"Irrefutable Proof" and "Corroboration"

[Sparko]

I don't see the "physical, tangible, empirical proof" comment, Jeff. Is there another Scripture of which I am not aware? Did Jesus give Thomas a "whoopin" for coming to belief like he did? He made a statement.

xactly.

Jesus didn't say anything about believing without any proof or evidence. Just about those who would not be able to see him directly like Thomas did. I don't see anything there about relying on blind faith.

Its kinda funny though. Jeff and OC and so on make such a big deal about believing without any evidence, and relying on some esoteric experience of burning in the bosom, and yet in the same breath, they keep arguing about all the "laws" that govern where people end up in heaven, and so on. When we tell them we just trust in Jesus and not in laws and regulations, they seem to get upset.

[Hamster]

---Why did Jesus say that blessed are those who believe without having first seen physical, tangible, empirical proof?

the "those who have seen" doesn't refer to evidence or reasons to believe, it refers to those who have seen the risen Christ. Thomas is honored because, after irrationally claiming he'll only believe if Jesus Christ stands in front of him physically, Jesus honors his request and does so.

Again, the story isn't an endorsement of blind faith and it couldn't be if it wanted to. It is literally impossible for the Apostles to have "blind faith" considering the things they witnessed.

[Hamster]

have you ever acted on blind faith in your life?

Don't people usually have reasons they believe something, even if it turns out they are not good reasons?

[Sparko]

is God afraid of evidence?

I can see Satan promoting "blind faith" because after all, that way he can get someone to believe anything. But God isn't afraid of evidence because any true evidence will be evidence of the truth. And that always points to the true God.

[OtherCheek]

is God afraid of evidence?

I can see Satan promoting "blind faith" because after all, that way he can get someone to believe anything. But God isn't afraid of evidence because any true evidence will be evidence of the truth. And that always points to the true God.

No. Why would God be afraid of evidence?

Must something be physical and tangible in order to count as "evidence"? Must it be agreed upon and stamped and approved by scholars and theologians and scientists in order to count as "evidence"?

Is God afraid of personal testimony and conviction? Is God afraid to speak personally with people by his Spirit?

[nrajeff]

is God afraid of evidence?

---People who aren't Bible believers could reach that conclusion, since God has managed to hide both Arks, the original decalog tablets and Bible manuscripts, evidence that Samson really slew, by himself, an entire army, and made sure that all of Jesus' miracles occurred before the invention of photography or any forensic tools to validate the miracle claims.

What would your answer be, to an atheist who asked you if the God of Evangelicalism is afraid of evidence?

I can see Satan promoting "blind faith" because after all, that way he can get someone to believe anything

.
---I can see Satan promoting "signs and wonders" to convince those who have more faith in "evidence" than they do in God. In fact, I think the Bible says something about that.

[nrajeff]

I don't see the "physical, tangible, empirical proof" comment, Jeff.

---I believe you.

Is there another Scripture of which I am not aware?

----You mean like Matthew 12:39 and Matthew 16:4? What's wrong with John 20?

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Thomas was saying that unless he had tangible, physical evidence, he had no intention of believing.

Did Jesus give Thomas a "whoopin" for coming to belief like he did?

---It was a reprimand. Jesus chided His apostles when their unbelief disappointed them. E.g., Peter's water-walking fiasco. In the case of Thomas, He implied that Thomas was NOT BLESSED for demanding proof as a condition for believing. Read it for yourself.

[Cow Poke]

---I believe you.

WHEW!!!! What a relief!!!!!

----You mean like Matthew 12:39 and Matthew 16:4? What's wrong with John 20?

If it's SCRIPTURE, Jeff, there's nothing wrong with it. If it's "man's interpretation", it could be a huge problem.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Hmmmm... still nothing in there about ""physical, tangible, empirical proof".

Thomas was saying that unless he had tangible, physical evidence, he had no intention of believing.

Actually, what he SAID was "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

---It was a reprimand. Jesus chided His apostles when their unbelief disappointed them. E.g., Peter's water-walking fiasco. In the case of Thomas, He implied that Thomas was NOT BLESSED for demanding proof as a condition for believing. Read it for yourself.

I did read it for myself, Jeff. And, as you have already been reminded, Thomas had witnessed MANY things that Jesus did "in the flesh", in the Power of the Almighty, and it was totally illogical for him NOT to believe the resurrected Christ. If Thomas had been a "guy off the street" who never knew Jesus, you MIGHT have a point.

As Hamster so eloquently put it....

Saint Thomas had plenty of evidence. The testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection, years of seeing Jesus confirm that He's from God, and Jesus Himself teaching that he will rise from the dead. The problem with Thomas was that his demand (which is characterized as not believing until he practically sticks his fingers in the wounds) was irrational, not that it was too rational. Thomas had more than enough reason to believe in the resurrection but was being stubborn. The point of the story isn't an endorsement of blind faith.

[nrajeff]

WHEW!!!! What a relief!!!!!

---Don't break out the champagne yet--I said I believe you when you claimed to be unable to see something.

Hmmmm... still nothing in there about ""physical, tangible, empirical proof".

---So if, as you claim, Thomas was NOT demanding visible, tangible proof that Jesus had been resurrected, what the heck is YOUR "interpretation" of "I will need to see Him with my own eyes and feel the nail prints in his hands and feet with my own fingers" ???

I did read it for myself, Jeff. And, as you have already been reminded, Thomas had witnessed MANY things that Jesus did "in the flesh", in the Power of the Almighty, and it was totally illogical for him NOT to believe the resurrected Christ.

----But in this case, Thomas was being forced to believe what some other apostles had said they saw. That is different from getting the story straight from Jesus Himself. That was probably the difference, and that was why he demanded a higher level of proof before he would take their word for it. He wasn't doubting the EXISTENCE of Jesus, nor was he doubting all the previous miracles that he'd seen Jesus do. He was unwilling to take the word of other men regarding their claim that the resurrection of Jesus had come to pass.

Just like if Joseph Smith said that HE saw the resurrected Jesus....you are a Doubting CP in that regard, correct? Why? What more proof do YOU require, as a condition of YOU believing it really happened?

[Cow Poke]

---Don't break out the champagne yet--I said I believe you when you claimed to be unable to see something.

Ah. And I ASSUMED you were being nice. I should have known.

---So if, as you claim, Thomas was NOT demanding visible, tangible proof that Jesus had been resurrected, what the heck is YOUR "interpretation" of "I will need to see Him with my own eyes and feel the nail prints in his hands and feet with my own fingers" ???

Thomas was being stubborn.

----But in this case, Thomas was being forced to believe what the other witnesses had said they saw. That is different from getting the story straight from Jesus Himself. That was probably the difference, and that was why he demanded a higher level of proof before he would take their word for it. He wasn't doubting the EXISTENCE of Jesus, nor was he doubting all the previous miracles that he'd seen Jesus do. He was unwilling to take the word of other men regarding their claim that the resurrection of Jesus had come to pass.

He was being stubborn, Jeff.

Just like if Joseph Smith said that HE saw the resurrected Jesus....you are a Doubting CP in that regard, correct? Why? What more proof do YOU require, as a condition of YOU believing it really happened?

I am NOT a "doubting CP" where it comes to JESUS, Jeff. That's the most important thing. I am a faithful follower of Christ, to the extent that my Salvation rests on His Word.

I AM a "doubting CP" (if you want to call it that - I think it's kinda cute ) with regards to Smith because the Holy Spirit has revealed to me that Smith is a fraud. Are you suggesting I need more proof than THAT?

[Hamster]

---So if, as you claim, Thomas was NOT demanding visible, tangible proof that Jesus had been resurrected, what the heck is YOUR "interpretation" of "I will need to see Him with my own eyes and feel the nail prints in his hands and feet with my own fingers" ???

The problem was with the demand to see Jesus personally even though Thomas should have been believing the accounts of his friends and Jesus' own teachings. But because of his lack of faith he would only believe if Jesus personally appeared to him. Thomas is blessed/honored because Thomas got to see the risen Jesus personally. He got what he wanted, despite his stubbornness. But those who don't have such a ridiculous, irrational and stubborn criteria for believing are more blessed (or "honorable" as the Greek term might be translated).

And again, it's absolutely impossible to get your "blind faith" interpretation out of the text because, unless Thomas had his memory wiped, he had more than enough evidence to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead the moment the witnesses said He did.

[nrajeff]

The problem was with the demand to see Jesus personally even though Thomas should have been believing the accounts of his friends and Jesus' own teachings. But because of his lack of faith he would only believe if Jesus personally appeared to him.

---Exactly. That is the conclusion I arrived at, too.

Thomas is blessed/honored because Thomas got to see the risen Jesus personally.

---The John account says

"Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Seems Jesus was disappointed in Thomas, and the reason for His disappointment is obvious.

He got what he wanted, despite his stubbornness. But those who don't have such a ridiculous, irrational and stubborn criteria for believing are more blessed (or "honorable" as the Greek term might be translated).

---That is sort of the way the LDS might look at you guys who say "Just show me the actual golden plates, and then I will believe the BOM is what it claims to be" --- when that day comes, and you get to see and feel them, maybe THEN you will accept the BOM. If you do, whoopdeedoo. What good will it do you THEN? MORE blessed/honored were all those people who WEREN'T so stubborn---people who believed without needing to see and feel the plates, and who lived by the BOM's teachings and who were blessed accordingly.

And again, it's absolutely impossible to get your "blind faith" interpretation out of the text because, unless Thomas had his memory wiped, he had more than enough evidence to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead the moment the witnesses said He did.

---Except that I never made a case for BLIND faith. I sure don't consider my faith to be blind--I consider it to be FAITH as distinguished from knowledge. McConkie did once say that LDS people are sometimes accused of blind obedience to the commandments. His response: "Any kind of obedience is better than any kind of disobedience."

[Cow Poke]

Jeff,
Two quick questions...

1) Do you like Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Ice Cream?
2) Are you traveling for Thanksgiving, or are people coming to your house?

[Hamster]

That is sort of the way the LDS might look at you guys who say "Just show me the actual golden plates, and then I will believe the BOM is what it claims to be" --- when that day comes, and you get to see and feel them, maybe THEN you will accept the BOM. If you do, whoopdeedoo. What good will it do you THEN? MORE blessed/honored were all those people who WEREN'T so stubborn---people who believed without needing to see and feel the plates, and who lived by the BOM's teachings and who were blessed accordingly.

I completely agree that it would be irrationally stubborn to not believe the golden plates existed if we have good reason to believe that they did. Being able to see them in a museum or touch them myself isn't personally my criteria for accepting their existence.

[Cow Poke]

I completely agree that it would be irrationally stubborn to not believe the golden plates existed if we have good reason to believe that they did. Being able to see them in a museum or touch them myself isn't personally my criteria for accepting their existence.

Well, since the person who allegedly found them was known to be a treasure digger and a glass looker, and the founder of a failed bank that he prophesied would swallow up all others, and the whole "kinderhook" deal, and a number of other "reasons to doubt"... It is NOT "irrationally stubborn" not to believe they exist(ed).