i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
Fisherman:
Many of these claims are demonstratably false
😂 most of your list are duplicates and none are demonstrably false.
You have not demonstrated that souls exist or that it is even possible
Your position remains an argument from ignorance, and that ignores any potential alternatives
And it is in fact the case that the gospels are not widely agreed to be historical by scholars, with only Jesus’ baptism and execution have broad agreement.
i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
Disillusioned JW:
I am especially fascinated by the portion of the Newsweek article which the following.Firstly, Newsweek is not a science journal. Aside from that, a person having an impression that they ‘have full memories of everything they have done’ is obviously arbitrary and subjective, since it may simply seem that way, and they obviously wouldn’t remember what they don’t remember. What seems like a significant flood of memories could simply be interpreted as ‘everything’. At most, this would be limited to events in long term memory to the exclusion of most of a person’s experiences of mundane routine in between significant experiences (though ‘significant’ in this sense is not the same as or limited to ‘significant events’ as one might mark on a calendar). It also could not be concluded that all of the memories would be accurate. Human memory isn’t like videotape or computer memory. I think the woo peddlers would also love misrepresenting the intended meaning of statements such as “gives access to dimensions of reality they otherwise did not have access to”. It would therefore be best not to read too much into such sensationalised phrasing.
'"The most interesting aspect of this is [the patient] starts to have full memories of everything they have done and all their thoughts and intentions toward other people throughout their entire life," he said
i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
Disillusioned JW:
the other instead considers that consciousness is separate from the brain and can influence brain activity independently of the brain
Of course, honest readers would be careful to note that the source doesn’t say ‘independent of any aspect of the physical body’. It could refer to distinctions between the cerebrum and the cerebellum or elsewhere in the nervous system. None of this lends any actual support to the superstitious notion of ‘souls’. But I suspect a good old bait-and-switch on the breeze. 😂
i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
None of it supports Sea Breeze’s claims about souls. None of it rules out entirely physical processes that aren’t well understood. None of it rules out any other potential real or imagined alternative to ‘souls’. None of it provides any indication of what a ‘soul’ is or any mechanism for how it would interact with the body.
It’s all a pitiful argument from ignorance no different to thinking lightning must be from the gods. As such, it is basically the ‘god of the gaps’ argument.
i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
Sea Breeze:
No circles. I've been on point consistently. Why is it so hard for you to just admit that these facts just don't fit in a materialist naturalistic paradigmn?
Why would I ‘admit’ any such thing? I have a basic knowledge of neurotransmitters and brain function at a layman level. I have no training in neurology. Why would I presume that just because I do not have an explanation for some medical conditions (though your examples are anecdotal) that it must mean it is unexplainable in the absence of supernatural fantasies?! Your perspective is bizarre.
You are yet to provide any demonstration of the existence of souls, any mechanism for how they interact with the body, or how you ruled out any other potential (natural or supernatural) explanations.
occult un forces seek to hijack religion for globalism.
https://thenewamerican.com/occult-un-forces-seek-to-hijack-religion-for-globalism/it does not look like religions dominate un but the other way around.
journalist alex newman gives a totally different picture about the real state of affairs.
🤦♂️
i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
You’re going in circles with the same tedious false dichotomy, ignoring any other (real or imagined) explanation that don’t fit your superstitions. The simple fact is that you don’t actually have the explanation for, nor any way of verifying, the stories either. Just go away.
i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
Sea Breeze:
Isn't that the same as saying, "I don't know" and then proceeding to try and construct an argument from this admitted ignorance using mere proclamations?
You’re the only one ‘proclaiming’ an entirely unverifiable ‘explanation’. And you still haven’t explained how you ruled out other ‘explanations’.
I probably won’t bother responding to your nonsense further.
i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
Sea Breeze:
My worldview accomodates this data quite comfortably.
It is not remotely surprising that a belief based on stories that were originally made up by primitive people specifically to try to explain things they couldn’t understand ‘accommodates’ your attempt to explain something that is not understood. 🤦♂️
But it isn’t an explanation, just a superstition that you can’t define or prove. When any medical mysteries have finally been understood, the answer has never once been ‘souls’.
