'Science' Proves Jesus Didn't Rise from the Dead!

[Micaiah]

The scientific evidence clearly shows it is impossible for a person to die physically and then come back to life three days later. The doctors and scientists among us could confirm this is the case. Why then do those who believe that we should not accept the plain teaching of Scripture because it contradicts 'scientific' evidence, claim they believe the resurrection of Christ which also contradicts scientific evidence on this matter. If consistent, those who claim 'science' as the ultimate authority should drop the Christian label.

I don't want to turn people away from Christianity, but rather to show that the contention we must reject the Word of God if it contradicts 'science' is flawed. For the Christian, the ultimate authority is God's inspiration, not man's speculation.

 

[notto]

I think most people would accept that the Resurrection is a miracle which means that it is not approachable by science. It is accepted by faith and cannot be "proven".

Science does not "prove" that it is physiclaly impossible to come back from the dead. It shows that it cannot be done in light of a miracle.

Where did you see anyone make the suggestion that we must reject the Word of God if it contradicts science? All I have seen is that people are suggesting that certain interpretations of Gods word need to be rejected because we have physical evidence that falsifies the conclusions some make based on those interpretations (special creation and young earth creationism).

Science has not falsified that miracles cannot happen and never will. Science has falsified the idea that physical evidence shows the earth is young. Science has shown that evidence exists in nature supports the theory of evolution. Science has shown that evidence falsifies the concept of a world wide flood.

Perhaps God used miracles to set the evidence to do this. If you want to believe that, that is up to you, but do not suggest that the physical evidence supports this or that it should be taught as science.

Creationism tries to use physical evidence to state its claims. This makes its claims falsifyable by science. This is different than Christians believing in the Resurection and asserting it as a miracle (can you point me to physical evidence of the Resurrection?).

 

[Micaiah]

I think most people would accept that the Resurrection is a miracle which means that it is not approachable by science. It is accepted by faith and cannot be "proven".

Science does not "prove" that it is physiclaly impossible to come back from the dead. It shows that it cannot be done in light of a miracle.

So, we agree there are some things science is at a loss to explain. Scientific theories are based on the observations and interpretations of man. They are man's best approximation of reality. But they do not explain all reality. They cannot begin to explain spiritual reality.

Where did you see anyone make the suggestion that we must reject the Word of God if it contradicts science?

In your next sentence!

All I have seen is that people are suggesting that certain interpretations of Gods word need to be rejected because we have physical evidence that falsifies the conclusions some make based on those interpretations (special creation and young earth creationism)

Circular logic. You assert certain interpretations are wrong because they do not agree with man's interpretation of the evidence. And therefore the correct interpretation is one that agrees with man's interpretation.

The correct interpretation is the one intended by the authors of Scripture and clearly used by others within Scripture. Genesis is a record of real events and real people. It is a historical record of beginnings and should be interpreted as such. This has been discussed and proven add nauseum in the thread "Scripture shows Genesis is Historical". The weight of internal evidence from Scripture plainly shows that this is the correct method of interpretation.

Science has not falsified that miracles cannot happen and never will. Science has falsified the idea that physical evidence shows the earth is young. Science has shown that evidence exists in nature supports the theory of evolution. Science has shown that evidence falsifies the concept of a world wide flood.

Man speculates about what may have occured in the past based on what he calls scientific evidence. I note that in one of the threads posted previously reference was made to a secular thread on the Grand Canyon that began with words to the effect that no-one knows what really happened. It is a giant leap of faith from the evidence to proving that the evidence disproves Creation. Ironically, you are getting caught in the trap of assuming your interpretation must be correct. You assume this because that is what the majority of scientists assume. It gets back to the question of God's word versus the words of man. If you accept we must accept the general concensus of man, then to be consistent you should reject the resurrection, which I am pleased to note you don't. Therefore you should choose the other alternative - accept the plain truth conveyed in Scripture regarding Creation, and recognise mans speculation for what it is.

Creationism tries to use physical evidence to state its claims. This makes its claims falsifyable by science. This is different than Christians believing in the Resurection and asserting it as a miracle (can you point me to physical evidence of the Resurrection?).

People who believe the word of God are sceptical of the proud assertions of man which contradict Scripture. When people seek to discredit the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ, Bible believing Christians use the historical evidence to falsify such claims. Scripture itself records an attempt to discredit the resurrection, and provides historical details to falsify those claims.

11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened. 12When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13saying, "Tell them, "His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.' 14And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure." 15So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

Like the resurrection, Creation was a miracle. Noah's flood resulted from divine intervention. God’s supernatural power is witnessed in real historical events. To doubt the plain historical and scientific assertions made in Scripture about these events is also to doubt their spiritual significance. That seriousness of such doubt is brought into sharp focus when considering the death of Christ. Consider the following from 1 Corinthians 15, and note the progression of logic. To assert there is no physical resurrection from the dead is to deny the Christian Gospel.

1) 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
3For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
9For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.


The Risen Christ, Our Hope
(2) 12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. 16For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The only way for science to disprove the Ressurection would be for them to find a body. They won't be doing that. However, in the case of YEC, the "body" has been found.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 12:33 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686394#post686394)

The only way for science to disprove the Ressurection would be for them to find a body. They won't be doing that. However, in the case of YEC, the "body" has been found.

You are wrong. If doctors had other known and well documented cases of people who came back to life after being dead for three days, that would provide the required scientific evidence.

 

[notto]

Micaiah,

There is a difference between re-interpreting scripture in light of evidence and data from science and reinterpreting science based on scripture.

You seem to be confusing the two.

You want to throw out sound science based on your views of scripture. This includes throwing out the data that is there for all to see and points away from a literal interpretation of scripture.

Instead, some look again at scripture and gain insight on what is found in science. While this may lead to a less literal interpretation of scripture, it does not mean that it is "thrown out" or that the lessons and meaning to us are lost. If anything, it leads to stronger faith as these issues are reconciled. I have seen no evidence that leads me away from scriptures meaning or lessons even though I accept evolution and a old earth. Neither of these have bearning on my beliefs.

Is all disease caused by demons? Are storms the wrath of God?

Edited to say "old earth"

 

[Yekcidmij]

It looks like you are putting your faith in science and not God's word....maybe I just misunderstand though.

In my expirence science can't explain everything.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Im confused Micaiah...do you beleive in the resurection?

 

[Micaiah]

There is a difference between re-interpreting scripture in light of evidence and data from science and reinterpreting science based on scripture.

You seem to be confusing the two.

When mans speculation contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture I trust God's word.

You want to throw out sound science based on your views of scripture. This includes throwing out the data that is there for all to see and points away from a literal interpretation of scripture.

I endorse sound science.

Instead, some look again at scripture and gain insight on what is found in science. While this may lead to a less literal interpretation of scripture, it does not mean that it is "thrown out" or that the lessons and meaning to us are lost.

I have demonstrated above that to deny the reality of events and people recorded in Scripture can result in serious distortions of spiritual truth. They are not my words, they are the words of Scripture.

If anything, it leads to stronger faith as these issues are reconciled. I have seen no evidence that leads me away from scriptures meaning or lessons even though I accept evolution and a young earth. Neither of these have bearning on my beliefs.

Care to discuss the first two chapters of Genesis to discover the points of difference and agreement.

Am I hearing you correctly when you say you believe in a young earth? How do you reconcile this with evolutionary theory?

Is all disease caused by demons? Are storms the wrath of God?

When Jesus cast out the demon from a man, I believe the events and people involved were real. I also belive that there is a supernatural aspect to the story. The man was possessed by a spirit which caused his violent behaviour. When Jesus cast out the demons, and they entered the swine that ran off a hill into the ocean. What do ou think?

Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes.[1] 2And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no one could bind him,[2] not even with chains, 4because he had often been bound with shackles and chains. And the chains had been pulled apart by him, and the shackles broken in pieces; neither could anyone tame him. 5And always, night and day, he was in the mountains and in the tombs, crying out and cutting himself with stones.
6When he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped Him. 7And he cried out with a loud voice and said, "What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me."
8For He said to him, "Come out of the man, unclean spirit!" 9Then He asked him, "What is your name?"
And he answered, saying, "My name is Legion; for we are many." 10Also he begged Him earnestly that He would not send them out of the country.
11Now a large herd of swine was feeding there near the mountains. 12So all the demons begged Him, saying, "Send us to the swine, that we may enter them." 13And at once Jesus[3] gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea.
14So those who fed the swine fled, and they told it in the city and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that had happened. 15Then they came to Jesus, and saw the one who had been demon-possessed and had the legion, sitting and clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid. 16And those who saw it told them how it happened to him who had been demon-possessed, and about the swine. 17Then they began to plead with Him to depart from their region.
18And when He got into the boat, he who had been demon-possessed begged Him that he might be with Him. 19However, Jesus did not permit him, but said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." 20And he departed and began to proclaim in Decapolis all that Jesus had done for him; and all marveled.

 

[Micaiah]

I note that you have edited your post to read old earth in place of young earth. A comment to that affect would have been appreciated. I await your explanation on why we should understand day to mean other than a solar day, which the text in Genesis 1 plainly indicates.

 

[Micaiah]

For some insight into why evolution is incompatible with Creation from others who have similar views to your own, consider post 72 onThe Following

 

[notto]

Micaiah,

Evolution may be incompatible with your understanding of Creation and God or others understanding of the same, but there are many such as myself that find no incompatibility at all. I have reconciled my faith with my understanding of science.

From reading that post, you have put forth an inaccurate strawman of evolutoin. There is no "weak" and "strong", only "fit" and "unfit". What we concider the weakest (smallest and most delicate) can often be the ones that are "fit" to survive. Very small mammals, birds, sea animals, and insects survived what the strongest dinosaurs could not.

You also leave out the role that natural selection provides. This is neither non-random nor accidental. Nature has an amazing way of adapting and moving on past dire environments. To me, this is the majesty of nature and Gods creation. Fragile yet still here after millions of years.

 

[Micaiah]

Okay, you can choose what you wish to believe. Just don't make the claim it is supported by Scripture. As yet you have failed to provide any evidence from Scripture that supports your claims of an old earth and God's use of evolution in Creation.

 

[wblastyn]

Okay, you can choose what you wish to believe. Just don't make the claim it is supported by Scripture. As yet you have failed to provide any evidence from Scripture that supports your claims of an old earth and God's use of evolution in Creation.

Scripture doesn't "support" alot of things, like electricity, atoms, radiation, TV, me, you, these forums, they are not mentioned in scripture anywhere.

Science could not disprove the resurrection (unless they found Jesus' body) because it was a miracle from God, sure it's impossible for MAN to resurrect the dead, you already knew that. That is why it is a miracle, because God can do what is impossible for man.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Yesterday at 10:51 PM Micaiah said this in Post #5 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686429#post686429)

You are wrong. If doctors had other known and well documented cases of people who came back to life after being dead for three days, that would provide the required scientific evidence.

Documented cases of other resurrections would not prove that Jesus rose from the dead. It would only mean that non-Christians would have an easier time believing that it could happen.

The difference between Creationism and the Resurrection is that Creationism makes claims which are testable while the Resurrection does not.

 

[notto]

Today at 02:41 PM Micaiah said this in Post #13 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686961#post686961)

Okay, you can choose what you wish to believe. Just don't make the claim it is supported by Scripture. As yet you have failed to provide any evidence from Scripture that supports your claims of an old earth and God's use of evolution in Creation.

My views of God as a creator and man as a being endowed as special by the Creator are certainly supported by scripture. It is not nessesary to hold a literal interpretation of Genesis to support this view.

Creationists claim that physical evidence supports their literal interpretation of Genesis. This claim has been falsified and demands a non-literal interpretation of Genesis in order for Genesis to support the main lessons of God as creator and man's relation to God.

You also are free to believe as you with, just don't make the claim that it is supported by science or evidence. The resurection, as you have pointed out, cannot be supported by science. Neither can a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Micaiah]

Creationists claim that physical evidence supports their literal interpretation of Genesis. This claim has been falsified and demands a non-literal interpretation of Genesis in order for Genesis to support the main lessons of God as creator and man's relation to God.

I think we understand each others position and agree to differ. I have little more to add except to say that the comments above demonstrate that you admit the reason you cannot accept the plain teaching of Genesis because it contradicts evolution. I agree the two are incompatible. It is not possible to consistently accept the plain teaching of Scripture in Genesis 1 and 2 and accept evolution.

The original post was obviously tongue in cheek. I believe Christ rose from the dead, and so do you. Bu the majority of the world also considers this to be legend as well. People don't rise from the dead. They refuse to accept the historical evidence Christ rose from the dead. We accept the truth of God's word over man's by faith.

In a similar way, the general view of the scientific community conflicts with Scripture. People find it hard to accept the supernatural and so develop theories to explain origins apart form God. Again we must choose who to believe. Many say Creation is impossible because it contradicts their interpretation of evidence. Unfortunately, Christians draw similar conclusions and accept the word of man as the ultimate authority.

Christians who have accepted God's word by faith have found a significant body of evidence that undermines the theory of evolution or demonstrates that the world was created within the parameters of Scriture. In the end, we are confident all of God's word is truth.

 

[notto]

Micaiah,

The concept of a young earth was falsified long before evolution came along.
There are numerous falsifications of a young earth related to geology. None of these depend on evolution being true (or even around). Even if God created man instantaneously and evolution is false, the earth being young is still falsified by other evidence.

In order to accept a literal translation of Genesis and a young earth, you must throw out accepted:
biology (evolution)
geology
world history
physics

It goes way beyond evolution. Even if I did not accept evolution, geology would still falsify a young earth.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Im not sure I understand how accepting a literal translation of Genesis means you must throw out physics,world history, biology and geology.

 

[notto]

Today at 12:19 AM Yekcidmij said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=688200#post688200)

Im not sure I understand how accepting a literal translation of Genesis means you must throw out physics,world history, biology and geology.

If the literal translation points to a young earth (6-10 thousand years) and special creation of animals we see today, then science falsifies this theory in many areas. Mainstream science has accepted the following (rough outline) through collection of evidence, falsification of alternate explanations, peer review, and repeated findings.

Biology - Evolution is the underlying theory of modern biology. Our understanding of relations of animals and plants to each other and how species come about and become extince and change is the theory of evolution and genetics. The fossils we find show us that more species have become extince than what exists now and that animals in the past were much different than animals alive today (including man). This is not supported by a literal translation of Genesis. Evolution is supported by the evidence of the fossil record and genetic similarities as well as evolution (both macro and micro) we see happening today.

Physics and astronomy - Radioactive decay, constant speed of light, and laws of motion show us that the universe, our sun, and the earth have been around much longer than a YEC interpretation of the world. Astronomy also shows us that our earth was created long after much of the universe. We can see light that has traveled for long distances and long amounts of time to reach the earth. Far too long for YEC to account for. If the earth is less than 10,000 years, it would mean that we have seen the explosion of stars that never even existed.

Geology - Geology shows us that the world as we see it was created over vast amounts of time through plate techtonics and erosion. Geology provides falsification of a young earth by showing how features form over long amounts of time. There are no young age arguments that explain what we see in the geology of the planet. The arrangment of sediment and rock layers, the study of volcanic activity and the effect of erosion and activities such as sea floor spreading and ice movement during the ice age show us that much has happened to this planet that could not have happended in the last 10,000 years. Geology does not support a world wide flood or the creation of the earth less than 10,000 years ago.

World History - World history, paleontology, anthropology, and archeology show us that cultures and man have existed for tens of thousands of years and that cultures developed over time in several places on earth (and separate from each other). Ancient histories of places like China and Egypt show us that a YEC interpretation of Genesis (under 10,000 or 6000 years) is not supported by the evidence we see around the world of ancient cultures and the development of man. Agriculture has been around for 15,000 years. The separation of cultures, the spread of man to all points of the globe, and the differences between cultures, language, and our biological makeup point to a division from each other that date back more than 10,000 years.

A YEC explanation of Geneis requires us to ignore the evidence and work of mainstream natural science and historical sciences in the above areas.