scientific evidence(experimentation and conclusion) is useful in proving science


historical evidence (research and documentation) is useful in proving history

sometimes the two can exist together, but usually they are two distinctly different standards and equally accepted by most as relevant for fact finding

I agree that there is indeed a difference between how the physical sciences proceed and how historians proceed.

In fact, this is yet another reason why Cowboy's attempt to discredit science to mere 'faith' in an attempt to place his religion on the same level is truly a useless approach.

From a historical point of view, I've already my case against Cowboy's claims. Cowboy was trying to claim that to believe that people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Aldolh Hitler existed is a matter of pure "faith", that is basically no different from placing a faith in the idea that Jesus lived and that the New Testament confessed hearsay stories about Jesus represent his verbatim unadulterated quotes.

To begin with, we have much "independent historical evidence" that Martin Luther King Jr. or Aldolh Hitler actually existed. We also even have videos of them giving speeches, etc. So in order to believe that these are unworthy 'evidence' we must concluded that they were purposefully created "hoaxes". Moreover, we must believe that many "independent sources" were in cahoots to create these elaborate hoaxes.

The case of Jesus doesn't even come close to comparing with this kind of "independent evidence".

First, we have no videos or even still photos of Jesus. Not even from a single source, much less from many independent sources.

Secondly, we only have an extremely few authors writing about the rumors of Jesus. And many of them are believed to be just repeating the very same rumors that were told by other people. For example the writings of Mark, Matthew, and Luke contain so much identical material that most historians concluded that Matthew and Luke were just rehashing the hearsay rumors of Mark.

Moreover, we also know that there existed other rumors to the contrary of these. In other words, the Jews themselves renounced these rumors at that very same time.

Thirdly, there is absolute no independent historical evidence found anywhere that supports the outrageous claims that are being made in these few hearsay accounts of Jesus.

For example, there is no independent historical account of any man going around healing all manner of disease in the general population. The only place we ever hear of this is in these very few, often repeated, stories.

There is no independent historical account of graves being opened and many saints rising from those graves and going into the city to show themselves to the people there. Had that actually happened we would expect there to be at least some independent mention of that event outside of the biblical stories.

But no we don't see that.

This would be like finding a book that claims that Hitler invaded France, and then going into France and discovering that the French never heard of any such thing!

You'd probably instantly come to the conclusion that the book about Hitler was indeed just a fable then.

What makes the story believable is that when you ask the French about it then instantly, "Hell yeah! That madman created havoc here for sure! Even the British and Americans had to become involved!"

Then you go to the British, and the Americans and they TOO confirm the story!

But none of this is happening with the story of Jesus. There is no independent historical evidence that any man went around healing all manner of illnesses and raising people from the dead.

There is no independent historical evidence that a multitude of saints rose from their graves and went into the city to show themselves to the people there.

There is no independent historical evidence that a voice spoke from heaven to a crowd of people saying, "This is my son in whom I'm well-pleased".

The bottom line is that from a historical perspective there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to consider that the stories of Jesus are nothing more than made-up or grossly exaggerated rumors.

All the "evidence" points precisely to that conclusion!

So historically there is absolutely no reason at all to believe the biblical account of Jesus.

Even if some guy named Jesus had actually lived, taught against the moral values and directives of the Torah, and was crucified for blaspheme, there would still be no reason to believe all the other things that were claimed about him in the New Testament.

So even if we could somehow prove that Jesus had actually existed, there would still be no reason to believe everything that is being said about him in the New Testament.

As you surely know by now, I believe that a man called "Jesus" or something along those line probably did live, refute the teachings of the Torah, and was indeed brutally crucified. That much may or may not have happened.

But there's no need to believe in all the rumors that may have been created over that event. This man was probably trying to teach the moral values and spiritual philosophy of the mystics. Even the rumors in the New Testament seem to support at least that much.

So they probably were based on a real person. But that doesn't mean that every single claim they make must be the "gospel truth". Far from it. They are most likely just exaggerated rumors, or outright lies in an effort to use this event to prop up the very doctrine that this man Jesus obviously taught against.

This is why I say that Jesus was probably crucified TWICE.

Once when they physically nailed him to a pole.

And the second time when they metaphorically nailed him to the Torah via their rumors and religious propaganda that he was supposedly the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh.

Leadership and the Fate of Organizations is the title of a journal article which explained and disclosed the results of a scientifically carried research study. It appeared in the February-March 2008, Vol. 63, No. 2, (pp. 96-110) of American Psychologist. If you want to try to find it to verify what I am about to tell you about it, try using the DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.96

The American Psychologist is just one of the many journals that published only peer reviewed articles. This particular article was short, consisting of 11 ¾ pages – but what I want to point out is that this research stands on the shoulders of many other prior research which become clear when we notice that there nearly three full pages of references; or approximately 150 other works that substantiate the foundations of the research being presented from which the authors make new associations and form new conclusions.

There is always reason to be skeptical of new research, but when there are clearly more than 150 independent, outside sources used in a 12 page review of a scientific study; the results are likely so highly generalizable to the situations at hand as to be accepted as knowledge with far greater certainty than just faith alone would accord.

Below – the term ‘well-known’ refers to events and historical figures that have themselves been referenced by others or within other well-known historical information.

For example – we know that Herod existed, as did the historian Josephus Flavius, and the Roman emperor Augustus and Herod Antipas. There are a great many well-known, independent and outside references to verfy specific and relevant information regarding the events and lives of those people.

How many well-known, independent, and outside sources support what you believe the bible says.
(notice I have not asked for well-known, independent, and outside sources for who wrote the bible- so be sure you understand the question.)

NOW, how may well-known, independent, outside sources exist to substantiate that the writers of the new testament are actually the authors to whom they are attributed?

Conversely, how many well-known, independent, outside sources say there is no way to attribute the writings to those particular authors, but there are ways to make an educated guess that certain unknown (as in name of author unknown) authors of the bible contributed different parts of to bible?

NOW, how may well-known, independent, outside sources exist that support the specific events of Jesus’ life as they are portrayed in the bible? Or the people portrayed in the book, like ‘Joseph, Mary, and Jesus himself?

And the questions can go on and on – but there is little to nothing that exists to substantiate the knowledge you think you have. In fact if you could substantiate those questions with objective, empirical evidence you would not need faith at all – so what would the purpose of faith be?

On the other hand - if any portion of the information that was learned through the scientific study turns out to be wrong - it will be because someone found a slight error somewhere else in that long chain of events that may require a bit of modification to the conclusions - or maybe the correction will serve a greater purpose in a future study that will also be based on this one (and the one that showed the error and offered the correction).

Information can be accurate or innaccurate, truth or fallicy but knowledge does not stagnate and refusal to see or gain knowledge does not make it go away.

One of the conditions of having faith is that it is based on uncertainty. You believe you are certain but you have only your own opinion by which to judge what certainty is. That is faith, not knowledge.

February-March 2008, Vol. 63, No. 2, (pp. 96-110) of American Psychologist. If you want to try to find it to verify what I am about to tell you about it, try using the DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.96

American Psychologist

The scriptures refer to this in our day as Witchcraft.

Why?

2 Tim 3:5
5 having a form of holiness but denying its power.
NKJV

Thats exactly what
"American Psychologist" do and more.

Gen 1:1 - 2 Tim 3:7

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of Elohim, 5 having a form of holiness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
NKJV

This fits them to a Tee.. going into out childs minds to turn them away from thier parents.

finding gullible people to gat a that a boy to move up and make a name for themselves.

Heard of RMT therapy that was used in the 90's and early 2000 that have tons of lawsuits over these people planting/ suggesting enough times to little and adult children very subltely an inch at a time to where you can make this 1/2 hypnotic trance where the person still is aware but they are digging in your mind.

but the powerof suggestion is very strong to people when they are in thier most vulnerable state.

Now all phycologists will claim this is not true but who is the Authority on these things these days?

If then they are the Authority of the Mind what are they?

They are judges/ Elohim in this sence control the people. This is what you do and don't.. The book is old its a fairly tale. Look at generations past in recent years and look at the numbers for failed homes. Who says children need both parents but has no problem putting thier children in foster care at the drop of a hat if its good for them.

I know i have seen it 1st hand. Thier ways of learning is Pure selfishness and they claim see we are Heroes.

Drive down the road. walk in a mall. walk downtown. go almost anywhere and see we need a camera watching us.. Did you approve this through the Representation of your elected officials?

Or did they say we know whats best?

Now who do you think is telling them whats best?

Ding light switch smells must be a skunk in the house.. Blessings..Miles

Think you kinda missed the point.

The knowledge contained in these books eg., Leadership and the Fate of Organizations and The American Psychologist is taken on faith. Do you know for a FACT these books are true by repeating the experiments they did to achieve their results? Or are you putting faith in that their results as the truth?



Yes there are. The bible itself is merely a collection of books. The bible itself was not written in the time era of Jesus. The bible is a gathered collection of many different sources.

So again, point still remains ANYTHING in science discovery is taken by faith less one repeats the experiments. EVEN IF many people accept it as the truth, does not change the fact that it's all by faith as it being a fact.

Sorry I hit a raw nerve for you Miles - I used a research paper I had just recently read but it could have been a research article from some other field of science as well.

It was not the content I was pointing to - it was the the number of independent, outside, references that were used to build associations (from previous research)that I was pointing to. These are 'qualifiers' that give credence to scientific knowledge.

Whether it's science or history what promotes information from the belief by faith category to that of more valid and trustworthy knowledge is the quality & quantity of its references. That was my point.

In the ONE article that I reference there are over 5000 people in nearly 100 years of study that were part of the source material in this one specific area that went into the research and its conclusions. Every one of those over 5000 people are documented by name, date, research associations and what’s more, each of those people have a life time of records that can be verified through hundreds of other sources. I feel confident that my own research and knowledge of the many sources of reference has given me the trust needed to accept the genuine quality of that research.

You do not have that kind of trust because you lack sufficient knowledge in the areas that involves scientific research and research in that particular field of science. That kind of knowledge would provide the trust you need to accept the information presented. That, sir, is why we ask for references, and why we give them, so that others can verify for themselves the validity of the referent sources.

I have given you an article with over 100 references. Something as important to you as the Bible must have some kind of important references for you to take it as knowledge and the only source of fact.

So I asked the following and you replied:



Cowboy:


Cowboy your faith is what you are capable of and it comforts you in some way. Enjoy it and your life and stop worrying about how many others are not making the grade. What you believe makes sense to you in ways that it can never make sense to anyone else because your experiences can never be experienced by anyone else.

How many hours in the day do you waste posting in this forum? Maybe you could use the computer for something more beneficial, like forming a network of people with unique talents who are willing to put together care packages for those in need. --- I don’t know, just a suggestion… but there has to be something you are better suited for, that would actually be fulfilling to you and beneficial to others.

THINK – TRY – NETWORK – DO! and make this second chance you say you have been given worth something real. There are no converts to be had here and to be honest I don’t think that’s your calling – but with the amount of faith you have you should believe you can do better.

Doesn't matter if it was 1 or a million people that came to this conclusion. You're still putting faith in their findings, for you have not done these experiments. That's all this was discussed about. You have trust they are correct, you have faith they are correct. Trust and faith are the EXACT same thing. That's ALL this was about. Not validity about anything.



Not one hour is "wasted" in these forums. Not one minute is "wasted" in these forums. Not even one second is "wasted" in these forums. People that do not post, read these forums, the people posting read these forums even if they do not post to that particular thread. There is nothing more beneficial or rewarding then knowing I possibly helped bringing Jesus to someone's life and or at least opened the door a tad bit.

cowboy- don't get me wrong here, i'm not knocking you or your faith, but it was your type of thinking that held back science for so long. if you wanna have faith in god, i don't think anyone has a problem with that. but that age old attitude that if it doesn't glorify god, then it must be the devil is not the way to think. Science is not a bad thing, and neither is the truth of anything... wouldn't you like to know the truth of everything? or are people like you scared of the truth? personally, i think that what the bible says cannot be proven either way, but what is the harm in trying to prove or disprove it? wouldn't you wanna know the real truth if presented to you? i would. Science may be the only way to prove while we are alive. don't look at science as a bad thing, science has done wonders for our lives and keeps us alive to boot.

I'm sorry, you seem to have gotten me wrong. I never said science was bad and or we shouldn't be messing with that. I'm all for science. It has brought forth many good things. My entire point again was that one has to put faith in the findings of science, unless that one repeats the experiments to find the results themselves. They are faithfully trusting that the scientist was telling the truth. That's all. You have put faith in that the world is round. Do you have any plausible exact facts about this that can prove the world is round without a doubt? Cause I can show you pictures of the world being square. That's what the entire purpose was of this. Not specifically to renounce science, cause I don't. Just to show that even with science people are putting faith in it that it is correct, unless of course for minor science where the experiment can be done at home to find the truth for themselves.

ok, my bad...any photo from space shows the earth is round, google earth does to... and how would that be faith? faith is a religious term, does not apply to science. i guess we can agree to disagree, because i just seem to not grasp what your saying.... so your not sure the earth is round? are you not sure we need oxygen to live?
i can understand about evolution, some people do not believe in it, but i do and i can see it every day.

Prove to me the earth is round without a shadow of doubt, prove to me we need OXYGEN to breath without a shadow of doubt.

thats the difference between faith and fact... if you have a doubt about something as common as that, then you need faith in your life... if you need that kind of proof over something like that, then how can you believe in god?

My point is you believe by faith that the world is round, you can not PROVE the world is round, nor can you PROVE it's oxygen that we need. It's all taken by faith that these scientists know what they are talking about. Nor can I PROVE to you God. NOTHING in this world can be proven to anyone except what that one proves to them self. Heck you can't even prove the sky is blue unless that person is willing to accept it as such, eg., proving it to them self.

i do not need certian FACTS proven to me... millions of people have already proved these things, there absolutely no need for me to prove it again...redundant is redundant... it is not faith it is a certian fact...

So you're saying since millions of people have accepted it as truth, it's gotta be? Well heck millions of people have accepted Christianity as fact, why is that so different?

here is a better point for what you are saying... doctors and medicine... you have to have faith in what doctors tell you, otherwise you might not live long enough to worry about it... one of the few instances where faith is applied with religion...

quote: millions of people have already proved these things,

not one of your millions have proven anything...

Not one of your millions have proven anything either. Less you are willing to put faith in what they are saying.