100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can the Resurrection of Christ be proven scientifically | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
i don't think they are denying his existence, but his resurrection... i think there was a man named jesus, but i pretty sure he didn't rise from the dead... Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact. Before they jump into this fray, they should first ask themselves about the nature of historical facts. Most historical "facts" are not proven. "History" (whatever that is) says that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, yet evidence indicates he did not. History, like science is a social construct, and is determined by those with the clout to write history. In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically. The German Theologian Jurgen Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1968) The way I look at it is as follows: We cannot possibly know whether the resurrection of Jesus ever happened. There is certainly not enough "historical" evidence to support any such idea. Therefore, if we seek to consider this as a possible scenario we mut look into the entire biblical story from start to finish taking into account the entire context of the whole story. When I do that, I conclude that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to believe that the Old Testament was the "word of God", nor does it make any sense to believe the Jesus was the son of the God portrayed in the Old Testament. So there's not even any reason to consider any supposed "resurrection" at that point.  What's so different about the old and new testament? 1. *old testament* We are judged by the word. The word was the laws God gave us to abide by. And the only reward for sin is death. To receive forgiveness one would sacrifice something in their life to show their sincerity in their apology and show that they wished to fix that mistake they made. 2. *New Testament* We are judged by the word. The word has no been made flesh and can carry out the judgment on his own, not needing others to do the judgment eg., stoning sinners to death. To receive forgiveness we accept the sacrifice Jesus made for us all. To show our sincerity in our faith we accept Jesus as lord and savior and do our best to obey his laws he laid out before us. Jeremiah 7:21-23 (New International Version, ©2011) 21 “‘This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Go ahead, add your burnt offerings to your other sacrifices and eat the meat yourselves! 22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you. Yes very good. Our God wishes for us not to sin in the first place. He doesn't want burnt offerings, sacrifices, and or anything else we could possibly think of doing to cover up our sins. He just wishes for us not to sin in the first place. Sorry, I hit "post" before I was done... Re-read please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it can be proven scientifically, because FAITH is required. If there was no room for doubt how could you have faith? Faith is required for EVERYTHING even science. The fact that everything is made up of smaller cells that can not be seen by the naked eye, is taken by faith. Unless one did some experimenting them self to prove it's validity. But how many people have done that? Most people put faith in that it's true. The fact that it's "oxygen" we need to breath is also taken on faith less one is willing to do experiments to prove that it is the oxygen we need. ALL SCIENCE IS TAKEN ON FAITH. no, you are 100% wrong on this... science is proving issues to become facts... no room for faith.. and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will die without oxygen... Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
totage wrote: I don't think it can be proven scientifically, because FAITH is required. If there was no room for doubt how could you have faith? Mightymoe wrote: good point... the whole religion is based on faith, not fact...maybe thats why science was "frowned upon" for such a long time Well, not only that, but if religion is based on pure faith then people who attempt to get other people to place their "faith" in religion should confess that it's a faith based ideal. Cowboy wrote: ALL SCIENCE IS TAKEN ON FAITH. That's not true. That's false propaganda that religious fundamentalist's spread in an attempt to brainwash people into thinking that their religious propaganda has just as much clout as scientific observation and results. Science is based on logic, reason, observation, experiment, and repeatable results that are even conducted by independent scientists who would love nothing more than to prove the previous scientists wrong. If religion was held up to the same standards as science, Christianity would be on the Shelf marked "Mythology" right alongside Zeus and company LONG AGO. In fact, you'd probably be the first to agree that we can dismiss the Greek religion of Zeus as pure mythology, based on logic and reason. In truth, we have every bit as much reason to dismiss all of Christianity in the very same way. In fact, if you want to reduce EVERYTHING to being on equal footing as a matter of PURE FAITH, then all of the following would be on precisely EQUAL FOOTING: The Flying Spaghetti Monster Greek Mythology Christianity Buddhism Wicca Cinderella Santa Claus The Tooth Fairy All you're telling us is that we have absolutely no more reason to believe in Christianity than we have for believing in anything else, even scientific things that we can VERIFY and EXPERIENCE day in and and day out! The certainly doesn't help your cause.  All you've done is reduce everything to a matter of mere faith. Nothing would have a leg up on anything else. Including your Christianity. Evidently you'd rather destroy the credibility of everything than to give up your religion. In fact, I find it rather strange that the only way you can support your religion is by destroying the credibility of everything else. That sounds to me like even you realize that it's hopeless to try to make a rational case for Christianity, so the only option you have left is to reduce everything to a matter of pure faith.  That's got to be the epitome of hopelessness. And like I say, when you try to beat everything else down to the level of Christianity all you end up with a rubble of equally-faith-based things. Take your choice! There's no logical or sound reason to pick one over the other. May as well just believe in Santa Claus! According to you it's ALL FAITH BASED! Nothing has any more merit than anything else! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it can be proven scientifically, because FAITH is required. If there was no room for doubt how could you have faith? Faith is required for EVERYTHING even science. The fact that everything is made up of smaller cells that can not be seen by the naked eye, is taken by faith. Unless one did some experimenting them self to prove it's validity. But how many people have done that? Most people put faith in that it's true. The fact that it's "oxygen" we need to breath is also taken on faith less one is willing to do experiments to prove that it is the oxygen we need. ALL SCIENCE IS TAKEN ON FAITH. no, you are 100% wrong on this... science is proving issues to become facts... no room for faith.. and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will die without oxygen... Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? tie a brick on your feet and jump in a lake... what do you think will happen? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it can be proven scientifically, because FAITH is required. If there was no room for doubt how could you have faith? Faith is required for EVERYTHING even science. The fact that everything is made up of smaller cells that can not be seen by the naked eye, is taken by faith. Unless one did some experimenting them self to prove it's validity. But how many people have done that? Most people put faith in that it's true. The fact that it's "oxygen" we need to breath is also taken on faith less one is willing to do experiments to prove that it is the oxygen we need. ALL SCIENCE IS TAKEN ON FAITH. no, you are 100% wrong on this... science is proving issues to become facts... no room for faith.. and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will die without oxygen... Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? tie a brick on your feet and jump in a lake... what do you think will happen? I think he'd untie the brick... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: What's so different about the old and new testament? If you need to ask, I can only take that to mean that you aren't very well educated in either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it can be proven scientifically, because FAITH is required. If there was no room for doubt how could you have faith? Faith is required for EVERYTHING even science. The fact that everything is made up of smaller cells that can not be seen by the naked eye, is taken by faith. Unless one did some experimenting them self to prove it's validity. But how many people have done that? Most people put faith in that it's true. The fact that it's "oxygen" we need to breath is also taken on faith less one is willing to do experiments to prove that it is the oxygen we need. ALL SCIENCE IS TAKEN ON FAITH. no, you are 100% wrong on this... science is proving issues to become facts... no room for faith.. and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will die without oxygen... Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? tie a brick on your feet and jump in a lake... what do you think will happen? I think he'd untie the brick... lol i bet he would...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? Religious zealots who are desperate to renounce science as a means of supporting their religion are clearly demonstrating to everyone that their religion is totally without any merit whatsoever. That's pretty sad. In order to believe in your religion I must reject scientific knowledge, logic and REASON?  You could SELL Greek Mythology as the story of God for that price! Or Santa clause or anything. Clearly you're religion is untenable and you're fully aware of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it can be proven scientifically, because FAITH is required. If there was no room for doubt how could you have faith? Faith is required for EVERYTHING even science. The fact that everything is made up of smaller cells that can not be seen by the naked eye, is taken by faith. Unless one did some experimenting them self to prove it's validity. But how many people have done that? Most people put faith in that it's true. The fact that it's "oxygen" we need to breath is also taken on faith less one is willing to do experiments to prove that it is the oxygen we need. ALL SCIENCE IS TAKEN ON FAITH. no, you are 100% wrong on this... science is proving issues to become facts... no room for faith.. and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will die without oxygen... Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? tie a brick on your feet and jump in a lake... what do you think will happen? I think he'd untie the brick... lol i bet he would... Exactly, and WHY would he untie it? Because he understand the PHYSICS of the situation that he weighs too much to FLOAT! BINGO! Either Cowboy proves that science has factual merit by uniting the brick or he drowns in his refusal to confess it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? Religious zealots who are desperate to renounce science as a means of supporting their religion are clearly demonstrating to everyone that their religion is totally without any merit whatsoever. That's pretty sad. In order to believe in your religion I must reject scientific knowledge, logic and REASON? You could SELL Greek Mythology as the story of God for that price! Or Santa clause or anything. Clearly you're religion is untenable and you're fully aware of it. You totally missed the point my friend. But still, how do YOU know it's oxygen that we need to survive? Other's telling you? Would that not be what you consider hearsay rumors? Have YOU ever examined the body to see if it was specifically oxygen we need to survive? Or again are you just taking this knowledge from other hearsay rumors? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it can be proven scientifically, because FAITH is required. If there was no room for doubt how could you have faith? Faith is required for EVERYTHING even science. The fact that everything is made up of smaller cells that can not be seen by the naked eye, is taken by faith. Unless one did some experimenting them self to prove it's validity. But how many people have done that? Most people put faith in that it's true. The fact that it's "oxygen" we need to breath is also taken on faith less one is willing to do experiments to prove that it is the oxygen we need. ALL SCIENCE IS TAKEN ON FAITH. no, you are 100% wrong on this... science is proving issues to become facts... no room for faith.. and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will die without oxygen... Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? tie a brick on your feet and jump in a lake... what do you think will happen? I think the lungs would fill with water, causing drowning,,, not sure what the relevance is though |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
totage wrote: I don't think it can be proven scientifically, because FAITH is required. If there was no room for doubt how could you have faith? Mightymoe wrote: good point... the whole religion is based on faith, not fact...maybe thats why science was "frowned upon" for such a long time Well, not only that, but if religion is based on pure faith then people who attempt to get other people to place their "faith" in religion should confess that it's a faith based ideal. Cowboy wrote: ALL SCIENCE IS TAKEN ON FAITH. That's not true. That's false propaganda that religious fundamentalist's spread in an attempt to brainwash people into thinking that their religious propaganda has just as much clout as scientific observation and results. Science is based on logic, reason, observation, experiment, and repeatable results that are even conducted by independent scientists who would love nothing more than to prove the previous scientists wrong. If religion was held up to the same standards as science, Christianity would be on the Shelf marked "Mythology" right alongside Zeus and company LONG AGO. In fact, you'd probably be the first to agree that we can dismiss the Greek religion of Zeus as pure mythology, based on logic and reason. In truth, we have every bit as much reason to dismiss all of Christianity in the very same way. In fact, if you want to reduce EVERYTHING to being on equal footing as a matter of PURE FAITH, then all of the following would be on precisely EQUAL FOOTING: The Flying Spaghetti Monster Greek Mythology Christianity Buddhism Wicca Cinderella Santa Claus The Tooth Fairy All you're telling us is that we have absolutely no more reason to believe in Christianity than we have for believing in anything else, even scientific things that we can VERIFY and EXPERIENCE day in and and day out! The certainly doesn't help your cause. All you've done is reduce everything to a matter of mere faith. Nothing would have a leg up on anything else. Including your Christianity. Evidently you'd rather destroy the credibility of everything than to give up your religion. In fact, I find it rather strange that the only way you can support your religion is by destroying the credibility of everything else. That sounds to me like even you realize that it's hopeless to try to make a rational case for Christianity, so the only option you have left is to reduce everything to a matter of pure faith. That's got to be the epitome of hopelessness. And like I say, when you try to beat everything else down to the level of Christianity all you end up with a rubble of equally-faith-based things. Take your choice! There's no logical or sound reason to pick one over the other. May as well just believe in Santa Claus! According to you it's ALL FAITH BASED! Nothing has any more merit than anything else! Science is based on logic, reason, observation, experiment, and repeatable results that are even conducted by independent scientists who would love nothing more than to prove the previous scientists wrong. Again, you totally missed the point. Do you KNOW they did all this? Was you there? If not, again this is nothing but hearsay rumors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? Religious zealots who are desperate to renounce science as a means of supporting their religion are clearly demonstrating to everyone that their religion is totally without any merit whatsoever. That's pretty sad. In order to believe in your religion I must reject scientific knowledge, logic and REASON? You could SELL Greek Mythology as the story of God for that price! Or Santa clause or anything. Clearly you're religion is untenable and you're fully aware of it. You totally missed the point my friend. But still, how do YOU know it's oxygen that we need to survive? Other's telling you? Would that not be what you consider hearsay rumors? Have YOU ever examined the body to see if it was specifically oxygen we need to survive? Or again are you just taking this knowledge from other hearsay rumors? why do you breath? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why are we chatting about oxygen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Proven to who? No one's ever proven it to me. I know not one person that has died from a lack of oxygen. I've never even seen oxygen, so I wouldn't know if one is getting oxygen or not. So it would be your that is wrong. Have YOU ever seen oxygen? Have you ever seen someone without oxygen die? If so, how do you know they were without specifically oxygen? Religious zealots who are desperate to renounce science as a means of supporting their religion are clearly demonstrating to everyone that their religion is totally without any merit whatsoever. That's pretty sad. In order to believe in your religion I must reject scientific knowledge, logic and REASON? You could SELL Greek Mythology as the story of God for that price! Or Santa clause or anything. Clearly you're religion is untenable and you're fully aware of it. You totally missed the point my friend. But still, how do YOU know it's oxygen that we need to survive? Other's telling you? Would that not be what you consider hearsay rumors? Have YOU ever examined the body to see if it was specifically oxygen we need to survive? Or again are you just taking this knowledge from other hearsay rumors? why do you breath? To fill my lungs with Carbon dioxide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why are we chatting about oxygen? lol funny...apparently all science is faith, not fact... i think thats why 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why are we chatting about oxygen? lol funny...apparently all science is faith, not fact... i think thats why One can only see it as fact if they are willing to do so. No matter what anyone else says or does, this can not and will not prove it factual less the one is willing to accept it as true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why are we chatting about oxygen? lol funny...apparently all science is faith, not fact... i think thats why technically, I can see how anything we have not experienced for ourself could not yet be considered a FACT to us,,,but there are many things that are FACTS even though we have not yet experienced them what we learn in school, are probably FACTS , even though we havent experienced them. YET , we must rely largely on FAITH that those teaching and recording those things are honest and truthful in the information they are relaying. so, yea, even FACT involves a bit of faith(doesnt REQUIRE it necessarily, for those who actually DISCOVER the fact themself, but it usually requires it for those who only read about it or hear about it second hand) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why are we chatting about oxygen? lol funny...apparently all science is faith, not fact... i think thats why technically, I can see how anything we have not experienced for ourself could not yet be considered a FACT to us,,,but there are many things that are FACTS even though we have not yet experienced them what we learn in school, are probably FACTS , even though we havent experienced them. YET , we must rely largely on FAITH that those teaching and recording those things are honest and truthful in the information they are relaying. so, yea, even FACT involves a bit of faith(doesnt REQUIRE it necessarily, for those who actually DISCOVER the fact themself, but it usually requires it for those who only read about it or hear about it second hand) My point exactly and the reasoning of mentioning it. We put faith in that what we are taught is fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fact is a burden of proof... if 30 scientist do an experiment and it is the same all 30 times, it becomes fact... or you can waste the time and do the experiment yourself and get the same results... if 30 people read a book and say it is fact without any proof, that is faith... fact is something has been proven, faith is something you believe with no proof... don't confuse faith with theory
|
|
|
|
|
