The Resurrection of Jesus - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Did Jesus Christ actually rise from dead?

Definitely Yes
16
25%
Probably Yes
1
2%
On the Fence
1
2%
Probably Not
11
17%
Definitely Not
35
55%
#14833199
ingliz wrote:They have not, but then why should they? Evolution traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life appeared on the planet.

To prove the theory of evolution, they must prove when and how it began. They have failed to do that, so they can not possibly trace the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life appeared on the planet.

ingliz wrote:The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Wrong again. The theory of evolution was disproved, not creationism. The creator God is alive, and therefore life can come from Him. Louis Pasteur proved that life does not come from non-organic matter, regardless of the complexity of the molecules.

starman2003 wrote:Tiktaalik is indisputable proof that a transition from fish to amphibian was possible and occurred. There are many transitional forms known.

On the basis of the finds, a representation of how Tiktaalik may have looked was produced and presented to the world as proof positive of a transitional form in fish-to-tetrapod evolution. In 2006, Dr Jonathan Sarfati considered the evidence and pointed out that Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land.

Shubin, "Tiktaalik’s pelvis works like a fish pelvis and not a tetrapod weight-bearing pelvis."

So, by the authors’ own admission, Tiktaalik’s pelvis is easily recognizable as a fish pelvis. To put it in less evolution-friendly terms: Tiktaalik was designed to be a fish, not a tetrapod. This also means that what Per Ahlberg once said of Tiktaalik’s pectoral fins applies just as much to its pelvic girdle. In other words, like every other part of Tiktaalik, its pelvis shows that it is a fish.

A favorable media report about the latest Shubin paper admits that “scientists have yet to find a Tiktaalik hind fin bone, or any remains that might shed light on the origins of toes,” without realizing how vital those elements are if the story is true.

Shubin’s response is revealing: “The hind fin of Tiktaalik is tantalisingly incomplete.”

He already stated in the paper that, whatever the result, Tiktaalik’s pelvis shows that its pelvic fin couldn’t bear weight on land! So just like the rest of the storytelling on this specimen over the years, the evolutionists have talked the talk but they can’t make Tiktaalik walk.
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-pelvis

Even if true, when analyzed in detail, the evidence is consistent not with evolution, but with a particular form of intelligent design, the biotic message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine in The Biotic Message.
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho41.htm

That is, the evidence from nature points to a single designer, but with a pattern which thwarts evolutionary explanations. In this case, the common modules point to one common designer, but evolution is powerless to explain this modular pattern, since natural selection can work only on organisms as a whole. That is, it cannot select for particular head design as such, but only for creatures that have a head that confers superior fitness. But a designer who worked with different modules could create different creatures with different modules, that fit no consistent evolutionary pattern.
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a- ... ssing-link



In my opinion, "Tiktaalik" is just a fish with the head crushed flat. This is just another of the many alleged transitional forms that have been proven false.


starman2003 wrote:Who ever said our species evolved from a chimp?? We evolved from earlier members of the genus Homo.

Huxley and Darwin discussed the possibility. In "The Descent of Man" (1871) Darwin clearly discusses humans and apes having a common ancestor. Other evolutionists have said the Chimpanzee is our closest living relative in the ape family. I believe we are descendants of humans and did not evolve from any other creature.
#14833213
Hindsite wrote:To prove the theory of evolution, they must prove when and how it began.

Why?

they can not possibly trace the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life appeared on the planet.

Why not?

as proposed by Walter ReMine in The Biotic Message.

Walter ReMine's book is tosh.

I suggest you read Professor Nunney's paper:

The cost of natural selection revisited, Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185–194, 2003.

He predicts several orders of magnitudes lower minimum interval between allelic substitutions consistent with population persistence, for normal (large) populations and hard selection.


:)
#14833259
ingliz wrote:Why?

Because those that believe in the theory of evolution only assumes when and how it began.

ingliz wrote:Why not?

Because they only assume when life appeared on the planet.

ingliz wrote:Walter ReMine's book is tosh.

Why? What about the Platypus that has the venom of a snake?





The Platypus is evidence of a common Designer, not a common ancestor.

ingliz wrote:I suggest you read Professor Nunney's paper:

The cost of natural selection revisited, Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185–194, 2003.

He predicts several orders of magnitudes lower minimum interval between allelic substitutions consistent with population persistence, for normal (large) populations and hard selection.
:)

So what?

What about evidence of dinosaurs living with man, the existence of carbon 14 and soft tissue in dinosaur bones?
#14833316
Khazar Killer wrote:@Hindsite
I believe Jesus exist, why else would whites be dying at a high rate.

It is not enough to believe Jesus exists, for the Devil and the demons also believe that. You must believe Jesus is the Son of God and took your punishment and died for you and that God raised Him from the dead to prove He can also raise you from the dead.

HalleluYah
Praise the Lord
#14833324
Khazar Killer wrote:I believe in only one factual thing about Jesus: Few be saved, Many be damned. And I know you and trump and 90% of White "Christians" ain't gonna see Jesus after death.

How do you know that? Sounds like you are a racist.
#14833342
Khazar Killer wrote:I'm making america great and nothing is more american than racism.

You didn't answer my question, but that is okay if you can't.

HalleluYah
Praise the Lord
#14833392
Hindsite wrote:Because those that believe in the theory of evolution only assumes when and how it began.

Why would those that believe in the theory of evolution assume anything? When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. The appearance of life and the origin of species are two separate issues.

Darwin, Letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker, March 29, 1863 wrote:... one might as well think of origin of matter

Because they only assume when life appeared on the planet.

Irrelevant.

Darwin, Letter to George Charles Wallich, March 28, 1882 wrote:You expressed quite correctly my views where you say that I had intentionally left the question of the Origin of Life uncanvassed as being altogether ultra vires in the present state of our knowledge, & that I dealt only with the manner of succession.

Charles Darwin’s self-imposed task was the understanding of the evolutionary processes that underlie biological diversity, a task that epistemologically can be undertaken even if it provides no explanation of the origin of life itself.

Darwin, Fourth Notebook, 1839 wrote:My theory leaves quite untouched the question of spontaneous generation.

What about the Platypus that has the venom of a snake?

The Monotremata are considered to belong to the mammalian subclass Prototheria, which diverged from the therapsid line that led to the Theria and subsequently split into the marsupials (Marsupialia) and eutherians (Placentalia). The divergence of monotremes and therians falls into the large gap in the amniote phylogeny between the eutherian radiation and the divergence of mammals from the sauropsid lineage.

Analysis confirms that the platypus was the earliest offshoot of the mammalian family tree. Estimates of the monotreme–theria divergence range between 160 and 210 million years ago; the most recent fossil and molecular data place it at around 166 million years ago.

has the venom of a snake

Examples of venomous mammals are few but they are not unknown.

Venomous Primate Discovered in Borneo

So what?

Remine sees Haldane's dilemma as an obstacle to evolution.

1. Remine places dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes in one systematic group: the Canidae "monobaramin". Remine defines "monobaramin" as "a group containing only organisms related by common descent, sharing a common ancestor."

2. His Canidae-group is at the family level, which includes 12 genera and 34 species.

3. In placing dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes in one systematic group, Remine accepts the fact that Canidae solved Haldane's dilemma: a group of higher vertebrates could pay the costs of substituting genes (See Leonard Nunney, The cost of natural selection revisited, Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185–194, 2003.)

4. In accepting that the naturalistic neo-Darwinistic processes mutation and natural selection created 34 species of the Canidae family, because only the 'proto-dog' would have to be created. Remine implicitly accepts those 'atheistic unsupervised unguided unplanned undirected purposeless blind materialistic' random mutations above the species level, so more then what usually is called "micro-evolution".

5. If a proto-dog could produce a family of 34 species in less then 10 million years, why should a hominoid ancestor not produce chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orang-utan and humans in the same time? The chromosome variation within the Hominidae is much smaller than in Canidae. If the genetic distance wolf-fox would be the same as bonobo-human, then Remine should conclude that bonobo and human have common ancestors!

He doesn't.

Walter ReMine's book is tosh.


:)
#14833420
ingliz wrote:That is the story of Jesus of the Bible. The only problem is there is no corroborating evidence to support it. Nothing, nada, zero, zilch... anywhere. There is no independent evidence of Jesus’s existence outside the New Testament.



Trying to square the circle.

A well known theory in biblical scholarship as presented for instance by Hyam Maccoby, says Yeshua Bar Abba or Jesus Barabbas was Jesus of Nazareth, and that the choice between two prisoners is a fiction.


:)
You mean, 'Did the imperial ruling class take an interest in this?' They took extremely little interest in many things we are interested in, the history of Britain, the languages spoken there, whatever. Once you get into these games, face it, you are into conspiracy theory in a big way, and in no better case than any other faithful believers.
#14833446
You mean, 'Did the imperial ruling class take an interest in this?'

No, I mean anybody, anywhere... Josephus the Jewish historian nothing; travellers' tales nada; soldiers' letters zero; temple documents zilch... There is no independent evidence of Jesus’s existence outside the New Testament.

For example: Josephus gives us a veritable who's who of the prominent Jews of the time, names 28 Yeshuas, but not the Jesus of the Bible.

faithful believers

Seneca the Younger's On Superstition (c.40 - c.62 AD), which covered every cult in Rome, was not preserved. The only reason we know it did NOT talk about Christianity at all is because Augustine in the 4th century complained about it. But if the book could have been as early as 40 AD then there would be no reason to expect notice of what at that time would have been a very small group. Despite this, Seneca's lack of mention was sufficiently troublesome to some early Christians that they forged correspondence between Seneca and Paul of Tarsus. Jerome, in de Viris Illustribus 12, and Augustine, in Epistle 153.4 ad Macedonium, both refer to the forged communication.

conspiracy theory

It is odd when it is claimed Jesus had scribes following him (Mark 2:6, 2:16, 3:22, 11:18, 12:32-34; Luke 5:30, 6:7, 6:11, 15:2, 23:10; Matt. 23; John 8:3-6) that not a single non-Christian document written before 93 AD mentions this "Jesus" or his crucifixion.

ingliz wrote:a sceptical agnosticism

A reductive (historical) Jesus.

John Eleazer Remsburg, The Christ, 1909 wrote:Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith.

I have no problem with Jesus being a flesh and blood man. The Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed; a reductive historical Jesus is similar to Robin Hood or King Arthur where the core person has been effectively lost.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 15 Aug 2017 22:24, edited 2 times in total.
#14833571
ingliz wrote:Why would those that believe in the theory of evolution assume anything?

Evolutionists assume many things in order to make their propaganda on the theory of evolution more believable by the unenlightened.

The platypus is a clear example that has no transitional fossils and could not possibly have been a product of Darwin evolution.
ingliz wrote:There is no independent evidence of Jesus’s existence outside the New Testament.

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain.

The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44., referred both to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate. And there is Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1: "Jesus, who was called Christ" (i.e. ' Messiah').

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_out ... _Testament

There is also the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo as evidence of the crucifixion of Jesus as told in the New Testament.

http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf

http://www.jesusevidence.org/shroud.html

HalleluYah
Praise the Lord
#14833578
Hindsite wrote:Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1: "Jesus, who was called Christ" (i.e. ' Messiah').

This has been dealt with in a previous post. The Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation, "James" is most likely an interpolation.

Marian Hillar, Flavius Josephus and his Testimony Concerning the Historical Jesus wrote:The James in Josephus, however, is a historical figure and it seems that he could be a religious revisionist, and we do not know what was his infraction of the Jewish Laws. As far as we can say, James, the New Testament brother of Jesus, is not reported to have broken any law.

It is most likely that the Christians identified him with James of Josephus and altered the original text. This alteration would have to be done relatively early since from the middle of the second century the idea of Jesus having a brother was becoming unpopular. They also created other stories about his death and his role in the destruction of Jerusalem... that do not fit into Josephus account and are clearly a Christian religious interpretation of history.

Hindsite wrote:The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44., referred both to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate.

In his Annals (oldest relevant copy is from 11th century) Tacitus gives a brief mention of a "Chrstus", generally read as "Christus" but in reality it could just as easily be read "Chrestus"*, in a passage that shows evidence of tampering and contains no source.** Also, the entire section of the Annals covering 29-31 AD is missing: "That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence."*** His account is also at odds with the Christian accounts in The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 AD) and The Acts of Peter (c. 150-200 AD) where the first has Nero reacting to claims of sedition by the group and the other saying thanks to a vision he left them alone.

* "Chrestus" (meaning 'good' or 'useful') appears as a familiar personal name, adjective, and even a title as far back as the 5th century BC.

** Carrier, Richard (2014) The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44 Vigiliae Christianae, Volume 68, Issue 3, pages 264 – 283

*** Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus

platypus

Wrong!

Obdurodon includes several species of platypus-like monotremes that are estimated to have lived ~28.1 to 5.3 million years ago.

Obdurodon is a transitional fossil, it has teeth. Modern platypus have teeth when they are very young, but shed these by adulthood and replace them with horny pads. Considering these horny pads are a very uncommon feature in mammals, and vertebrates as a whole, biologists interpret it as an evolutionary novelty. With Obdurodon, we have support for this hypothesis, with evidence that a toothed ancestor preceded the modern platypus dental condition.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 15 Aug 2017 22:56, edited 3 times in total.
#14833627
ingliz wrote:This has been dealt with in a previous post. The Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation, "James" is most likely an interpolation.

The New Testament name "Jesus" is an interpolation too. So what you said does not discredit it. And the remainder of your post is nonsense that could be expected from the skeptics.
#14833638
The New Testament name "Jesus" is an interpolation too...

A bout of verbal diarrhea, brief as it is, is not argument.

But then I see that you have given up trying to make an argument and are just spewing out the first thing that pops into your head.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 16 Aug 2017 16:09, edited 1 time in total.
#14833728
ingliz wrote:A bout of verbal diarrhea, brief as it is, is not argument.

But then I see that you have given up trying to make an argument and are just spewing out the first thing that pops into your head.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, if so, then you started the poop. I see no point in arguing against nonsense from skeptics, who have no desire to know the truth.
#14833806
ingliz wrote: The Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed;


Well, if you read Ehrman, he indicates at least some of the material in the gospels passes the methodological criteria and is historically probable. But the bulk of it isn't.
#14833820
Hindsite wrote:The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44., referred both to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate.

ingliz wrote:but in reality it could just as easily be read "Chrestus"*

Why I added a footnote, and why Dr. Carrier pointed out that the passage cited shows evidence of tampering and contains no source.

Not all Christians are Christians.

Hadrian to Servianus 134 AD quoted by Rev. Giles, John Allen, fellow at Corpus Christi College, Oxford (1877) Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. ii, p86. wrote:Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called 'Christians', and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves 'Bishops of Christ'.


:)
#14833927
ingliz wrote:I have no problem with Jesus being a flesh and blood man. The Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed; a reductive historical Jesus is similar to Robin Hood or King Arthur where the core person has been effectively lost.

:)

The gospels do tell much about how Jesus died. That is why scientists and experts that have studied the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo believe these two cloths are genuinely associated with the death and burial of the biblical Jesus.
#14833954
Hindsite wrote:the Shroud of Turin

As early as 1389, Pierre D'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, reported to the antipope Clement VII that the shroud was a fraud, the perpetrator of which had confessed.

From the letter of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, addressed to Pope Clement VII, residing in Avignon wrote:The case, Holy Father, is as follows. For some time in the diocese of Troyes, the dean of a certain collegiate church, namely that of Lirey, falsely and untruthfully, consumed by the passion of avarice, driven not by any reason of devotion but only of profit, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted on which, by a clever sleight of hand, was shown the double image of a man, that is to say the back and the front, the dean declaring and claiming untruthfully that it was the true burial shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ had been wrapped inside the tomb, on which the Saviour's portrait had been imprinted with the wounds that he bore. [...] In addition, to draw crowds for the purpose of extorting money slyly, so as to claim that miracles have occurred, using hired men as to make it appear they had been cured upon exposure of the shroud, each convinced it is the shroud of Our Lord. Bishop Henri de Poitiers of pious renown, then bishop of Troyes, being made aware of these facts and urged to act by many responsible people, as was indeed his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set to work to uncover the truth in this matter. For many theologians and persons who were consulted had declared that it could not be the authentic shroud of Our Lord whose likeness had been imprinted upon it, as holy Gospels did not mention such an impression, whereas if it had occurred, it seemed obvious that the Evangelists would not have omitted to report it. In the end, after a thorough investigation and interrogation, and that the fact would not remained hidden until today, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who painted it, namely that it was the talented work of said man, and not miraculously wrought or bestowed by divine grace.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 17 Aug 2017 11:17, edited 1 time in total.
#14833979
ingliz wrote:As early as 1389, Pierre D'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, reported to the Antipope Clement VII that the shroud was a fraud, the perpetrator of which had confessed.
:)

It is obvious today that he lied. But what would you expect from someone associated with an Anti-pope?
#14834093
It is obvious today that he lied.

Why? The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yielded a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results provide conclusive evidence that the Shroud of Turin is a mediaeval forgery.

an anti-pope

Clement VII was not the devil.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert of Geneva wrote:Elected to the papacy at Fondi, 20 Sept. 1378, by the French cardinals in opposition to Urban VI, he was the first antipope of the Great Schism. France, Scotland, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Portugal, Savoy, and some minor German states, Denmark, and Norway acknowledged his authority... He created excellent cardinals.

The Great Schism of the West:

A Companion to the Great Western Schism (1378–1417), civil violence and the initiation of the schism wrote:By the end of June, all the cardinals but the Italians were in Anagni, proclaiming that Urban—who was then in Tivoli—was no pope. On 20 July in Anagni, the French cardinals (or ultramontains) asked their Italian colleagues to join them. On 5 August, Italians and French—in the persons of the cardinals Flandrin, Malesset, and Geneva—met to discuss the eventuality of a general council. The idea failed because only a pope could call a legitimate council, and they refused to qualify Urban as such. On 2 August, the cardinals published their version of the election and asked for Urban’s abdication. On 9 August, 1378, the cardinals posted their Declaratio on the gates of Anagni’s cathedral. The letter denounced Urban’s election as fraudulent because it had taken place under duress and violence.

Duress and violence:

G.J. Jordan, The inner history of the Great Schism of the West, p.17 wrote:The Conclave is in a panic; the mob is infuriated; armed men enter and search every corner of the Conclave building. The Cardinals tremble with fear...


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 17 Aug 2017 13:10, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 15

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]