Scriptural and Scientific Proof of the Most Holy Trinity

[rossum]

The theory of evolution is considered to be real science.

There is no proof, yet people consider it science.

Science does not do “proof” in the mathematical sense. Science can do disproof, such as the disproof of the luminiferous ether, and it can do “evidence to support …” but it can never do a proof because we do not know everything about the material world. At best science can do “this is the most accurate theory we currently have.” All theories are open to improvement or replacement.

For a long time Newton’s theory of gravity was the best science had on that question. Around the beginning of the last century it was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity, which was a better, more accurate, theory. In the future, General Relativity will be replaced by a new theory of Quantum Gravity which will fix some of the known faults in GR. No scientific theory is ever “proved” because every theory is open to improvement or replacement as a result of new discoveries.

We say “God is Light”.

Now, if someone proves scientifically that light exists, then is that proof that God exists?

Next you will ask to prove the God IS Light.

Well I’ve already asserted God IS Light by definition.

An assertion is not science. If you want to show, scientifically, that God is light, then you will have to show that God is composed of photons and to measure some of the properties of those God-photons: wavelength, energy etc.

I will assert that by scientific method, my hypothesis is that God IS Light.

That is the start of the scientific method; make a hypothesis. The next step is to make predictions based on that hypothesis. Then you perform experiments to see if your predictions are correct or not. Correct predictions will tend to confirm the hypothesis (not ‘prove’ it) while incorrect prediction will require either a modification of the hypothesis or a rejection of the hypothesis, depending on how badly the predictions fare in the experiment.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

Matthew 18:19 - “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.”

See my post #15 at the bottom of page one.

rossum

Ah. I see.

That statement may or may not be testable this side of heaven.

 

[AmosTown]

If you want to show, scientifically, that God is light, then you will have to show that God is composed of photons and to measure some of the properties of those God-photons: wavelength, energy etc.

rossum

That’s an easy one. You also know Jesus said “I am the light of the world”

Jesus walked on the water.

He conducted the experiment and the proof and it was witness by peer review!



ps - St. Joseph of Cupertino (among others) seemed to become light also

 

[rossum]

That’s an easy one. You also know Jesus said “I am the light of the world”

Jesus walked on the water.

He conducted the experiment and the proof and it was witness by peer review!



ps - St. Joseph of Cupertino (among others) seemed to become light also

Have you any idea how many founders of religions performed miracles? All of those miracles were witnessed according to the writers of the relevant scriptures.

In chapter ten of the Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti feeds an entire city of people on a single bowl of rice. Does that text show the correctness of Buddhism?

All religions are correct according to their own scriptures. You will need to find independent evidence to support your claim.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

You will need to find independent evidence to support your claim.

Well, this seems like an impossible standard, no?

If there’s someone who verifies the claim of Christianity–Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead–that would make him a …Christian.

And that would thus eliminate him from your category of being “independent evidence”.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Well, this seems like an impossible standard, no?

If there’s someone who verifies the claim of Christianity–Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead–that would make him a …Christian.

And that would thus eliminate him from your category of being “independent evidence”.

There are atheist and Jewish scholars of Christian antiquity - they may not believe the Resurrection, but they can prove that the earliest Christians believed it.

 

[PRmerger]

There are atheist and Jewish scholars of Christian antiquity - they may not believe the Resurrection, but they can prove that the earliest Christians believed it.

I don’t think what was being asked was: proof early Christians believed in the Resurrection.

What was being asked was: corroboration from independent sources that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I don’t think what was being asked was: proof early Christians believed in the Resurrection.

What was being asked was: corroboration from independent sources that Jesus rose from the dead.

touché

 

[rossum]

Well, this seems like an impossible standard, no?

Not impossible. The Buddha and the Jain Mahavira were contemporaries, and both are mentioned in the other’s scriptures. The provides independent evidence of their existence.

If we ever found the court records from the time of Pilate, the we might see a record of Jesus’ trial. That would constitute independent evidence of Jesus’ existence.

Some of the events described in the Bible would be expected to attract the attention of contemporary historians: the dead rising from their graves (Matthew 27:52) and, depending on its magnitude, an earthquake (Matthew 27:51).

Personally I am inclined to doubt both. A zombie plague in Jerusalem would have been unusual enough to have been mentioned by historians such as Josephus. Earthquakes are commonly associated with great men; there was one when the Buddha was born and another when he died. They are probably more of a marker “this was a great man” rather then a piece of geological information.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

Not impossible. The Buddha and the Jain Mahavira were contemporaries, and both are mentioned in the other’s scriptures. The provides independent evidence of their existence.

Wait–so you’re asking for some independent, non-Christian evidence of Jesus’ existence?

 

[rossum]

Wait–so you’re asking for some independent, non-Christian evidence of Jesus’ existence?

It would be a start. Before someone can be resurrected, they have to exist first.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

It would be a start. Before someone can be resurrected, they have to exist first.

rossum

Sorry, but I don’t dialogue with Jesus Mythers.

Folks who don’t even believe that a man named Jesus lived on the earth 2000 years ago who was crucified by a man named Pontius Pilate are such outliers that I do not wish to waste an valuable dialogue time in discourse.

I put them in the category as folks who don’t believe we walked on the moon, who deny the holocaust and who believe the earth is 6000 years old.

:sad_bye:

I will say, generally, that it’s an equivocation to say, firstly, “I need some evidence that’s not Christian that Jesus rose from the dead” (and that, folks, is an impossible standard. Anyone who has evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead would be a…Christian)…

and then to say, “That’s not impossible because folks who weren’t Buddhist talk about Buddha actually living on this earth. And that’s what I really meant to ask evidence for. Evidence that Jesus walked on this earth.”

 

[rossum]

Sorry, but I don’t dialogue with Jesus Mythers.

I am not a myther, but science likes to have as much evidence as possible to support whatever case is being made.

For example, scientists would probably like to do DNA tests on any relics of Jesus: blood, umbilicus, foreskin, placenta etc. to see if some of them match a single person. IIRC at one time there were about a dozen supposed Holy Prepuces around and those still surviving could be checked to see if there was one with a DNA match to the blood on the Turin Shroud. Such checks are obvious things to do if you want scientific evidence about Jesus.

Science likes to check all available details.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

There is no proof, yet people consider it science

There is no proof?

Not sure what kind of science you learned in grade school, high school, college…but your statement above is categorically WRONG.

 

[thistle]

It would be a start. Before someone can be resurrected, they have to exist first.

rossum

If you mean outside the Bible:

coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/