March 29, 2013

"What I have written, I have written"

Pilate also had a sign lettered and put on the cross. The inscription was: JESUS THE NAZARENE THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Don’t write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that He said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’ ” Pilate replied, “What I have written, I have written.”
John 19:19-22, HCSB

All four Gospel accounts mention the sign on the cross. All four accounts differ a little bit. This seems puzzling when approached on a superficial level. In reality, it is not a difficulty at all.
Why do all four Gospels contain different versions?
Does this indicate error?

By no means. Both Luke and John tell us that the inscription on the Cross of Jesus was written in three languages, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that three of the Gospel writers each chose to quote a different language, and that one writer chose to quote the words common to the other three.
You can read "Inscriptions on the Cross", here.

March 27, 2013

Tiny Video: An Evolutionist Easter Dance


Starring Richard Dawkins, Sam "Ben Stiller" Harris, Charles Darwin, and everybody's hero, Piltodown Superman!

March 24, 2013

Disproving Resurrection "Explanations"

Crucifixion Paolo Vernonese 1580

From the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, people have been attempting to make excuses to explain away this greatly attested fact of history. Some have been pathetically desperate to say that he never existed, but they have to find a minority of crackpot "historians" to support this conjecture. Others have come up with silly ideas, such as, "His disciples sole his body while we were sleeping" (Matt. 28.13). So tell me, how do you know what happened while you were sleeping, Buttercup?

Using basic logic, the false explanations of the absence of his body do not withstand scrutiny.
Definitions
Sir Karl Popper, the late philosopher of science, devised a falsification criterion that can be used to disprove theories. It is derived from the modus tollens rule of inference, which is of one of these two forms:

Form 1
1) p⇒q
2) ¬q
∴ p

Form 2
1) p⇒¬q
2) q
∴ p

The falsification criterion devised by Karl Popper is an example of form 2 of the modus tollens. It is as follows:
1) Theory T predicts that O will not be observed.
2) O is observed.
∴ T is false.

Examples
Here are a couple examples that are used by the police to either prove or disprove one's innocence in a crime:

Proving Innocence
1) If suspect S is guilty of a murder, then he will not have an alibi for the time of the murder.
2) S has an alibi for the time of the murder.
∴ S is not guilty of the murder.

Proving Guilt
1) If person P was not involved in a crime, then he will not know any details that were not released to the public.
2) P knows a detail that was not released to the public.
∴ P was involved in the crime.

Disproving Resurrection Alternatives
For the last 2000 years, ever since Christianity began, anti-Christians have been looking for ways to explain away the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus by various means. It is important for us to be able to refute these alternative theories, as Christianity stands completely on the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:14-18). Thankfully, as I will demonstrate, the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed can be disproved easily using the Popperian criterion. If you need a refresher on all the details of the Betrayal, Arrest, Trial, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, they can be found in Matthew 26-28, Mark 14-16, Luke 22-24, and John 18-21.
It is eminently logical for you to continue reading "Using Popper's Falsfication Method to Disprove Resurrection Alternatives".

Subscribe in a reader