• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

A Scientist Explains Why He Believes in the Resurrection

mikegriffith1 said:
If the story is false, if the women and the disciples did not see the resurrected Christ, then it's a fabrication, then it's fiction.


No, John was the Apostle John, not some later person named John, and Matthew was the Apostle Matthew, not some later person named Matthew, according to the earliest Christian records. Luke was a companion of the Apostle Paul. Mark was a companion of Paul and Peter. So Luke and Mark were not disciples of Jesus during his minister, but they came soon after Jesus's resurrection and worked with Paul and Peter.

Paul saw the resurrected Christ at least twice that we know of, and Peter was one of Christ's twelve apostles and thus could provide firsthand eyewitness accounts of Christ's ministry, including his resurrection.
Click to expand...
Paul did not see a resurrected Jesus and he does not claim he did.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
No, John was the Apostle John, not some later person named John, and Matthew was the Apostle Matthew, not some later person named Matthew, according to the earliest Christian records.
Click to expand...
There are no records of who wrote the Gospel, only traditions. A record would be a document created either by the authors themselves, or by somebody with firsthand knowledge of authorship. Anything else is hearsay, rumor, and "tradition". And that is what we have. Traditions traceable back only to much later writers like Eusebius and Jerome, men who: a) were in no position to know who wrote the gospels, and b) were not above making things up.

But none of this matters, because the gospels are manifestly not eyewitness accounts. Luke even says as much in the prologue. An eyewitness account is a report of what the author personally saw and experienced. That is not what the gospels are, even on their face. They narrate things their putative authors could not plausibly have seen nor heard.

Did Matthew personally witness Abraham begetting Isaac? Of course not. Then that is not an eyewitness account.

What about the nativity, the flight to Egypt, the dreams Joseph had, the angelic message to Mary? What about the temptation in the wilderness, or the Transfiguration, or Jesus' agony on the Mount of Olives? The death of John the Baptist? The death of Judas? The conspiracy to betray Jesus? The discovery of the tomb?

Matthew narrates all of these events in his gospel. Which ones are you claiming he personally witnessed?
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
No, we do not know of that. Unless you're taking the position that Paul seeing something that he believed to be Jesus is close enough to count as a direct observation of Jesus, in which case, we have far more firsthand accounts of the risen Elvis.
Click to expand...
According to Acts, on the road to Damascus, Paul didn't actually even see Jesus, there was just a bright light and he claims to have heard Jesus's voice.

There is another claim that Paul saw Jesus "in a trance" so had a vision of Jesus in his head, but didn't actually see him with any eyes. Acts 22:17-21

The one time we might say Paul saw Jesus is when he presumably had a vision of Jesus when in prison (Acts 23:11). It says, "the Lord stood beside him"

The claim that Paul saw Jesus, even in spirit, is on very shaky ground.
 
pgwenthold said:
According to Acts, on the road to Damascus, Paul didn't actually even see Jesus, there was just a bright light and he claims to have heard Jesus's voice.

There is another claim that Paul saw Jesus "in a trance" so had a vision of Jesus in his head, but didn't actually see him with any eyes. Acts 22:17-21

The one time we might say Paul saw Jesus is when he presumably had a vision of Jesus when in prison (Acts 23:11). It says, "the Lord stood beside him"

The claim that Paul saw Jesus, even in spirit, is on very shaky ground.
Click to expand...
I've never understood how people can be this gullible. Seriously, why do people living in the 21 century with all the benefits of modern science eschew all this and fall for a superstitious story in a bronze age sex manual told by illiterate goat herders?

While it is remotely (very remotely) possible that we saw someone die and that person was revived or resuscitated. Or even just appeared to have died and they awoke later. But that would never be the likely answer when all you have is a story in a book.

Especially when the book begins with an invisible wizard in the sky casting an incantation. And follows that with:
a talking snake,
a talking donkey,
900 year old men,
a guy being swallowed by a fish and surviving three days inside it.
a ten foot giant killed by a guy with a stone
The sound of horns knocking down stone walls.
A woman instantly being turned into a mound of salt.
A man being raped by his daughters.
A man with super human strength killing a thousand other men with the jawbone of a donkey.
And losing that strength if he cut his hair.
A walking staff turning into a snake.
And so on and so on.

Now one ridiculous story that is obviously false in a book doesn't mean that another ridiculous story in the same book is necessarily false. That said, the multitude of ridiculous stories should give warrant to dismissing the entire book. Including the ridiculous stories that have nothing but the book to attest to it.

The Bible is clearly fan fiction. No different, than the many episodes of Star Trek and Star Wars.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I've never understood how people can be this gullible. Seriously, why do people living in the 21 century with all the benefits of modern science eschew all this and fall for a superstitious story in a bronze age sex manual told by illiterate goat herders?

While it is remotely (very remotely) possible that we saw someone die and that person was revived or resuscitated. Or even just appeared to have died and they awoke later. But that would never be the likely answer when all you have is a story in a book.

Especially when the book begins with an invisible wizard in the sky casting an incantation. And follows that with:
a talking snake,
a talking donkey,
900 year old men,
a guy being swallowed by a fish and surviving three days inside it.
a ten foot giant killed by a guy with a stone
The sound of horns knocking down stone walls.
A woman instantly being turned into a mound of salt.
A man being raped by his daughters.
A man with super human strength killing a thousand other men with the jawbone of a donkey.
And losing that strength if he cut his hair.
A walking staff turning into a snake.
And so on and so on.

Now one ridiculous story that is obviously false in a book doesn't mean that another ridiculous story in the same book is necessarily false. That said, the multitude of ridiculous stories should give warrant to dismissing the entire book. Including the ridiculous stories that have nothing but the book to attest to it.

The Bible is clearly fan fiction. No different, than the many episodes of Star Trek and Star Wars.
Click to expand...
I have faith its true, and that's all I need.

:ROFLMAO:
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Yeahbut, goddidit, so it must be true...
Click to expand...
Have you ever noticed that they only believe their own religion's ridiculous stories without good evidence? You don't see many Christians claiming it is fact that Mohammed flew to the moon on a winged horse or Thor's hammer causes thunder or that Ra's chariot moves the sun across the sky every day.
 
@mikegriffith1 , what are you hoping to get out of this?

You must already know that no one here will be impressed by theist arguments just because the arguer is a scientist.

You must already know that the kind of half-assed, naive textual criticism he offers is not at all in the same class of observation and reasoning that tells us the electron is extremely spherical.

You must already know that this kind of ill-considered, incomplete apologia only beclowns your faith.

So why do you persist? Why do you insist on posting and defending such nonsense, that you must know is nonsense, and that you must know will be rightly received as nonsense here.

Maybe there's a good argument for Christianity out there, somewhere. But this ain't it. And I have to believe you already know this ain't it.
 
acbytesla said:
A man being raped by his daughters.
Click to expand...
Hey, cut the man some slack, he was wasted! So wasted that he couldn't even tell he was having sex with his own daughter, but not so wasted that he could still get it up. Because that happens all the time.

Then again, maybe the guy was just a drunken child molester? Nah, what are the chances of that happening?

Seriously, I think the story of Lot derives from the situation where Lot, a respected elder in the village, went away with his wife and daughters. He showed up a few years later with no wife and each of his daughters with a child. They ask, what happened to your wife? Where did those children come from?

So Lot gives him this story about how his wife was killed by God and how his daughters got him drunk to get pregnant. Being an upright and respected man of the village, they are all like, it's a miracle! Praise God! But in reality, he was just a drunken child molester who murdered his wife.

To the extent it's true, I'm sure that's what it was.
 
?
pgwenthold said:
Hey, cut the man some slack, he was wasted! So wasted that he couldn't even tell he was having sex with his own daughter, but not so wasted that he could still get it up. Because that happens all the time.

Then again, maybe the guy was just a drunken child molester? Nah, what are the chances of that happening?

Seriously, I think the story of Lot derives from the situation where Lot, a respected elder in the village, went away with his wife and daughters. He showed up a few years later with no wife and each of his daughters with a child. They ask, what happened to your wife? Where did those children come from?

So Lot gives him this story about how his wife was killed by God and how his daughters got him drunk to get pregnant. Being an upright and respected man of the village, they are all like, it's a miracle! Praise God! But in reality, he was just a drunken child molester who murdered his wife.

To the extent it's true, I'm sure that's what it was.
Click to expand...
As opposed to a man maybe killing his wife and being extra friendly with his daughters?
 
acbytesla said:
Have you ever noticed that they only believe their own religion's ridiculous stories without good evidence? You don't see many Christians claiming it is fact that Mohammed flew to the moon on a winged horse or Thor's hammer causes thunder or that Ra's chariot moves the sun across the sky every day.
Click to expand...
I always liked this quote as it does rather capture this ridiculous take on selected religious belief,

Stephen F. Roberts:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
 
You can believe me or not if you want, but I will tell you, I am a PhD scientist.

And I say the guy who is the subject of this thread is wrong.

OK, there. You now have a scientist to refute your scientist.

Why do you believe him and not me?
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Yeahbut, goddidit, so it must be true...
Click to expand...
Everything in the bible is literally true except....

The bits which are contradictory, which go to prove that the bible is a reliable source (if everything agreed it wouldn't, like if all the suspects have the exact same story, they must have colluded), and so the non-contradictory bits are literally true except....

The bits that are obviously ridiculous, they're allegorical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom