Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's simplify the question. Gospel Matthew indicates:
Matthew 27:
62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
According to Gospel Matthew, the chief priests and Pharisees had reason to suppose that the followers of Jesus had a plan to relocate the body of Jesus and to then spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. Since according to the story at hand the body of Jesus DID turn up missing and the followers of Jesus DID spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead, why is this explanation not more believable than the flying reanimated corpse version?
I was curious about how many times, over the years, you've compulsively asked this same question and yet been unsatisfied with any of the answers, so I searched the forums. It turns out you've been asking this question [and providing your same arguments] ever since you joined this forum in March 2012.
You want yet one more opportunity to regurgitate the same arguments you've been giving on this forum for over 7 1/2 years? OK, here you go!...
FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.
FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
The significance of the resurrection of Jesus lies in the fact that it is not just any person who has been raised from the dead, but Jesus of Nazareth, whose crucifixion was instigated by the Jewish leadership because of his blasphemous claims to divine authority. If this man has been raised from the dead, then the God whom he allegedly blasphemed has clearly vindicated his claims. Thus, in an age of religious relativism and pluralism, the resurrection of Jesus constitutes a solid rock on which Christians can take their stand for God’s decisive self-revelation in Jesus.
------
I'll save you the effort of repeating your arguments, yet again...
Your comments were in response by the posting of this video of WLC: William Lane Craig: (1/7) Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection https://youtu.be/N8MskdxRn2U?t=400
Craig begins by asserting that most scholars today accept that the core story of the traveling rabbi who is accused, executed, and placed in a tomb which subsequently proved to be empty, is likely historically accurate. I happen to agree with this analysis. The cult of the crucified carpenter appeared too abruptly and is too well formed to be completely mythological. Like other legends, King Arthur his knights for example who was probably historical, the legend of Jesus is best explained if centered on an actual historical person and some measure of actual events. And as with the magic elements associated with the legend of Arthur, it's not necessary to give all aspects of the story equal credibility.
Craig then asserts that it is "a fact which is universally acknowledged today by NT scholars" that individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death. Well horse hockey. It is most certainly NOT TRUE that "most" NT scholars accept this claim as undeniably true at all. It is a claim which is easily dispelled.
Far from hundreds of claims to the truth of the appearances of Jesus after his death that Craig claims exist we have in fact only five claims: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Paul's account in 1 Corinthians.
Paul records in 1 Corinthians that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however. Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels. Paul has provided us with A STORY of 500 eyewitnesses, but we have no such testimony from the supposed eyewitnesses themselves. The same may be said for the various "witnesses" recorded in the Gospels. First Corinthians, which was written by Paul circa 55 AD., represents the very earliest mention historically of the risen Jesus. Jesus was executed, according to the time frame established by the Gospels, circa 30 AD. In other words THE VERY FIRST mention of the risen Jesus does not occur until some quarter of a century after his death. And then is recorded by an individual who clearly was not present at the time. Rather than dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, there is no information one way of the other concerning Jesus at all, for the first quarter of a century after he was supposed to have been executed. And specifically, there are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrected dead man AT ALL at the time it was supposed to have occurred. What we do have, years later, are records of what early Christians like Paul had come to believe.
So we are left with the empty tomb, and, as it is pointed out in the video, the fact that Christianity stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection. Now Craig does something telling. He addresses the various alternate possibilities including the possibility that the body was taken by the followers of Jesus with a dismissive wave of his hand and an amusing anecdotal story of an exchange he once had with someone who tried to make a case that Jesus had an identical twin brother. And the audience had a good laugh and for good reason.
Well, not so fast. Let's have a look at what Craig has glossed over. We have an empty tomb and a missing corpse. The first and most obvious conclusion is NOT that the corpse came back to live and wandered off on it's own, but rather that SOMEONE LIVING TOOK IT.
In fact a perfectly natural explanation for the story of the crucified and resurrected carpenter exists in the pages of the Gospels and Acts, if one simply takes the time to piece them together. According to the claims, the corpse of Jesus not only became reanimated, it ultimately flew away up into the sky. For this perfectly absurd conclusion to have even the slightest potential for being true then clearly all possible natural explanations must necessarily be thoroughly ruled out. Since the most obvious cause for an empty tomb and a missing corpse is that it was the result of actions taken by the living, rather than actions taken by the corpse, we need to first determine from the story whether there were individuals with the means, motive and opportunity to have taken the body.
Do the Gospels supply us with any candidates with a motive for moving the body? YES! In fact Matthew 27:64 tells us implicitly that the priests believed that the disciples planned to do that very thing. Did the disciples have the means to move the body? YES! Joseph of Arimathaea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple, is also depicted as being involved. The disciples therefore not only had the means to move the body, THEY HAD THE BODY, given to them by the Roman governor. Did the disciples have the opportunity to move the body? YES! They didn't have to steal it, it was theirs to do with as they saw fit. Curiously, only Gospel Matthew mentions a guard being placed at the tomb. But Gospel Matthew also informs us that the guard wasn't placed at the tomb until sometime THE NEXT DAY. Nor did the priests open the tomb at that time to verify that the body was in fact actually still there. The tomb was sealed, and a guard was set. The entire question of the resurrection can be settled by the simple recognition that the body had already been removed when the tomb was sealed. Nor is this an idle assumption. All four accounts concur on this point; the tomb was empty on Sunday morning.
John 19:41-42
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
Joseph's new and very expensive family crypt was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. It was simply a convenient "nigh at hand" place prepare the body. And the body was very well prepared indeed, according to John 19:39-40, heavily wrapped and coated with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic herbs and spices. Certainly enough to mask the scent of corruption on a journey of several days. A journey to where? Well, where does one normally transport a body for it's final resting place? Usually that would be HOME. Which for Jesus of Nazareth meant Galilee. And where did the eleven remaining apostles go immediately following the crucifixion?
Matt. 28
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
This mountain would presumably be Mt. Tabor which dominates the southern Galilee region and which is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration of Jesus.
Notice also that Mary the mother of Jesus is nowhere mentioned as being at the empty tomb. Most people would bet money that Mary the mother of Jesus was at the tomb on Easter Sunday morning. Not so. Although various Marys are mentioned, Mary the mother of Jesus IS NOT. She IS clearly indicated in the Gospels as being at the crucifixion. Where do we pick her up again?
Acts 1
"[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."
There is Mary the mother of Jesus with the disciples, some six weeks or so (Acts 1:3) AFTER the crucifixion NEWLY RETURNED TO JERUSALEM. And it is at this point the disciples began to spread the rumor of the risen Jesus. But only after, according to them, the resurrected man flew off up into the sky. So FROM THE VERY BEGINNING the claim is an empty one, with no actual resurrected dead man on hand to verify the assertion.
So the question is this: which is the more likely? That a group of men quietly took the body of their dead friend and journeyed, along with the dead man's mother, back to the deceased man's family home for burial, and then later returned to spread the false and rather preposterous rumor that the man had returned to life? Or is it more likely the corpse actually became reanimated and eventually flew away? The answer is obvious of course.
Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 09-05-2019 at 03:25 PM..
These are not facts. They are claims in the gospel accounts. The accounts agree only on the open tomb. Thereafter they totally disagree.
The synoptics have a message delivered by an angel (or two) at the tomb. John doesn't have that, but he does have Peter and another running to look in the tomb. The synoptics don't have that. Matthew has Jesus appearing to the women on the way to the disciples but John had Jesus appearing to Mary after the disciples have been to the tomb. Luke denies that Jesus appeared to the women at all but says that he appeared to Simon, even though Luke does not (nor any others, of course) describe this.
Matthew has the disciples go off to Galilee to see Jesus, but Luke and John have Jesus turn up the same evening. Luke says that all the disciples (less Judas) were there, but John of course has Thomas absent for some reason.
There's an interesting Fiddle by Luke. The angel at the tomb says that the disciples will see Jesus in Galilee. But Luke doesn't want them going to Galilee; he wants them staying in Jerusalem. So he changes the angelic message to what he told them while they were in Galilee.
These accounts are so contradictory that they can't be accepted as reliable report. The 'Fact' is that Mark is most like the original story. It ended with the empty tomb. This wouldn't do so three totally contradictory stories were invented-fabricated - to claim that Jesus' body had got up and walked.
The other point you made is Paul (in Corinthians 1) recounting the appearances of the risen Jesus.
Well you can see that they contradict the Gospel account. Paul says that Jesus appeared first to Simon. This was not the case in the Gospel accounts, though I mentioned above that Luke says that this happened. Luke plainly knew of Paul's letters and saw the contradiction with the gospels and so tried to fiddle agreement with the disciples claiming that Jesus appeared to Simon. But he didn't have anything more than that so didn't describe the event. Paul then says that Jesus appeared to the disciples, then to 500 of them, then to James and finally to Paul. But that was an appearance in the spirit. Which is to say, in his own imagination, and as he makes no distinction between his vision and the others, they were imaginary appearances, too. So Paul's letter does nothing to confirm the concocted stories in the Gospels.
The credibility of Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection. The credibility of the resurrection accounts fails, so Christianity has no factual credibility.
I endorse the comments that you can watch Lane Craig's video and put his best arguments, not expect us to watch it and do your work for you. But I have dealt with a post of lane Craig's arguments, and (as I recall) amounted to little more than expecting us to believe three contradictory tales, backed up with 'The disciples would not die for a lie'. But quite apart from many dying for their particular lie, there is no really credible evidence that the disciples didn't die of old age in their beds wondering why Jesus hadn't showed up.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-05-2019 at 04:15 PM..
Fishbrains called it...he got the guy wrong but Lane Craig should be close enough. By the way IWMA thanks for reminding me of that thread. That makes 3 in a row for you Fishbrains and you know what that means...hairy goat balls award.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Iwasmadenew,
I don’t have much to add here, Grandstander has hit the bullseye. Your reasons for believing seem weak to me, and unless you can contribute to the conversation with something more than questions for me, this is likely to be a short thread.
You seem so confident in challenging people to defend their worldview, but so far I don’t see the substance to back up your challenges. You strike me as a person who has read something by Lee Strobel and think you are prepared for a real world conversation, but aren’t.
[quote=Iwasmadenew;56105967]I was curious about how many times, over the years, you've compulsively asked this same question and yet been unsatisfied with any of the answers, so I searched the forums. It turns out you've been asking this question [and providing your same arguments] ever since you joined this forum in March 2012.
You want yet one more opportunity to regurgitate the same arguments you've been giving on this forum for over 7 1/2 years? OK, here you go!...
FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.
All four Gospels are consent in the claim that Joseph of Arimathea took the body of Jesus to Joseph's newly completed tomb. Yes.
FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
Consistent with all four Gospels. Yes.
FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
Only the early followers of Jesus made the claim that they had seen the risen Jesus. Gospel Matthew indicates that the eleven remaining disciples saw the "risen" Jesus. Gospel Mark indicates that Mary Magdalene saw the "risen" Jesus, along with the eleven. Gospel Luke indicates that the eleven remaining disciples saw the "risen" Jesus as well. Gospel Luke also indicates that two disciples, traveling to Emmaus, encountered an individual that they did not immediately recognize, but later decided that the individual must have been Jesus. Gospel John also indicates that Mary Magdalene saw the "risen" Jesus, along with the eleven.
This is entirely consistent with the closest followers of Jesus spreading the story of the "risen" Jesus. Acts chapter 2 gives more details on how the rumor of the "risen" Jesus came to be spread about.
So who claimed to have seen the "risen" Jesus? His early followers and ONLY his early followers. And where was the "risen" man now? He bodily lifted up off of the ground and disappeared into a cloud. Who saw the "risen" Jesus bodily lift up off of the ground and disappear into a cloud? His early followers and ONLY his early followers.
1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 6 claims that "above five hundred brethren at once" witnessed the risen Jesus on one particular occasion. But 1 Corinthians is a letter written by Paul a quarter of a century or so after the Gospels indicate that Jesus was executed. Paul himself never knew the living Jesus, nor was Paul a personal witness to ANY of the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus as detailed in the four Gospels. Paul based his authority on an encounter with Jesus he believed occurred in Damascus, at a time when Paul was deathly ill. Jesus had been executed some years earlier!
1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 6 does NOT serve as the testimony of five hundred eyewitnesses. 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 6 is the testimony of ONE INDIVIDUAL; an individual who has no claim to eyewitness authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I'll save you the effort of repeating your arguments, yet again...
Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
*** March 9, 2012 ***
Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.
Your comments were in response by the posting of this video of WLC:
William Lane Craig: (1/7) Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection https://youtu.be/N8MskdxRn2U?t=400
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense >
Craig begins by asserting that most scholars today accept that the core story of the traveling rabbi who is accused, executed, and placed in a tomb which subsequently proved to be empty, is likely historically accurate. I happen to agree with this analysis. The cult of the crucified carpenter appeared too abruptly and is too well formed to be completely mythological. Like other legends, King Arthur his knights for example who was probably historical, the legend of Jesus is best explained if centered on an actual historical person and some measure of actual events. And as with the magic elements associated with the legend of Arthur, it's not necessary to give all aspects of the story equal credibility.
Craig then asserts that it is "a fact which is universally acknowledged today by NT scholars" that individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death. Well horse hockey. It is most certainly NOT TRUE that "most" NT scholars accept this claim as undeniably true at all. It is a claim which is easily dispelled.
Far from hundreds of claims to the truth of the appearances of Jesus after his death that Craig claims exist we have in fact only five claims: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Paul's account in 1 Corinthians.
Paul records in 1 Corinthians that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however. Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels. Paul has provided us with A STORY of 500 eyewitnesses, but we have no such testimony from the supposed eyewitnesses themselves. The same may be said for the various "witnesses" recorded in the Gospels. First Corinthians, which was written by Paul circa 55 AD., represents the very earliest mention historically of the risen Jesus. Jesus was executed, according to the time frame established by the Gospels, circa 30 AD. In other words THE VERY FIRST mention of the risen Jesus does not occur until some quarter of a century after his death. And then is recorded by an individual who clearly was not present at the time. Rather than dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, there is no information one way of the other concerning Jesus at all, for the first quarter of a century after he was supposed to have been executed. And specifically, there are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrected dead man AT ALL at the time it was supposed to have occurred. What we do have, years later, are records of what early Christians like Paul had come to believe.
So we are left with the empty tomb, and, as it is pointed out in the video, the fact that Christianity stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection. Now Craig does something telling. He addresses the various alternate possibilities including the possibility that the body was taken by the followers of Jesus with a dismissive wave of his hand and an amusing anecdotal story of an exchange he once had with someone who tried to make a case that Jesus had an identical twin brother. And the audience had a good laugh and for good reason.
Well, not so fast. Let's have a look at what Craig has glossed over. We have an empty tomb and a missing corpse. The first and most obvious conclusion is NOT that the corpse came back to live and wandered off on it's own, but rather that SOMEONE LIVING TOOK IT.
In fact a perfectly natural explanation for the story of the crucified and resurrected carpenter exists in the pages of the Gospels and Acts, if one simply takes the time to piece them together. According to the claims, the corpse of Jesus not only became reanimated, it ultimately flew away up into the sky. For this perfectly absurd conclusion to have even the slightest potential for being true then clearly all possible natural explanations must necessarily be thoroughly ruled out. Since the most obvious cause for an empty tomb and a missing corpse is that it was the result of actions taken by the living, rather than actions taken by the corpse, we need to first determine from the story whether there were individuals with the means, motive and opportunity to have taken the body.
Do the Gospels supply us with any candidates with a motive for moving the body? YES! In fact Matthew 27:64 tells us implicitly that the priests believed that the disciples planned to do that very thing. Did the disciples have the means to move the body? YES! Joseph of Arimathaea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple, is also depicted as being involved. The disciples therefore not only had the means to move the body, THEY HAD THE BODY, given to them by the Roman governor. Did the disciples have the opportunity to move the body? YES! They didn't have to steal it, it was theirs to do with as they saw fit. Curiously, only Gospel Matthew mentions a guard being placed at the tomb. But Gospel Matthew also informs us that the guard wasn't placed at the tomb until sometime THE NEXT DAY. Nor did the priests open the tomb at that time to verify that the body was in fact actually still there. The tomb was sealed, and a guard was set. The entire question of the resurrection can be settled by the simple recognition that the body had already been removed when the tomb was sealed. Nor is this an idle assumption. All four accounts concur on this point; the tomb was empty on Sunday morning.
John 19:41-42
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
Joseph's new and very expensive family crypt was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. It was simply a convenient "nigh at hand" place prepare the body. And the body was very well prepared indeed, according to John 19:39-40, heavily wrapped and coated with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic herbs and spices. Certainly enough to mask the scent of corruption on a journey of several days. A journey to where? Well, where does one normally transport a body for it's final resting place? Usually that would be HOME. Which for Jesus of Nazareth meant Galilee. And where did the eleven remaining apostles go immediately following the crucifixion?
Matt. 28
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
This mountain would presumably be Mt. Tabor which dominates the southern Galilee region and which is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration of Jesus.
Notice also that Mary the mother of Jesus is nowhere mentioned as being at the empty tomb. Most people would bet money that Mary the mother of Jesus was at the tomb on Easter Sunday morning. Not so. Although various Marys are mentioned, Mary the mother of Jesus IS NOT. She IS clearly indicated in the Gospels as being at the crucifixion. Where do we pick her up again?
Acts 1
"[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."
There is Mary the mother of Jesus with the disciples, some six weeks or so (Acts 1:3) AFTER the crucifixion NEWLY RETURNED TO JERUSALEM. And it is at this point the disciples began to spread the rumor of the risen Jesus. But only after, according to them, the resurrected man flew off up into the sky. So FROM THE VERY BEGINNING the claim is an empty one, with no actual resurrected dead man on hand to verify the assertion.
So the question is this: which is the more likely? That a group of men quietly took the body of their dead friend and journeyed, along with the dead man's mother, back to the deceased man's family home for burial, and then later returned to spread the false and rather preposterous rumor that the man had returned to life? Or is it more likely the corpse actually became reanimated and eventually flew away? The answer is obvious of course.
Saves me the trouble of cutting and pasting. BUT WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT?
Tired of the Nonsense: "You Christians who genuinely believe that Jesus was not only actually resurrected from the dead, but that he subsequently flew off up into the sky, please provide your best evidence and rationale for believing that to be true...
Simply establish that believing that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is a reasonable thing to believe. That's all I am asking for."
The fact that this topic matters so very much to you speaks of how convicted your heart must feel. Knowing in the heart, but denying in the head causes inner conflict. I would like for you to know inner peace.
Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 09-05-2019 at 07:06 PM..
It never gets old to you, huh? You never get 'Tired of the Nonsense'??
The fact that this topic matters so very much to you speaks of how convicted your heart must feel. Knowing in the heart, but denying in the head causes inner conflict. I would like for you to know inner peace.
It never gets old to you, huh? You never get 'Tired of the Nonsense'??
The fact that this topic matters so very much to you speaks of how convicted your heart must feel. Knowing in the heart, but denying in the head causes inner conflict. I would like for you to know inner peace.
So can we have a response to his question? You gave a good response to his other question and raised an interesting point, one that I had myself considered (the quantum entanglement point - there's also the twin slit experiment to think about).
Here are summaries of our answers and reasons to the first two questions: origin of the universe and the origin of life on Earth.
I thought I should summarize now since people have not respected our request to refrain from off-topic and insult posts and the thread might get closed for that reason. I guess it's not possible to have anything other than "combative off-topic" threads. The result is a cluttered, low-quality experience for all, but unfortunately that's as good as it gets. Sad.
-------------
3- An infinite series of causes is impossible ("infinite regress" issue).
6- The incredible force of the big bang was precisely the right amount of force to enable planets to form (not to mention conscious life on the 3rd planet from our Sun) "If the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin." -- Robert Lanza
While we wait for progress would you be so kind as to answer two points you have made?
3 - You say 'An infinite series of causes is impossible'.
Please show how this has been be determined.
6 - Here you quote Robert Lanza, "If the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin."
Please give references to his experimental data (or if he has only done theoretical calculations, references to those calculations). Ok, I don't really think he has done any big bang experiments (big bangs tend to be rather intense), which is why I ask for his theoretical references.
His qualifications would be a great addition too, if you don't mind.
Ok, don't worry about his qualifications - I googled him.
Quote:
Robert Lanza is an American medical doctor, scientist and philosopher. He is currently Head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine, and is Chief Scientific Officer of the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
Regenerative medicine? Not an astrophysicist? Not a theoretical physicist?
So If I may ask? Why on earth would you be quoting him on the big bang theory?
I mean, listen to what you quoted him as having said;
"If the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin."
How in heaven's name would he know that?
If the big bang had been one tenth as powerful, the outcome would be the same as we see and if the big bang had been ten times as powerful the outcome would still have been the same. What qualifies me to say that? Not a medical degree, that's for sure.
While we are talking about it - how powerful exactly was the big bang? Does this Lanza person know? Think about that for a moment.
It never gets old to you, huh? You never get 'Tired of the Nonsense'??
The fact that this topic matters so very much to you speaks of how convicted your heart must feel. Knowing in the heart, but denying in the head causes inner conflict. I would like for you to know inner peace.
Wikipedia
Ad hominem
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The purpose of the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles is to convince the reader that the central Character, Jesus of Nazareth, is actually God incarnate. To facilitate this claim, the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles attempt to convince the reader that Jesus of Nazareth not only died an unjust and painful death; not only attempt to convince the reader that the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth returned to life, but that the resurrected corpse of Jesus flew off up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds, and thus was taken up to heaven. Proof of the divinity of the central character. As though heaven were in the sky just above the clouds. Well, I have been above the clouds. I daresay most of us have. And all that's up there is more up.
Apparently, according to you, the problem is NOT merely that many of the claims made by the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles appear to be unrealistically unbelievable and childishly foolish in modern times. The problem is NOT merely that, even within the framework of the story that the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles provides, it is easy to dismiss the entire tall tale as the result of actions taken by individuals with their own agenda to fulfill.
The problem is ME.
Not just me of course. I am merely a symptom of the problem that is non belief. How dare we, HOW DARE WE, make a practice of standing up and disputing your childlike claims point by point!
But of course the basis for the entire tall tale CAN be easily dismissed as the result of actions taken by individuals with their own agenda to fulfill. Which makes the story propagated by the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus appear to be even more unrealistically unbelievable and childishly foolish.
So the question now becomes, do you intend to defend your childlike beliefs? Or are you out?
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 09-06-2019 at 02:34 AM..
It never gets old to you, huh? You never get 'Tired of the Nonsense'??
The fact that this topic matters so very much to you speaks of how convicted your heart must feel. Knowing in the heart, but denying in the head causes inner conflict. I would like for you to know inner peace.
You've been rumbled, chum. Having no answer, you try the miserable old ploy of 'You only argue because you know I'm right'. Got whiskers on, that one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That makes 3 in a row for you Fishbrains and you know what that means...hairy goat balls award.
