nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
Everything is questioned by others. You're free to cite those counterarguments and we can debate those.
No need. Anyone can go back and find them.
No, they are called theories as well.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Nobody prior would even know or care about its dating. Why would an artist go to such extreme when it would not be appreciated until hundreds of years later?
An artist wouldn't necessarily have cared about its dating either. It could simply have been the first piece of fabric he could get his hands on.
As I pointed out earlier, I argue because Jesus's body was not washed according to exceptions as pointed out by the Mishnah.
And I argued that Jesus wouldn't have met those exceptions.
If, in the text of the Christian Bible, Jesus had said:
"You have heard that it was said, 'do not commit adultery'. But I say to you: commit all the adultery you want. There's nothing wrong with it."
.....would you still hold the Turin cloth to be authoritative proof of his resurrection?
That text has nothing to do with the resurrection.
So Jesus could have said that and God would still have resurrected him?
It's nonsense to assert that such a text would have nothing to do with Jesus being resurrected, because what he says in that hypothetical text would have a direct bearing on his being resurrected.
That's why the errant inconsistencies of his teaching which are in the text matter.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 4:51 pm
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Please cite a definition that equates a tail and a leg.
An artist wouldn't necessarily have cared about its dating either. It could simply have been the first piece of fabric he could get his hands on.
Don't even know how a medieval artist in France would've readily acquired such a large fabric made of linen with a herringbone weave. Even the 1988 C-14 researchers couldn't find a medieval linen control sample with a herringbone weave from anywhere.
And I argued that Jesus wouldn't have met those exceptions.
Yes, but you used a Christian funeral source. Whereas I used two Jewish sources, which would be more authoritative on this matter.
It's nonsense to assert that such a text would have nothing to do with Jesus being resurrected, because what he says in that hypothetical text would have a direct bearing on his being resurrected.
To have a direct bearing, you need to cite a reference that involves the resurrection account. Also, we have extensively argued the case with your interpretation on divorce and I'll let the readers decide which interpretation is better.
That's why the errant inconsistencies of his teaching which are in the text matter.
Why? God would only raise people from the dead that are inerrant?
Derek on MythVision interviews Andrea Nicolotti to argue the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake.
2:49
So the first question I have for you is the simple obvious one that everyone wants to know, is this really the shroud that Jesus from the first century?
3:06
Yeah the response to that question is quite simple no it is not really. It is not the real burial shroud of Jesus Christ. And that is in fact the opinion not only of myself but most people who study it.
Nicolotti overstates the case that most people who study the shroud believe it is a fake. Joe Marino has compiled all the notable figures who have studied the shroud and their position on the shroud:
3:18
But that does not mean that it's still not an important and interesting object to study.
Yes, it is an important and interesting object to study.
3:22
Question number two - how do we know this is not the shroud that Jesus from the first century?
3:38
There are three ways that we can answer that question. The first is from the historical record there is no testimony of the shroud that dates from before the middle ages. And in fact those that do exist from the middle ages say that the shroud is a fake it is not a real relic.
3:58
So the second response that question involved the textile itself. The type or style of weave of the shroud is typical of the middle ages and does not exist back in antiquity at the time of Jesus Christ.
If a herringbone linen shroud was typical of the middle ages, then why couldn't the 1988 C-14 scientists find one for a control sample? On what evidence does Nicolotti base his claim on?
4:15
Then finally there's the scientific reason and that is that in 1988 the shroud was carbon dated and the results of the carbon dated verified what we already knew which is that the shroud derives from the medieval period.
5:07
A lot of the so-called scientists that make those objections about the carbon dating are really pseudos are really motivated by pseudoscience.
Ad hom argument.
5:34
No real scientific expert who has experience in the process of carbon dating has actually accepted the denials that are raised against the carbon dating of the shroud and in fact most the people that do make those objections come from Christian audiences who are motivated by different things than scientific reasons.
Of course no C-14 scientist is going to be critical of C-14 testing.
As for the generalization that objections come from Christian audiences, that is factually incorrect. As for their motivations, that is also an ad hom argument.
5:56
And in fact there was a scientist I believe in Leone France who used to believe in the shroud but then once he found the carbon dating results he then he realized that that was scientific proof that the Shroud of Turin cannot in fact be real.
More than that, several people on the STURP team believed in the 1988 C-14 dating when it was announced. But after it was discovered why the C-14 dating was flawed, they then rejected the C-14 results on scientific grounds. viewtopic.php?p=1113484#p1113484
6:22
So there are actually a lot of different shrouds that are attributed to being the real shroud of Jesus Christ.
Yes, many replicas of the TS has existed in history. Even many exist right now. But nobody is claiming any of those replicas are legit.
6:56
But the shroud of Turin is the one that has emerged to this very day. Ever since it came into the hands of the Savoy family the dynastic family who owned the relic in the 1400s and onward when did the practice of inventing shrouds begin.
This is an interesting point. Why would this be the case that the shroud was not being faked prior to the 1400s? Why would the TS be the first one? How would a medieval artist be so creative to come up with this idea first? And also be so ingenious to stupefy scientists after 600 years after he created it?
7:11
Because we know the church would I'm being funny a little but they'd have the toe bone of Peter and then the staff of Paul and like everywhere around the church they had relics.
Yes, the RCC has many relics. I also believe over 99.99% of them are fake.
7:32
So among the first relics of Jesus Christ that go back to the very beginnings of christianity there actually was no shroud there was of course relics regarded as pieces of the true cross as well as the crown of thorns but there was no shroud. In the earliest relics was in the fifth and sixth century so we started to see testimonies to cloth relics that were believed to be associated with Jesus Christ. Some of those were associated with with his death and others with other times but it was the fifth and sixth centuries when we start to see the first um eyewitness testimonies to the shroud.
Yes, we have testimonies of a shroud in the 5th and 6th centuries.
8:21
We don't have any more traces of what those first shrouds were in the medieval period.
It is interesting the only surviving one is the Turin Shroud.
8:28
First ones probably arrived in the west during the crusades when there was a big traffic of relics coming from Constantinople in the holy lands. And among those relics that were transferred into the west would have been real relics but also some that were false or were fake.
Interesting that Nicolotti differentiated between real relics and fake relics.
8:48
So a really interesting case involves the shroud of cardone.
I've never heard of this and can't find any info on this.
9:43
The question I have next who is this person on this cloth? And is it just a painting? Is it drawing? Or is it a real person who's laying in the cloth that they created it from?
10:03
So I have to be a little bit cautious here because the Shroud of Turin is not open to study by people who are qualified to study.
He has to be cautious because he has no answer to these questions. If a medieval artist created it, shouldn't this be easy to answer?
By what criteria is someone "qualified" to study the shroud? Is he implying the 1978 STURP team was not qualified?
10:11
The church actually keeps keeps it safeguarded and so you can't actually study it directly.
True, you can't study it directly, but you can study it indirectly.
10:23
We can look at the the those who have studied the shroud in 1978 largely american scientists and scholars who were granted access to study the shroud directly so what those scientists concluded in 1978 was not that the image on the shroud was painted on but that the image you see on the surface of the cloth is a a darkening or a yellowing of the cloth itself.
Yes, this is correct.
10:17
Therefore what I have to say about it is a conjectural only.
10:54
So it is possible that there was in fact a pigment on the surface of the cloth that would have painted the image on but that pigment is lost.
Yes, this is highly conjectural. In other words, there is no evidence left on the shroud that it was painted, yet he asserts it was painted.
11:08
Another possibility is that the the coloring of the cloth as a result of a chemical reaction of some sort or maybe even some sort of radiation or heat some sort of natural process of coloring the surface of the cloth. We need to actually do more studies in particular to look at the depth of the coloring on the cloth because they say that the coloring is actually very superficial.
Yes, more studies needs to be done because we don't exactly know how the image was formed.
11:39
There have been attempts to try to replicate how the image would have adhered to the cloth involving a swabbing. There have been attempts to try and replicate what and how the image would have adhered to the cloth using as a model a living body and a bas-relief for the head both covered with the cloth and then rubbing the fabric with a kind of brush filled with some kind of pigment.
12:09
Yeah it would be an orthographic or sort of a perspective projection of the of a face on the surface of the cloth. If someone can do an experiment by actually you know putting some paint on their own face then pressing a cloth against it and what you would see is something very deformed not at all like what we see on this on the shot of Turin.
Correct, using a bas-relief would result in deformation of the face that we do not see on the TS. It would have to be some projection technique that was used on the shroud.
12:33
That the image in the shroud comes from some sort of miracle but that's not something that can be verified by scientific means.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a "miracle", but it would be beyond today's scientific knowledge.
12:39
It could also be that some sort of radiation like some sort of photographic process would have been responsible for forming the image on the surface of the cloth we can't actually come to a firm conclusion about this because we don't actually have direct access to the to the shroud in order to study it.
He goes back to the excuse of not having direct access to the shroud so we can't say anything about it.
What we do know is like he said before, it was some sort of projection technique that was involved. There are only a few ways for this to happen and each can be assessed for their viability.
12:54
Some believers in the shroud argue that since it is not possible to replicate today a copy identical to the original. This means that it must be the result of a supernatural event, but this is really an absurd claim.
This is a common charge from skeptics. There are only two possible ways to explain something - either a naturalistic causation or a supernaturalistic causation. If there's a viable naturalistic causation, by all means we should accept it. If not, then a supernatural causation cannot be ruled out.
13:12
It's an impossible task to try to exactly replicate something from antiquity just like we can't exactly replicate a stradivarius violin or an object from from ancient Egypt.
Nobody is claiming it has to be "exactly" replicated. But nobody has even attempted to replicate both the body image and blood stains. Why is this?
If you're looking at a microscopic level you can't actually fully exactly replicate something from the past we can only come to sort of general conclusions about what kind of process could have been used. But to try to require modern scholars to exactly replicate the means is impossible.
What he's getting at is there's no way to replicate the full body image that is the result of the discoloration of the surface of linen fibers in a half-tone pattern on the cloth.
13:41
It obviously is something commonly practiced that they were making relics and saw value in them just like today people stand in front of a statue of Mary.
Really? If it's so obvious how a forger made it, why is there no viable explanation for it?
14:26
So my book I started writing my book from the point of view of the history of the shroud of Turin and not from a theological or artistic point of view.
14:53
One of the things I did is I translate a lot of the earliest texts that talk about the shroud and its appearance and all the conflicts that surrounded the shroud of Turin throughout its history. My book also deals with the selling the how the shroud was sold to the Savoy family the same family that became the first kings of Italy and how therefore the shroud was for them not only an object of devotion but was also a political object for them and their rule. I also wrote about how the court historians of the Savoy court the Savoy family the court historians made up um an ancient history for the shroud that didn't actually actually exist in order to justify their claims about its importance.
Now I'm interested in reading his book and to see how he argues for this.
15:49
In recent decades there's been a huge growth of interest in the shroud of Turin. When you when I was a kid it was it was talked about much less and even when I first started living in Turin just talked about much less.
Yes, there has been a resurrection of the shroud recently.
18:51
It's not required to be a Catholic to also then believe in the authenticity of the shroud.
Yes, there are many non-Catholics that believe in its authenticity.
19:09
The church in this present moment today does not affirm definitively the authenticity of the shroud of Turin.
Right, the RCC has no official position on the TS.
20:09
Promoting the cult of the shroud of Turin.
I'm not sure if it's a translation issue, but he keeps on referring to a "cult" with those involved with the TS. No, there's no cult with the shroud. Fanatics? Yes. A cult? No.
20:46
Damage to the faithful who might wonder why you know there is such a heavy insistence on the um the authenticity of the shroud when there hasn't really been studies enough studies to prove that that is in fact the case.
Myself, I'm not out to "prove" the TS is legit. But I do claim it is a more reasonable position than it being a fake.
21:00
There are plenty of people inside the church that don't really hold the shroud of Turin to be authentic but do not say so publicly.
Yes, there are Christians who believe it is a fake. And there also Christians who say so publicly.
22:20
They're really there's been decades since there's been any kind of serious scholarly study on the history of the shroud in fact it's been about a century.
It is interesting there's been a lack of any study on the shroud outside of scientific study.
22:32
Serious scholars kind of avoided studying things like the shroud of Turin that were the subject of such the you know this kind of cult religious cult attention.
Pejorative usage of cult again.
23:26
But also understanding what the actual facts are.
I agree we should understand what the actual facts are. This involves more than just listening and reading things from your own side, but studying deeply from all positions.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Please cite a definition that equates a tail and a leg.
You said:
No, they are called theories as well.
.....referring to hypotheses.
To have a direct bearing, you need to cite a reference that involves the resurrection account.
The person who teaches errantly in the Christian Bible is the same person who says, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again."
Don't even know how a medieval artist in France would've readily acquired such a large fabric made of linen with a herringbone weave. Even the 1988 C-14 researchers couldn't find a medieval linen control sample with a herringbone weave from anywhere.
If herringbone weave "was a common fabric found throughout the Old World", as you quote one source saying, there should have been specimens around, shouldn't there, even if not produced after the fall of Rome?
And I argued that Jesus wouldn't have met those exceptions.
Yes, but you used a Christian funeral source. Whereas I used two Jewish sources, which would be more authoritative on this matter.
That's why the errant inconsistencies of his teaching which are in the text matter.
Why? God would only raise people from the dead that are inerrant?
Are you conceding that Jesus was an errant teacher?
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."
(John 12:49-50)
If Jesus was an errant teacher, then the passage above is a false statement. Why would Jehovah raise from the dead someone who had made a false statement about him, thus giving the false impression that the false statement was true?
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Please cite a definition that equates a tail and a leg.
You said:
No, they are called theories as well.
.....referring to hypotheses.
I already presented a definition of theory which is compatible with my usage of the term. You're the one implying a tail is synonymous with a leg, so you need to provide a definition to support that.
As for hypothesis. it is an assumption made prior to investigating the evidential support for it.
Even in a scientific sense, a hypothesis is proposed prior to research and investigations. It is equivalent to just a guess.
Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used interchangeably, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.
The cloth collapse theory is not just a guess or even a hypothesis. After analyzing it and finding that it matches with the evidence of the shroud, it best explains the shroud features compared to all other proposals, so it is no longer just an educated guess.
To have a direct bearing, you need to cite a reference that involves the resurrection account.
The person who teaches errantly in the Christian Bible is the same person who says, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again."
Again, I dispute your claim Jesus taught erroneously about divorce.
Yes, he said that in reference to his resurrection. Since he stated that and it came to pass, then he fulfilled what he stated. So it's a truthful statement.
If herringbone weave "was a common fabric found throughout the Old World", as you quote one source saying, there should have been specimens around, shouldn't there, even if not produced after the fall of Rome?
Here's the source again:
Various herringbone weaves have been found in antiquity:
A pair of woolen leggings found in the permafrost of the Italian-Austrian Alps have a 2:2 herringbone weave, dating to 800 to 500 BC.[6]
A dark blue cloth with a 2:2 herringbone weave was found at Murabba'at Cave in Israel, from the Roman period.[6][7]
A textile with a 2:2 herringbone weave was found at Pompeii, from 79 AD.[6]
An illustration of a cloth having a herringbone weave from Antinoöpolis in Greece from 130 AD.[8]
The Falkirk Tartan, a wool 2:2 herringbone tartan found at Vindolanda in England from around 240 AD.[9][10]
None of these dates are in the 1260 - 1390 range. In order to have a matching control sample, it would have to have a known date of around 1300.
Now, it could be herringbone weave linen cloths did exist around 1300, but it is very strange the 1988 C-14 testing was not able to acquire one. The testing was oversaw by the British Museum. If anyone should have the resources to find and get one, they would be it.
I don't remember you citing from that. What are you claiming from that source?
That's why the errant inconsistencies of his teaching which are in the text matter.
Why? God would only raise people from the dead that are inerrant?
Are you conceding that Jesus was an errant teacher?
I've never stated Jesus had errant teachings. But what I am implying is God will eventually resurrect the elect and they are all errant.
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."
(John 12:49-50)
If Jesus was an errant teacher, then the passage above is a false statement. Why would Jehovah raise from the dead someone who had made a false statement about him, thus giving the false impression that the false statement was true?
The cloth collapse theory is not just a guess or even a hypothesis. After analyzing it and finding that it matches with the evidence of the shroud, it best explains the shroud features compared to all other proposals, so it is no longer just an educated guess.
The cloth collapse "theory" has nothing to do with analysis. It's an inductive argument fabricated to be an unfalsifiable explanation of the image. Without a mechanism, cloth collapse "theory" is hypothesis.
Again, I dispute your claim Jesus taught erroneously about divorce.
Where, specifically, do you refute my argument?
Yes, he said that in reference to his resurrection. Since he stated that and it came to pass, then he fulfilled what he stated. So it's a truthful statement.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:09 pm
It's an inductive argument fabricated to be an unfalsifiable explanation of the image. Without a mechanism, cloth collapse "theory" is hypothesis.
It is easily falsifiable. Just present a viable naturalistic explanation and the cloth collapse theory is falsified.
What "mechanism" are you referring to? What is the "mechanism" of the Big Bang theory?
Again, I dispute your claim Jesus taught erroneously about divorce.
Where, specifically, do you refute my argument?
Here are the posts that I've discussed about divorce:
otseng wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:11 am
How exactly is divorce a doctrinal position? Is it in any creed or confessional? Is it on any church statement of faith? Do people need to believe in divorce in order to be classified as a Christian?
otseng wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 8:46 am
We have many believers who have divorced. Are they still Christian?
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
otseng wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:31 am
This has nothing to do with the claims of the resurrection, but only with the alleged contradictions of the Bible. This charge is a general attack on the Bible that skeptics commonly give in debates in practically all discussions that involve the Bible. I already pointed this out in the Ehrman and Licona debate:
Fundamentally, what you are bringing up is the charge against inerrancy. Since this thread does not assume the Bible is inerrant, it is not relevant.
If we want to discuss the views on divorce, then that's for another thread.
otseng wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 6:24 am
Jesus already explained why Moses gave the law of divorce, because of the hardness of peoples' hearts. There is no misquoting of the law from Jesus. The religious people back then (and even now) were more concerned with the letter of the law, whereas Jesus was focusing on the heart of the law.
otseng wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 6:56 am
It's about the interpretation of what the law of Moses says. At the time of Jesus, there were at a minimum two ways the law could be interpreted by the Jews - the Pharisaical and Sadducaical. There were also the Essenes' views and the Zealots' views, though their views were not explicitly stated in the Bible. Among Christians, there are a myriad of ways the law is interpreted. Just on the topic of divorce alone there are many views.
Here are the verses:
Deut 4:2 (KJV)
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [aught] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deut 11:13 (KJV)
13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,
Deut 13:18 (KJV)
18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do [that which is] right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.
Again, it's your interpretation, it's not what the text explicitly says. Further, I've never heard from anyone say that it is the letter of the law that we should follow.
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:33 am
Deut 13:18 does not say divorce is right.
Deu 13:18
When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.
As a matter of fact, where in the Bible does it command someone to divorce?
As for not swearing/making a vow, it's another example of Jesus getting to the heart. There isn't really any contradiction with what Jesus said and Num 30:2.
I've seen this red herring tossed out there before. It isn't about the law not commanding divorce; it's about the law not forbidding divorce.
Isn't this entire topic of discussing divorce a red herring since it has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus?
My point is you would have a stronger case if Moses had commanded people to divorce and Jesus commanded people not to divorce. Then there would be an obvious contradiction. But even with the case of Moses allowing a divorce, Jesus also had allowed it in the case of sexual immorality. So, I don't see much of an issue here.
Moses does not say, "Do not swear at all" and does say, "Do not add to the law".
Again, where does it say "do not add to the law"?
otseng wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:09 am
What conclusion are referring to? That Jesus was resurrected? The conclusion of this was based on the TS. I never even presented scripture as evidence for the TS. Your arguments about divorce is interesting as a side trail to look at, but it's not an obstacle to how I'm arguing for the resurrection since it really has no relevance. Note that I've never argued for the resurrection of Jesus using textual evidence, unlike all other apologists. I've only brought up artifact evidence to argue for the resurrection. So, you'll need to base your counterarguments against the artifact evidence, not textual claims.
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 8:49 am
Your argument boils down to Jesus broke the command not to add to the commands. Again, I believe it was an interpretation of the command as you acknowledged that the Jews also did with the passages on divorce.
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 8:56 am
Your argument using the textual evidence is quite convoluted. Nothing you have brought up is remotely related to the resurrection. Instead, what you have focused on are passages on divorce.
Again, you're in denial. The inconsistency in Jesus's teaching has a direct bearing on the claim that he was a divine Messiah, and that claim has a direct bearing on whether or not he would have been resurrected.
Well, I don't think I'm the one in denial, but we can agree to disagree on how literally one should interpret the Bible. I believe Jesus's teachings has no contradiction with the Torah based on the original language meanings, the intent of the teachings, how most Christians (and even Jews) view the Torah, and what is the commonly accepted views of Bible teachers and scholars.
Yes, he said that in reference to his resurrection. Since he stated that and it came to pass, then he fulfilled what he stated. So it's a truthful statement.
Circular argument.
I'm not presenting any scripture as an argument for the TS. I'm simply responding to your charge that Jesus taught erroneously.
The person who teaches errantly in the Christian Bible is the same person who says, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again."
I don't remember you citing from that. What are you claiming from that source?
I thought we were talking about the resurrection of Jesus.
I'm addressing your statement:
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 8:47 pm
Why would Jehovah raise from the dead someone who had made a false statement about him, thus giving the false impression that the false statement was true?
Even if someone makes an erroneous statement, it does not preclude God from being able to resurrect that person.
