Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Since when has being a contemporary of a person become an absolute necessity in compiling an accurate historical account of said person?
We do know who wrote the biblical texts. This is not even an issue of contention in contemporary biblical scholarship. We have Christian and non-Christian evidence for the reliability of the New Testament as indicated by notable scholars such as Dr. R.T. France when he says: "Non-Christian evidence substantiates the fact of Jesus' existence, and His popular following, His execution and the rough date" (France, NBD, 564)
Edwin Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University, asserts that we have more and better historical documentation for Jesus than for any other religious founder (e.g., Zoroaster, Buddha, or Muhammad). Of the non-biblical sources testifying of Christ, Yamauchi concludes:
1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher
2. Many people believed that He performed healings and exorcisms
3. He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
4. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
5. Despite His shameful death, His followers, who believed that He was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64.
6. All kinds of people from the cities and countryside-men and women, slave and free-worshipped Him as God by the beginning of the second century. (Yamauchi, JUF, 221,222).
Jesus was a real man and the fact that I have to even discuss this with you is quite incredible.
Is the truth claim that "Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States" a claim that is subject to the scientific method or historical research?
And can you provide me with your credentials in whatever branch of science you are an expert in? You say this as if it is an accepted fact. Not to mention the fact that I have said several times, empirical evidence is not always necessary to verify the truthfulness of a claim.
You don't have to have credentials to understand how the scientific method works. That's something you learn in grade 5.
Obviously you didn't pay much attention.
Give one example of something that you can definitively prove exists, without empirical evidence.
You put too much stock in the scientific method my friend. Scientists don't even put as much stock into as you do. In fact, what you are espousing is more or less "scientism" than anything.
I guess you also do not understand that when you assert: "something must be subject to the rigorous standards of the scientific method in order for it to be proven true or false or plausible as opposed to implausible", you are forgetting that the scientific method itself cannot even be verified scientifically. To do so would be arguing in a circle. So please I would encourage you to just relax, and try to understand your own position a little more thouroghly before you attempt to discredit someone else's.
Once we allow for exceptional claims to be accepted as hypotheses there are in fact countless other options.
Both of Pliny the Younger and Josephus were born decades after Christ was supposedly killed, and their writings on the topic date from the very late 1st century to early 2nd century.
They were not contemporary.
Also, the biblical texts are not reliable, as we don't know who wrote them, and are not backed by any other piece of evidence. We can't even prove Jesus existed, much less fulfilled prophecies as there is no contemporary evidence for him at all.
All we have to go on is writings from historians that lived and worked in an era where the eyewitnesses would have been long dead (that goes for the Gospels too). All people like Josephus were able to report is the beliefs of early Christians, and no historical account of Jesus himself.
Care to give the chapter and verse of this prediction? Picking 6 seperate verses that have to be interperted a paticular way, a way that no one came up with until after the fact is not what I'd call an accurate predection. But that is just what I see touted most of the time.
That's the argument from ignorance fallacy "If you can't prove your case, then my claim is proven to be right". It doesn't work that way.
If it does work that way, then I will use your exact same argument against you and be equally as justified.
Unless you know what caused God, or in the case that he is infinite, can demonstrate that he is actually is infinte... then all we have is my option which is the Big Bang caused the creation of the universe through purely natural processes. There are no other hypotheses.
Stated that way, I'm sure you can see the obvious logical flaw in the argument.
Just because we don't understand what caused the big bang, does not allow you to plug your god into the equation and assert it as truth. That is also committing the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.
The honest answer is we don't know how the universe was created in full. Trying to make up an answer for the sake of having an answer is counter-productive. We would be far better served by continuing to investigate, learn all we can on the topic and hopefully one day be able to fully understand it.
it is an exceptional claim, I agree. But no others explain why we are here in existence, and why there is pain and suffering and a whole host of other things that God answers.
okay okay, just watch this debate, it will answer your questions:
Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig - YouTube
Sadly enough, this is coming from someone who has no understanding of science, standards of evidence, or the scientific method at all.
The scientific method has demonstrated itself to be the best system we have devised to explain and understand the world, and universe around us.
Scientists put all their stock into the scientific method, as that's the tool used to determine scientific claims. It is the sole method by which science works.
Your assertion that the scientific method itself can't be verified scientifically is absurd... it is completely nonsensical, and a demonstration that you have no idea what science or the scientific method is.
I would recommend you relax, develop some critical thinking skills and attempt to justify your own assertions, before you assert them as absolute truth. So far, you have done nothing but spread disinformation while remaining proudly and willfully ignorant of reality.
Sadly enough, this is coming from someone who has no understanding of science, standards of evidence, or the scientific method at all.
The scientific method has demonstrated itself to be the best system we have devised to explain and understand the world, and universe around us.
Scientists put all their stock into the scientific method, as that's the tool used to determine scientific claims. It is the sole method by which science works.
Your assertion that the scientific method itself can't be verified scientifically is absurd... it is completely nonsensical, and a demonstration that you have no idea what science or the scientific method is.
I would recommend you relax, develop some critical thinking skills and attempt to justify your own assertions, before you assert them as absolute truth. So far, you have done nothing but spread disinformation while remaining proudly and willfully ignorant of reality.
God does not have a cause. Or he wouldn't be God.
so you honestly believe will all your heart that we came from absolutely nothing. No atoms, then all of a sudden there were adams. See this is what I mean that God is the only answer. And no it's not an argument from ignorance, the ignorance is on your end not knowing.
That's EXACTLY what the book of Genesis states!!"so you honestly believe will all your heart that we came from absolutely nothing. No atoms, then all of a sudden there were adams."
No, I would like you to answer the question yourself, rather than just continually cut and pasting answers.
Expecting me to watch a two hour and twelve minute debate to receive an answer you should be able to provide, is ridiculous.
In light of the fact of the past several posts you have written, I will not ask anything more of you. I appreciate you taking the time to share with me your views and pray you and your family may come to know Him and His overwhelming love and grace. I love you and wish you well.
May all things praise Him.
Secondly, when did I assert everything came from nothing?
thats poisoning the well fallacy,
you can't say things like "go home and develop critical thinking skills"
two rather, I edited the original post to have two debates on there.
learning takes time.
many believe we lost the debate, see for yourself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?