Science Proves Non-Christians are Unsaved

Printable View

01-05-2010, 05:26 PM
Faithful

Science Proves Non-Christians are Unsaved

How do I know Atheists are going to Hell? Because it is obvious we are so unique among all creatures that we are made in God’s image which can never cease to exist, and since Atheists and Agnostics don’t want to be with God they have to go somewhere which is Hell. As Jesus said, if you are not for Him, you are against Him. God is proven to exist because we know that nature can’t cause itself or come from nothing and the universe can’t always have existed, for mankind would have approximated into that alleged past eternity of cause and effects, but would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly and observably on. Some examples, on a per capita basis, there are less child sacrifices, murders, crime, polygamy, cannibalism, slavery, dictatorships, and more democracies, women's rights, charities, and peace among the nations. Is it not true when wars took place in antiquity they would wipe out a far greater percentage of the population?

All other religions besides Christianity are damned because they reject the Jesus of the Bible who is God and proved it by fulfilling so many prophecies from hundreds of years prior that taken together are humanly impossible, and He resurrected Himself which skeptics don’t know how to explain away given the data that they concede such as the disciples willingly went to their deaths for their eyewitness testimony, and according to modern psychology group hallucinations are impossible. Critics have never been able to come up with a consensus on how to explain these things away naturalistically, let alone even one that is feasible. This is what gives Christians strength and increases our faith towards eternity. Our born-again experience which the world is very jealous of in our being made new creations of God corroborates this with the word of God and by the Holy Spirit to the formation of the Church what God considers to be the most beautiful thing in the world.

That is not to say every person who does not truly believe in Jesus is going to Hell, for many may have never heard of Jesus or they may have heard but know so little. God will be just in His assessment. For example, if a person looks at the mountains and the stars and believes in the Creator while rejecting the idols worshiped by people around him, He surely would accept Jesus if he was introduced. God takes this into account. The same applies to the “little ones” who are not of the age of accountability yet. Those who accept the Father will accept the Son if they have not done so already. And no man can receive the Father but by the Son. Jesus will confess you to His Father if you receive Him with a genuine and sincere heart. If you are willing, you'll receive forgiveness of all your sins and your old man dies with Him on the cross. Resurrection life is yours, your spirit is resurrected with eternal life and the Holy Spirit shall through the window of your conscience enter to indwell this new intuitive spirit God gives you to commune with Him. Eternal life is not only eternal blessings but a new ability given to you to be able to have a personal relationship with your creator Christ Jesus who is uncreated. What immense joy, comfort, protection and peace! No matter what happens, you are covered by Christ if you are saved. Nothing can separate this eternal relationship.

There are many Jesus’s out there, but only one is right. To be clear, He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity. The Trinity is uncreated. Jesus created all things; nothing that was created was created without Him. The Holy Spirit is a Person, not a force. Person is a spiritual term to identify God’s personableness and for each Person is one third of the Godhead. God Being Triune has complexity and diversity in His Unity, whereas Hinduism has diversity but no unity; Islam has no diversity in unity; Catholicism is a quaternity; and atheists and agnostics are dullards who have no unity in their naturalism survival of the fittest: kill or be killed mentality. There are no gods before the Triune God and no gods after. He alone is from everlasting. Initial salvation can never be lost, you can never perish, and no person can pluck you out of His hand. If you think you can sin any old way you like and do in fact commit crimes and such then you simply were never born-again to begin with. God provides sufficient grace to all to give everyone the opportunity to be saved. He predestinates by foreknowing your free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints (once-saved-always-saved). To be saved you must give your life to the God who keeps for you can’t keep yourself saved nor be saved by works towards a God who is infinitely greater than you. Though as a Christian if you remain tied down to the world like a balloon, you will lose the reward of not returning with Christ to reign during the 1000 years. We are justified by faith not by works lest anyone should boast. If you want an “out-clause” in this relationship then God simply won’t save you to begin with and you can keep deceiving yourself just as you would if you thought that you were irresistibly regenerated without prior repentance and faith. God forces salvation on no one and denies nobody the lesser or common grace that is sufficient even though many receive His greater or special grace of the gospel of salvation. There is only one way God saves: OSAS Arminian. Please never forget this.

Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.
02-06-2011, 04:56 AM
Reckoning

Rebuttal

I will explain each paragraph with a paragraph, to avoid confusion.

Uniqueness among animals is not only expressed by humans. Each species is unique in its own way, sometimes showing superiority compared with humans. I will explain being away from God later to avoid repetition. Nature by definition causes itself that is why it is called nature. For example, let us compare known things that are natural and non-natural, for example a car and an earthquake. Cars are made by humans, it is observable, and there is no known natural cause for them. Earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, although I will add that a while back in history earthquakes were also explained by ‘God’. This sort of rationalizing is called “The God of the Gaps Argument”. True the universe cannot come from nothing, but it can exist forever. The first law of thermodynamics confirm both, IE Conservation of matter and energy. You mention man would have approximated past eternities. There is one flaw in your argument; we have, for example string theory. Slavery is actually not condemned by Jesus or God, both Old and New Testament. Exodus 21:20-21 and Ephesians 6:5.

So Jesus is God since it was predicted in the bible and came true, the Messiah as it were. Well, simply ask the Jews why they don’t accept Jesus. They are the foundation of Christianity, why do they not believe in Christ, if all the prophecies came true? I asked them and there are four apparent “unfulfilled prophecies of Jesus”. . (A). Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). (B). Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). (C). Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease, as it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) (D). Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). I should also mention virtually every other religion is convinced IT’S THE right one, just as you are. When you see why you reject their claims, you will see why I reject yours.

Third paragraph. How do you know this? Does the bible teach this? Where? (I.e. the book chapter and verse) Did Jesus say this? Are you saying your words have more authority than the Bible, God or Jesus? Here I quote you saying “As Jesus said, if you are not for Him, you are against Him.” Not quite, he said “… No one comes to the father except though me” John 14:6 (.5) NO ONE (come to the father) EXCEPT THROUGH ME. You see? Not people who would accept Jesus, but only people who have accepted Jesus, tough luck for them.

“There are many Jesus’s out there, but only one is right.” I’ve explained this already with the “When you see why you reject their claims, you will see why I reject yours.” “To be clear, He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity. The Trinity is uncreated. Jesus created all things; nothing that was created was created without Him.” Just want to explain how this is wrong. I will assume (correct me if I’m wrong) God is 1st, then Jesus 2nd then Holy spirit 3rd. It was God who created the world, Genesis 1:1 (first page, heh). If this is correct how do you hold this belief? Your belief if incoherent, and ridiculous. Of course, the trinity is Uncreated, with absolutely no explanation, it’s just the way it is. As soon as the idea that the universe is uncreated, you cannot come to grips with that. You proudly boast your divine revelation of the world, yet you seem to not know everything in the bible, even things you so proudly boast of in this very thread, for example the prophecies.

Finally back to being away from God, where to begin. Is being away from God hell, because I feel pretty separated from God, (as close as you can get). So then I am already in hell, yet this is no punishment. Is he clinging on to me giving me till my last breath a chance for repentance? Why, he is all knowing why test us in the first place. It would not take too much time to convince me, why does everyone else get personal experiences with God. Why can I not have a conversation like in times of old, such as Abraham and Noah. He would have a lot to explain. Just showing himself to me is not enough. So he exists point one taken care of, I’m no longer an Atheist. Then why did he commit such monstrosities, why are there so many religions, why are there inconsistencies in the bible. Some say he will not reveal himself because that will take away my free will to choose to believe. Well, Satan before his fall talked to God, yet still chose to go against him. Free will would still exist. Besides, not too long ago the smallpox vaccine was considered to be a product of the devil. I trust the guy saving the lives of millions, rather the tyrant who wants us to believe in him or suffer eternally.

A final point, I do not believe in Satan either. It just he has done more good than God according to the religious institutions anyway.
02-06-2011, 08:14 AM
Faithful

Your Mind is Messed Up

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reckoning

Uniqueness among animals is not only expressed by humans. Each species is unique in its own way, sometimes showing superiority compared with humans.

What animal can build automobiles, airplanes, nuclear power plants, nanotubes, a computer chip, telescopes to see the beginning of the big bang, travel to the moon, form a court of law, perform amazing medical procedures, and mass produce products with robots? If you don't see this as being more advanced than all other animals, I would say that's false humility on your part.

Quote:

Nature by definition causes itself that is why it is called nature. For example, let us compare known things that are natural and non-natural, for example a car and an earthquake. Cars are made by humans, it is observable, and there is no known natural cause for them. Earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, although I will add that a while back in history earthquakes were also explained by ‘God’. This sort of rationalizing is called “The God of the Gaps Argument”. True the universe cannot come from nothing, but it can exist forever.

At least that's a starting point you agree nature can't come from nothing. That earthquakes are caused by God is not really the God of gap argument because without God starting the big bang, the earthquake would never have happened. Not only can the universe not start up from nothing, it can't always have existed either, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Quote:

The first law of thermodynamics confirm both, IE Conservation of matter and energy. You mention man would have approximated past eternities. There is one flaw in your argument; we have, for example string theory.

String theory you agree can't come from nothing, so it needs a cause from something. As you try to extend that out to an eternity of the past, man would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Quote:

Slavery is actually not condemned by Jesus or God, both Old and New Testament. Exodus 21:20-21 and Ephesians 6:5.

The point about slavery is that on a per capita basis it is less now, showing us an exponential progression of conscience, so that if there was an infinite regress, we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Ex. 21.20 and Eph. 6.5 says "servant" not slave. Most nations had slaves, but Israel had servants. A servant was employed for 7 years. Whereas the other nations around Israel had slaves. Israel itself was enslaved for 430 years. The Bible always holds the higher moral standard of the day.

Quote:

So Jesus is God since it was predicted in the bible and came true, the Messiah as it were. Well, simply ask the Jews why they don’t accept Jesus. They are the foundation of Christianity, why do they not believe in Christ, if all the prophecies came true?

Isaiah 53 is clear the Messiah is their suffering servant and would be killed. They shut their minds down just like Muslims shut their mind down to the fact that Jesus died on the cross. It is a deeply embedded rejection of God's love to alter God's word. "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth" (Isaiah 53.7). The true Jew is a Christian. Judaism is not the same as OT Israel, for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would have accepted Jesus. So would have Abel, Moses, David and Jeremiah. Judaism today is not the foundation of Christianity, but the Old Testament is. Though the nation of Israel is saved, individually any Jewish person would need to give his life to Christ to be saved.

Quote:

I asked them and there are four apparent “unfulfilled prophecies of Jesus”. . (A). Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). (B). Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). (C). Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease, as it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) (D). Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). I should also mention virtually every other religion is convinced IT’S THE right one, just as you are. When you see why you reject their claims, you will see why I reject yours.

This is the millennial kingdom. Why could this not go forward during Jesus' first coming? Because the Jews at the hand of the Romans killed Jesus. Jesus' reigning is conditional upon accepting Him. So Jesus resurrects Himself and shows Himself to the disciples over 40 days, and the covenant God had with Israel was abrogated and the promise given to Christians beforehand.

Now let man see how he does without Jesus after having killed Him. Daniel's last 7 and the coming Tribulation will show man can't do it on his own so then Jesus returns when we are about to destroy ourselves. 1/3 of the people of the earth will be killed in nuclear holocaust (Rev. 9.18) and the massive war in the middle east with 200 million military units (v.16). Quite a scary picture! Too bad the Jews and Romans killed Jesus.

For 1260 days a 144,000 Jews remnant will hide likely in the city of Petra and Israel will be overrun, but at the end of the 2,520 days of the Tribulation Jesus will step down on the mount of olives.

Quote:

Third paragraph. How do you know this? Does the bible teach this? Where? (I.e. the book chapter and verse) Did Jesus say this? Are you saying your words have more authority than the Bible, God or Jesus? Here I quote you saying “As Jesus said, if you are not for Him, you are against Him.” Not quite, he said “… No one comes to the father except though me” John 14:6 (.5) NO ONE (come to the father) EXCEPT THROUGH ME. You see? Not people who would accept Jesus, but only people who have accepted Jesus, tough luck for them.

Of course the Bible teaches this. Some Old Testament Jews were saved even though Jesus hadn't died on the cross yet. Job who was a gentile who was saved came before Moses. Romans 1.20 says just by observing the nature we are without excuse. Did you forget Matt. 12.30? "He that is not with me is against me..." A person who never heard of Jesus who believed in God would surely accept the Son of God.

Quote:

I will assume (correct me if I’m wrong) God is 1st, then Jesus 2nd then Holy spirit 3rd. It was God who created the world, Genesis 1:1 (first page, heh). If this is correct how do you hold this belief? Your belief if incoherent, and ridiculous. Of course, the trinity is Uncreated, with absolutely no explanation, it’s just the way it is.

God is plural in Gen. 1.1,26.27. God is not 1st, Jesus is not 2nd, nor is the Holy Spirit 3rd. Before the foundation of the world they were co-equal and co-inherent. It is only in the council of the Godhead the 3 Persons agreed the 2nd Person would atone for sins of the world and the 3rd Person would indwell believers.

Since the uncreated is proven and Jesus is proven to be God and presents Himself as co-equal with the Father, it stands to reason the 3 Persons of the Godhead are indeed co-equal. Jesus showed us how to be perfectly obedient unto the Father as only God could do so Jesus is God. He forgave sins as only God could do. He resurrected Himself as only God could do. Jesus prayed to the Father by the Spirit, just as we pray to the Father through the Son by the Spirit. There are some things you can't know or may not have the ability to know, but we know God exists and Jesus is God the Son.

Quote:

As soon as the idea that the universe is uncreated, you cannot come to grips with that.

I welcome your proposal of a universe that always existed, but that necessitates infinite regress. But if infinite regress were true, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. If you want to compare your uncreated universe to the uncreated Creator with a mind, God trumps your uncreated universe because nature can't produce a mind. The lesser can never produce the greater. A mind is needed to create a mind. A conscious being with a conscience is needed to create man with a conscience and a consciousness. Self-consciousness requires a Creator with self-consciousness, and God-consciousness needs a God. Bouncing atoms or strings all by themselves can never produce self-awareness or God-awareness.

Quote:

You proudly boast your divine revelation of the world, yet you seem to not know everything in the bible, even things you so proudly boast of in this very thread, for example the prophecies.

I do know those prophecies you gave, you have just misunderstood the circumstances surrounding them and what's going on as was explained.

Quote:

Is being away from God hell, because I feel pretty separated from God, (as close as you can get). So then I am already in hell, yet this is no punishment. Is he clinging on to me giving me till my last breath a chance for repentance? Why, he is all knowing why test us in the first place. It would not take too much time to convince me, why does everyone else get personal experiences with God. Why can I not have a conversation like in times of old, such as Abraham and Noah. He would have a lot to explain. Just showing himself to me is not enough. So he exists point one taken care of, I’m no longer an Atheist.

You will be resurrected for Hell. Right now you have a foretaste of Hell. If someone wants to know what Hell is like or at least get a glimpse all they need to do examine your state of mind.

God is longsuffering not wanting any to perish. He is not testing you, but pleading with you to repent and believe in Him to be regenerated. You can't ask for a better proof than the resurrection of Jesus. God communicates by the intuition of your spirit, but your spirit is dead (lost communication), because you refuse to search Him with all your heart and soul to find Him. Abraham was open to God, you are not.

Even if Jesus showed Himself to you, you admit that's not enough so why should He bother? Who is to say whomever presents himself to you is Jesus? How do you know you will get the right Jesus? Seems presumptuous on your part after already misunderstanding Him so much. You've already misunderstood the Scriptures related to prophecies. If Jesus were to come to you, He would violate His prior word that when He returns we will all know it, not just you. Remember, Jesus is not here right now because people such as yourself killed him. But Jesus said blessed are those who have not seen Him yet and believe. I think you are being dishonest with yourself. If you were being honest with yourself you would examine the data surrounding the resurrection claim to know that the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead, but there is no naturalistic explanation to account for their beliefs, thus proving Jesus is God and salvation is only through Him.

Quote:

Then why did he commit such monstrosities, why are there so many religions, why are there inconsistencies in the bible. Some say he will not reveal himself because that will take away my free will to choose to believe. Well, Satan before his fall talked to God, yet still chose to go against him. Free will would still exist. Besides, not too long ago the smallpox vaccine was considered to be a product of the devil. I trust the guy saving the lives of millions, rather the tyrant who wants us to believe in him or suffer eternally.

Why did God commit what you call monstrosities? They are no less monstrosities than you slitting the throat of a person who breaks into your home once a month to rape your wife? Because they were monstrous people, irredeemable. The result is they no longer exist. It was either them or His chosen nation? It was either people who enjoyed human sacrifices or Israel then through Israel the Messiah would enter His creation.

Why are there so many religions? Because people underestimate the proliferation of sin just like you for asking such a dumb question. There are no inconsistencies in the Bible. Your free will is true whether Jesus is on earth or not on earth. When Jesus is on earth, you will still reject Him and still go to Hell. His presence or non-presence is not the problem. The problem is your cold heart and stiff-neck. Consider God very gracious to provide the smallpox vaccine. If God didn't create the discoverer of that vaccine, then many more would have died. Smallpox is a result of sin. Sin is the result of selfishness. Selfishness is the result of independency. Independency is the result of disobedience and not trusting God and His love.

Think how evil it would be of you to reject your parents like you reject God. God doesn't want you to suffer eternally, but if that is your choice to want to be eternally separated from God then that is your choice with consequences. God will not coerce your free will into accepting His love. You will burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity because you are a bad person. Should we in society let all the criminals out of jail? Nor should we let you out of jail to do harm to people with your stinkin' thinkin' and abusive behavior. God wants the New City free of sin, but with you there it would spoil all the fun. So where else are you suppose to go but Hell? You want your sin and not have to pay the price for your sin. One little sin eternally separates you from God, so cling to it, but you will have to do so in Hell. The only way to be saved is if you receive what Jesus did for you on the cross who took the sins of the whole world upon Himself as only God can do as the perfect sacrifice to atone for sins.

Quote:

A final point, I do not believe in Satan either. It just he has done more good than God according to the religious institutions anyway.

Satan is the creator of those religious institutions. You are confusing Satan with God. Satan is messing with you and he has you hook, line and sinker. You are an easy toy for him to manipulate because you get off on it. By the way the most charities in the world are Christian charities. No other faith even comes close. And atheist charities are practically non-existent.

You have an ugly mind the way you think. Follow the logic. Since God exists and Jesus is proven to be God and Jesus spoke on Hell and Satan more than anyone, then you are delusional. A most beautiful angel fell from God's grace who will never repent. Since God could not erect obedience in the angels, He found man was redeemable.
06-27-2012, 12:36 PM
Itinerant Lurker

The only vaguely scientific assertions in your OP are:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithful

1. Jesus of the Bible who is God and proved it by fulfilling so many prophecies from hundreds of years prior that taken together are humanly impossible.

2. He resurrected Himself which skeptics don’t know how to explain away given the data that they concede such as the disciples willingly went to their deaths for their eyewitness testimony.

3. Critics have never been able to come up with a consensus on how to explain these things away naturalistically, let alone even one that is feasible.

Of these only #1 is an actual scientific claim, I'm wondering how you tested this or what evidence you have to support it. Thanks.

Lurker
06-27-2012, 01:34 PM
Faithful

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker

The only vaguely scientific assertions in your OP are:

Of these only #1 is an actual scientific claim, I'm wondering how you tested this or what evidence you have to support it. Thanks.

These scientific claims with evidence are not vague at all but very specific. All 3 of these items you quote are scientific claims and well documented.

I don't think you are interested in how this was tested and the evidence provided because the evidence was given and you did not respond to it.
07-05-2012, 02:39 PM
Itinerant Lurker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithful

These scientific claims with evidence are not vague at all but very specific. All 3 of these items you quote are scientific claims and well documented.

I don't think you are interested in how this was tested and the evidence provided because the evidence was given and you did not respond to it.

The link from your OP, "so many prophecies", is dead. All I asked for was some evidence that Jesus fulfilled more prophecies than are humanely possible. I wasn't aware that this warranted infractions. If you provided this information earlier or in another thread and I missed it could you point me in the right direction? Thanks.

Lurker
07-05-2012, 02:43 PM
Faithful

Humanely? I said "humanly". Humanly refers to it being impossible to humanly fulfill all these prophecies unless Jesus is God. Jesus is fully God and fully man. He's the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Why do you keep asking for evidence when it was already given? The evidence was already given in the opening post. Please respond specifically to the opening post and the evidence provided. If you don't think it is evidence then show it. You can see why you get an infraction for asking for evidence while avoiding the evidence. That's just belligerent. Why shut your mind down?
07-07-2012, 05:45 PM
Itinerant Lurker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithful

Why do you keep asking for evidence when it was already given? The evidence was already given in the opening post. Please respond specifically to the opening post and the evidence provided.

You didn't provide any examples of fulfilled prophecies in your OP, that's all I was asking for. You may have linked to another thread in that post but, as I've been trying to explain to you, that link doesn't seem to be working. Not trying to circumvent anything, I'm just asking for a bit of help here understanding your claims. Thanks.

P.S. - Is there maybe some easier way to acclimate new members to your expectations other than instant suspension?

Lurker
07-07-2012, 08:59 PM
Faithful

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker

You didn't provide any examples of fulfilled prophecies in your OP, that's all I was asking for. You may have linked to another thread in that post but, as I've been trying to explain to you, that link doesn't seem to be working. Not trying to circumvent anything, I'm just asking for a bit of help here understanding your claims. Thanks.

P.S. - Is there maybe some easier way to acclimate new members to your expectations other than instant suspension?

Everything in the opening post was proven included fulfilled prophecies. Why keep avoiding the evidence?

Recall you wrote the opening post was "only vaguely scientific assertions." You were no more specific than that. Now you are saying you were only talking about "fulfilled prophecies"? Sounds like you are changing your story. But I will indulge you. The link was not working but the evidence in the paragraph remains which you did not challenge. Here's the link again...

http://biblocality.com/forums/showth...nt-of-Prophecy

Here is that particular paragraph about prophecies:

All other religions besides Christianity are damned because they reject the Jesus of the Bible who is God and proved it by fulfilling so many prophecies from hundreds of years prior that taken together are humanly impossible, and He resurrected Himself which skeptics don’t know how to explain away given the data that they concede such as the disciples willingly went to their deaths for their eyewitness testimony, and according to modern psychology group hallucinations are impossible. Critics have never been able to come up with a consensus on how to explain these things away naturalistically, let alone even one that is feasible. This is what gives Christians strength and increases our faith towards eternity. Our born-again experience which the world is very jealous of in our being made new creations of God corroborates this with the word of God and by the Holy Spirit to the formation of the Church what God considers to be the most beautiful thing in the world.

You're misrepresenting your temporary infractions that you accumulated enough to be temporarily banned by calling them instant suspensions. You earned those infractions due to your own mistaken behavior that is not conducive to a forum like this. There is no better way for you to shape up than correcting your behavior weeded out by these infractions. You know the reason you got them, so don't make the same mistake again so we can have a good conversation. Seems fair. Agnostics and Atheists are notorious for behaving this way. Just trying to help.
07-19-2012, 04:53 PM
Itinerant Lurker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithful

Here's the link again...

http://biblocality.com/forums/showth...nt-of-Prophecy

Awesome, thanks! A couple of questions about the pertinent claims I found therein:

Quote:

Jesus fulfilled 62 prophecies from hundreds, even thousands of years prior. The odds of that happening is less than 1 in a trillion, scientifically speaking, determined by scientists.

How were these odds calculated? What scientists complied them and where can I read more?

In regards to several lists comparing verses in the OT to accounts in the NT, isn't it fair to say that the writers of the gospels would have already been familiar with the OT? What scientific controls were used (or what steps were taken) to ensure that the gospel authors didn't simply embellish their stories to fit these OT verses?

Thanks again.

Lurker
07-19-2012, 07:39 PM
Faithful

I don't want to name any single particular work, but many books of haven written on the probability a person could have fulfilled them all. This is a great example of searching God out with all your heart and soul that if this is a sticking point for you then I trust you will find those books soon to that point how they do their calculations and how many prophecies they each include.

I am not sure what you are asking about controls. Perhaps give an example.
07-20-2012, 07:29 AM
Itinerant Lurker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithful

I don't want to name any single particular work, but many books of haven written on the probability a person could have fulfilled them all.

A scientific claim is, by definition, a claim that others do not have to simply take your word for because it can be tested. Since you don't seem to be able to support your claim that "All other religions besides Christianity are damned because they reject the Jesus of the Bible who is God and proved it by fulfilling so many prophecies from hundreds of years prior that taken together are humanly impossible. . ." with anything other than so say that books have been written on the subject, I think it's fair to assert that this claim is not scientific at all until such time as you show how these probabilities were calculated and what variables were taken into account.

Admittedly, this is a rigorous task. . .but then science is a rigorous process.

Quote:

I am not sure what you are asking about controls. Perhaps give an example.

No problem. In a scientific experiment control groups are used to ensure that the variable you are testing for is actually what you are measuring. For example, if I want to do an experiment to see if a certain fertilizer increases plant growth I would grow plants both with fertilizer (experimental group) and without the fertilizer (control group) but keep everything else the same. The goal in using control groups is to ensure that there are as few variables as possible. I'm wondering how studies on the probability of fulfilled prophecies control for the variable of authors embellishing stories to make them fit OT verses. Thanks.

Moving on to the next claim in the OP,

Quote:

. . .and He resurrected Himself which skeptics don’t know how to explain away given the data. . .

What is the scientific basis of this claim? There are certainly other reasons why people choose to die for ideas other than those ideas being valid, and the gospels have not been established as eye-witness testimony in anything other than church tradition which, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't exactly follow the scientific method. Nor are "group hallucinations" the only alternative here: the gospels seem to have been written decades after the events they record during a period in history during which the flow of information was arduously slow. We've observed other cults/beliefs spring up around highly embellished stories of events within this time frame such as, for example, Islam or Mormonism or even the cargo cults of the South Pacific. How can we test this hypothesis while taking into account these possible variables?

Lurker
07-20-2012, 04:05 PM
Faithful

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker

A scientific claim is, by definition, a claim that others do not have to simply take your word for because it can be tested. Since you don't seem to be able to support your claim that "All other religions besides Christianity are damned because they reject the Jesus of the Bible who is God and proved it by fulfilling so many prophecies from hundreds of years prior that taken together are humanly impossible. . ." with anything other than so say that books have been written on the subject, I think it's fair to assert that this claim is not scientific at all until such time as you show how these probabilities were calculated and what variables were taken into account.

Admittedly, this is a rigorous task. . .but then science is a rigorous process.

You don't need to read other books. Just observe the prophecies in the Bible that there are so many the probabilities are truly astronomical, impossible to be merely coincident.

Quote:

No problem. In a scientific experiment control groups are used to ensure that the variable you are testing for is actually what you are measuring. For example, if I want to do an experiment to see if a certain fertilizer increases plant growth I would grow plants both with fertilizer (experimental group) and without the fertilizer (control group) but keep everything else the same. The goal in using control groups is to ensure that there are as few variables as possible. I'm wondering how studies on the probability of fulfilled prophecies control for the variable of authors embellishing stories to make them fit OT verses. Thanks.

Moving on to the next claim in the OP,

You would need to give an example of a control group with respect to human history. The proof the Bible gives is for you to observe the fact that there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Scientifically there is no naturalistic explanation, therefore it must be supernaturally of God.

Quote:

What is the scientific basis of this claim? There are certainly other reasons why people choose to die for ideas other than those ideas being valid, and the gospels have not been established as eye-witness testimony in anything other than church tradition which, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't exactly follow the scientific method. Nor are "group hallucinations" the only alternative here: the gospels seem to have been written decades after the events they record during a period in history during which the flow of information was arduously slow. We've observed other cults/beliefs spring up around highly embellished stories of events within this time frame such as, for example, Islam or Mormonism or even the cargo cults of the South Pacific. How can we test this hypothesis while taking into account these possible variables?

The scientific method holds that a naturalistic explanation would need to account for the eyewitness testimony established well testified in the Scriptures. Not only are group hallucinations impossible but all known theories to date fall by the way side. You seem to be focused on the gospels themselves, but the minimal facts approach doesn't go that route. It says most skeptical scholars agree that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, and of all Paul's writings these 3 chapters are the earliest and most dependable. In these 3 chapters Paul recounts the gospel message, the eyewitness testimonies and that he spent 15 days with Peter and with John, as well as James, the brother of Jesus who imparted their eyewitness testimony to Paul. As for the gospels there is nothing to suggest they weren't written a few years after Jesus died. And they are most dependable as no text in ancient history was so closely written to their events as was the New Testament even if we were to be generous and use your late dating.
07-20-2012, 05:00 PM
Itinerant Lurker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithful

You don't need to read other books. Just observe the prophecies in the Bible that there are so many the probabilities are truly astronomical, impossible to be merely coincident.

I have read the prophecies in the bible. I have never seen any calculations done on their probability, nor do I know of how one could accurately calculate such a thing. It is your claim that Christianity is scientifically proven based on, among other things, that there are more fulfilled prophecies in the bible than humanly possible. For this claim to be factual requires evidence. You don't seem to know how, where, or by whom these probabilities were calculated. That's a bit of a problem don't you think?

Quote:

You would need to give an example of a control group with respect to human history.

If I were making the claim that the probability of fulfilled prophecies in human history were established as humanly impossible in regards to a specific religion then yes. Unfortunately, I am not making that claim. . .you are.

Quote:

The proof the Bible gives is for you to observe the fact that there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Scientifically there is no naturalistic explanation, therefore it must be supernaturally of God.

Um. . .no actually. For one thing I've already provided an explanation, one that we've actually observed happening which does not require us to posit supernatural beings - that humans embellish stories and/or fabrications over time. I even provided several examples illustrating this fact. In addition, even if there were no known natural explanation it would not follow that your particular supernatural one was correct. Science works by the amassing of evidence supporting a particular theory, not by simply eliminating alternatives.

Quote:

You seem to be focused on the gospels themselves, but the minimal facts approach doesn't go that route. It says most skeptical scholars agree that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2, and off all Paul's writings these 3 chapters are the earliest and most dependable. In these 3 chapters Paul recounts the gospel message, the eyewitness testimonies and that he spent 15 days with Peter and with John, as well as James, the brother of Jesus who imparted their eyewitness testimony to Paul.

And we know Paul didn't simply embellish stories he'd heard. . .how? Even at best these are second hand accounts written years after the events.

Quote:

As for the gospels there is nothing to suggest they weren't written a few years after Jesus died.

Actually there's plenty to suggest that. Mark is usually regarded as the earliest gospel, and it is generally seen as having been written between 65 and 80 AD by scholars based on both external and internal evidence. As an aside, Mark is an anonymous gospel with only tradition supporting the notion of its author as Mark. That being said, even if we take this tradition at face value this is still a second hand account as Mark the Evangelist was not an apostle and had never known Christ, but instead was Peter's interpreter who simply wrote down what he could remember of his sermons according to Papias of Hierapolis. Of course. . .we only know of these claims of Papias through second hand accounts of his writings so the claim that there is "nothing" to suggest they weren't written within a few years seems more than a little tenuous.

Lurker
07-20-2012, 09:45 PM
Faithful

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker

I have read the prophecies in the bible. I have never seen any calculations done on their probability, nor do I know of how one could accurately calculate such a thing. It is your claim that Christianity is scientifically proven based on, among other things, that there are more fulfilled prophecies in the bible than humanly possible. For this claim to be factual requires evidence. You don't seem to know how, where, or by whom these probabilities were calculated. That's a bit of a problem don't you think?

Like I said one way you can search God out with all your heart and soul so you shall surely find Him is to find those books of probability calculations for the fulfilment of so many prophecies as it seems to be an issue for you. That you don't search this information out yourself yet make a bone of contention shows you are not searching God out with all your heart and soul and that is why you don't find Him. God blinds you. I am not your librarian but I will say that you don't even need to do that because you should be able to see all those probabilities are quite spectacular in and of themselves without having to go to some formal and rigorous analysis. It looks to me like your petty self is a problem for you.

Quote:

If I were making the claim that the probability of fulfilled prophecies in human history were established as humanly impossible in regards to a specific religion then yes. Unfortunately, I am not making that claim. . .you are.

You're not understanding. You would need to give an example of a control group for prophecies so it can be tested. If you can't think of one then obviously you are barking up the wrong tree. Give an example.

Quote:

Um. . .no actually. For one thing I've already provided an explanation, one that we've actually observed happening which does not require us to posit supernatural beings - that humans embellish stories and/or fabrications over time. I even provided several examples illustrating this fact. In addition, even if there were no known natural explanation it would not follow that your particular supernatural one was correct. Science works by the amassing of evidence supporting a particular theory, not by simply eliminating alternatives.

I've responded to what you said before, so respond to my response showing the error of your thinking. You are appealing to the Legend Theory, but there is no grounds for that since the first churches were set up by the first Apostles on the resurrection claim and eyewitness testimony. So there was not enough time to develop for your theory to have credence. There is nothing to embellish since we are already starting with the Apostles and their eyewitness testimony and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. You have given no examples of people willingly dying for a lie, nor have you been able to handle the first churches set up on their eyewitness testimony. Science works by both eliminating unviable options and evidence for such as the Bible gives throughout about the gospel message. The Bible is the evidence you long for that you are reluctant to read.

Quote:

And we know Paul didn't simply embellish stories he'd heard. . .how? Even at best these are second hand accounts written years after the events.

Since you agree Paul didn't embellish, there is no problem. These are Paul's own writings, not second hand accounts. The gospels themselves were written within a couple years after Jesus died and partly while He was still alive. There is no evidence to the contrary. Paul testified the gospel message he received from the first Apostles such as John, Peter and James having spent considerable time with them.

Quote:

Actually there's plenty to suggest that. Mark is usually regarded as the earliest gospel, and it is generally seen as having been written between 65 and 80 AD by scholars based on both external and internal evidence. As an aside, Mark is an anonymous gospel with only tradition supporting the notion of its author as Mark. That being said, even if we take this tradition at face value this is still a second hand account as Mark the Evangelist was not an apostle and had never known Christ, but instead was Peter's interpreter who simply wrote down what he could remember of his sermons according to Papias of Hierapolis. Of course. . .we only know of these claims of Papias through second hand accounts of his writings so the claim that there is "nothing" to suggest they weren't written within a few years seems more than a little tenuous.

There is nothing you suggested that Mark was written as late as you claim. Therefore we can consider it written within a couple years after Jesus died, and I gave a really good reason to believe that which you didn't challenge. Mark is not anonymous but traditionally written by Mark, and Mark even alludes to himself as the man running naked in the street when Jesus was captured. Why does Mark have to be an Apostle? Paul talks about him lots and they even had a disagreement. This is powerful evidence of embarrassment lending to authenticity. You admit Mark worked with Peter too. Mark likely was also one of the 500 who saw Jesus after resurrected. Surely Mark living at the time of Peter would have heard about Jesus and followed him. However many years after Jesus died the gospels were written, they were written far sooner to their events than anything else in antiquity holding the highest of standards. So if you are going to throw out the gospels on that basis, you will have to remove all human history prior to Jesus. I don't know any scholars that obnoxious. You should like how the gospels don't talk about their writers since the focus is the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Praise the Lord!
07-29-2012, 08:29 PM
Itinerant Lurker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithful

That you don't search this information out yourself yet make a bone of contention shows you are not searching God out with all your heart and soul and that is why you don't find Him. God blinds you. I am not your librarian but I will say that you don't even need to do that because you should be able to see all those probabilities are quite spectacular in and of themselves without having to go to some formal and rigorous analysis. It looks to me like your petty self is a problem for you.

I don't mean to be rude, but that this is not even remotely how empiricism works. You’ve made the claim, by asserting that your proofs are “scientific”, that these are empirically supported statements. You may not, therefore, excuse yourself from providing evidence for your own claims if you want to be taken seriously. If you can't provide evidence to support your claims then you may want to start thinking about redefining this as a “personal opinion based on incredulity” rather than as a “scientific fact” at this point.

Quote:

You're not understanding. You would need to give an example of a control group for prophecies so it can be tested. If you can't think of one then obviously you are barking up the wrong tree. Give an example.

I have no idea how you could control for embellishments by the authors to fit the OT verses. That is kind of the point. There doesn’t seem to be any way you could possibly establish this empirically since these are the only sources you’ve presented, ergo this obviously is not a scientific claim.

Quote:

You are appealing to the Legend Theory, but there is no grounds for that since the first churches were set up by the first Apostles on the resurrection claim and eyewitness testimony. So there was not enough time to develop for your theory to have credence. There is nothing to embellish since we are already starting with the Apostles and their eyewitness testimony and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.

Um. . .we have a very poor understanding of what the first churches actually taught, and what we do have indicates that they believed quite a few stories about Christ that you no longer do. There were dozens, possibly hundreds, of different accounts of Christ’s life proliferated during this time period, many of which we still have records of in the gnostic gospels. To claim that there is no grounds to say that embellished stories about the life of Christ could have cropped up in the decades following his death is therefore demonstrably wrong (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html)
That seems like awfully firm ground to me.

Quote:

Since you agree Paul didn't embellish

That’s not what I said.

Quote:

These are Paul's own writings, not second hand accounts

Paul’s accounts of the life of Christ are second hand by virtue of the fact that he was present for precisely none of it. That’s what “second hand” means.

Quote:

I gave a really good reason to believe that which you didn't challenge.

Really? I thought I did by pointing out that your theory required a series of exceedingly charitable assumptions that appeared quite unwarranted. . .but I’ll double check just to make sure.

Quote:

Mark is not anonymous but traditionally written by Mark

It is written anonymously, in that nothing in the text says that it was written by Mark. Christians simply assume that it is because later church figures started claiming it was.

Quote:

Why does Mark have to be an Apostle? Paul talks about him lots and they even had a disagreement. This is powerful evidence of embarrassment lending to authenticity. You admit Mark worked with Peter too. Mark likely was also one of the 500 who saw Jesus after resurrected. Surely Mark living at the time of Peter would have heard about Jesus and followed him.

So what if Paul talked about him? Paul never met Jesus, why then would someone who knew Paul be assumed to have done so? We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that Mark was one of the supposed 500, which is yet another second-hand claim made by someone who admits he wasn’t there. Why are you obfuscating on this point? Any way you slice it Mark, the earliest gospel, is not a first hand account of Christ’s life.

Quote:

However many years after Jesus died the gospels were written, they were written far sooner to their events than anything else in antiquity holding the highest of standards.

I wasn’t aware that we knew anything about the standards used by the gospel authors. Can you explain a bit more about what those standards were and where you came by this information? Thanks.

Quote:

So if you are going to throw out the gospels on that basis, you will have to remove all human history prior to Jesus. I don't know any scholars that obnoxious.

Are you sure? I’m sure many scholars would be hesitant to give absolute credence to texts of questionable authorship and questionable dates which record events without any outside corroboration. Note that what’s in contention isn’t that there existed a man during this time called the Christ who was a radical religious teacher and was later killed - what’s contended is that he performed actual miracles and rose from the dead. To be completely honest, I don’t know of any scholars that would take modern, first-hand accounts of someone who performed miracles and rose from the dead at face value without strong corroborating evidence. . .and I don’t think you would either.

As always, thanks for the replies.

Lurker
07-30-2012, 12:17 AM
Faithful

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker

I don't mean to be rude, but that this is not even remotely how empiricism works. You’ve made the claim, by asserting that your proofs are “scientific”, that these are empirically supported statements. You may not, therefore, excuse yourself from providing evidence for your own claims if you want to be taken seriously. If you can't provide evidence to support your claims then you may want to start thinking about redefining this as a “personal opinion based on incredulity” rather than as a “scientific fact” at this point.

You don't need to do a detailed analysis of the prophecies in the Bible. Just a cursory view is enough to show it is impossible for any man to have fulfilled these prophecies. The human population was a mere fraction of what would be needed. If you want to do a deeper study that is fine but it is not necessary. Just a few prophecies together is humanly impossible let alone over 300 of them. This is so anyone reading the Bible can easily discern these prophecies are humanly impossible and you would not need to be a learned scholar. God's grace is ample for all.

Quote:

I have no idea how you could control for embellishments by the authors to fit the OT verses. That is kind of the point. There doesn’t seem to be any way you could possibly establish this empirically since these are the only sources you’ve presented, ergo this obviously is not a scientific claim.

You know the authors did not embellish because the Apostles really died for their eyewitness testimony. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. Scientifically, it is impossible for people to willingly die for what they know is a lie since it is has never happened before that we know of. Provide a control group of people willingly dying for what they know is a lie.

Quote:

Um. . .we have a very poor understanding of what the first churches actually taught, and what we do have indicates that they believed quite a few stories about Christ that you no longer do. There were dozens, possibly hundreds, of different accounts of Christ’s life proliferated during this time period, many of which we still have records of in the gnostic gospels. To claim that there is no grounds to say that embellished stories about the life of Christ could have cropped up in the decades following his death is therefore demonstrably wrong (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html)
That seems like awfully firm ground to me.

We have a very clear understanding of what the first churches taught as detailed in Acts and Paul's epistles, James and John's epistles, etc. These "other books" you go after are several centuries later so they are of no consideration. Any historian knows the earliest sources hold the most value. Books written centuries after the fact hardly compare to the earliest sources by the Apostles in the NT. There is simply no ground for embellishment by the writers of the NT. It's impossible to embellish the resurrection.

Quote:

That’s not what I said.

You said, "And we know Paul didn't simply embellish stories he'd heard." I agree.

Quote:

Paul’s accounts of the life of Christ are second hand by virtue of the fact that he was present for precisely none of it. That’s what “second hand” means.

Paul was present for everything he wrote about. You did not show otherwise. He listed his travels, his contacts, etc. No second hand.

Quote:

Really? I thought I did by pointing out that your theory required a series of exceedingly charitable assumptions that appeared quite unwarranted. . .but I’ll double check just to make sure.

I am glad you couldn't find any assumptions on my part. Praise the Lord!

Quote:

It is written anonymously, in that nothing in the text says that it was written by Mark. Christians simply assume that it is because later church figures started claiming it was.

Mark is not written anonymously as he eludes to himself running in the streets naked when Jesus was captured. John eludes to himself as well at the cross in his book. The entire text of Mark is very basic and simple quite like Mark was, for as you recall Paul and Mark had a falling out because of Mark's fickle nature. Later they reconciled. The author of Mark has always been thought to be Mark who worked closely with Peter. Nobody else qualifies to be the author other than Mark for it must be someone before the martyrdom of the saints and who was a simpleton and a close worker with the original Apostles. When you review all the accounts of Mark, you realize nobody else fits the profile and could produce such a close account in agreement with the other 3 gospels of Matthew, Luke, John.

Quote:

So what if Paul talked about him? Paul never met Jesus, why then would someone who knew Paul be assumed to have done so? We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that Mark was one of the supposed 500, which is yet another second-hand claim made by someone who admits he wasn’t there. Why are you obfuscating on this point? Any way you slice it Mark, the earliest gospel, is not a first hand account of Christ’s life.

Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus. It couldn't have been a hallucination since others with him experienced the same light, fell to the ground and heard Jesus' voice, but Paul could make out the person of Jesus and spoke personally with Him. Paul new Peter, James and John personally who imparted to him that they were with Jesus and saw Jesus alive from the dead. Mark worked closely with Peter and went on some travels with Paul. It's all interconnected. Since Mark was alive during Jesus' 3 year ministry, he would very likely have been one in the crowd of people who heard Jesus speak many times. Therefore, Mark's account is quite legitimate, a first hand account while Jesus was alive and while Jesus was resurrected.

Quote:

I wasn’t aware that we knew anything about the standards used by the gospel authors. Can you explain a bit more about what those standards were and where you came by this information? Thanks.

When you compare the accounts of all ancient documents in antiquity, the earliest sources we have for the NT are far closer to their events than anything else in antiquity. So if you are going to throw out the NT then you have to throw out all of history. But I don't know any scholar that belligerent and obnoxious so you're on your own obstinate path.

Quote:

Are you sure? I’m sure many scholars would be hesitant to give absolute credence to texts of questionable authorship and questionable dates which record events without any outside corroboration. Note that what’s in contention isn’t that there existed a man during this time called the Christ who was a radical religious teacher and was later killed - what’s contended is that he performed actual miracles and rose from the dead. To be completely honest, I don’t know of any scholars that would take modern, first-hand accounts of someone who performed miracles and rose from the dead at face value without strong corroborating evidence. . .and I don’t think you would either.

We know when the earliest still preserved papyri are dated. There is one in the late first century and about 15 from the second century. So this is within a century after Jesus died and even earlier for the other writings and travels of Paul and John's testimony. Nothing in antiquity is that well preserved. So all I am saying is don't harbor a doublestandard against the NT which holds a far higher standard than anything in antiquity. You can contend Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but you would need a naturalistic explanation to account for the multiple eyewitness testimony in various group settings by the Apostles. Otherwise, you are just pontificating on a pedestal. The burden is on you to show otherwise, since the NT in agreement with the OT has provided the proof which you really can't ask more of. Since this is so well corroborated, better than anything in antiquity, why harbor a doublestandard? Is it not because you are antichrist?