Science Proves Non-Christians are Unsaved

[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?

[Itinerant Lurker]

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

[Faithful]

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.

[Itinerant Lurker]

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:

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

[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.

[Itinerant Lurker]

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.

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,

. . .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

[Faithful]

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.

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.

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.

[Itinerant Lurker]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

[Faithful]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

[Itinerant Lurker]

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.

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.

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.

Since you agree Paul didn't embellish

That’s not what I said.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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