Re: Any Evidence for Doubting Thomas?

wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2006 07:47:57 -0800, "Seanpit"
> <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >Do you trust what you read in a science journal - the reported
> >observations of well-known and well-respected scientists even though
> >you have not performed the experiments yourself? If so, are you not
> >accepting eyewitness testimony of others who are trusted?
>
> the very reason scientists publish these types of papers...and you
> would know this if you WERE a scientist...is so that others can
> replicate their work, precisely because we DO NOT believe them.
>
> when you write a scientific paper you describe your hypothesis, your
> testing methodology, equipment, etc. that way an OBJECTIVE
> determination of your claim can be made.

Have you personally carried out the experiments and made the
observations of all the reported findings of scientists that you accept
as "true"? Or, do you generally accept the reported validation of such
experiments by other scientists?

If, hypothetically, the story of Thomas is taken as "true", the same
thing happened. A few friends said that they saw, talked with, and
examined Jesus at one point in time. This testimony or "experiment" is
then supported or validated by testimony of other friend who say they
saw and did the very same things to Jesus at a different time and
place.

> >> The vast, overwhelming weight of evidence tells us that the earth is
> >> ancient, there was no global flood, and that the creation account as
> >> told in the Bible cannot be interpreted as a literal account of events.
> >
> >That's certainly the popular position. I just don't see it as true.
>
> ah. the testimony of unnamed composite authors writing 2000 years ago
> is...so to speak...gospel, but the world's accumulated scientific
> evidence is wrong.
>
> do we NEED more proof that you're arguing religion, not science?

The opinions of popular scientists are not necessarily based on good
"science". This has often been the case - even in modern history.
Look at the story of J Harlen Bretz for a striking example of what such
biases can cause the vast majority of popular scientists to believe
despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

> >> Mind you, as you ignore evidence which does not suit your predjudices
> >> (such as the evidence I have offered you about taphonomy), your way of
> >> dealing with evidence is not that of a scientist.
> >
> >Of course, I think your views and arguments are weak or downright
> >mistaken and anti-science. Funny how we can both be honest in our
> >disagreement about such apposing views of "truth".
>
> this is provable nonsense. evolution COULD be wrong, but a WRONG
> theory is still scientific. so, by definition, it CANT be 'anti
> science'

I don't believe that the ToE is really falsifiable.

> however, creationism is not only anti-science since it seeks to
> destroy science, but is against civilization itself. it's a barbaric,
> rather savage concept.

LOL - whatever. Many modern civilizations were built by people who
believed in creationism - to include our own. Also, I fail to see how
the notion that life was created by deliberate intent is inherently
more "savage" or "barbaric" than the notion of creation via survival of
the fittest - that the strongest survive at the expense of the weakest.
Enormous amounts of time with unimaginable suffering experienced by
billions of sentient beings over millions of years isn't savage? Have
you ever seen the program on T.V. entitled, "The Savage Planet?"

> >> That isn't evidence, any more than the cunieform records of the Epic of
> >> Gilgamesh are evidence of the existence of Gilgamesh.
> >
> >Have you read the account of Thomas? Don't tell me that if dozens of
> >your most respected colleagues came and told you that they saw
> >something, each one telling you the same account in detail, that you
> >would refuse to believe until you saw it yourself?
>
> every time you make this argument you weaken your position.
> you CANT be objective on this basis. you REJECT modern science yet
> accept the arbitrary testimony of unnamed authors who may have never
> existed. if there's ANY proof of your subjective, romantic attachment to
> religion, this is it.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the notion of a hypothetical
argument. As I've told you before, I'm not arguing about the
historicity of John here. I'm arguing about a hypothetical situation
given the assumed truth of the story of Thomas listed in John. I'm not
quite sure why you are having such difficulties with this concept of a
hypothetical question?

> >> The only evidence
> >> offered by the Bible is the fact of its existence. Other than that,
> >> there is no external evidence that it is anything other than a
> >> collection of myths, oral traditions, highly biased and fragmented
> >> accounts of historical events, and religious propoganda.
> >
> >That's not true. The Biblical accounts are some of the most reliable
> >historical information around.
>
> meaningless. it would be surprising if ancient texts...whether of the
> peloponnesian war...or the bible, didn't contain SOME history...

What is surprising is that over and over again, when historical
statements written in Biblical accounts have been challenged by higher
critics, the Biblical accounts end up being right. The cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah were long though to be mythical. No longer. The same is
true of the existence of Nebuchadnezar as a great king of Babylon. The
order of kings listed in the Bible has often been challenged, but
fairly recent archeological finds support the Biblical accounts over
and over again. Many of the prophecies concerning Christ were thought
to have been written after his death. However, the Dead Sea scrolls
disproved this notion.

The ancient Biblical accounts turn out, over and over again, to be
quite historically accurate and reliable - more so than any other
ancient sources of information.

> > Over and over again the Biblical
> >account have proven true with the finding of additional archeological
> >evidence and the arguments of the "higher critics" have proved false.
>
> meaningless. no one has ever proven jesus existed for example.

Beyond the extrabiblical references to Jesus, such as those found in
the writings of Josephus and Tacitus, it is hard to imagine how the
Christian cult could have sprung up out of Judaism based on such a
detailed mythical figure. The same could be said for Alexander the
Great. Not much if any direct physical evidence is available to prove
that he ever existed, yet most have no doubt of his existence as a key
historical figure.

> >The existence of Nebuchadnezar as a great king of Babylon was long
> >thought to be a myth - no longer. The same goes for the existence of
> >Sodom and Gamorah. Also, the order of the kings of various peoples
> >listed in the Bible has been confirmed, though long doubted. Biblical
> >prophecy is also extremely accurate.
>
> why, then, was there no census that mary and joseph had to return
> for? that has never been historically demonstrated.'

It is not quite as easy as this. For a long time secular historians
assumed that Luke must have been mistaken since no secular historian of
the time mentions this decree. However, subsequent archeological
discoveries have favored Luke's account. These include accounts
written on papyri and a list of three authorized censuses taken during
the reign of Augustus listed among the 35 "Acts of Augustus" as the
greatest achievements of his reign. These Acts are recorded on two
bronze plaques on Augustus's mausoleum. These three censuses were
ordered in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. The 8 B.C. date is likely the
census mentioned in Luke. It likely took some time for the actual
census decree to work through the bureaucratic channels to be actually
carried out in the rather difficult-to-govern Palestine. It is also
reasonable to note that neither pagan nor Jewish critics, like Celsus
and Porphyry, challenged Luke's accuracy on this point. And, even those
who do not accept Luke as an inspired writer recognize him as an able
and trustworthy historian. It is not likely that so careful a writer
would carelessly lay himself open to criticism by misrepresenting
well-known contemporary facts. Such a census would have been emblazoned
on the memories of Luke's readers for quite some time.

So, the birth of Jesus was likely between 7 and 4 B.C.

> >> Eyewitnesses are not reliable, especially when the "eyewitnesses" are
> >> nothing more than third-hand accounts of events handed down through the
> >> socio-political filter of centuries of translation.
> >
> >The account of the doubting of Thomas written in the book of John is a
> >first hand account.
>
> no, it's not. you seem to be long on assertions, short on facts.

It is a fact that the story of Thomas asserts that Thomas' friend's
gave him firsthand accounts of their experience seeing Jesus alive.
Again, I'm not arguing about the book of John being a firsthand account
here. I'm arguing about the testimony given to Thomas being firsthand
testimony - according to the story. Don't you see the difference?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages