Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

[stahrwe]

Yeah your right the feet most likely were nailed. But in order for anyone to breath when strung from a cross they have to push up in order to take a breath. You mention corpses, what state of decay were these bodies in? Several factors could contribute as to weather they remain on that cross. One, had rigor set in? This is important because at this stage the body is rigid and could be strung up practically any way and stay that way. Rigor is a reverse process and often last from 24 to 72 hours it reacts on the muscle plasma. Freezing will not stop this process either. Primary or Secondary Flaccidity where the muscles relax completely would be the only way they could the actual weight to apply pressure on the palms since at this stage all the muscles are relaxed. I do not buy the experiment but if you do thats cool.

I suggest that you invest in Dr. Zugibe's book. He also did experiments with live volunteers measuring vital signs, body chemistry etc. while they were on crosses. His conclusion as to the cause of death from crucifixion is interesting.

BTW, raising up to take a breath release stress on the hands.

Thanks for the post.

[Interbane]

Unless he crucified a living person it's nothing but stunt pseudo-science. Unless he arrived at the conclusion that however extremely unlikely, it may have been possible. The weasel word is necessary, because the research is of course not conclusive.

I wanted to ask, are we done with this thread? Is it clear to you now that what you formerly thought was evidence is nothing but speculation and faith? Not even by appealing to a loophole in a system meant for arbitrating something completely different were you able to make progress. Yet your entire universe revolves around this book. That is an astounding disjunction.

[stahrwe]

Unless he crucified a living person it's nothing but stunt pseudo-science. Unless he arrived at the conclusion that however extremely unlikely, it may have been possible. The weasel word is necessary, because the research is of course not conclusive.

How do you know? Have you read Zugibe's book? In fact he did attach live volunteers to crosses.

I wanted to ask, are we done with this thread? Is it clear to you now that what you formerly thought was evidence is nothing but speculation and faith? Not even by appealing to a loophole in a system meant for arbitrating something completely different were you able to make progress. Yet your entire universe revolves around this book. That is an astounding disjunction.

What is clear to me is that your claim that the Bible must be validated has been a hollow ruse since it was raised in a vain attempt to dismiss the Bible as evidence. This was anticipated but I am disappointed that you have chosen to continue that line of defense rather than discuss the actual evidence submitted.

For consideration I present the following verses which some interpret to mean that Christians who are in space, perhaps the ISS or in a habitat on the moon, or on orbit of the earth will be raptured.

Neh 1:9
but if you return to Me, and keep My commandments and do them, though some of you were cast out to the farthest part of the heavens, yet I will gather them from there, and bring them to the place which I have chosen as a dwelling for My name.’

Matthew 24:31
"And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

Mark 13:27
"And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.

The references in these verses must be to living humans given the context. These verses anticipate space travel.

[johnson1010]

I saw that guy on Penn and Teller's Bullshit.

He used leather straps and nailed a board to the cross for the volunteers to stand on.

That isn't science. It's a high-school play re-enactment.

[Interbane]

What is clear to me is that your claim that the Bible must be validated has been a hollow ruse since it was raised in a vain attempt to dismiss the Bible as evidence.

To anyone with a brain, it's painfully obvious that there is no good evidence to support a vast majority of the bible, even it's mundane claims. It was a ruse, and the attempt wasn't in vain. You have only made backward progress since you've started, by reinforcing my position.

Where is the evidence?!?! You try to use the bible itself as evidence, which utterly fails every time(you can't corroborate a claim with the claim itself!) In the process you commit numerous fallacies yet deny committing them, since that is the logic you've used your entire life, it cannot be false! Rather than admit the reasoning you've used for most of your life is false, you deny that you commit a fallacy, even when I hold your hand all the way through the logic. Then, when all else fails and it would be inevitable to any rational person that they are committing a fallacy, you accuse me of trickery!!! Utter and complete denial.

The references in these verses must be to living humans given the context. These verses anticipate space travel.

No, they certainly don't. You make a false assumption that they are prophetic, by drawing the bullseye around the interpretation. This is a fallacy, one you've committed before. Your reasoning is false. Of course, you will believe it in spite of the fallacy. Or claim you don't see how the fallacy applies.

"We'll call it a draw!"

[stahrwe]

I saw that guy on Penn and Teller's Bullshit.

He used leather straps and nailed a board to the cross for the volunteers to stand on.

That isn't science. It's a high-school play re-enactment.

What was the term you used for people who think they know everything about a subject they know nothing about? Penn and Teller are entertainer's, Dr. Zugibe M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS is a world renowned ME with decades of experience. His experiments with volunteers strapped to crosses allowed him to measure vital sign and blood chemistry changes. The subjects were carefully monitored for signs of stress. Zugibe's book contains 10 pages of experimental results and conclusions regarding the physiological effects of simulated crucifixion. While it is true that Dr. Zugibe did not scourge his volunteers prior to suspending them from the cross either, to equate his experiment with that of a high school play re-enactment says a great deal about the objectivity you lack when confronted with any information which violates your sheltered view. You are again proving my point that the demand for evidence is illegitimate as any evidence submitted is disparraged and dismissed.

I stand by my submissions regarding Dr. Zugibe's work and challenge skeptics to read his books and papers.

[stahrwe]

What is clear to me is that your claim that the Bible must be validated has been a hollow ruse since it was raised in a vain attempt to dismiss the Bible as evidence.

To anyone with a brain, it's painfully obvious that there is no good evidence to support a vast majority of the bible, even it's mundane claims. It was a ruse, and the attempt wasn't in vain. You have only made backward progress since you've started, by reinforcing my position.

Where is the evidence?!?! You try to use the bible itself as evidence, which utterly fails every time(you can't corroborate a claim with the claim itself!) In the process you commit numerous fallacies yet deny committing them, since that is the logic you've used your entire life, it cannot be false! Rather than admit the reasoning you've used for most of your life is false, you deny that you commit a fallacy, even when I hold your hand all the way through the logic. Then, when all else fails and it would be inevitable to any rational person that they are committing a fallacy, you accuse me of trickery!!! Utter and complete denial.

The references in these verses must be to living humans given the context. These verses anticipate space travel.

No, they certainly don't. You make a false assumption that they are prophetic, by drawing the bullseye around the interpretation. This is a fallacy, one you've committed before. Your reasoning is false. Of course, you will believe it in spite of the fallacy. Or claim you don't see how the fallacy applies.

"We'll call it a draw!"

Your only recourse is to claim everything is either inadmissable, or fallacious. Well, neither claim holds any water. You can call it a draw when you can account for the:

1) 4 events recorded in the Talmud at the time Jesus was crucified.
2) the prediction to the day of the restoration of the nation of Israel 907,200 days before it happened,
3) The vindication of the Biblical accounts that Jesus was nailed through the hands.
4) The reference to living humans in space as recorded in the Bible more than 2,000 years ago.

We are only getting started.

And by the way. The dreaded TSF, in order to be played by you would need to be full of numerous false prophecies of future events. Your claim that I am picking an event and then looking for a supporting verse is bogus.

[Interbane]

Your only recourse is to claim everything is either inadmissable, or fallacious. Well, neither claim holds any water. You can call it a draw when you can account for the:

Right. It will never be a draw, the matter was settled long ago. The reference was to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It went right over your head.

1) 4 events recorded in the Talmud at the time Jesus was crucified.
2) the prediction to the day of the restoration of the nation of Israel 907,200 days before it happened,
3) The vindication of the Biblical accounts that Jesus was nailed through the hands.
4) The reference to living humans in space as recorded in the Bible more than 2,000 years ago.

1) Who says they are authentic, or even legitimate? They are not considered as such per the FRE, as I've repeatedly pointed out, and most certainly not by either historians nor philosophers. You're being delusional.

2) TSF

3) Fictional events need no vindication.

4) TSF

The dreaded TSF, in order to be played by you would need to be full of numerous false prophecies of future events.

False. All you need is a massive number of 'future' events. Drawing a circle around any one of those events commits the fallacy. And I'm not "playing" the TSF as if this were a scored game. This is logic, and you are most certainly committing a fallacy. Yet you're too delusional to admit it.

[stahrwe]

Your only recourse is to claim everything is either inadmissable, or fallacious. Well, neither claim holds any water. You can call it a draw when you can account for the:

Right. It will never be a draw, the matter was settled long ago. The reference was to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It went right over your head.

Indeed it did. We often see in others what we most despise in ourselves.

1) 4 events recorded in the Talmud at the time Jesus was crucified.
2) the prediction to the day of the restoration of the nation of Israel 907,200 days before it happened,
3) The vindication of the Biblical accounts that Jesus was nailed through the hands.
4) The reference to living humans in space as recorded in the Bible more than 2,000 years ago.

1) Who says they are authentic, or even legitimate? They are not considered as such per the FRE, as I've repeatedly pointed out, and most certainly not by either historians nor philosophers. You're being delusional.

2) TSF

3) Fictional events need no vindication.

4) TSF

They should not even need the cover of the FRE to be considered but since you would desperately try to exclude them (Bible and Talmud) the FRE provided the means to assure admission. Your attempts to dislocate them were frantic and pathetic.

The dreaded TSF, in order to be played by you would need to be full of numerous false prophecies of future events.

False. All you need is a massive number of 'future' events. Drawing a circle around any one of those events commits the fallacy. And I'm not "playing" the TSF as if this were a scored game. This is logic, and you are most certainly committing a fallacy. Yet you're too delusional to admit it.

If you ever bother to read the Bible you would understand that there are not a massive number of prophecies in the Bible. Your statement, "Drawing a circle around any one of them commits the fallacy," underscores your bias. In essence what you are saying is that by doing any thing is support of the Bible I am committing a fallacy. It is a little like my insurance policy. I am covered for everything as long as I don't submit a claim. Why don't you just admit that your entire belief system is built on rejection of the Bible and in order to sustain that system you must exclude the Bible completely.

[Interbane]

They should not even need the cover of the FRE to be considered but since you would desperately try to exclude them (Bible and Talmud) the FRE provided the means to assure admission.

The question is not whether or not your evidence should be considered. The instant you post anything here, even as much as a single letter or punctuation mark, it is considered. Consideration of the evidence means nothing. What counts are the conclusions we come to after considering it. If you make a categorical mistake, for instance using the bible to support the bible, that mistake is categorically fallacious(truly, it is. Think long and hard about it, do some research into epistemology. It is an unavoidable fallacy, as simple as 2+2=4. A construction crane can't support itself any more than the bible can support itself.) No attempt in more detail will change this, even if you select a myriad of internal passages. This is categorically fallacious. This is not a desperate attempt on my part. It's black and white and simple as snot. You are the one desperately trying everything you can to make your "evidence" seem worthy.

Every single attempt you made, I pointed out to be either fallacious or illogical or completely unsupported. If it were any other way, all you'd need to do is point specifically to the piece of evidence in question and why it supports your claims. Speaking of which, you still haven't mentioned which claim you wish to support. Which means we must assume that it's the collection of claims called the bible. Which means you're doomed, categorically, to commit a fallacy.

In essence what you are saying is that by doing any thing is support of the Bible I am committing a fallacy.

No genius, that's not 'in essence' what I'm saying. Not at all. What I'm saying is that by cherry picking a 'future event' to coincide with your so-called prophecy, you're drawing a bullseye around the mark. It can't get any more simple than this, you're committing a fallacy. You're wrong. Now stop whining about it and move on.