Can Christians Accept A Ressurection Within The Laws of Physics?

[David Sklansky]

Before elaborating on the question, I want to take the opportunity to make sure that everyone understands that I have never said that I am almost certain there is no God.

What I have said is that I am almost certain that supernatural events that can not conceivably have a scientific explanation have never occurred. (with the two possible exceptions of the Big Bang and human consciousness.)

Of course the end result of this certainty is that I don't believe that the God portrayed in the bible exists, since he is said to perform miracles that totally disobey scientific laws. And those who think that my studying the bible might change my mind are being almost as silly as those who think my studying the details of a craps system might make me think it works. Even if I couldn't find the flaw in the system, the underlying principles guarantees there is a flaw (granted the bible scnario is not as mathematically certain.)

Now if the bible did not proclaim that God sometimes did things well beyond what science could explain, like the Noah story, the Earth standing still, etc I wouldn't be here debating the subject. Arguing against that God would be something I would leave to chezlaw, Phil153, luckyme or MidGe. But it does proclaim those things.

And the things are so hard to believe that some religious people try to make things easier to swallow by suggesting that God finds a way to perform miracles in such a way that he somehow harnesses scientific laws to do them. The Red Sea being an obvious example. They also are willing to admit that most claimed miracles are frauds (grilled cheese) or perhaps only misunderstandings or hallucinations (stopped sun).

What I would like to know is whether these Christians who would lump these miracles into some type of natural event "guided by God" (whatever that means) are willing to put the Resurrection itself in that category. Jesus didn't really die. He was ressucitated, He had a twin. Or anything else that didn't flat out disobey laws of science. Or do they have to keep that one "miracle" in a seperate category in their minds, even if all others are scientifically explainable?

[bunny]

I think it is possible for a Christian to have this view of all miracles, although it has probably drifted far enough from theism to be some other-ism (deism?).

However, even in Australia, I dont think it is a very common view.

[arahant]

You're kind of putting the lie to your earlier post about people who are mathematically and logically talented...

At least, if you are.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if the bible did not proclaim that God sometimes did things well beyond what science could explain, like the Noah story, the Earth standing still, etc I wouldn't be here debating the subject. Arguing against that God would be something I would leave to chezlaw, Phil153, luckyme or MidGe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never argued against such a god.

I've argued against arguing for or against such a god, particularly the misuse of probabilistic arguments.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world". A Christianity that demands the disruption of laws of nature is one that does not take this statement seriously. A Spiritual Resurection of Christ has more Reality than a physical one because it is an Ultimate Reality of the Spiritual.

There is no reason to disbelieve in the God of the Bible because of Bible stories containing descriptions of disruptions in the laws of nature. They are stories. Such Disruptions of Nature were commonplace to the Minds of the people of that time. So they freely used them in their stories. There is no reason for us to be bothered by that.

Those people were also on a Spiritual Journey. It's in the record of that Journey that Spiritual truths emerge. Not in the shortcomings of the Spiritual condition of the people along the way. But in their Spiritual progress.

You have to open yourself to the possibility of the Spritual to be able to see this.

PairTheBoard

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world". A Christianity that demands the disruption of laws of nature is one that does not take this statement seriously. A Spiritual Resurection of Christ has more Reality than a physical one because it is an Ultimate Reality of the Spiritual.

There is no reason to disbelieve in the God of the Bible because of Bible stories containing descriptions of disruptions in the laws of nature. They are stories. Such Disruptions of Nature were commonplace to the Minds of the people of that time. So they freely used them in their stories. There is no reason for us to be bothered by that.

Those people were also on a Spiritual Journey. It's in the record of that Journey that Spiritual truths emerge. Not in the shortcomings of the Spiritual condition of the people along the way. But in their Spiritual progress.

You have to open yourself to the possibility of the Spritual to be able to see this.

PairTheBoard


[/ QUOTE ]

you're a very interesting dude. I can see why Sklansky likes arguing with you so much. Did you ever read Hegel?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world". A Christianity that demands the disruption of laws of nature is one that does not take this statement seriously. A Spiritual Resurection of Christ has more Reality than a physical one because it is an Ultimate Reality of the Spiritual.

There is no reason to disbelieve in the God of the Bible because of Bible stories containing descriptions of disruptions in the laws of nature. They are stories. Such Disruptions of Nature were commonplace to the Minds of the people of that time. So they freely used them in their stories. There is no reason for us to be bothered by that.

Those people were also on a Spiritual Journey. It's in the record of that Journey that Spiritual truths emerge. Not in the shortcomings of the Spiritual condition of the people along the way. But in their Spiritual progress.

You have to open yourself to the possibility of the Spritual to be able to see this.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are talking like a Reform Jew who thinks that Jesus was a great teacher approximately equivalent to Moses. Not like a Christian. Again something that everyone on this forum from Not Ready and BluffThis to Zeno and Lestat (but not you) understands.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world". A Christianity that demands the disruption of laws of nature is one that does not take this statement seriously. A Spiritual Resurection of Christ has more Reality than a physical one because it is an Ultimate Reality of the Spiritual.

There is no reason to disbelieve in the God of the Bible because of Bible stories containing descriptions of disruptions in the laws of nature. They are stories. Such Disruptions of Nature were commonplace to the Minds of the people of that time. So they freely used them in their stories. There is no reason for us to be bothered by that.

Those people were also on a Spiritual Journey. It's in the record of that Journey that Spiritual truths emerge. Not in the shortcomings of the Spiritual condition of the people along the way. But in their Spiritual progress.

You have to open yourself to the possibility of the Spritual to be able to see this.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are talking like a Reform Jew who thinks that Jesus was a great teacher approximately equivalent to Moses. Not like a Christian. Again something that everyone on this forum from Not Ready and BluffThis to Zeno and Lestat (but not you) understands.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO in this case he's talking like someone who has some sense.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you ever read Hegel?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard of him. Wasn't he a commie?

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world". A Christianity that demands the disruption of laws of nature is one that does not take this statement seriously. A Spiritual Resurection of Christ has more Reality than a physical one because it is an Ultimate Reality of the Spiritual.

There is no reason to disbelieve in the God of the Bible because of Bible stories containing descriptions of disruptions in the laws of nature. They are stories. Such Disruptions of Nature were commonplace to the Minds of the people of that time. So they freely used them in their stories. There is no reason for us to be bothered by that.

Those people were also on a Spiritual Journey. It's in the record of that Journey that Spiritual truths emerge. Not in the shortcomings of the Spiritual condition of the people along the way. But in their Spiritual progress.

You have to open yourself to the possibility of the Spritual to be able to see this.

PairTheBoard


[/ QUOTE ]

you're a very interesting dude. I can see why Sklansky likes arguing with you so much. Did you ever read Hegel?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's a juggler. Many of the bright christians are. When I was in 8th grade there was a chaplain in my school exactly like this. He knew that Christ either didn't exist or was based on some unimportant historical figure. He called Christ "a movement of the spirit" and the acceptance of Christ as "the acceptance of love", as wasn't the least bit fazed that Christ story was complete nonsense. He happily stood up and preached under the shadow of this hypocrisy, using his meaning while knowing others would attribute the term to their ideas built up from the bible, Sunday school, movies, Christmas and so on.

He would switch between metaphor and reality quickly, retreating to claims of "Spirit" when shown to be wrong, not caring for truth but hoping to spread his particular understanding of Love to others. I have no doubt he'd use capitals as well to Obscure the Triviality of his Thoughts.

Had he let his balls drop, he would have been an atheist, or at least a Buddhist.

[Phil153]

PTB,

Please humor me and state, for the record, that you do not think Christ was actually physically resurrected or performed actual physical miracles such as healing of the sick.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did you ever read Hegel?




[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard of him. Wasn't he a commie?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

no he was most certainly not a commie. The central idea of his philosophy was that human history develops through manifesting the world spirit (or god)
He was a christian.

People associate him with communism because Marx was influenced by Hegel's philosphical method of dialectics.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
You are talking like a Reform Jew who thinks that Jesus was a great teacher approximately equivalent to Moses. Not like a Christian. Again something that everyone on this forum from Not Ready and BluffThis to Zeno and Lestat (but not you) understands.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You misunderstand the position I described completely. A Spiritual Resurection still embodies and offers proof for the divinity of Christ. The Holy Trinity remains. Jesus remains the Mesiah. He remains the Way the Truth and the Life. His Resurection remains proof of that Life. The Validity of the Resurection is Magnified not diminished when the Ultimate Reality of the Spritual which Jesus talked about is recognized.

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world". You cannot understand any of this as long as your mind remains monopolized by the concepts of "This World".

btw, I think this view is becoming pretty much standard with modern thinkers in Liberal Christianity. I suspect it is the future direction of the Religion. Modern thinkers are going to insist on it.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PTB,

Please humor me and state, for the record, that you do not think Christ was actually physically resurrected or performed actual physical miracles such as healing of the sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would I know? However I see those tenets of the Religion as unnecessary and actually degradations of what the Religion should be.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did you ever read Hegel?




[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard of him. Wasn't he a commie?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

no he was most certainly not a commie. The central idea of his philosophy was that human history develops through manifesting the world spirit (or god)
He was a christian.

People associate him with communism because Marx was influenced by Hegel's philosphical method of dialectics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah dialectics. That's what I was thinking of. Dialectics always seemed too high falootin for me. As far as human history manifesting a world spirit which is identified as God? I wouldn't want to put God in a box called World Spirit. But I think there's something to the idea. I think we should recognize that everytime we think we have God nailed down it's probably time to come to a better understanding.

PairTheBoard

[siegfriedandroy]

the big bang is a big exception stopped reading there sorry drunk... can you beat victor (after 17 beers) at chess? how about capablanca?

[David Sklansky]

"No. You misunderstand the position I described completely. A Spiritual Resurection still embodies and offers proof for the divinity of Christ. The Holy Trinity remains. Jesus remains the Mesiah. He remains the Way the Truth and the Life. His Resurection remains proof of that Life. The Validity of the Resurection is Magnified not diminished when the Ultimate Reality of the Spritual which Jesus talked about is recognized.

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world". You cannot understand any of this as long as your mind remains monopolized by the concepts of "This World"."

I admit I cannot understand what you are saying. But that doesn't mean it is nonsense because after all you PREDICTED THAT I COULDN'T. The txaq argument all over again. But maybe you are right and it is just me who can't understand it. Meanwhile I would assume that others here would understand, even if they don't agree with it. Perhaps Not Ready, BluffThis, txaq, phil153, or chezlaw would translate for me.

[siegfriedandroy]

you are clearly adept at Greek. i read the 1st sentence and consequently cannot take u seriously!

[JussiUt]

PairTheBoard definately has an unique concept of God. I think we can clearly say he's not a traditional Christian. It's interesting that he chooses not to reveal much about his own faith like he has said many times. Of course he has all the right to do that but it tends to make things quite unclear for the rest of us.

If I had to pin down PairTheBoard I'd say he's very much like an agnostic deist with buddhist elements. But I could be very wrong.

[MidGe]

Hey, I can accept a virgin (parthenogenic) birth, especially this week since the discovery it was possible of sharks. I would not call the shark parthenogenesis as miraculous.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PTB,

Please humor me and state, for the record, that you do not think Christ was actually physically resurrected or performed actual physical miracles such as healing of the sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would I know? However I see those tenets of the Religion as unnecessary and actually degradations of what the Religion should be.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think it's an important question though? Because it is possible that we're all alone and unimportant in this gigantic universe. And when we die, everything that we are disappears for eternity. This is the reality that atheists and theists alike have grappled with and feared for thousands of years. It really matters if we have material proof of something else.

Are you so certain that there is something else, that you don't care for proof? You seem to claim a different frame of reference and a faith in which these questions don't matter, but to me it seems like wishing them away.

[bozzer]

Christians believe that God created the world (how is up for debate). And that therefore God created the laws that govern the universe today. It is also generally acknowledged that God is omnipotent:

'Mary asked the angel, "How can this happen? I am not married!"

'The angel answered, "Thy Holy Spirit will come down to you, and God's power will come over you. So your child will be called the holy Son of God. Your relative Elizabeth is also going to have a son, even though she is old. No one thought she could ever have a baby, but in three months she will have a son. Nothing is impossible for God!" ' (Luke 1)

God is therefore not restricted to operating within the laws of the universe he has created. A miracle is supposed to be supernatural. One of the reasons that Jesus did so many miracles was to convince people at the time that he was the Son of God and to fufil a prophecy about the Messiah made over 500 years earlier:

'When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor." '

(Matthew 11)

Jesus is referring to this passage (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=35&version=31).

I don't believe that Jesus did his miracles within the normal terms of existance (day in day out laws of physics) but I do believe they happened. They might have involved some kind of physical manipulation we don't know about yet, or they might be entirely supernatural. Who knows?

My beliefs on Jesus' miracles of course include the greatest of them all, his resurrection.

There are lots of people who would say they are Christians, like the chaplin mentioned earlier in the thread, but don't believe in various supernatural events mentioned in the Bible. They might be Christians, I don't know. But the religion they preach has very little in common with the historically-based, grounded, and life changing faith I have.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PTB,

Please humor me and state, for the record, that you do not think Christ was actually physically resurrected or performed actual physical miracles such as healing of the sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would I know? However I see those tenets of the Religion as unnecessary and actually degradations of what the Religion should be.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think it's an important question though? Because it is possible that we're all alone and unimportant in this gigantic universe. And when we die, everything that we are disappears for eternity. This is the reality that atheists and theists alike have grappled with and feared for thousands of years. It really matters if we have material proof of something else.

Are you so certain that there is something else, that you don't care for proof? You seem to claim a different frame of reference and a faith in which these questions don't matter, but to me it seems like wishing them away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little puzzled by the attitude here. Both yours and David's. The OP asked if Christians could accept a Resurrection within the laws of physics. I said they could and that many modern Liberal Christians have done just that. I explained how such a Ressurection could be understood and how such an understanding actually magnifies the validity of the Resurrection Faith. Now I am being ridiculed by David and attacked by you. What's wrong with you people?

On the one hand you claim it is ridiculous to think natural laws have ever been broken. Then on the other hand you claim that there is no other way to understand God working in human history. For people who don't believe he exists you seem to know an awful lot about how he would operate if he did.

As I've stated several times on several threads, if God Did break the laws of nature to do miracles it would not be Proof of anything. Such activity would be indistinguishable from Events for which science has not yet discovered laws of nature to explain. Science would just go to work in a futile attempt to discover those laws. In my view you are the one speaking nonsense when you insist God must operate in that way in order to be God and in order for you to have the proof you need to believe in him.

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of This World". I've explained what I think the implications of that statement are. Now you insist that such an understanding means we are alone in the universe? That when we die everything disappears for eternity? Why? Because you demand a Physical God? Because you demand a Physical Resurrection? Because "Not of This World" is not good enough for you?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you so certain that there is something else, that you don't care for proof? You seem to claim a different frame of reference and a faith in which these questions don't matter, but to me it seems like wishing them away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many people misunderstand Faith. Faith is something in and of itself. What I described above IS the Faith. It's not a faith in a proposition that can't be proved. "My Kingdom is not of this World" describes The Faith. The Faith is what we come to Believe In, rather than a reason for why we come to believe. The miracle is that we do come to believe. That is a Spiritual Miracle. It requires no magic tricks with the laws of nature.

I'm sorry if this offends you. I'm a little puzzled why Sklansky even presented the Topic. Evidently it was a Rhetorical Question.

PairTheBoard

[Sotiria]

[ QUOTE ]
Before elaborating on the question, I want to take the opportunity to make sure that everyone understands that I have never said that I am almost certain there is no God.

What I have said is that I am almost certain that supernatural events that can not conceivably have a scientific explanation have never occurred. (with the two possible exceptions of the Big Bang and human consciousness.)

Of course the end result of this certainty is that I don't believe that the God portrayed in the bible exists, since he is said to perform miracles that totally disobey scientific laws. And those who think that my studying the bible might change my mind are being almost as silly as those who think my studying the details of a craps system might make me think it works. Even if I couldn't find the flaw in the system, the underlying principles guarantees there is a flaw (granted the bible scnario is not as mathematically certain.)

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are almost certain that events have not occured with the exception of the Big Bang and human consciousness. Maybe you meant something else, but you used the phrase "almost certain", and then go on to say something like "because of this certainty"....I don't think thats reasonable. Also, your two exceptions are kind of big ones, don't you think?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're framing your argument around the presupposition that miracles (or events outside of scientific explanation) don't happen, even though you acknowledge that the Big Bang and human consciousness lie outside the realm of scientific explaination.

Ignoring all of that, to address your question of whether or not Jesus' ressurection can be explained away as something like he passed out but didn't really die, or everyone hallucinated it, etc...

Looking at the bible as a whole, the ressurection really has to be a literal event. Atoning for the Sin of humanity could not be accomplished by Jesus "passing out".
And besides that, the Romans had the whole crucifixion thing down and it is highly unlikely that they would be unsure of whether or not Jesus was really dead, especially after they shoved a spear in his side.

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
"My Kingdom is not of this World" describes The Faith. The Faith is what we come to Believe In, rather than a reason for why we come to believe. The miracle is that we do come to believe. That is a Spiritual Miracle. It requires no magic tricks with the laws of nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right to emphasise the relative importance over spiritual truth over literal truth. But that doesn't mean those things aren't important.

I think you are being very liberal with your interpretation of this quotation. Firstly we can debate your interpretation of the word 'kingdom'. I agree it can be wideranging, but in the statement you keep quoting it's not. Pilate is asking Jesus why his own people have asked for him to be killed.

' Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." ' (John 18 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+18) )


That sounds like more a 'I'm not here to be a King of the Jews type figure' than 'Don't worry about literal truth, just feel the spiritual truth'.

I can see where you're coming from though, because then Jesus broadens out his point.

' Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" ' (John 18 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+18) )

So Jesus is saying he's most concerned with truth. Is he talking about objective truth, or subjective truth? I think when Jesus says he bears witness, like the apostles later, he's inferring that the truth that he bears witness to can be born witness to.

Additionally, Pilate's question, 'what is truth?' is left hanging. I suggest the author leaves the reader to answer that for themselves by reading the rest of the account of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Secondly, we see elsewhere that Jesus is concerned with the spiritual and literal implications of his resurrection: Thomas declares that he will not believe that Jesus is has been resurrected unless he can see Jesus in person and feel his wounds.

' Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” ' ( John 20 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+20))

Jesus is concerned that Thomas believes in a literal resurrection. And it seems that the author is also concerned to give us the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. In fact, he says as much his next sentance:

' Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.' ( John 20 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+20))

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus is concerned that Thomas believes in a literal resurrection. And it seems that the author is also concerned to give us the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. In fact, he says as much his next sentance:


[/ QUOTE ]

In my view a Spiritual Resurrection Is a literal Resurrection. It is literally Spiritual. What matters is its Reality. This story conveys the fact that the desciples finally and fully experienced the Absolute and Ultimate Reality of the Resurrection Faith.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In my view a Spiritual Resurrection Is a literal Resurrection. It is literally Spiritual. What matters is its Reality. This story conveys the fact that the desciples finally and fully experienced the Absolute and Ultimate Reality of the Resurrection Faith.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That sidesteps the question. Would a video-taped modern coroners examination confirm a resurrection? Of course the disciples experienced it in 'their reality' ( or claimed to have). That's like saying there really IS a monster under my daughters bed, after all she experienced it.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my view a Spiritual Resurrection Is a literal Resurrection. It is literally Spiritual. What matters is its Reality. This story conveys the fact that the desciples finally and fully experienced the Absolute and Ultimate Reality of the Resurrection Faith.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That sidesteps the question. Would a video-taped modern coroners examination confirm a resurrection?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. "My Kingdom is not of This World". There will never be a video-tape of God either. That does not reduce his Reality.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
No. "My Kingdom is not of This World". There will never be a video-tape of God either. That does not reduce his Reality.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. So, if the disciples had camcorders His place at the table would show a blank?

luckyme

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
In my view a Spiritual Resurrection Is a literal Resurrection. It is literally Spiritual. What matters is its Reality. This story conveys the fact that the desciples finally and fully experienced the Absolute and Ultimate Reality of the Resurrection Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense PTB but I think you made a left turn at Liberal Christianity and took a detour to Making It Up As I Go Along.

Seriously, a "literally spiritual resurrection"? Are you arguing that Jesus is god no matter whether he rose from the dead or not, as long as his disciples believed it in their hearts? Or something? Because lots of cult followers have truly believed some crazy stuff and that doesn't make any of it "literally spiritually true."

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. "My Kingdom is not of This World". There will never be a video-tape of God either. That does not reduce his Reality.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. So, if the disciples had camcorders His place at the table would show a blank?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

They experienced the Reality of his Presence. People often claim to experience the presence of God in prayer. Noone thinks it strange that he can't be photographed in that situation. That does not reduce the reality of his presence. In fact, if the reality of God's presence ever were photographed You would immediately claim it as evidence that it can't be God.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my view a Spiritual Resurrection Is a literal Resurrection. It is literally Spiritual. What matters is its Reality. This story conveys the fact that the desciples finally and fully experienced the Absolute and Ultimate Reality of the Resurrection Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense PTB but I think you made a left turn at Liberal Christianity and took a detour to Making It Up As I Go Along.

Seriously, a "literally spiritual resurrection"? Are you arguing that Jesus is god no matter whether he rose from the dead or not, as long as his disciples believed it in their hearts? Or something? Because lots of cult followers have truly believed some crazy stuff and that doesn't make any of it "literally spiritually true."

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, he did rise from the dead. The disciples did not invent the resurrection. They experienced the Risen Christ. It was a Spiritual Experience and as Real as God is. I think you took a right turn when you failed to take the Faith, "My Kingdom is not of this world" seriously and insisted on physical things of this world for your view of spiritual reality.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

I have to agree with PTB on this one. What's wrong with you guys? It's a perfectly consistent position to believe in Jesus's message but not believe in physical miracles.

If you need to believe in miracles to convince yourself of Jesus's divinity, that's on you. But it's not really necessary to believe in the supernatural to call yourself a Christian.

I'm shocked at my fellow atheists/agnostics. You guys want to do away with religious beliefs that don't conform to observable reality but then you bash someone like PTB who has done just that.

[revots33]

I'm not bashing PTB, I've told him many times before I respect his beliefs and I prefer his brand of religious belief to what's commonly practiced.

But... I think the resurrection of Jesus (actual, not spiritual) is the CENTRAL belief of the Christian faith. It is not open to personal interpretation. If you don't believe Jesus physically died and rose from the dead, you may be spiritual or religious - but you aren't Christian IMO.

Just my opinion, nothing personal intended towards PTB.

[David Sklansky]

"I'm a little puzzled why Sklansky even presented the Topic. Evidently it was a Rhetorical Question."

PairTheBoard

To hear answers from others. Those who don't even consider you a Christian. Although they may now change their mind base on your clarification in an earlier post. A post which now forces me to ask you how you would compare a pious charitable Jew to a more selfish, barely satisfies the pre requisites, Christian.

PS As far as ridiculing you, I was only ridiculing your words. Which to me are too imprecise to mean anything specific.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not bashing PTB, I've told him many times before I respect his beliefs and I prefer his brand of religious belief to what's commonly practiced.

But... I think the resurrection of Jesus (actual, not spiritual) is the CENTRAL belief of the Christian faith. It is not open to personal interpretation. If you don't believe Jesus physically died and rose from the dead, you may be spiritual or religious - but you aren't Christian IMO.

Just my opinion, nothing personal intended towards PTB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he was talking about you revots. It's understandable why you object to this view. What's puzzling is why some of the Atheists here have gotten so upset with it.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"They experienced the Reality of his Presence. People often claim to experience the presence of God in prayer. Noone thinks it strange that he can't be photographed in that situation. That does not reduce the reality of his presence. In fact, if the reality of God's presence ever were photographed You would immediately claim it as evidence that it can't be God."

PairTheBoard

I would think a resurrection is in a different category. Perhaps not. Meanwhile I can't help but wonder how guys like BluffThis, Not Ready and Txaq react when they read your quote above. Do they defend it, attack it, or just throw their hands up in the air? So far there choice seems to be to avoid them with a ten foot pole. I wonder why.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
A post which now forces me to ask you how you would compare a pious charitable Jew to a more selfish, barely satisfies the pre requisites, Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained this in other threads. In my view, God is Love. Jesus gave the commandment to Love God. Therefore, the pious charitable Jew who loves Love, is in accord with Jesus. Jesus considers him his friend. Jesus said many things along the lines of, "as you do for the least of these you do for me". In his charity, the pious Jew is providing gifts to Jesus. The fact that the pious Jew doesn't know Jesus, or believe in Jesus, or conceptualize Jesus in a certain way doesn't matter. He's in tight with Jesus anyway. The Jew, in his devotion to Love, is experiencing Heaven right here and now. When we die God will meet us all in a Loving embrace. In his life of Love, the pious Jew is enjoying God's Loving embrace right now.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"So you are almost certain that events have not occured with the exception of the Big Bang and human consciousness. Maybe you meant something else, but you used the phrase "almost certain", and then go on to say something like "because of this certainty"....I don't think thats reasonable. Also, your two exceptions are kind of big ones, don't you think?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're framing your argument around the presupposition that miracles (or events outside of scientific explanation) don't happen, even though you acknowledge that the Big Bang and human consciousness lie outside the realm of scientific explaination."

NO NO NO. You, PTB, Iron Unkind, and many others have misunderstood me on this point. I don't go under the assumption that everything obeys the laws of physics. I came to that conclusion based on statistical evidence. The fact that when paranormal or miraculous claims are investigated they are virtually always explained. The Amazing Randi has a lot more to do with my thoughts on this matter than Galileo. Take these stupid miracle claims away from your religion, and I'll sit down and listen.

[bozzer]

Interesting that no-one has interacted seriously with my posts. Maybe I've stumbled on some forum war between Sklansky and PTB.

Anyway, I think I've made it pretty clear that Jesus himself believed in a) miracles b) his own resurrection c) the importance of believing in these. (if you want to debate issues of observer/textual reliability be my guest.)

These debates aren't new. Even in the first century people were claiming to be Christians but denying the resurrection. Here's what another re-formed Jew, the apostle Paul, had to say about the issue:

'Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. or if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.' (1 Corinthians 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015) )

Paul's earlier comments in the passage make it clear he is talking about physical, actual, real, resurrection.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not bashing PTB, I've told him many times before I respect his beliefs and I prefer his brand of religious belief to what's commonly practiced.

But... I think the resurrection of Jesus (actual, not spiritual) is the CENTRAL belief of the Christian faith. It is not open to personal interpretation. If you don't believe Jesus physically died and rose from the dead, you may be spiritual or religious - but you aren't Christian IMO.

Just my opinion, nothing personal intended towards PTB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean you necessarily. But I don't understand why the resurrection is the central belief of Christianity. It seems pretty irrelevant to the way one lives his life. I guess it's just semantics, but I would label anyone who believes they are following Jesus's message a Christian. Obviously what the message actually is is open to debate, so I guess I'm just saying that if you honestly believe you're a Christian, you're a Christian IMO.

[KUJustin]

I've never understood what's so odd about the most powerful entity in existence violating the "laws" of nature that he himself created.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting that no-one has interacted seriously with my posts. Maybe I've stumbled on some forum war between Sklansky and PTB.

Anyway, I think I've made it pretty clear that Jesus himself believed in a) miracles b) his own resurrection c) the importance of believing in these. (if you want to debate issues of observer/textual reliability be my guest.)

These debates aren't new. Even in the first century people were claiming to be Christians but denying the resurrection. Here's what another re-formed Jew, the apostle Paul, had to say about the issue:

'Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. or if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.' (1 Corinthians 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015) )

Paul's earlier comments in the passage make it clear he is talking about physical, actual, real, resurrection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these the "earlier comments in the passage"?

[ QUOTE ]
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is pretty easy to read that as a spiritual resurrection. He appeared to them as a vision. Problem solved.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never understood what's so odd about the most powerful entity in existence violating the "laws" of nature that he himself created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can he find two cubes that add up to a third cube?

I bring that up only to show that it also wouldn't be odd if even he couldn't violate his own laws of nature.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never understood what's so odd about the most powerful entity in existence violating the "laws" of nature that he himself created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can he find two cubes that add up to a third cube?

I bring that up only to show that it also wouldn't be odd if even he couldn't violate his own laws of nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
That different. If our universe is like a computer simulation then the laws of nature would be programed and easily broken the someone outside. That wouldn't suggest the power to do stuff like square the circle.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting that no-one has interacted seriously with my posts. Maybe I've stumbled on some forum war between Sklansky and PTB.

Anyway, I think I've made it pretty clear that Jesus himself believed in a) miracles b) his own resurrection c) the importance of believing in these. (if you want to debate issues of observer/textual reliability be my guest.)

These debates aren't new. Even in the first century people were claiming to be Christians but denying the resurrection. Here's what another re-formed Jew, the apostle Paul, had to say about the issue:

'Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. or if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.' (1 Corinthians 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015) )

Paul's earlier comments in the passage make it clear he is talking about physical, actual, real, resurrection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not denying the resurrection. I've emphasized its Reality repeatedly. Just like the story of Thomas, the comments of Paul are also attempts to explain its Reality. It is a Reality that does not depend on the magical rejuvenation of the corpse, regardless of what people have come to believe since.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Meanwhile I can't help but wonder how guys like BluffThis, Not Ready and Txaq react when they read your quote above.


[/ QUOTE ]


John 20:
27Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Can he find two cubes that add up to a third cube?

I bring that up only to show that it also wouldn't be odd if even he couldn't violate his own laws of nature


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between math and natural law is the difference between logic and factual contingency.

But even so, if He could create the universe and all the laws within it, why can't there be a law that says He can manipulate His creation any way He likes? For instance, there's nothing logically or morally wrong about nullifying the law of gravity - not the same as trying to make a square circle.

[Archon_Wing]

If we were shown technology many thousands of years in the future it would seem like magic-- impossible given our knowledge of the world. I suppose you'd just have to assume we simply don't know as much as how the universe works as God does. This is of course assuming God exists. I'm sure many Christian scientists would have to deal with that.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
But I don't understand why the resurrection is the central belief of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Resurrection is vital to the Religion and fullfills the Faith. In a world filled with hate, revenge, and selfishness, where the strong abuse the weak and he who Takes Gets, how can we believe that the meek will inherit? How can we believe that a life of Love isn't a sucker's play? Doesn't all the evidence around us show that Hate is stronger than love? Revenge more successful than forgiveness? The Selfish get ahead? The Old Testament anwered this by declaring God's vengence on the unrighteous.

Jesus transcended that paradigm, pointing out to us how we are all subject to such shortcomings in our hearts. His solution is the Spirit of Love which he declared would in the fullness of time prove triumphant over the spirit of hate. The Resurrection is Spiritual Proof of this truth. Even after nailing Love to the Cross and killing it in the flesh He rose from the grave. Love Lives. Hate cannot kill it. Love even conquers death. That's the Faith of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Meanwhile I can't help but wonder how guys like BluffThis, Not Ready and Txaq react when they read your quote above.


[/ QUOTE ]


John 20:
27Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."

[/ QUOTE ]

I responded to this in an earlier post on this thread.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I don't understand why the resurrection is the central belief of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Resurrection is vital to the Religion and fullfills the Faith. In a world filled with hate, revenge, and selfishness, where the strong abuse the weak and he who Takes Gets, how can we believe that the meek will inherit? How can we believe that a life of Love isn't a sucker's play? Doesn't all the evidence around us show that Hate is stronger than love? Revenge more successful than forgiveness? The Selfish get ahead? The Old Testament anwered this by declaring God's vengence on the unrighteous.

Jesus transcended that paradigm, pointing out to us how we are all subject to such shortcomings in our hearts. His solution is the Spirit of Love which he declared would in the fullness of time prove triumphant over the spirit of hate. The Resurrection is Spiritual Proof of this truth. Even after nailing Love to the Cross and killing it in the flesh He rose from the grave. Love Lives. Hate cannot kill it. Love even conquers death. That's the Faith of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant a physical resurrection.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I don't understand why the resurrection is the central belief of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Resurrection is vital to the Religion and fullfills the Faith. In a world filled with hate, revenge, and selfishness, where the strong abuse the weak and he who Takes Gets, how can we believe that the meek will inherit? How can we believe that a life of Love isn't a sucker's play? Doesn't all the evidence around us show that Hate is stronger than love? Revenge more successful than forgiveness? The Selfish get ahead? The Old Testament anwered this by declaring God's vengence on the unrighteous.

Jesus transcended that paradigm, pointing out to us how we are all subject to such shortcomings in our hearts. His solution is the Spirit of Love which he declared would in the fullness of time prove triumphant over the spirit of hate. The Resurrection is Spiritual Proof of this truth. Even after nailing Love to the Cross and killing it in the flesh He rose from the grave. Love Lives. Hate cannot kill it. Love even conquers death. That's the Faith of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant a physical resurrection.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my view, what I described is the Central belief for Christianity. People have adopted a belief in the magical rejuvination of the corpse so that they could have a stronger sense of the resurrection's reality. There's been little harm from this in the past because it allowed people to come to the Faith that Is Central. The physical has been a path for them to the Spiritual. But it is the Spiritual which is Central. And the path of the physical has now become an obstacle for the modern seeker. The time has come to discard it. The truth was in the Spiritual to begin with.


PairTheBoard

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
In my view, what I described is the Central belief for Christianity. People have adopted a belief in the magical rejuvination of the corpse so that they could have a stronger sense of the resurrection's reality. There's been little harm from this in the past because it allowed people to come to the Faith that Is Central. The physical has been a path for them to the Spiritual. But it is the Spiritual which is Central. And the path of the physical has now become an obstacle for the modern seeker. The time has come to discard it. The truth was in the Spiritual to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The physical body of man is not the corpse. that is the mineral aspect of the "Form" which is the physical body sans mineral. The human being displays other bodies in our perception(not only the physical-mineral).

As Paul said"If there was no resurrection all is in vain".
Christ Jesus was the first to resurrect this physical body which previously had been under the Luciferic Illusion which in eastern sight is called "Maya".He stands as example for all of mankind to do the same.