Can Christians Accept A Ressurection Within The Laws of Physics?

[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.

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 )


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 )

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)

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)

[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."