Christian

Walruss,

The Bible can be used to rule out some supernatural truth claims, but not all.

I would say simply look at all the available data and determine what the most probable explanation is. That's probably oversimplifying the process, but that is basically how I think it should be done.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Which doesn't really address your question of criteria, does it?

It's a good question. Let me think more on this and I'll come back to it.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Biff,

Is TOO possible!

In fun,

Christian

Christian

Biff,

That is not medically possible.

Please define “real crucifixion.”

Do you even understand how crucifixion killed people??? Tying ropes around the chest to speed the suffocation process would have been merciful.

Because some roman soldiers who probably had seen more death and gore than a platoon of marines verified that He was dead. There was no point in killing Him quickly by breaking His legs because He was already dead.





And if the centurion had been mistaken about His death, then he would have been killed himself.

But Pilate gave permission for His body to be taken. It seems that Pilate is only an expert when it’s consistent with your assumed conclusion.

That’s an interesting criteria for proving death. Do you think anyone in the first century ever really died? Maybe they all just looked sort of dead.

It is medically impossible to fake death by crucifixion. Tremendous exertion and movement is required for every breath. Even a small breath would have been dramatically visible. How long would you be able to go without breathing in order to fake your death?

Can you offer any evidence that Jesus’ tomb had a door that could be opened from the inside?

Can you offer any evidence that “expensive roll away doors” designed for such a purpose existed in 1st century Palestine?

Again, can you provide any evidence that such a custom existed in first century Palestine?

But that is beside the point. It is medically impossible to fake death by crucifixion.

Is too!

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Mike,

I defer to scholar Paul Maier:

"This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rom, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian ... it was a 'cosmic' or 'world event.' Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137AD reported that in the fourth year of the 202d Olympiad (i.e. 33 AD) there was 'the greatest eclipse of the sin' and that 'it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.' "

Paul L. Maier, "Pontius Pilate" (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1968), 366, citing a fragment from Phlegon, "Olympiades he Chronika 13", ed Otto Keller, "Rerum Naturalium Scriptores Graeci Minores, 1 (Leipzig: Teurber, 1877), 101. Translation by Maier.

And that's not counting the reference by Thallus. (don't have the citation off hand.)

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Volker,

If I understand what you are saying, then you may well be the most complete naturalist posting on this thread. You don't seem to be into anything only half way. I can respect that.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Autonemesis,

But what if the word was spread and 100 different astronomers geographically separated all saw the new comet, which promptly vanished never to appear again. That’s a significant chunk of evidence that the comet did exist (Not as compelling as 500 eye witnesses, but still …). And yet “we can’t hope to measure it’s effects consistently and credibly.” No one time event can be measured consistently because it only happened that one time.

Since you equate “can’t hope to measure it’s effects consistently and credibly” with “admitting the phenomena isn’t real” … you would be forced to conclude that a comet witnessed by 100 different astronomers looking through 100 different telescopes was not real. Such a comet never actually existed.

Why is a lack of repeatability a reason to declare that something doesn’t exist?

You can’t explain, so you deny the possibility that the phenomena actually happened? That makes no sense to me. Even if you intend all of your statements as mere assumptions, that still means that if you can’t explain something then you assume that it doesn’t exist.

I’m no closer to understanding you.

We’re probably working from different definitions, but if something IS supernatural then discovering that fact advances our knowledge about that phenomenon. Why would you have no interest in what the actual attributes of a phenomenon are?

Learning more facts about a thing is by definition advancing our knowledge of that thing. Why would that be different when it comes to knowing the specific attribute of natural or supernatural?

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rhea,

That is a perfect example of “begging the question,” the logical fallacy that Lewis warned about in the example of Sennacherib. You are assuming your conclusion in the premise you assert. From the II Logic Page:

Start with the premise that mice doing anything is more probable than angels doing anything … and you will conclude that the mice story is more probable every single time.

And how do you know that there are no instances of angels doing anything? Because in examples like Sennacherib the mice are the more rational explanation.
How do you know the mice are the more rational explanation? Because there are no instances of angels doing anything.
How do you know there are no instances of angels doing anything?
Etc, etc, etc.

It’s circular reasoning. You are begging the question here, the fallacy Lewis anticipated.

LOL! Manly surrender is a contradiction in terms, you know.

I do see your point. Reading Lewis’ quote in context though I think he was simply providing an example of a (claimed) supernatural explanation that was more probable than a (claimed) natural explanation of an event. More rational if you don’t assume your conclusion, in any case. I don’t think he was trying to present an airtight case that it had to have been the angels. He had just asserted that a supernatural explanation can be more rational than a natural explanation, and he was providing an example to support that specific point.

BTW … if Lewis interests you at all I would highly recommend the book “God in the Dock.” It’s a collection of short articles by him on purely theological topics. It’s the sort of things I can imagine Lewis posting on Internet forums!

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

alek0,

You misunderstand my assertion. I'm not claiming that no human has ever experienced as much suffering as Jesus did. I'm saying that after a point you simply acknowledge that what we are talking about is a gargantuan, unthinkable, really stupendous amount of suffering here. I assert that what Jesus experienced meets that threshold. There are certainly other examples of people experiencing the "dirtiest pain and suffering" of this world and a "most painful death," etc. I am not knowingly trivializing any suffering. Rather, I suggest that you are.

I suppose it would depend on the specific example. But I'm certain there are examples of death through cancer that would fall into the same realm of pain and suffering as Jesus' torture and execution.

Again, I suggest that you misunderstood what I was asserting. Jesus not only abandoned the infinite to experience the finite, He also chose to experience poverty and rejection and all sorts of the worst parts of being human. Including dying one of the most tortuous painful deaths that history has ever recorded ... crucifixion.

The uniqueness of Jesus is not in the extent of suffering He endured. That was staggering great, inconceivable to me, but not unique. What was unique about Jesus was Who He was. His identity.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rhea,

Absolutely. Purpose can mitigate pain and suffering to an extent, but only to an extent. Read through the description I offered again. Can you really say that experience is something you wouldn't dread, even if you had the highest motivations and the most complete foreknowledge???

Jesus was tortured for much longer than 3 hours. Please read my description again.

Set aside the religious overtones ... what if it was someone other than Jesus. If "Billy Bob" was about to go through the torture and execution I have described, what would you think then? Let's say that Billy Bob has a very complete foreknowledge of what will happen. For the past 3 years Billy Bob has been forced to watch Roman floggings and Crucifixions at least once a day, oftentimes many more. Every single time he watches that he is told "this is exactly what is going to happen to you on 1 April 2003." The day grows closer and closer. Can you honestly make the claim that Billy Bob would experience no stress because he knows what is coming? I suggest just the opposite. Foreknowledge of something that horrible would serve to increase the dread and horror as the day approached. We're not talking about going to the dentist here ... we're talking about horrible mutilation and torture and pain, and slow death. Is your perspective so skewed that a 3 hour death by suffocation sounds quick and painless to you?

I knew four months ahead of time that I was assigned to Korea and would be separated from my wife for a year. Guess what ... the dread of leaving only got worse and worse as the day approached. It was the worst the day before I left. I had the benefit of foreknowledge, but that didn't make it less difficult.

I just don't see any reason to think that foreknowledge of horrible torture makes it any easier to endure horrible torture. Please enlighten me if I am missing something here.

I agree that hope, understanding, and purpose are things that Jesus had. And I agree that such things can mitigate pain and suffering to an extent. But only to an extent. You can't mitigate death by mutilation and slow suffocation into something less than completely horrible.

I suggest that if we were talking about anyone other than Jesus you would consider the pain and suffering to be horrible. Even if that person had whatever advantages Jesus might have had.

And now is exploited on the internet in order to promote the atheist world view? Good grief.

I don't understand. How would Jesus dreading His torture and death by slow suffocation prove those things to you?

Significantly greater torture? Significantly greater in what way?

Respectfully,

Christian