Yes, you have your viewpoints that I don't subscribe to (for reasons that are freely shown on google and already stated by me)
-
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 Resurrection is it provable?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Aštra’el
Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
Many religions embrace the idea that God(s) created the world we live in.
As we have seen in countless video games… concepts of respawns/ continues/ extra lives are almost always included within our own created worlds. I would expect God(s) to include some version of this as well.
As we have seen in countless video games… concepts of respawns/ continues/ extra lives are almost always included within our own created worlds. I would expect God(s) to include some version of this as well.
They haven't come to conclusions. That's the important distinction you are missing here between how these scientists think and how faith-based thinkers think. The scientists will be in agreement that all of those ideas are possibly correct, although each may have a different favorite than the next. They have NOT come to different conclusions using the same evidence. And if two thought that they had compelling arguments for different hypotheses, they could resolve their differences using the method I outlined. "I'm sure it was tidal pools and not ocean vents because of the following evidence" followed by a reply of, "You need to get that published yesterday" or "That is incorrect for the following reasons, which demonstrate that I am correct" until they come to agreement. If one has come to a hasty and false conclusion, either he is amenable to seeing and dispassionately evaluating counterarguments, or he's just another faith-based believing as fact that which hasn't been demonstrated to be so, whose conclusions are rejected.
I'd like you to take a moment and understand what that means about evaluating evidence in the scientific community. It is not seven schools arguing that they are correct as it would be with seven clergy of different faiths having seven different ideas. Each will consider his belief fact and treat it as a settled conclusion. These are two different and incompatible approaches to epistemology.
No. They are logical possibilities not yet ruled in or out.
I would. That's the definition of faith - insufficiently justified belief. If you can't convince experienced empiricists, your belief is faith-based.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yet you can't seem to find any historical support for your beliefs. All you have are the works of apologists.
It's all in google. Please don't ask me to do your homework
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is your claim. It is your homework. And you can find anything in Google. What you appear to need practice on is finding reliable sources.It's all in google. Please don't ask me to do your homework
By the way, when I point out that someone has used a bogus source I can show why. You don't like Wiki, but you do not seem to be able to support that claim. Wiki is a fine tool for concepts that are well accepted and supported. When dealing with very recent discoveries then you will probably want to go to the source or as close to it as possible. How are you going to show that Wiki is not a valid tool when used appropriately?
OK... but there is still 7 (unless it has changed) so apparently they couldn't resolve their differences.
IMO, I think you are viewing it with a little bias. Probably both sides have those who argue and those that do not.
When Einstein spoke about his Theory of Relativity, there were arguments, if my memory serves me correctly
OK... and we have our that haven't been ruled out one way or the other.
I disagree with your definition. I think that is the traditional (however wrong) viewpoint.
I hold to a scriptural definition of "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen".
Let's look at Benjamin Franklin after so many efforts to find the right filament. He hoped to find it and he wanted to produce evidence of success though not yet seen. Faith give it substance. (The story might not be perfect.
Or, if you want to look at it another way, a person must see a gold medal in his imagination by faith before he can manifest what he believes.
(Cool Runnings comes to mind)
So, obviously, we have a different viewpoint of what faith is... which one is correct?
I already have. Do your homework.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hmm, it has been a while so I might need to remind the theists of the title of this thread and the OP itself.
The title is:
"The resurrection, is it provable?"
And the OP itself:
"Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?"
This puts all of the burden of proof upon the believers. It appears that we all agree that the answer to these questions is "No."
The title is:
"The resurrection, is it provable?"
And the OP itself:
"Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?"
This puts all of the burden of proof upon the believers. It appears that we all agree that the answer to these questions is "No."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We're at an impasse, since you won't acknowledge the difference between a conclusion and a logically possible hypothesis. I've already emphasized the difference between seven people proposing seven contradictory hypotheses and seven people who have come to seven contradictory conclusions. You didn't acknowledge that or use either word in your answer, so I'm not expecting you to do so here either, so I just want to summarize my position before moving on. Sorry, but I've changed my limit for how many times I'll repeat myself before what has been said is assimilated by the other guy. I used to think that if I found just the right words, I could get through, and the discussion would reflect an understanding of those words by both parties. If it doesn't happen after one or two tries, I move on, understanding from experience here that it never will.
Let's say that there are seven different logically possible alternatives offered, none ruled in and none ruled out. Science will not conclude that any of them is correct. With faith in creationism, they are all ruled out simply because they contradict the faith-based belief. Remember, this sub-thread began when you, a faith-based thinker, said he evaluates the evidence differently. I don't believe that you thought that you had an eighth hypothesis, none ruled in or out yet. You ruled one in and all the rest out. That's a conclusion, and it's not amenable to correction even if evidence demonstrates that it is incorrect.
I am just summarizing my position before moving on.
Einstein offered a hypothesis that contradicted the existing narrative. It didn't become a conclusion of science until it was empirically confirmed. Hypothesis, conclusion, conclusion, hypothesis. Not the same, although you conflate them. Yes, Einstein interpreted the evidence differently and developed a HYPOTHESIS, then he showed why it was correct, and it graduated to theory when a CONCLUSION became justified.
If science and scientists were faith-based thinkers, they might have said what you did, which is essentially, "that's not how I see it," and walk away. But scientists understand that when there are discrepancies in what they see, their work is not over. At least one camp is wrong. That's because they understand that if the same evidence leads to two different hypotheses, at least one is wrong, and they look for different predictions of the hypotheses to see which if either is correct. In the case of Einstein, he predicted an observation that was not predicted by the existing narrative, namely, that gravity bends the path of light. An experiment was devised to test this. Einstein was correct, and dissent eventually disappeared. That's because they take the idea of coming to contradictory conclusions using the same data as an indication that at least one of those ideas is incorrect, not merely, "Well, that's not how I choose to see it."
That's poetry. It doesn't actually say anything. Faith is obviously not substance or evidence. Substance is evidence, and faith is neither. Faith is belief before observing that evidence. There is no need to add anything to the definition of faith as unjustified belief. That definition is perfect, because it includes everything that I want to call faith and excludes everything that I call empiricism. Such a definition cannot be improved upon.
You're probably thinking of Edison. He didn't demonstrate faith there. What belief do you think he held that was unjustified? That he might discover a substance adequate to use as a lightbulb filament through trial and error? That's not faith. That's a justified belief. He might and he did, but he might not have. That was also logically possible. Hope is not faith. Faith would be to assume that such a substance definitely existed and that he would find it, which is unjustified belief - not that it might exist and that he might find it if it did, which IS justified belief.
My apologies.... there is a different between a theorem and an hypothesis. However, a conclusion may be expressed from a theorem since:
However, to be exact, a theory:
A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.
Doesn't my statement follow the definition? A theory does draw a conclusion until something disproves it.
That wasn't my point. My point was that THEY ARGUED and ridiculed. " but, in general, relativity was ridiculed as “totally impractical and absurd.”
why-no-one-believed-einstein
Just a point.
Now, this is really just you ignoring a definition that is stated. You are projecting your bias. What, in my examples, is not true?
Faith (vision, what is imagined) is the framework to produce substance (manifested goals and evidence) of things not seen. Like Dick Tracy talking to a watch for communication when internet wasn't even invented.
You will have to do better that just making a personal statement.
LOL you are soooo right. Edison. Nothing was "unjustified" - he just believed until he found substance of what he hoped for.
Hope and faith are interrelated IMV. Not "i hope it happens" but more like anticipation in the hope. Like, "I'm anticipating and hoping for a great birthday party".
Like I said, until we agree with definition, we don't have a framework.
what you are saying is "Faith is just believing it is so whether I have no proof or not"... I don't agree with that statement. For me that is presumption and foolishness.
Yes, a scientific theory is a conclusion, but as you suggest, it is tentative, since theories cannot be proved. But they can be believed to be correct based on evidence.
But this isn't relevant to my point, which is that if two parties examine the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions, that's not going to be the end of it with empiricists. They will understand that at least one of them is wrong because of that, which will lead to further investigation. That just doesn't happen with the creationists, for example. They don't care that the empiricist has arrived at a contradictory conclusion. It's not an issue for them. It doesn't suggest that they might be incorrect to them. You still haven't responded to that.
That only means that the old school was slow to come around. Everybody involved on either side of that debate understood that either Einstein was right or wrong, and that that mattered. They just didn't think he was right until he demonstrated that he was, and then, science began its paradigm shift. That doesn't happen with faith.
What examples? Edison? I thought I explained. Edison did not believe by faith, or if he did, we have no evidence of it.
That is not the same as saying that faith is a substance. Faith is an idea. Filaments and light bulbs are substance.
Then if nothing Edison believed was unjustified, why call it faith? Yes, he had good reason to believe that he might be successful. That's not faith. That's just understanding reality well enough to accurately predict that he might be successful.
Hoping and anticipating are different, and neither of them is faith, unless by anticipating, one means expecting without sufficient reason. I have hopes, but no unjustified beliefs that I am aware of. When I expect a good outcome, I call that optimism, not faith. Here's the difference: You're at a baseball game, and you hope the home team wins. You are optimistic that they will because they are the better team, they've been hot lately, and their ace is starting. Next to you is a faith-based fan who is sure that the home team will win, an unjustified belief. You have hope and optimism. He has faith. Your expectation changes with the score and the inning. His never does.
What do you call belief without sufficient evidence to justify it? How is faith different from that? The problem here for you is that you don't have a clear definition of faith, just a poetic one. Vague language means nothing specific. Your definition will not answer my question of what to call unjustified belief or how it differs from unjustified belief differs from faith, because, unlike with my suggested definition, one can't identify any statement as a statement of faith or not. I can do that with any statement. I can tell you after one or two questions whether any given belief is justified or not. How do you decide which statements are believed by faith and which are not? What needs to be there to call it faith or not faith? I don't think you can do that with poetic definitions.
Good discussion, though, even though I haven't gotten what I'm looking for from you.
OK... I can agree that specifically with "Creationists" it may appear to be so.
Of course, as you specifically said, it is from the viewpoint of an empiricist which doesn't deal with spirituality.
So, in reality, we are talking about apples and oranges... that being said, there are some Christians who will hold onto a position even if wrong. (I don't think they have a corner on the market though)
Can we give the same grace to "old school" believers? Every Christian also understands that someone is right and someone is wrong.
(We can't all be right and say different things)Of course,
, I am right and everyone else is wrong (tongue in cheek)There have been Christians that have changed their viewpoints. I certainly have in certain areas.
Again, it is your definition of faith. On mine, I understand it fits perfectly.
Again, not in my understanding, as you are misquoting it. Faith is "the" substance and not "a" substance.
Let's look at it in another translation:
TLB What is faith? It is the confident assurance that something we want is going to happen. It is the certainty that what we hope for is waiting for us, even though we cannot see it up ahead.
Applying it to Edison... He was confidently assured that he would find the right filament. He was certain that the hope he had in what was creating was waiting for it even if he didn't immediately see it ahead.
Is that understandable?
note above
I'm not sure where you are going with this other than "I don't accept a biblical perspective... I only accept my definition"
Please note that your definition of faith for me is called foolishness and presumption. But it isn't a biblical perspective.
Where do you want to go from here?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The Resurrection is it provable?
Jesus' resurrection never happened, so nobody can prove it ever, one gets to know, please. Right?
Regards
Jesus' resurrection never happened, so nobody can prove it ever, one gets to know, please. Right?
Regards
joelr
Well-Known Member
I don't follow? You want an actual answer? Word games and ontology are not going to make Zeus real. Same with any deity from stories.
joelr
Well-Known Member
You don't seem to be understanding this post at all? None of the Hellenistic or Persian additions are in the Jewish scripture of in their theology. Why do you think Rabbi Tovia Singer is preaching the NT is pagan?
God promoted to supreme deity (not just God of Israel)
Heaven is for everyone
souls need redemption
a savior can bring salvation through a passion and a 3 day resurrection
baptism
eucharist
these are not from Jewish theology.
Revelation, God vs Satan, and several others are from the Persian religion.
None of this is in the Tanakh. Christianity is a syncretic blend of Greek, Persian and Roman mythology.
Hellenism is a religious movement that started around 300B.C. and began influencing many religions in that region. I listed quite a few.
In 300 B.C. The Greeks invaded and occupied Israel. This is part of the 2nd Temple Period. Hellenism was blended into Judaism through religious syncretism. More specifically it made it's way into some of the OT that was still being canonized and into stories about a Jewish version of a savior (a concept from Hellenism). When the Gospels were written all of the Hellenistic theology (and much Persian, who also occupied Israel) was used to create a new myth for the Jewish people and since Hellenism is cosmopolitian, it includes gentiles as well.
only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven.[8] In this period too the older three-level cosmology in large measure gave way to the Greek concept of a spherical earth suspended in space at the center of a number of concentric heavens.[9]
-Sang Meyng Lee, Born 1963; 2005-2008 Adjunct Professor at San Francisco Theological Seminary, Pasadena; since 2008, Professor of New Testament and Dean of Academic Affairs at Presbyterian Theological Seminary in America, Santa Fe Springs,
-During the period of the Second Temple (c.515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]
(Sanders, Lambert and Wright)
Christianity is Hellenism, Persian and some OT theology. Even heaven which was where Yahweh lived in the OT was now home for redeemed souls saved by the savior, all Greek myths.
This shows most Christian concepts come from Hellenism, a trend sweeping through all religions from 300 BC - 100Ad. This is why the "mystery religions" also had dying/rising sons/daughters of their one true God.
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.
-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.
-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.
-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme
-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.
-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity) Eucharist
-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century
- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.
-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.
-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)
-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)
- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am not saying that you are right or wrong. But where is your evidence that there was no crucifixion? I am not a Christian, but I am aware of their evidence for one. If you cannot provide any then I will have to go with the Christians.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Is spirituality not something experiential?
"Is Resurrection provable?"
Oh, I'm sure that they could always dig someone up to prove it.