Originally posted by tabibito
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
How can we know that God is?
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostShe just did. Trying to use the trick employed by various supporters of this and that pseudoscience, namely pointing out that scientists tend to use words such as "likely" and "may" rather than words that express a definite level of certitude. Of course this relies on nobody realizing that all science is provisional, meaning it is open to change if new data comes along requiring it. That's why good scientists are loathe to say that something is "proof" or "proves" something. They leave proofs to the mathemagicians and alcohol.
I think that the objections are reasonable where the conclusion doesn't indicate that sort of confidence.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThe article's authors allow that other interpretations are possible, but express confidence that the body was that of a crucified person. For all ordinary purposes, that is good enough to qualify as substantiated.
I think that the objections are reasonable where the conclusion doesn't indicate that sort of confidence.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAny good researcher will mention any other possibilities that cannot be completely eliminated (often a very difficult proposition) even if all the evidence is pointing in a different direction.
That assessment ignores the possibility of evidence being compelling enough to rule out other possibilities.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostOn the contrary from the actual archaeologists "but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion". Note the qualifications.
These are exactly the sort of things that supporters of various pseudoscience latch on to in order to try to create a doubt where there isn't any.
I mean, what part of this weren't you able to understand?
All of science is provisional, meaning that any conclusion is open to reanalysis resulting in a different result if new facts come to light. IOW, every discovery awaits "future discussion."
Hence, words like "may," "likely" and "suggests" are still frequently used even when something is virtually open and shut.
Btw, where did you get the portion you cited because it is not at where you linked to. So where did it come from and who wrote it?
[/QUOTE]
[sarcasm intended] Bravo!
As you have successfully deleted my reply I am at a loss to know as to what precisely you are referring.
However, common sense - which seems somewhat lacking in your case - would lead you to the link I gave in my previous post to The British Council for Archaeology which provided the opportunity to download the free article from the journal British Archaeology, from which I quoted various extracts including this [at page 26]:
Skeleton 4926 did not immediately stand out. The grave was one of seven within Cemetery D, all closely spaced but on a variety of alignments, with one of the other graves dug partly through an earlier one. Radiocarbon dating, carried out by SUERC, places 4926 at AD210–340 at 1σ (68.2% probability), or 130–360 at 2σ (95.4% probability). The body had been laid extended on its back, and orientated northwest/south-east with arms folded at the elbow so that the hands crossed over the pelvis. Twelve iron nails surrounded the skeleton in the grave: one at the head, one at the foot, five forming a straight line on the north side, four forming a curved line on the south side, and one between the ankles. It is possible to imagine that the latter had been displaced and was once part of the south-side line, but even allowing for some other displacement the nails do not form the clearly rectangular, three-dimensional shape of a coffin.
As I noted in that deleted reply - Bravo again! The alignment of the burial does not suggest it was Christian. The arrangement of the nails, which again the article notes, [for the intellectually challenged that can be found on page 28]:
It was usual practice to remove any nails after crucifixion for re-use, discard or as amulets, but in this case the nail had bent and become fixed in the bone.
That suggests that the nails may have been used to act as amulets - either to protect the corpse or to protect the community from the malign spirit of the corpse - but that, of course, cannot be known.
Given the range of datings for the skeleton we cannot know the precise date at which the victim died. However, if at the upper range then Christianity was known in Britain, although the alignment of the body does not suggest a Christian burial. I would also point out that as yet this skeleton has not been positively confirmed as a crucified individual. Those findings will be published in a later article.
As to your remark:
These are exactly the sort of things that supporters of various pseudoscience latch on to in order to try to create a doubt where there isn't any.
And given that I quoted the archaeologists' remarks [on page 27 for those still struggling]:
but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion
You appear to be including the team that excavated this site among the pseudo-scientific community.
So Bravo a third time
Give yourself a cookie.
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1380638]
However, common sense - which seems somewhat lacking in your case - would lead you to the link I gave in my previous post to The British Council for Archaeology which provided the opportunity to download the free article from the journal British Archaeology, from which I quoted various extracts including this [at page 26]:
These are exactly the sort of things that supporters of various pseudoscience latch on to in order to try to create a doubt where there isn't any.
And given that I quoted the archaeologists' remarks [on page 27 for those still struggling]:
but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion
You appear to be including the team that excavated this site among the pseudo-scientific community.
So Bravo a third time
A man around 30 years old had been
respectfully buried, possibly with a
bier, but a nail through one of
his heels is difficult to explain as
anything other than evidence that
he had been crucified. We will
never know his name or the
perceived offence for which he
was apparently killed, but his story
will be pondered by many more
today than ever knew of him at the
time he died.
So once again you omit a critical relevant piece of information: in this case the conclusion, where it is noted that the authors of the write-up don't advance any reason other than crucifixion to explain what has been found. There might be some other reason, but they can't say what that might be. For ordinary purposes, it is reasonable to state that archaeologists have unearthed the remains of a crucified person who received honourable burial (pending information to the contrary).1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
It doesn't stop her from trying.
Sometime in the last 15 minutes, it occurred to me that Tassman's posts point to an interesting phenomenon.
Paul doesn't know anything of the gospels (so 'tis said), so how do we account for his comments about Jesus appearing to Cephas and the twelve etc. That would have to be either a reference to the gospels, or to a source common to Paul and the gospel authors.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
Page 29 of that article puts the matter into perspective
A man around 30 years old had been
respectfully buried, possibly with a
bier, but a nail through one of
his heels is difficult to explain as
anything other than evidence that
he had been crucified. We will
never know his name or the
perceived offence for which he
was apparently killed, but his story
will be pondered by many more
today than ever knew of him at the
time he died.
So once again you omit a critical relevant piece of information: in this case the conclusion, where it is noted that the authors of the write-up don't advance any reason other than crucifixion to explain what has been found. There might be some other reason, but they can't say what that might be. For ordinary purposes, it is reasonable to state that archaeologists have unearthed the remains of a crucified person who received honourable burial (pending information to the contrary).
From the article it is still not an established fact that this individual was crucified. It is quite possible and I do not reject that possibility, but it has not yet been established. Can you comprehend that? Or is it too complex for you?
Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 05-27-2022, 04:32 PM."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
If Paul had spent fifteen days with the Peter as known in the Gospels, why don’t we find many references to the gospel stories in Paul’s letters? For instance, how come Paul never mentions the Empty Tomb on Easter morning—wouldn’t Peter have been eager to share that story? Something is seriously way off here.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
Paul states that Jesus died, revived, lived - that kind of necessitates an empty tomb.
Cue Hugh Schonfield."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post"revived"? That suggests he might not have actually been dead.
Cue Hugh Schonfield.Last edited by tabibito; 05-27-2022, 05:54 PM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
[sarcasm intended] Bravo!
As you have successfully deleted my reply I am at a loss to know as to what precisely you are referring.
However, common sense - which seems somewhat lacking in your case - would lead you to the link I gave in my previous post to The British Council for Archaeology which provided the opportunity to download the free article from the journal British Archaeology, from which I quoted various extracts including this [at page 26]:
Skeleton 4926 did not immediately stand out. The grave was one of seven within Cemetery D, all closely spaced but on a variety of alignments, with one of the other graves dug partly through an earlier one. Radiocarbon dating, carried out by SUERC, places 4926 at AD210–340 at 1σ (68.2% probability), or 130–360 at 2σ (95.4% probability). The body had been laid extended on its back, and orientated northwest/south-east with arms folded at the elbow so that the hands crossed over the pelvis. Twelve iron nails surrounded the skeleton in the grave: one at the head, one at the foot, five forming a straight line on the north side, four forming a curved line on the south side, and one between the ankles. It is possible to imagine that the latter had been displaced and was once part of the south-side line, but even allowing for some other displacement the nails do not form the clearly rectangular, three-dimensional shape of a coffin.
As I noted in that deleted reply - Bravo again! The alignment of the burial does not suggest it was Christian. The arrangement of the nails, which again the article notes, [for the intellectually challenged that can be found on page 28]:
It was usual practice to remove any nails after crucifixion for re-use, discard or as amulets, but in this case the nail had bent and become fixed in the bone.
That suggests that the nails may have been used to act as amulets - either to protect the corpse or to protect the community from the malign spirit of the corpse - but that, of course, cannot be known.
Given the range of datings for the skeleton we cannot know the precise date at which the victim died. However, if at the upper range then Christianity was known in Britain, although the alignment of the body does not suggest a Christian burial. I would also point out that as yet this skeleton has not been positively confirmed as a crucified individual. Those findings will be published in a later article.
As to your remark:
These are exactly the sort of things that supporters of various pseudoscience latch on to in order to try to create a doubt where there isn't any.
And given that I quoted the archaeologists' remarks [on page 27 for those still struggling]:
but we suggest that it is likely to be an instance of crucifixion
You appear to be including the team that excavated this site among the pseudo-scientific community.
So Bravo a third time
Give yourself a cookie.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
Sure it does - that's why Paul first says that he died; and [sardonic] when a person revives from an illness that implies they might not have actually been sick.[/sardonic]"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
A body cannot be "revived" after three days.Last edited by tabibito; 05-28-2022, 04:57 AM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment