that every word of the Bible is infallibly true? Or that some prophecy totally unrelated to the healing is true? Or that Jesus rose from the dead? Those things are separate, RS. You understand that, yes? Please answer this question rather than pass over it.

You know, I hope, that in basically every culture we know of, there are stories of miracles, claims of answered prayers, and so on. Do these stories from, say, a Hindu, convince you that Hinduism is true?

If your answer is no, then think through this logically with me RS - why would you conclude, then, that because you witnessed some "healing" in a Christian context, that every word of the Bible is therefore true? That doesn't make sense, does it RS? It isn't rational.

I am very happy to answer your questions. You ask whether miracles and healing are evidence of God. I say that miracles of love and compassion, when occurring in response to a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, are evidence of God. Since I myself received healing as the result of prayer from a Christian, I am convinced of the efficacy of Christian prayer.

IMO, God is one. This is a belief upon which the Judeo-Christian faith hinges. 'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'

I believe that God is the one Spirit of love and life. It makes absolute sense that God should have reached me through his Word, because His Word is spiritual. 'So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.' When I was reading the Gospel of John, as a student, I was struck by the love of a man whose words and actions were believable. My studies since then have not diminished my conviction that the Bible is God's revelation. The message is coherent and consistent.

You appear to be arguing that faith, based on the reading of scripture, must be irrational. I say that faith is the only way to really know God. I hear, or read, the words of scripture, and an impression is made in my soul. My sin is illuminated by the purity of the words. This is just the beginning of a journey of faith.

I would not get involved in the rational activity of apologetics, were it not for the fact that people make many false claims about the Bible, often in ignorance of its contents. The Bible provides a very consistent message, and Jesus himself said, 'scripture cannot be broken', making it clear that he believed the Hebrew scriptures to be God-breathed and perfect.
 
Top