Ancient stone tablet may prove resurrection predated Jesus

[Clownboat]

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.ph ... sus-Christ

The three-foot-high mysterious stone tablet, which has been written on rather than carved, is known as the Angel Gabriel’s Vision of Revelation.
Israel Knohl, biblical studies professor at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, has concluded the key line 80 of the text as Gabriel telling a historic Jewish rebel named Simon, who was killed by the Romans in 4 BC: "In three days you shall live, I Gabriel, command you."
"This sheds new light on the messianic activity of Jesus," Knohl said to Reuters news agency. "It proves that the concept of the messiah was already there before Jesus,"

Then you have the Epic of Gilgamesh that has similar aspects to the flood story.
The Garden of Eden story is also similar to an earlier myth.

Question for debate: What does this suggest about he Bible being God inspired if in actuality the stories themselves are not original?

[Goat]

Having had a near death experience(Fell of bike, hit by van) and having taken salvia, I can inform you that drug induced hallucinatory states aren't necessarily too different to an NDE.

Funny enough, the time I tried salvia was much more 'spiritual' than my NDE; I went to some other planet and conversed with some aliens about the meaning of life and then traversed intergalactic space ridiculously quickly. Is this evidence that some alternative reality exists? I don't think so; I think it's evidence that salvia is insane.

You are not taking the extensive writing on this subject
into account. I know of no NDE's that have people flitting
across the universe to consult aliens. Your analysis, such
as it is, is not doing justice to the subject. I am talking
about subject matter such as is discussed in Raymond Moody's
book Life After Life not salvia and aliens.

And I know of know of no OOB experiences that allow someone to get information
about anything but might be inferred by their own senses right then and there.

The question is 'can you show that NDE's are anything more than the discharge of the various brain cells when they are starting to get oxygen deprived?

[mgb]

The question is 'can you show that NDE's are anything more than the discharge of the various brain cells when they are starting to get oxygen deprived?

I think I have provided evidence in the sense that NDE's have an intelligible narrative.
But you are looking for proof. There is no proof outside mathematics. I would not ask you for proofs of your points of view. There can only be a convincing argument in these matters.

[LiamOS]

What is the intelligible narrative? Where did you show it and where did you provide evidence for it?

Myself and Goat do not want a mathematical proof; we merely want sufficient evidence to say that it is more likely to be the case than the null hypothesis which we currently hold.

[Goat]

The question is 'can you show that NDE's are anything more than the discharge of the various brain cells when they are starting to get oxygen deprived?

I think I have provided evidence in the sense that NDE's have an intelligible narrative.
But you are looking for proof. There is no proof outside mathematics. I would not ask you for proofs of your points of view. There can only be a convincing argument in these matters.

Did you? Where did you show that NDE's can provide information about what is happening that is more than "Let's fill in the blanks about what is happening around the body', and 'This is more than a physical phenomena that occurs when the brain is oxygen deprived and the neurons start firing'?

I missed that.

[mgb]

The question is 'can you show that NDE's are anything more than the discharge of the various brain cells when they are starting to get oxygen deprived?

I think I have provided evidence in the sense that NDE's have an intelligible narrative.
But you are looking for proof. There is no proof outside mathematics. I would not ask you for proofs of your points of view. There can only be a convincing argument in these matters.

Did you? Where did you show that NDE's can provide information about what is happening that is more than "Let's fill in the blanks about what is happening around the body', and 'This is more than a physical phenomena that occurs when the brain is oxygen deprived and the neurons start firing'?

I missed that.

Yes I did. I argued that the intelligible narrative of NDE's is not likely to be produced by a random firing of neurons. Read some NDE accounts. They are more intelligible than the average dream. They have a consistent dialogue - meaningful dialogue supported by visual experience and the unfaltering integration of dialogue and visual experience throughout the experience suggests that there is more to them than neurons firing in a dying brain.

[mgb]

What is the intelligible narrative? Where did you show it and where did you provide evidence for it?

Myself and Goat do not want a mathematical proof; we merely want sufficient evidence to say that it is more likely to be the case than the null hypothesis which we currently hold.

Read my previous post. NDE's are coherent experiences that cannot easily be explained away by neurons randomly firing. The narrative is in the accounts of the experiences themselves. Read them. It is inconceivable that narratives that are sustained throughout the entire experience could be constructed by random firing of neurons.

[mgb]

I am talking
about subject matter such as is discussed in Raymond Moody's book Life After Life not salvia and aliens.

So because you do not agree with my experience, it's moot?
Cherry pickin'?

I am saying that if your experience did not have an intelligible narrative that does not detract from the ones that do. I am saying that this intelligible narrative is unlikely to be explained by random biological events.

[LiamOS]

I argued that the intelligible narrative of NDE's is not likely to be produced by a random firing of neurons.

You'd be right. Chemical releases are not on their own responsible for the experiences, as that would make no sense. Interpretation of them is almost certainly where the intelligibleness comes from.

They are more intelligible than the average dream.

One who ascribes significance to dreams might beg to differ.

They have a consistent dialogue - meaningful dialogue supported by visual experience and the unfaltering integration of dialogue and visual experience throughout the experience suggests that there is more to them than neurons firing in a dying brain.

Again, many drug induced states I've experienced fit that bill, too. It's more down to the interpretation than the chemicals themselves.
I'm sure you seen the picture of Jesus on the slice of toast. That's but one example of an intelligible pattern being found in something nonsensical.

Read my previous post. NDE's are coherent experiences that cannot easily be explained away by neurons randomly firing. The narrative is in the accounts of the experiences themselves. Read them. It is inconceivable that they could be constructed by random firing of neurons.

Can you prove that NDEs are fully coherent and propose a mechanism for their occurrence?

[Goat]

What is the intelligible narrative? Where did you show it and where did you provide evidence for it?

Myself and Goat do not want a mathematical proof; we merely want sufficient evidence to say that it is more likely to be the case than the null hypothesis which we currently hold.

Read my previous post. NDE's are coherent experiences that cannot easily be explained away by neurons randomly firing. The narrative is in the accounts of the experiences themselves. Read them. It is inconceivable that they could be constructed by random firing of neurons.

Argument from personal incredulity??? You might not say 'it is inconceivable.'.. but lets see you show that anybody said it was 'random firing'.. it is discharging due to lack of oxygen.. but is it 'random'?

[mgb]

Can you prove that NDEs are fully coherent and propose a mechanism for their occurrence?

You need to stop making endless demands for proof. I would not make these kinds of demands on you because I know proof/disproof is not forthcoming in such matters as we are discussing.