Ting som kan tyde på at oppstandelsen fant sted

[_Glory_Host]

Ja, men jeg hadde ikke trodd på det fordetom Kunne vært gode CGI-effekter

 

 

Trodde ateister var "fritenkere" jeg...

[Pricks]

Det er ikke "fritenkende" å tro at bilder ikke kan manipuleres.

[Petrvs Romanvs]

Det viktigste i Bibelen er det som står mellom linjene

[chokke]

Det viktigste i Bibelen er det som står mellom linjene

Ingenting med andre ord?

[Gjest Bruker-95147]

Den som leter, finner!

[Kakestykke]

Hva er relevansen til naturalistisk darwinisme? Ateister studerer ikke kosmologi fordi det ikke støtter verdensbildet deres så mye som de skulle ønske.

 

At universet er så utrolig fininstilt er ikke en uintelligent effekt. Grand Canyon er et naturlig resultat og Mount Rushmore skriker etter å få folk til å skjønne at det er designet. Hvordan kan dere seriøst åpne øynene deres og tro dette er en tilfeldighet som skjedde over en lang tidsperiode? Uten en designer ser naturen ut til å peke mot maksimum uorden, synes dere ikke?

 

Jesus sa han var veien, sannheten og livet, og så vidt meg bekjent har oppstandelsen bestått granskning fra mange historiske og naturalistiske synsvinkler. Kristendommen dealer med livets vanskeligste problemer. En masse kristne kan ikke forklare seg selv vitenskapelig (inkludert meg). Jeg mener at vitenskapen er en dårlig måte å søke sannhet fordi det er rett og slett en metode laget av mannen for å forstå ting på en måte mennesker kan enes om. La meg spørre dere et spørsmål: Hvor kom "selvet" deres fra hvis materie er alt som eksisterer? Selvet deres er den delen av dere som inneholder det dere er.

 

God jul til alle!

[teflonpanne]

Hva er relevansen til naturalistisk darwinisme? Ateister studerer ikke kosmologi fordi det ikke støtter verdensbildet deres så mye som de skulle ønske.

Jeg tror det er fler ateister som studerer kosmologi enn religiøse. Har du kilde?

 

At universet er så utrolig fininstilt er ikke en uintelligent effekt.

Jo. Hvis det f.eks er uendelig mange universer er det ikke noe rart.

 

Grand Canyon er et naturlig resultat og Mount Rushmore skriker etter å få folk til å skjønne at det er designet.

Hæ?

 

Hvordan kan dere seriøst åpne øynene deres og tro dette er en tilfeldighet som skjedde over en lang tidsperiode?

Vi har naturlige forklaringer på det meste av det vi ser rundt oss.

 

Uten en designer ser naturen ut til å peke mot maksimum uorden, synes dere ikke?

Nei, ikke når det fins lovbunde prosesser.

 

Jesus sa han var veien, sannheten og livet, og så vidt meg bekjent har oppstandelsen bestått granskning fra mange historiske og naturalistiske synsvinkler.

Nope, det har den ikke.

 

Kristendommen dealer med livets vanskeligste problemer.

Mange er problemer lagd av religionen selv, og vi kan finne humane løsninger på de andre problemene vi støter på.

 

En masse kristne kan ikke forklare seg selv vitenskapelig (inkludert meg). Jeg mener at vitenskapen er en dårlig måte å søke sannhet fordi det er rett og slett en metode laget av mannen for å forstå ting på en måte mennesker kan enes om.

Haha. Ser du hva du selv skriver?

 

La meg spørre dere et spørsmål: Hvor kom "selvet" deres fra hvis materie er alt som eksisterer? Selvet deres er den delen av dere som inneholder det dere er.

"Selvet" er en elektrokjemisk prosess i hjernen. Helt naturlig.

[Petrvs Romanvs]

Ingenting med andre ord?

L'enfer, c'est les autres

Oversatt blir det: helvete er andre mennesker, det er nå hva jeg ser mellom linjene

[Red Frostraven]

Hva er relevansen til naturalistisk darwinisme? Ateister studerer ikke kosmologi fordi det ikke støtter verdensbildet deres så mye som de skulle ønske.

 

At universet er så utrolig fininstilt er ikke en uintelligent effekt. Grand Canyon er et naturlig resultat og Mount Rushmore skriker etter å få folk til å skjønne at det er designet. Hvordan kan dere seriøst åpne øynene deres og tro dette er en tilfeldighet som skjedde over en lang tidsperiode? Uten en designer ser naturen ut til å peke mot maksimum uorden, synes dere ikke?

 

Fininstillt?

 

Alt er energi.

E=MC^2

 

Energi følger naturlovene, et mønster.

Uten mønsteret ville ikke logikk eksistert, og uten logikk ville ikke vi kunne eksistert.

Naturlovene er påkrevd for at vi skal kunne ha en diskusjon -- og at naturlovene eksisterer tyder på ingen måte at det finnes noen gud, det er kun en forutsetning for at vi skal kunne ha diskusjonen og leve.

Uten naturlovene ville ikke vi vært her i dag.

Kanskje naturlovene er midlertidig -- vi vet ikke.

 

Du mener bortsett fra at hele universet er i ferd med å rives i filler (the big rip), bli kaldt og dødt (alle solene vil dø om noen milliarder år) mens sorte hull sluker all masse (sorte hull blir bare fler og større) og supernovaer sender ut dødlig stråling jevnlig (og stadig oftere) og meteorer slår ned i hytte og pine (og finnes i et antall som ikke kan skrives med tall) mens solene spyr ut radioaktive isotoper og livsfarlig stråling -- mens livet på jorden kun er mulig fordi jorden har en heldig atmosfære som er unikt for de millioner av planeter vi kjenner?

 

Å si at jorden har atmosfæren fordi vi skal bo her er å bytte om årsaken og effekten:

Det finnes millioner av observerte solsystem som ikke har liv og ikke kan ha liv.

Vi sitter her i dag fordi vår planet støtter liv -- og noen andre ville kanskje sittet på en annen planet dersom den støttet liv i stedet.

 

Evolusjon forklarer naturens orden helt perfekt: Alt som ikke er i stand til å leve vil dø, og alt som er i stand til å leve lever såfremt det ikke blir utkonkurert.

 

 

Og så...

Mount Rushmore... design?

Det er mennesker som hugget ut hodene av amerikanske presidenter.

 

Og til slutt...

Religion gir mening... til dem som er villig til å støtte seg til de enkle forklaringene religion gir.

Bibelen beskriver en flat jord, med et fast himmel-hav og liten sol som kredtser mellom havet her nede og havet der oppe.

Bibelen har ikke engang forstått sammenhengen mellom solen og planter (gud skapte angivelig plantene før han skapte solen), og stjernene er bare skinnende objekter i himmelhavet -- og selv i det nye testamentet beskrives en flat jord; når Satan viser Jesus alle verdens byer fra toppen av ETT fjell...

 

Tenkt deg følgende:

Vi er en tilfeldighet, og vi er ikke *ment* å leve -- ingenting bryr seg om vi lever eller ikke, utenom oss.

Universet vil ikke og tar ikke ta hensyn til oss, og universet er ikke skapt for liv.

Jorden og stjernen vår har en begrenset levealder.

Vi er ikke toppen av noe skaperverk, vi er faktisk ikke på noen måte fulkomne:

Vi er intelligente, relativt sett, og har såvidt begynt å forstå universet -- men har vanvittig mye igjen å lære.

 

Jeg skal ikke engang begynne å liste alle grunnene til at alt dette virker mest sansynlig, men...

ingen religion gir noe fullkomment svar på hvorfor universet er så utrolig flinkt til å drepe og ødelegge.

Naturlovene sier at alt liv skal dø.

Endret 25. desember 2007 av Andre1983

[Kakestykke]

To interessante svar. Jeg skal komme tilbake til dette så snart ribba er fortært.

[Kakestykke]

Dersom man kan motbevise oppstandelsen, er kristendommen verdiløs. Det er jeg enig med dere i. Det var helt klart også Apostelen Pauls mening (se http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...12-34;&vers

ion=31; ). Kristendommen kan pakke og dra hjem i så tilfelle. Paul var en veldig devoted jøde før han fikk høre om Jesus( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31; )

 

John feier all tvil til side: Jesus var død etter korsfestelsen

( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...mp;version=31;)

 

MEN: I stedet for å akseptere oppstandelsen, har folk forsøkt å finne på andre forklaringer:

 

Innvending nr 1: Både jødene og romerne sa Jesu lik var stjelt for å få det til å se ut som om han hadde stått opp. Men i det tilfellet døde jo disiplene for en løgn!!! Mange av dem ble torturert fordi de sverget. Innvendingen feiler.

 

Innvending nr 2: Noen sier jødene stjal liket. Men hvorfor tok de ikke fram liket igjen da kristne gikk rundt og sa han sto opp? Innvendingen feiler.

 

Innvending nr 3: Noen sier Jesus ikke var død. Dette er tull. De historiske fortellingene om hans død bekrefter at han var død. Mark 15:44-45

Centurionens jobb var å gjøre det utvilsomt at de henrettede var døde. Jobben avhang av dette. John 19:34-35 Innvendingen feiler.

 

Det ville dessuten vært umulig for en ekstremt hardt skadet mann å komme seg ut av graven uten medisinsk assistanse. Flytte på en gedigen stein. Sloss med den romerske vakten som voktet graven. Don't think so!

 

Innvending nr. 4: Noen sier at kvinnene gikk til feil grav. At graven var tom, men at Jesus aldri hadde blitt lagt der. MEN: Mark 15:47 sier at Maria Magdalena så hvor Jesus ble lagt. Hun var en av kvinnene som oppdaget den tomme graven. Det var graven til en veldig kjent mann: Josef av Aritmathea. Og dersom kvinnene GIKK til gal grav, hvordan kan det ha seg at ingen gikk til riktig grav for å sjekke?? Innvendingen feiler.

 

Bevisene ser virkelig ut til å peke mot at Jesus sto opp fra graven.

 

Og NT bekrefter dette.

 

Cor 15:6...Mer enn 500 folk så Jesus samtidig. Mange av dem fortsatt i live mens Paul levde. Han skriver selv: "Check it out with any of them"

 

- Thomas var en skeptiker. Han så selv Jesus. John 20:28

 

Frank Morrison prøvde å motbevise oppstandelsen. Mens han skrev boka si ble han overbevist om at det var sant, og han ble en kristen! Les boka "Who moved the stone?".

Endret 25. desember 2007 av Kakestykke

[_Glory_Host]

Jo. Hvis det f.eks er uendelig mange universer er det ikke noe rart.

 

Pur anntagelse, ingen beviser. Dessuten ser jeg vanskeligheter med å kalle det en vitenskapelig teori, siden det er umulig å falsifisere påstanden.

 

Energi følger naturlovene, et mønster.

Uten mønsteret ville ikke logikk eksistert, og uten logikk ville ikke vi kunne eksistert.

Naturlovene er påkrevd for at vi skal kunne ha en diskusjon -- og at naturlovene eksisterer tyder på ingen måte at det finnes noen gud, det er kun en forutsetning for at vi skal kunne ha diskusjonen og leve.

 

Er så klart enig i at naturlovene er påkrevd for å kunne ha diskusjon. Men du må fortsatt forklare opphavet for naturlovene. Hvorfor er de slik de er? Hvis du sier tilfeldighet, så må du forklare den matematisk latterlige lille sjangsen det er for at lovene ble akkurat slik de ble slik at vi kunne leve. Hvis du sier nødvendighet, må du gi en grunn hvorfor det er nødvendig at de ble akkurat slik de ble.

 

Ser også at du hinter til det argumentet med at siden vi lever, så trenger vi ikke å spekulere over de små sjangsene for at de ble slik. Fordi hvis de ikke ble slik, så hadde vi ikke vært her for å diskutere.

 

Dette er jo så klart et dårlig argument. Si at hundre soldater skal henrette deg. Alle sammen skyter samtidig mot deg, men til din store forbauselse, treffer absolutt ingen. Du sier da så klart ikke: "Det er ikke vits å diskutere dette, fordi det at de bommet er jo grunnlaget for at jeg kan tenke over dette".

 

Faktum er at det er mange konstanter i naturen som må være akkurat slik de er for at vi skal leve, og en forklaring må gis hvorfor de er akkurat slik de er. Det er enda ikke gitt noen grunn for hvorfor de er sånn de er.

 

 

Religion gir mening... til dem som er villig til å støtte seg til de enkle forklaringene religion gir.

 

 

Det er ikke det inntrykket jeg har..

 

Bibelen beskriver en flat jord, med et fast himmel-hav og liten sol som kredtser mellom havet her nede og havet der oppe.

 

Bibelen beskriver ikke en flat jord. Du tenker sikkert på vers som bruker språk som alle bruker, altså jordens hjørner osv. Kan gjerne skrive mer om det senere hvis du vil kverulere

 

De to andre påstandene vil jeg gjerne høre mer begrunnelse for..

 

 

Bibelen har ikke engang forstått sammenhengen mellom solen og planter (gud skapte angivelig plantene før han skapte solen), og stjernene er bare skinnende objekter i himmelhavet -- og selv i det nye testamentet beskrives en flat jord; når Satan viser Jesus alle verdens byer fra toppen av ETT fjell...

 

Kan ikke svare for andre kristne, men jeg tolker ikke skapelsen i 1. mosebok bokstavelig, og ser ingen problemer med at det er bare en billedlig berretning. Ordbruket i den forslår dette også..

 

Når det gjelder Satan, Jesus og fjellet, så virker det som om du har en "skyldig til det motsatte er bevist"-holdning. Tror du ikke menneskene på den tiden visste at man ikke kan se hele jorden fra et fjell? Det er jo hårreisende å anta at menneskene var en gjenge uvitende personer som ikke visste at hvis man gikk opp på et fjell, så fikk man en fin utsikt over deler av riket, men ikke hele jorden.

 

 

 

 

Vil gjerne diskutere mer senere, men nå må jeg avslutte grunnet tid

[Kakestykke]

Jeg legger ved litt info vedrørende om NT er troverdig (på engelsk).

 

Is The New Testament Trustworthy?

 

 

 

1. Non-Christian writings about Jesus

 

Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus, born 52-54 AD, was the greatest Roman historian of his day. Writing in 112 AD, he recounts how Nero was widely suspected to have been responsible for the fire of Rome in AD 64, and how he sought to divert attention from himself by fastening the blame on the hated ‘Christians’. Tacitus goes on to briefly describe how these Christians had come into being:

 

Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate [in] Judaea. The deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, broke out afresh not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but also in the City [of Rome], where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world meet and become popular.

Annals of lmperial Rome XV. 44

 

Josephus

Flavius Josephus was an aristocratic Jew and an historian, born in 37 AD. He was also aware of the ‘Christians’, and wrote of them and their founder. It is significant that his account agrees in historical detail both with Tacitus and the Gospels.

 

He [Ananus] assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

 

Antiquities XX 9:1

 

Pliny the Younger

Pliny was a friend of Tacitus, and Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. He wrote to the Emperor Trajan to ask his advice on how to deal properly with the Christians in his province, whom he was persecuting. He explains that when they were being tried, the Christians defended themselves as not being guilty of any crime:

 

They [the Christians] affirmed, however, that the sum of their ‘guilt’ or ‘error’ was that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god. They then bound themselves by a solemn oath not to do wicked deeds, but rather never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.

Epistles, X.96

 

Suetonius

Suetonius was another Roman historian, who also writes about the troubles in Rome regarding the Christians.

 

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [another spelling of Christus], he [Claudius) expelled them from Rome.

 

Life of Claudius 25.4

 

Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

Lives of the Caesars 26.2

 

2. The historical reliability of the New Testament documents

 

The 27 books of the New Testament were written between 40 and 100 AD. Few serious historians doubt this, nor is there much argument that what we read in our modern New Testaments is the same as what was originally written (except for some very minor variations). There are several reasons for this confidence.

 

A. The sheer number of early manuscripts

Although there are no copies of the original manuscripts in existence, we now have more than 24,000 early manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament. Around 5,300 of these are in Greek, and the remainder are early translations into other languages (such as Latin). By analysing this vast amount of manuscript evidence, it is possible to establish with a great deal of certainty a version of the text very close to the original.

 

B. The closeness in time to the original

Not only do we have a great many manuscripts, but a number of them are quite close in time to the original. The earliest manuscript portions date from 125 AD (although the recently discovered ‘Jesus papyri’ may date from around 70 AD); existing copies which contain much or all of the New Testament date from around 200 AD.

 

If this gap sounds like quite a period of time, it is worth making a comparison with other ancient documents, such as Homer’s Iliad, or the works of Plato, Caesar or Sophocles. These ancient works, the authenticity of which no modern scholar would question, do not even come close to the New Testament in either the number of manuscripts or closeness in time to the original

 

Sir Frederick Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum puts it like this:

 

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.

 

The Bible and Archaeology, p. 288.

 

3. Can we trust the Gospels?

It is one thing to establish that the Gospels have come down to us as they were written, but can we trust that what they record is true? Is it possible that they are fictional, or partly fictional? Professor E.A.Judge doesn’t think so:

 

An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as an historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth or legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it.

 

(E. A. Judge. Emeritus Professor of History, and Director of the Ancient History.

Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, retired 1996).

 

Just how much can we trust the material in Jesus’ biographies? The following short article by John Chapman addresses these questions.

 

Do you believe everything you read?

We are a strange mixture of gullibility and scepticism. If I say to you, “Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?”, you would probably say, “No”. And I would agree. However, the fact is that we usually do believe it for no other reason than that it is printed in the paper! We may be more discriminating when it comes to television advertising. We know when the salesman says, ‘I wouldn’t do this commercial if it were not true”, that there’s a better than even chance he is lying. However, when the newsreader appears on the box, meticulously groomed, dispensing information probably of unknown origin, but in such a cultured authoritative voice, then we will probably think what he says is true.

 

What makes an historical record accurate anyway? I would want to ask these questions: Was the writer an eyewitness to the event? If not, from where did he get his information? Do we have any verifying histories available from other authors? Were they published in the lifetime of eyewitnesses? How soon after the event were they written? Have they been transmitted accurately? Does the historian have an ‘axe to grind’ or some biased motive ? Do his other utterances ring true?

 

When I submit the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—to these tests, I am satisfied that they do give us a reliable history of Jesus.

 

Were the Gospel writers eye-witnesses?

The apostles were with Jesus during his entire ministry. Matthew and John’s Gospels are eye-witness accounts. There is an old but unproven tradition that Mark’s Gospel is really the apostle Peter’s account recorded for him by Mark; Luke tells us that he himself is not an eyewitness but, he also tells from where he got his information.

 

It is clear to any reader of the four Gospels that Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a strong similarity, although each has his distinctive style and aim. It still remains ‘a matter of debate amongst New Testament scholars as to whether they copied from each other or whether they had access to some earlier documents which are now lost.

 

The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is quite independent. Apart from the death and resurrection of Jesus, he hardly duplicates any of the stories in the other Gospels. It seems as if he did not have access to the other Gospels at the time he wrote his. This means that we have at least two complete independent histories, which makes very valuable evidence. Often a document from antiquity stands alone with no other against which to check it. A good exercise would he to read Luke’s Gospel and then John’s. Then ask yourself, “Is the Jesus as portrayed in one, the same as in the other?” I am convinced he is, and it has given me much confidence in the Gospels as accurate, first hand eye-witness accounts.

 

As you read through Matthew and John you will see the eye-witness touches about them. Matthew 28:17 is a good example. “When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted”. The piece of information “but some doubted” is an interesting sidelight. It doesn’t do anything for the story or for the ‘cause’. If anything it weakens the case for the resurrection. So why does Matthew insert it? Because he remembered it like that! Notice the eye-witness touch in John 6: 10. It is the description of the feeding of the five-thousand. “There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them.” No doubt you would remember the lush green of a pleasant spring picnic and even comment on it but would you bother to say so if you hadn’t been there?

 

Some years ago, a well known author and television script writer, Tony Morphett, became a Christian. Before that, by his own choice, he had been an atheist. A set of circumstances occurred which resulted in his reading the New Testament. He said that he was impressed with the Gospels: “I had spent all my working life writing scripts which were either documentary or fiction. When I came to the Gospels, I recognised that they were not fiction. They were documentary.”

 

Paul Barnett, Lecturer in New Testament history at Macquarie University and the University of Sydney, states. “While the Gospels have many distinctive features, they are in broad terms recognisable examples of history writers of their period. It is unhelpful and untrue to regard them merely as religious or theological works. They are also unmistakably historical in character. As historical sources of this period, they are just as valuable to the general historian as Josephus. Except, unlike Josephus, they are focused on one person and for a brief period.”

 

Luke, on the other hand, tells us that he is not an eyewitness. The introduction to his Gospel shows historical method:

 

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since 1 myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

 

It is an interesting introduction written to his patron, Theophilus, of whom we know nothing. But its value lies in several areas. We know that at the time of writing this Gospel, there were many accounts of the sayings and actions of Jesus available. These accounts claimed to have been handed down from eye- witnesses. Luke is anxious that his patron should know “the certainty” about what he had heard. He wants him to be sure, so the most practical way to do that is to go back to square one himself. He has gone back to ‘eye-witnesses’ so that ‘from the beginning’ he might record an ‘orderly account’.

 

That is the writer’s stated aim. His historical method is sound and tells us the purpose of this book. You may be interested to know that some of those other accounts have survived. The early church rejected them as accurate accounts either because they could not establish who the authors were or because they were proven to be forgeries.

 

But weren’t they all biased?

It has often been said to me that the Gospel writers were all convinced Christians and so they must be biased in their approach. This is partly true. They were thoroughly convinced that Jesus is the unique Son of God. However, the prior question is: What caused them to be convinced? John tells us that he has become convinced about Jesus and he has recorded the reasons so that we can be convinced (John 20:31).

 

The Gospel writers, unlike many editorial writers, present their case and their personal interest and conviction right from the start and invite us to examine their conclusions. Sometimes they record incidents from the life of Jesus, sometimes they write editorial comments. It is easy to spot, the difference. They make no effort to hide it. Most people don’t go to the trouble to write a book unless they are really interested in the subject, and interest in the subject leads to greater attention to detail.

 

One of the characteristics which the Gospel writers claim for Jesus is that he was a person who told the truth and encouraged others to do so. Jesus claimed to be the embodiment of truth. He taught his disciples to love truth and to prize it highly. To be a disciple of Jesus means to do as Jesus, did. Their interest in Jesus was likely to cause them to take greater care to check the facts than to make them up.

 

There is no doubt that they were convinced and completely absorbed by their subject. This is not the same as saying they must have been exaggerating because they were so convinced. If that were the case, it would mean we would never he able to get accurate information except from disinterested people. And disinterested people can often give us inaccurate accounts due to their lack of interest which causes them not to take care.

 

For further reading:

Paul Barnett, The Truth about Jesus (Aquilla Press, 1994)

Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament History (Paternoster, 1998)

Craig Blomberg, The historical reliability Of the Gospels (IVP, 1987)

 

This material compiled by Tony Payne.

Material by John Chapman taken from ‘A Fresh Start’ (Matthias Media).

 

 

NY ARTIKKEL

 

A LAWYER LOOKS AT THE RESURRECTION

 

 

Introduction

What do we make of a one-off historical event such as the Resurrection of Christ? Science cannot prove nor disprove the Resurrection, any more than it can prove that Julius Caesar or Napoleon existed, because it depends on the ability to re-examine or repeat. These matters are the province of the historian, not the scientist.

As well as historians, courts sometimes have to decide what occurred beyond the range of living memory. For example, in 1973 our High Court had to decide what happened at Port Moresby in 1886. The tools of trade of the judge in such a case, and of the ancient historian in every case, are historical evidence—what people wrote about the events, the evidence from archaeology, and circumstantial evidence. There is nothing special about this; it’s only commonsense.

The Christian approach to the evidence for the Resurrection is no different. From the very beginning Christians have appealed to the evidence. Luke 1:2 states that his narrative is based upon what he was told by those who from the beginning were eye witnesses. John 21:24 states “this is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” Peter in his sermon in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:32 said: “This Jesus God has raised up of which we are all witnesses.”

 

The documentary evidence

In trying to work out what happened on the first Easter, we have to rely on the historical documents of the New Testament. But this is not the only evidence available. There is also contemporary material from Roman and Jewish sources. The existence of Jesus, and significant facts about him and the early Church, are confirmed by the Roman authors Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny and the Jewish authors Josephus, Rabbi Eliezer and the Talmud.2 Courts consider that corroboration is an important guide to the truth and if a case is corroborated in important matters from independent sources or the other side, it is likely to be accepted.

It is also significant if you find that there incidental details in a person’s evidence, which can be checked from independent sources, and are correct. Luke, the author of his Gospel and Acts, placed the life of Jesus and the growth of the early Church in their context in secular history. In the opening chapters of his Gospel he refers to Herod, King of Judea and to the decree of Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled and such references appear throughout both books. With one possible and debatable exception, Luke’s secular history is accurate.3

 

The earliest written evidence for the Resurrection we can date with any precision is Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, written between AD 52 and 57, 20 years or so after the first Easter. Paul wrote:

 

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Then last of all he was seen by me also (1 Cor 15:3-8).

 

This is what he had told the Corinthians when he first met them about AD 50. He got his hearsay information when he went to Jerusalem about five years after the first Easter, and he appeals to the evidence of the eye witnesses, including himself (Acts 9:26).

 

This is a remarkable piece of historical evidence written at a very early date, when eye witnesses were still alive. Anzac Day this year has reminded us that there are still survivors of the First World War, 81 years after it ended, who remember what happened. I had first hand experience as a judge of a remarkable parallel. In February 1964, HMAS Melbourne sank HMAS Voyager. In October 1996, over 32 years later, I sat on the Court which heard the appeal by the Commonwealth from the award of damages by a jury to a Mr McLean who had been a sailor on Melbourne and claimed to have suffered post traumatic stress disorder. Our decision is in the official Law Reports.4

Survivors gave evidence at the trial and had the clearest recollection of what had happened. Under the Evidence Act 1995, Mrs McLean was able to say in court in 1996 what her husband had told her in 1964 shortly after the collision.5 Hearsay evidence, such as Luke has incorporated in his Gospel and Paul included in his letter to the Corinthians, is now accepted in court in civil cases if it was fresh in the memory of the original speaker. The 32 years in this case was longer than the interval of 20 years or so to the date of 1 Corinthians.

 

The gospel authors

We know quite a lot about the gospel authors. Mark was Peter’s secretary and records Peter’s eye witness version. Matthew and John were eye witnesses. Luke was a Greek physician who, as he says, set out to write a historical account based on the available written materials and the evidence of eye witnesses. He was a companion of Paul in his later journeys and went with him to Rome. He had the opportunity to speak to eye witnesses when he went to Jerusalem with Paul about AD 57,6 and during Paul’s two year imprisonment in Palestine which followed, and he may have met Peter and Mark in Rome.

 

Analysis of the Greek texts has established that Luke and Matthew borrowed some material from Mark, but not from each other or John. There is no evidence that John borrowed from any of the others. Matthew and Luke also borrowed from a written compilation of the sayings of Jesus designated Q, which has not otherwise survived. Mark borrowed from no other Gospel and was probably the first and this is supported by his text. He refers to the High Priest and his house without identifying either, just as we might refer to the current Prime Minister without naming him, but would name the Prime Minister if we were writing about events twenty years ago.7

 

Dating the gospels

About three years after the first Easter, Stephen was stoned to death by the mob in Jerusalem and persecution broke out which scattered the Church (Acts 7:54-8:1). Until then, the Church had largely been concentrated in Jerusalem where there was easy access to the apostles for first hand accounts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The scattering of the Church would have created an immediate need for written material about Jesus. It is likely that both Mark’s Gospel (or its predecessor) and Q came into existence about this time.

None of the Gospels refer to the Jewish War that broke out in AD 66 and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. John alone refers to the death of Peter (John 21:19), which took place in Rome under Nero some time after AD 60. We therefore have good reason to think that John’s Gospel was finished between then and the outbreak of the Jewish War in AD 66.8 The Book of Revelation written by him much later refers to the New Jerusalem which may well be an acknowledgement that the old one was in ruins (Revelation 21).

Dating the Gospels between the death of Stephen in AD 36-7 and the outbreak of war in AD 66 provides no reason to doubt their accuracy. The period between the first Easter and the outbreak of the Jewish War was about 32 years, the same as in the Voyager case. The Gospels were in circulation when eye witnesses, sympathetic and hostile, were still alive.

 

Difference in detail

Courts expect that evidence given by honest and reliable witnesses will agree in substance but differ in detail, and they view with suspicion witnesses who give the same evidence word for word.

 

This always suggests that they have put their heads together to make up their story. The Gospels are four substantially independent accounts of the events which agree in substance, but differ in details, and they pass this test. In addition the Epistles contain a wealth of uncontrived detail about the teachings and death of Jesus, which is consistent with the Gospel accounts.9

 

 

Do we have authentic records?

Of course we do not have the manuscripts signed by the gospel writers or Paul’s original letters. You are therefore entitled to ask how good, and how early, are our manuscripts, and how confident we can be that they have not been corrupted by constant recopying. Here again the news is good. The hot, dry climate of the Middle East has preserved papyrus manuscripts from very early in the Christian era. Fragments of the Gospels have been dated to AD 130 to 150.10 From then on, the volume and variety of manuscript material builds up steadily until we have two complete New Testaments dating from about AD 350—one in the Vatican and one in the British Museum, the latter only discovered in 1844 in a monastery on Mt Sinai.11

There are nearly 5,000 early manuscripts of the New Testament or parts of it in Greek. You may not be impressed by this but you ought to be. This early manuscript material is remarkably consistent. The scribes who copied manuscripts from earlier ones were faithful and accurate. There are some variations but none affect any of the central facts of the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. We also have early manuscripts in other languages—Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Latin, which are remarkably consistent both with the Greek material and each other.12

It is instructive to compare the wealth of surviving early material for the New Testament with the surviving manuscript material of the classical secular works of Greece and Rome:13

(a) The oldest surviving manuscript of Caesar’s Gallic Wars dates from AD 850, 900 years after his death. (From 1999 that takes us back to just after the Norman Conquest in 1066.) There are only ten good early manuscripts. Yet no one doubts the existence of Caesar, or the history recorded in these manuscripts.

(b) Most of the books of the Roman historians, Livy and Tacitus, have been lost.

© The works of the Greek historian Thuycidides (460-400 BC) survive in eight manuscripts, the earliest dating from AD 900, 1,300 years after the originals, and a similar situation applies to the works of Herodotas. These books are the basis of the known history of classical Greece.

(d) Alexander the Great died in 323 BC. The earliest surviving history of his life was written by Arrian about AD 130, 450 years after Alexander’s death. 450 years ago, Henry VIII had only been dead for two years. Arrian worked from books written after the death of Alexander by his generals and others which have not survived.14

 

The letters of the Church fathers, Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, written between AD 96 and 110, quote extensively from the New Testament and these quotations are consistent with the direct manuscript material.15

 

There is also archaeological evidence which confirms incidental matters mentioned in the Gospels and Acts (although of course it could never establish by itself that Jesus rose from the dead). Matters mentioned in the books which were once disputed are now confirmed. For instance, until recently there was no evidence outside Christian sources that there was a village called Nazareth at the time of Christ, and sceptical scholars claimed that it was a Christian invention.16 In 1962 a 4th century Jewish inscription was discovered in Israel near Caesarea which provides positive evidence of the existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus.17 Archaeological work in the Old City of Jerusalem has confirmed much of the details in the Gospels and Acts about that city.18 It would have been impossible to get all these incidental facts right if as some scholars and sceptics claim these books were written 100 years or more after the events when the city was in ruins.

 

Reasons to believe

Most of the pre-AD 350 manuscript material, the results of the analysis of the texts, and the archaeological evidence have only become available in the last 150 years. For most of the Christian era, people have not had the benefit of this evidence and research. From the beginning many have found the historical books of the New Testament self-authenticating. Those who read them with an open mind often became convinced that this was no myth and that these events really happened. No one could have made it up. The diagnosis of the human condition we find in these pages, and the moral teaching of Jesus they record have a freshness and power that can convince those who come with an open mind.

 

Can the New Testament documents themselves provide a proper evidentiary basis for Christian faith? A famous Australian wrote:

 

…having read and re-read the…documents to which reference has been made…I see no reason to doubt both their general accuracy and the veracity of those who compiled them. Indeed the more I have read them, the better opinion I have formed of the capacity of those who prepared them and the more convinced I am that they speak of events which actually took place as they are related.19

 

This was not a clergyman writing about the New Testament, it was Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice, writing about the official records and reports of 1886 in his judgement in the Port Moresby case in 1973. For nearly 2,000 years Christians have been saying the same thing about the historical books of the New Testament.

 

Circumstantial Evidence

What then about the circumstantial evidence? It is remarkable that we have even heard of Jesus. He was a carpenter who spent most of his life in a village in Palestine on the fringe of the Roman Empire. He was executed by the Jewish and Roman authorities nearly 2,000 years ago. He had no political or military power, occupied no position of influence, and left behind no holy book. He spent a lot of time training twelve men but one betrayed him. Consider his life’s work on the evening of the first Good Friday. He was dead and buried, his disciples had run away, and Peter had been so cowardly as to deny three times to servant women and others in the household of the High Priest that he even knew Jesus (Mark 14:66-71). To all appearances his mission had been a failure and the remaining apostles were in no state to carry it on.

However God was about to transform the situation by an act of supernatural power. Jesus’ return to life transformed the eleven apostles into men of courage and power. Starting in Jerusalem at the Feast of Pentecost, which falls this year on 23rd May, they proclaimed publicly that Jesus was alive again, and they had seen him in the flesh, spoken to him, and eaten with him. The proclamation was made in the city that had witnessed the triumphal entry on Palm Sunday, the trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, and the Crucifixion. Jesus’ return from the dead was first proclaimed in the city that had watched him die, about 6 weeks after the first Easter Sunday. This was not something that emerged at a time and place remote from the scene of the events.

How were these claims treated at the time? Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost added 3,000 new believers to the Church. Many did not believe, but the Jewish and Roman authorities took the claims so seriously that they resorted to persecution. They had no other answer. Peter and John were arrested twice within the first few weeks for preaching the resurrection. Stephen was martyred in Jerusalem about AD 35 and Roman persecution began under Nero after AD 60 and continued intermittently with great savagery for nearly three centuries. The Resurrection may be ignored or ridiculed today, but that was not the reaction at the time.

The claims were taken seriously in Jerusalem because Jesus was well known there for his teaching and his miracles, particularly the raising of Lazarus from the dead at Bethany only a few miles out of town not long before. John records that a great many Jews came there not only for Jesus’ sake, but that they might also see Lazarus (John 11:45). When the Chief Priests and Pharisees had earlier sent officials to arrest Jesus they returned empty-handed with the excuse, “No man ever spoke like this man” (John 7:46). The apostles were also able to show how prophesies in the Jewish scriptures about the Messiah had been fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus. Because of all this their claims about his Resurrection had a credibility that claims about anyone else would never have had.

Surveys reveal that more than 75% of Australians believe in God—they do not think the universe created itself. The Resurrection of course was an unprecedented event, but no trouble for a God who created the universe and life in all its forms. The apostles certainly thought that they had witnessed the result of a great supernatural event and they were transformed. When Peter and John were arrested in the weeks after Pentecost, they were brought before the Sanhedrin, which had effectively condemned Jesus to death only a few weeks before. There was no cowardice now; Peter told the Sanhedrin that the man they had crucified God had raised from the dead (Acts 4:10) and he and John refused to be silent although they knew they were risking their lives.

There have been many attempts to explain away the disappearance of the body of Jesus. Its been said that the women and the disciples went to the wrong tomb, the disciples stole his body, that Jesus didn’t really die but only lost consciousness, or that the whole thing was simply a spiritual experience for the apostles as Jesus came to life in their hearts.

These theories are inconsistent with the evidence and the probabilities. The Roman soldiers were professional executioners. One pierced Jesus’ side with a spear and out came blood and water, which is medical evidence of death. Because of this Jesus’ legs were not broken, but the legs of the two thieves were. His post-Resurrection appearances were not as a desperately sick cripple, but as a man in good health who could walk normally several miles to Emmaus on the First Easter Sunday. The wrong tomb explanation is pathetically weak—the error must have been discovered within a few hours. The ‘spiritual experience’ theory does not square with the evidence either. The risen Jesus ate a meal and Thomas felt the imprint of the nails in Jesus’ hands and of the spear in his side. His appearances lasted for only forty days and then ceased, to be repeated only once more to Paul on the road to Damascus. If the appearances of Jesus to his disciples were spiritual experiences, why did they suddenly cease and never occur again?

We may reject the historical evidence if we like, but what we cannot do is re-write it according to our preconceived ideas. Reputable historians and courts work with the evidence; they don’t alter it. The theories of so-called scholars 2,000 years after the events of the first Easter, which are not based on the historical evidence and are inconsistent with it, do not deserve to be taken seriously.

Finally there is the theory that the disciples stole his body and the whole story is a lie and a fraud. This is the least probable of all. The disciples preached and practised a high standard of personal ethics. They proclaimed the resurrection openly and fearlessly. Most died for their faith. We know from recent history that fraudulent conspirators are not prepared to suffer in silence to protect their conspiracy. You may remember how quickly the Watergate conspirators cracked when they faced jail. It would have been a tremendous propaganda victory for the Romans or the Jews to produce a disciple of Jesus who was prepared to say that the whole story was a lie. They never did—there was no second Judas.

The emergence of the Christian Church soon after the first Easter is attested from Jewish and Roman sources, and is itself an important piece of circumstantial evidence. For the first 300 years the Church grew by peaceful means, and in the face of official opposition, through the witness of individual Christians. Its existence and survival is testimony to the conviction with which the apostles and their successors preached the Resurrection, and to the credibility of that preaching.

Circumstantial evidence is considered important because of the way the circumstances can sometimes fit together and point to the same conclusion. For many years the standard direction to juries about circumstantial evidence has been that given by Chief Baron Pollock to the jury in Regina v Exall:20

 

It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain… but that is not so, for then, if any one link broke, the chain would fail. It is more like the case of a rope composed of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence—there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion, but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt…with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of.

 

In 1875 Lord Chancellor Cairns said in the Belhaven and Stenton Peerage21 in the House of Lords:

 

…in dealing with circumstantial evidence we have to consider the weight which is to be given to the united force of all the circumstances put together. You may have a ray of light so feeble that by itself it will do little to elucidate a dark corner. But on the other hand you may have a number of rays, each of them insufficient but all converging and brought to bear upon the same point and, when united, producing a body of illumination which will clear away the darkness which you are endeavouring to dispel.

The circumstantial evidence about the Resurrection points to only one conclusion, and the combined strength of the evidence is very great. After Jesus died, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took down his body, and wrapped it, mummy-style, in strips of linen heavily impregnated, as John records (19:39) with 100 lbs of embalming ointment and buried it in the tomb. When the women brought the news early on the Sunday morning that Jesus’ body was missing, Peter and John ran to the tomb. John tells us what happened: …the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came…and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief…folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple…went in also; and he saw and believed (John 20:4-8).

 

The text is powerfully understated. What did John see that made him believe? Clearly the whole mummy had not been removed. If the linen cloths had been unwound and only the body removed, it could have been the work of human hands. So the embalming cloths must have been intact, but with the weight of the ointment stiff with the cold of a Jerusalem Easter they had collapsed on themselves.

Death had not held Jesus nor had the embalming cloths. He had passed through both. John saw and believed. Will you read and believe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

1. Administration of Papua and New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 130 CLR 353.

2. Paul W. Barnett, Is the New Testament History, Hodder & Stoughton, Sydney, 1986, pp. 30-31.

3. F F Bruce The New Testament Documents 5th ed Inter Varsity Press, Leicester, 1992, pp. 81-6.

4. Commonwealth of Australia v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389.

5. Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 64.

6. Acts 21:15 (we … went up to Jerusalem).

7. Mark 14:53-65. Compare Matthew 26:3, 57-8; John 11:49.

8. Barnett op cit pp. 37-8, 65-6.

9. Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the logic of history , Apollos, Leicester, 1997, pp. 39-58.

10. Bruce, op cit . p. 17.

11. Bruce, op cit, p. 16; Barnett Is the New Testament History, p. 45.

12. Bruce ibid.

13. Bruce op cit p 16.

14. Barnett op cit p 41.

15. Barnett op cit pp 38-40, Bruce op cit pp 18-9.

16. Branscomb, The Gospel of Mark Hodder & Stoughton, 1937, p. 17 refers to sceptics who noted that Nazareth was not mentioned in the Old Testament, Josephus or the Talmud, and it had been said that the name of the sect—the Nazarites or the Nazarenes—had later been wrongly regarded as referring to a place. I am indebted to Bishop Barnett for this reference.

17. Barnett The Truth about Jesus, Aquila Press, Sydney, 1994, pp. 31-3; Finegan The Archeology of the New Testament , Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1969 (Nazareth p. 36).

18. Barnett, The Truth about Jesus, p. 35; Bruce, op cit, p. 94.

19. Administration of Papua and New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 130 CLR 353, 378-379.

20. (1866) 4 F&F 922, 929 (176 ER 850, 853).

21. (1875) 1 App. Cas. 278, 279.

 

Endret 26. desember 2007 av tom waits for alice

[_Glory_Host]

kakestykke, jeg vet ikke hvor effektivt det er å kopiere inn svære artikler, hva med å bare linke i stedet?

[whom]

Ja nå har lest ferdig (og ja, dobbelt opp i quote)

A piece of cake

 

Foreslår at du heller lenker til den gedigne artikkelen for så og hente ut oversatte utdrag du vil diskutere

 

Konklusjonen min forblir den samme, man kan ikkje bevise det ene eller det andre.

Men for all del, vi er på et diskusjonfora og er dømt til å spore litt av.

 

Dere har diskutert hvovidt Bibelen mente jorden var flat. Har et vers som tyder på det motsatte.

I Matt, 40, 39-42 står det:

39 og de skjønte ingenting før flommen kom og tok dem alle. Slik skal Menneskesønnens komme være. 40 Da skal to menn være ute på markene; én blir tatt med, én blir igjen. 41 To kvinner skal male sammen på kvernen; én blir tatt med, én blir igjen.

[Kakestykke]

OK, se bort ifra artiklene jeg limte inn. Jeg vet ikke hvor de er hentet fra, for jeg fikk de tilsendt på mail. Jeg kan sende en mail og spørre hvem som har skrevet det dersom noen er interessert. Jeg fikk fram de viktigste poengene mine i innlegget jeg selv skrev på norsk. Ta utgangspunkt i det for videre diskusjon.

[teflonpanne]

Jo. Hvis det f.eks er uendelig mange universer er det ikke noe rart.

 

Pur anntagelse, ingen beviser.

Tja, det ligger noen argumenter bak. Det er riktig som kakestykket sier, at når man oppdaget hvor finstilt universet er så pekte det på en gud som må ha stilt inn konstantene. Men det var det selvfølgelig mange som var skeptiske til, så man begynte å tenke på hva annet som kunne gjøre at universet er så fint innstilt. Det eneste logiske man kunne komme fram til uten gud, var at det måtte være uendelig mange universer. Og nå, noen tiår etterpå, så er det altså noen matematikere som mener de kan forklare hvorfor ting på kvantenivå må beskrives med statistikk hvis man går ut i fra at det fins uendelig mange universer. Det er ganske vanlig i fysikk, at noen først kommer med en ide, og så jobber man ut i fra den ideen for å se om universet stemmer overens med den.

 

Dessuten ser jeg vanskeligheter med å kalle det en vitenskapelig teori, siden det er umulig å falsifisere påstanden.

Ja, det er litt av problemet til strengteori også. Foreløpig vet vi ikke om vi noen gang kommer til å komme til buns og finne en teori for alt, det eneste vi kan gjøre er å fortsette å komme med ideer og se om vi kan forklare noen nye ting om universet med de.

 

Kakestykket: Nå gadd jeg ikke å lese all den teksten du postet, men å bruke bibelen som bevis er nytteløst. Det blir som å bruke bibelen som bevis for at jorda ble skapt på 7 dager. Jeg skjønner at kristne tror på Jesus oppstandelse, men det er svært få som ikke skjønner at bibelen ikke er et bevis på overnaturlige ting. Det er derfor de *tror* på oppstandelsen etc.

[_Glory_Host]

Tja, det ligger noen argumenter bak. Det er riktig som kakestykket sier, at når man oppdaget hvor finstilt universet er så pekte det på en gud som må ha stilt inn konstantene. Men det var det selvfølgelig mange som var skeptiske til, så man begynte å tenke på hva annet som kunne gjøre at universet er så fint innstilt. Det eneste logiske man kunne komme fram til uten gud, var at det måtte være uendelig mange universer. Og nå, noen tiår etterpå, så er det altså noen matematikere som mener de kan forklare hvorfor ting på kvantenivå må beskrives med statistikk hvis man går ut i fra at det fins uendelig mange universer. Det er ganske vanlig i fysikk, at noen først kommer med en ide, og så jobber man ut i fra den ideen for å se om universet stemmer overens med den.

 

Det peker kanskje litt på et problem med naturalistisk innstillte forskere. Det virker som om de ikke vil godta at det finnes en gud, og tyr da til all slags teorier.

 

Når det gjelder et uendelig antall universer, så mener jeg at tallet uendelig er en umulighet. Potensiell uendelig het er mulig, altså at man f.eks. deler opp en meter i mindre og mindre deler i evighet mot uendelighet, men ikke at man kan få en uendelig mengde av ting.

 

Ja, det er litt av problemet til strengteori også. Foreløpig vet vi ikke om vi noen gang kommer til å komme til buns og finne en teori for alt, det eneste vi kan gjøre er å fortsette å komme med ideer og se om vi kan forklare noen nye ting om universet med de.

 

Et annet problem med strengteori er jo også at de må sette inn konstanter der også som må være finstillte for å få det til å funke..

 

Kakestykket: Nå gadd jeg ikke å lese all den teksten du postet, men å bruke bibelen som bevis er nytteløst. Det blir som å bruke bibelen som bevis for at jorda ble skapt på 7 dager. Jeg skjønner at kristne tror på Jesus oppstandelse, men det er svært få som ikke skjønner at bibelen ikke er et bevis på overnaturlige ting. Det er derfor de *tror* på oppstandelsen etc.

 

Er enig i at mange prøver å bruker Bibelen til å bevise alt mulig, men hvis man fra før ikke tror på Bibelens autoritet, så funker det ikke. Når det gjelder oppstandelsen, så mener jeg det ikke er vanskelig å konkludere med at den hendte hvis du ikke er en naturalist. Er du naturalist vil du så klart ikke kunne godta noen beviser for oppstandelsen..

[Kakestykke]

Kakestykket: Nå gadd jeg ikke å lese all den teksten du postet, men å bruke bibelen som bevis er nytteløst. Det blir som å bruke bibelen som bevis for at jorda ble skapt på 7 dager. Jeg skjønner at kristne tror på Jesus oppstandelse, men det er svært få som ikke skjønner at bibelen ikke er et bevis på overnaturlige ting. Det er derfor de *tror* på oppstandelsen etc.

 

Du må skille mellom GT og NT. Selv ikke jeg tror på alt som står i GT. Du bør gidde å lese teksten min, for den forklarer hvorfor NT er trustworthy.

[Pricks]

Hva er relevansen til naturalistisk darwinisme? Ateister studerer ikke kosmologi fordi det ikke støtter verdensbildet deres så mye som de skulle ønske.

Ateister er det innenfor alle vitenskapelige områder, og kosmologi forklarer ting, hvilket gjør at man ikke trenger å ty til "Gud gjorde det!" lenger.

 

At universet er så utrolig fininstilt er ikke en uintelligent effekt.

Joda. Det er ikke universet som er så fininnstilt. Det er ikke slik at universet er tilpasset oss. Det er vi som er oppstått fordi universet er som det er.

 

Grand Canyon er et naturlig resultat og Mount Rushmore skriker etter å få folk til å skjønne at det er designet.

Er Grand Canyon designet? Tok Gud fysisk tak, og skar den ut personlig?

 

Uten en designer ser naturen ut til å peke mot maksimum uorden, synes dere ikke?

Nei, orden oppstår fra uorden hele tiden. For eksempel snøflak. Eller mener du at Gud designer hvert enkelt snøflak manuelt?

 

Jesus sa han var veien, sannheten og livet, og så vidt meg bekjent har oppstandelsen bestått granskning fra mange historiske og naturalistiske synsvinkler.

Nei, det har den ikke. Oppstandelsen er kun en tom påstand fra en eventyrbok.

 

Jeg mener at vitenskapen er en dårlig måte å søke sannhet fordi det er rett og slett en metode laget av mannen for å forstå ting på en måte mennesker kan enes om.

Nei. Vitenskapen er ikke en demokratisk prosess. I vitenskapen stemmer man ikke over hva som er sant, men man ser på fakta.

 

Hvor kom "selvet" deres fra hvis materie er alt som eksisterer?

Det er i hjernen, og består av elektriske impulser. Det faktum at "jeget" forsvinner f.eks. ved hjerneskade viser jo at alt er fysisk. Hadde vi hatt en sjel der personligheten lå så hadde skader på hjernen ikke hatt noe å si.

 

John feier all tvil til side: Jesus var død etter korsfestelsen

Nei, det gjør han ikke, da påstandene hans er tomme og uten faktagrunnlag.

 

 

 

Det peker kanskje litt på et problem med naturalistisk innstillte forskere. Det virker som om de ikke vil godta at det finnes en gud, og tyr da til all slags teorier.

Nå roter du fælt. Vitenskap er det motsatte av religion. Ekte vitenskapsmenn ignorerer spørsmålet om Gud eksisterer eller ikke når de driver med vitenskap. Gud er irrelevant for vitenskapen.

 

Et annet problem med strengteori er jo også at de må sette inn konstanter der også som må være finstillte for å få det til å funke..

Det er ingenting som er "finstilt" for oss. Det er vi som har oppstått som resultat av hvordan universet fungerer uavhengig av oss.

 

"hvis man fra før ikke tror på Bibelens autoritet, så funker det ikke. Når det gjelder oppstandelsen, så mener jeg det ikke er vanskelig å konkludere med at den hendte hvis du ikke er en naturalist."

 

Nettopp. Bibelen har ingen autoritet. Den baserer deg på blind tro.

 

Men dere kreasjonister, kan ikke dere gi faen i å gjenta de samme gamle kreasjonist-tåpelighetene som er tilbakevist for lengst? Dere høres jo ut som roboter som bare spyr ut en haug med ferdige formuleringer som dere har funnet på et eller annet anti-vitenskapelig nettsted.