Monday, October 24, 2005

A case from now... A case from then...

This is one of the reasons I constantly exhort the doctrine of the fall of man and original sin. First, look at the link below, and watch the video if you can.

Now, this is a real story, about real people and a seemingly impossible situation. A child that simply isn't growing up. It's not just the video and this story, because it can be looked up in more sources than just the internet.

However, this next link shows just how incredibly fallen human beings can be.

They are saying that this is all a hoax. Can you believe this?

Now, this is how it should be reasoned out. Even if, out of billions of children born since the beginning of creation, no child was ever born that didn't grow, but stayed the same size year after year, no matter how crazy or far fetched it seems, you still have to note it as something that actually happened in history. To do anything else it to be a proponent of falsehood. I was think to myself as I read about this and watched the video that, after any given amount of time, after Little Brooke has passed on and all that's left are stories and maybe a medical file, people will read about it and say, "Nah, it never happened. It's impossible".

But the mere occurance has to at least be noted. Even if it only happens once.

The same is true For Jesus. Without going into faith in Jesus as the risen savior, just the fact that a Rabbi two thousand years ago died by crucifiction at the hands of the Romans and was raised from the dead has to be made note of. One can't just say, "Nah, it never happened". Even if, out of the billions of people who have died since the beginning of creation, every last one of the stayed dead, if even one person is raised from the dead, it still has to be noted as something that happened in real history.

Just like Little Brooke has to be taken seriously, so also does Jesus. Just because Brooke's story seems far fetched doesn't mean it's not true. And just because Jesus' story seems far fetched, doesn't mean his story isn't true.

Pass this on to any friends you have who say they don't believe in Jesus death and resurrection. This is the same kind of "reasoning" that cracks tough nuts like Adrian Flew and C.S. Lewis. The Holy Spirit always wins the argument.


Brent said...

Hmmm. Interesting. So let's follow the path of argument here just a bit to be clear. It sounds like the following:
Fact A (child not aging) leads to future disbelief due to incredible rarity of Fact A.
Future disbelief of Fact A is like present disbelief (of resurrection of Christ) of supposed event B because it is similarly rare (1 out of all the known living human beings).
Supposed event B is a fact by similarity.

The difference between the child and the resurrection of Christ is the former has evidence. The significance of this is the former is now possible and now the probability is relevant. The latter has no demonstrable proof (hence the incredible amount of disbelief) without which it can't enter into the realm of possibility regardless of how equally probable it might be should it be true (which isn't verifiable).

Another way to look at the argument itself were to compare two completely dark rooms. Everyone would agree that what is inside is not visible and hence could contain anything. However that does not mean they contain the same things. Human perception or belief does not form the basis of equivalency between anything.

I honestly don't think you would want to make this argument either even if it had a shred of substance. The child has the resources and the interest of science, medical, biological, genetic, etc that I'm sure would be glad to identify the cause of the condition. However, if science can demonstrably show that the cause is entirely natural means (such as by reproducing the phenomena--probably in a different animal), then your argument would suggest that the resurrection of Christ was also by natural means, removing any potential for him being the son of God (who is supernatural and outside the realm of science). But that would only be if your argument made sense, which it does not.

Finally, the article you referenced from was to inquire on the veracity of it. Which is entirely legitimate because it is an incredible fact. It's far outside the bounds of our normal experiences. Incredible statements require incredible amounts of evidence. Particularly in present times when absurdities abound on the internet.

I might point out that I have a wealthy foreign investor that needs some help moving funds and if you would be so kind as to provide some personally identifiable information and your banking data we could certainly arrange to move the funds there and leave a percentage for your troubles. Because clearly this is less incredible than the resurrection of Christ rendering it more likely to be true.

Matthew said...


Your argument about the resurrection not being verifiable is actually inaccurate. There are plenty of things that happened in ancient history that are accepted as fact with little or no "verifiable" evidence. The point of my post is to show that, unless one looks at the actual evidence, one cannot disregard the occurance of anything based soley on a subjective view of said things probability.

Once this child who isn't aging dies, all that will be left to attest to her existence is a few medical records, some eyewitnesses to her existence, and some video footage. The medical records could easily be forged, the eyewitnesses could be lying, and the video footage could false as well. With the exception of the video footage, these things exist as evidence of Christ's death and resurrection as well... And if for some reason someone misplaces the body of this little girl, then what? It never happened? Reject what evidence there is because it's just to far fetched that it happened?

See, you can't just reason away something by saying it can't be varified. There are many things in life that "can't be verified", but are generally accepted as true.

Brent said...

No, there is still a difference. Cells can be kept frozen for incredibly long periods of time, and her genetic information can be stored. If desired they could reproduce the phenomena (assuming it is natural of course). That cannot be done with the resurrection. One is still verifiable post death, the other is not.

Matthew said...

Oh... in other words, they could clone her, and then verify that it was true? Sorry, the technology isn't there for that, Brent.

Even if someone could verify it, it would just be another piece of evidence. A body is never required to verify something of this nature, but at the time of the resurrection there were over 500 witnesses to Jesus walking, talking, eating fish, being touched by people... All of these accounts were separate accounts before they were compiled into the volume we now call the bible.

In St. Louis this morning, I think, there was a conference of lawyers who came together to look at the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus from strictly an evidentury standpoint. This included archeological evidence, eyewitness accounts, hostile witnesses... all things that hold up under direct scrutiny and is verifiable. You can call it unverifiable if you wish, but it doesn't change the facts. You can't just wisk Jesus' resurrection away in a puff of emotion, although many do try.

Now, believing that Jesus was resurrected doesn't mean that a person actually believes in the work he accomplished through his death and resurrection. That takes faith that only the Holy Spirit can generate in the heart of a believer. If you wish to discuss that, that would be a debate, but you'd have to finally accept the historicity of the resurrection to even begin to discuss the implications.

Terence said...

And if for some reason someone misplaces the body of this little girl, then what? It never happened? Reject what evidence there is because it's just to far fetched that it happened?


If that happens, then probabbly some dumbass like you would say that she was the only daughter of god and shit like that ;)

the big test

Since someone, somewhere, has seen fit to deprive the world of Issues etc and take a huge bite out of confessional Lutheranism at the same time, I will not take up the mantle of working to see that those who did it answer for their actions.
Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | Grants For Single Moms