Best Objection against Jesus' Resurrection -

[Mr Walker]

So the more outlandish the claim, the more we should put stock in it?

Why? Jesus came to be a scapegoat. He died and thus took on the sins of the world. Why is a bodily resurrection theologically necessary?

You mean Clarke's 3rd law? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So you're saying it could have been extraterrestrial aliens?

No the more "outlandish" the claim the more power and resonance it has. The mundane holds little interest or attraction for any of us, hence the lack of a forum entitled "Explained Mysteries"

Because while part of christ's role in christian theology is as a teacher, mentor, and template for how a human should live their life on earth, another part is to model the ultimate potential for humanity. Ie christ's resurrection is also a template for later human ressurection. If we are one with christ then, in christian theology, we too have a physical resurrection and immortal life, and are placed on the new earth; as we were once in eden, and in the same relationship with god as existed before the fall.

The hope and promise of this physical resurrection is the theological underrinning for many human beings acceptance of christianity, and the historical reason for the "universal" appeal of christianity to human beings. Although I live in the knowledge that heaven (and god) already exists, in me on earth, I can see its attraction to others to have immortal life and physical resurrection.

Yes I thought it was his second law once upon a time but i might be mistaken.

Of course, if real and physical, god is an extra terrestrial alien, by definition (and in my experience, by nature) There exist no such things as the paranormal, supernatural or miraculous. ALL these are physical and real occurences beyond our present technology and understanding (even if in some cases only just so) And so we see them as miracles or magic

[Mr Walker]

That's a limited view. The Hebrews taught that certain righteous heroes would enter heaven.

Heresy!

What or who is your authority for this claim?

The hebrews dont accept the new testament addendum to the bible.

Like i said there is no biblical authority or evidence for this view/belief. It is based on the infallibilty of catholic dogma, a non biblical principle in itself. Actually it is the catholic view which is biblically heretical The catholics are quite clear on this. They hold the right to interpet and alter the bible as they wish throughthe authority of the pope. This is also their justification for changing the sabbath to the first day of the week.

No one else has to share that view, and it is not biblical.

I said "I think", ergo I need no justification, but i offer logic. If the bible is the book of christians then basically a christian should follow it and not church based dogma.

One does not need a church to be a christian but one can't be a christian without reading and understanding the bible because christianity is the basis of a persona relationship with god and to have such a relaitonship one must comprehend how it is meant to be.

The bible came first and churches interpret it, but any human can understand, study and follow the bible, without a priest or a church telling them how to do it. It is like any book in this regard. Imagine reading a cook book and then just not folowing the recipes or changing them to suit your taste. Or an instruction book on how to build a model aeroplane then just ignoring the instructions.

As an example, my wife reads and studies the bible each day, by herself for an hour or so. She reads the bible right through once every year and examines its words meanings etc. via many study guides, concordances and comparisons between biblical texts and versions. Then she lives by what it says as she understands it.

You dont need a church to tell you what to do, or how to interpet the bible, its all there for you to discover, if that is what you want and if you want to find the true nature of the bible for yourself, rather than someone else's opinion of it..

[redhen]

No the more "outlandish" the claim the more power and resonance it has.

Hmm, I suppose that's why so many people are captivated by the idea of a teapot orbiting around the sun.

Because while part of christ's role in christian theology is as a teacher, mentor, and template for how a human should live their life on earth, another part is to model the ultimate potential for humanity. Ie christ's resurrection is also a template for later human ressurection. If we are one with christ then, in christian theology, we too have a physical resurrection and immortal life, and are placed on the new earth; as we were once in eden, and in the same relationship with god as existed before the fall.

These seem like secondary considerations. The whole justification for the crucifixion is that by this vicarious sacrifice, human original sin would be wiped out. If I'm wrong, hopefuly someone here will enlighten me.

The hope and promise of this physical resurrection is the theological underrinning for many human beings acceptance of christianity, and the historical reason for the "universal" appeal of christianity to human beings. Although I live in the knowledge that heaven (and god) already exists, in me on earth, I can see its attraction to others to have immortal life and physical resurrection.

Heaven and hell as they appear in the NT are absent in the OT.

Of course, if real and physical, god is an extra terrestrial alien, by definition (and in my experience, by nature) There exist no such things as the paranormal, supernatural or miraculous. ALL these are physical and real occurences beyond our present technology and understanding (even if in some cases only just so) And so we see them as miracles or magic

Interesting. But whether Jesus was resurrected by a deity or a space alien, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. And from where I sit, there are much more plausible explanations for this proposition.

[Mr Walker]

Mr W

That is all, of course, well and good.

The principal issue before us, however, is to evaluate Dr Habermas' thinking..He urges us to look upon the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus as things that happened in history, and for which there is, in his view, sufficient evidence to support a confident belief that they actually occurred.

I share your impression that Dr Habermas believes that Jesus is God. It is conceivable that Dr Habermas would argue that gods have prerogatives that ordinary human beings do not. That, however, isn't a historical assertion, and is irrelevant to whether or not the events occurred.

The hypothesis that Mary of Nazareth ascended to heaven, either after being raised from death or avoiding death altogether, does not depend on her being a goddess, but rather that Jesus, or the God who raised Jesus, would and did also raise Mary. We are told that Jesus did raise somebody else he loved, Lazarus of Bethany, and so there really is no question that if Jesus could be raised, then so could others, too. I would add that Paul expected that others would soon be raised bodily; Jesus' distinction for Paul is that Jesus rose first.

Why wouldn't Mary be second? If not her, then somebody would be, so why not her?

All of which clears the way for us to apply the approach that Dr Habermas proposes for the Ressurection and Ascension of Jesus to the Dormition and Ascension of Mary. I find it perplexing that I reach the same conclusion for both, while Dr Habermas apparently reaches different conclusions for each.

At least one of us, it would seem, is doing it wrong.

There is no biblical evidence that christ raised mary. While there is, within the story, evidence that he raised lazarus, lazarus neither had immortal life nor a new transformed body. ( I might be wrong about this) Christ simply raised lazarus from the dead but not permanently. (And christ was physically present in his role as god as man when he did this) Given that lazarus is not with us now, (despite the legend of the wandering jew) one might assume he is deceased.

I think that there are two very different and clear cut cases.Christ died as a man and was reborn as a god. When mary is reborn it wil be as a woman not a god. No where in the bible does god become a quad rather than a trinity and no where is ther a suggestion that the mother of god as a man had such powers as those attributed to her by catholics.

Part of this is my distrust of much catholic dogama which has evolved over the centuries, but it is more that, as a simple reader of the bible and one who seeks to understand its context and purpose, the physicl transformation and taking to heaven of mary just does not fit the story which exists within the bible. It is apparently an addition of the church, as is the very concept of hell and eternal punishment, or even that people go to heaven or hell when they die. That is just NOT what the bible actually says, in its own words.

The conflict between official catholic dogma and the very words of the bible forced the church to ban lay possession of bibles in some countres for many years, so that ordinary people would not be "misled" by its words. It also triggered the reformation and lead to a considerable discrepancy between the words found in catholic bibles and those of non catholics.

[redhen]

I said "I think", ergo I need no justification, but i offer logic. If the bible is the book of christians then basically a christian should follow it and not church based dogma.

Thanks for clarifying that.

You dont need a church to tell you what to do, or how to interpet the bible, its all there for you to discover, if that is what you want and if you want to find the true nature of the bible for yourself, rather than someone else's opinion of it..

Yes, I pointed out the Assumption of Mary just to show that there are many varied interpretations and extra-biblical addendums. Good for you for not blindly following a certain set of precepts. May all religious members be so discerning.

[Mr Walker]

Hmm, I suppose that's why so many people are captivated by the idea of a teapot orbiting around the sun.

These seem like secondary considerations. The whole justification for the crucifixion is that by this vicarious sacrifice, human original sin would be wiped out. If I'm wrong, hopefuly someone here will enlighten me.

Heaven and hell as they appear in the NT are absent in the OT.

Interesting. But whether Jesus was resurrected by a deity or a space alien, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. And from where I sit, there are much more plausible explanations for this proposition.

Probably.

The wiping out of original sin enabled the eternal life of all humans in the bible story That is the most important result.

Actually heaven and hell, as understood/interpeted by catholics dont appear in the new testament either. A comprehensive reading of the whole new testament, its juxtapositon with the old testament, and an accurate intepretation/translation of the words used for heaven and hell in both old and new testaments, tells an entirely different story than that traditionally espoused by the catholoic church. For example, no (or only one or two very special and unique) humans exist at present in heaven according to the bible and none are in hell. They are asleep in the grave waiting for the judgement days and resurrection. For the damned there is the second death of body and soul and then non existence. For the saved there is their establishment on the new earth after the old one is cleansed by fire in which all evil is consumed. God promises that evil will exist no more, and so the damned cannot exist in hell after that time, and they do not exist in hell now, according to the words of the bible.

Does it suprise you that such resurrection is potentially possible now, using human science or at most within a decade or so ?Doesn't that scientific fact radically alter the balance of probabilities?

If we can routinely resurrect a dead person, using cloning and memory storage/ transfer, doesn't that make the process entirely plausible.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

Mr W

There is no biblical evidence that christ raised mary.

So what? Dr Habermas has invited us to investigate history. The Bible is only one among many types of document a historian might consult.

While there is, within the story, evidence that he raised lazarus, lazarus neither had immortal life nor a new transformed body.

I don't see any ambiguity in John 11. Lazarus was dead, Jesus attended to him at his tomb, and then he wasn't dead anymore. As to how Lazarus was equipped after he rose, about that John is silent. Paul seems to think we're all supposed to get the same kind of body Jesus had ... However, these are not our questions.

Obviously, even if I knew for a fact that Jesus rose from the dead, I wouldn't know whether he was still alive or not. Maybe he died on the flight, the Ascension, whose launch is supposed to be a historical event, about 2000 years ago. Mary's been mass sighted within the last 100 years. Dr Habermas assures us that mass sightings are especially reliable. So, I am being kind to say that the evidence for Mary's long-term survival is "at least as good as" the evidence for Jesus'.

I think that there are two very different and clear cut cases.Christ died as a man and was reborn as a god.

Then you must agree with me, and disagree with Dr Habermas. These things cannot be seen as historical matters, nor can they be resolved by evidence, but are instead matters of faith, to be resolved only by faith. As I said, I have no quarrel with somebody having faith in whatever they happen to have faith; it is Dr Habermas who proposes some other basis for holding these views.

Part of this is my distrust of much catholic dogama which has evolved over the centuries, ...

I don't see that the genetic fallacy helps much. Putting aside that the hypothesis isn't peculiar to Catholics, hundreds of millions of Eastern Orthodox also profess to believe it, what difference does it make whose hypothesis it is? It happened in time and space or else it did not. Just like Jesus' happened in time and space or else it did not.

Dr Habermas said that Jesus' leaves evidence. I observe that so did Mary's. Religion has nothing to do with the interpretation of evidence, and is rarely helpful for the task, either.

[redhen]

Does it suprise you that such resurrection is potentially possible now, using human science or at most within a decade or so ?Doesn't that scientific fact radically alter the balance of probabilities?

I think this is wishful thinking.

If we can routinely resurrect a dead person, using cloning and memory storage/ transfer, doesn't that make the process entirely plausible.

A clone is not the original person. A digital data storage device is not the original person. I think we're stretching our definition of resurrection too far. Continue down this path of equivocation, and I'll make a Buddhist out of you.

[regeneratia]

I maintain the Jesus may well NOT have been on that cross.

Edited April 18, 2013 by regeneratia

[Mr Walker]

Mr W

So what? Dr Habermas has invited us to investigate history. The Bible is only one among many types of document a historian might consult.

I don't see any ambiguity in John 11. Lazarus was dead, Jesus attended to him at his tomb, and then he wasn't dead anymore. As to how Lazarus was equipped after he rose, about that John is silent. Paul seems to think we're all supposed to get the same kind of body Jesus had ... However, these are not our questions.

Obviously, even if I knew for a fact that Jesus rose from the dead, I wouldn't know whether he was still alive or not. Maybe he died on the flight, the Ascension, whose launch is supposed to be a historical event, about 2000 years ago. Mary's been mass sighted within the last 100 years. Dr Habermas assures us that mass sightings are especially reliable. So, I am being kind to say that the evidence for Mary's long-term survival is "at least as good as" the evidence for Jesus'.

Then you must agree with me, and disagree with Dr Habermas. These things cannot be seen as historical matters, nor can they be resolved by evidence, but are instead matters of faith, to be resolved only by faith. As I said, I have no quarrel with somebody having faith in whatever they happen to have faith; it is Dr Habermas who proposes some other basis for holding these views.

I don't see that the genetic fallacy helps much. Putting aside that the hypothesis isn't peculiar to Catholics, hundreds of millions of Eastern Orthodox also profess to believe it, what difference does it make whose hypothesis it is? It happened in time and space or else it did not. Just like Jesus' happened in time and space or else it did not.

Dr Habermas said that Jesus' leaves evidence. I observe that so did Mary's. Religion has nothing to do with the interpretation of evidence, and is rarely helpful for the task, either.

just to be clear. I am just pointing out that using the evidences presented within the bible, christ rose from the dead froming the foundation of christian belief and hope, but that there is no commentary within the bible that mary ever did the same thing.

All other experential knowledge is personal. I do not know if other humans have seen a real resurrected mary. I do not know if many more humans have encountered a real resurrected christ. The many claims for both are of equal value or non value in determining reality.

My argument is about christian doctrine and belief. If the bible is the basis for this, then only christ was resurrected. If dogma is the basis for it, then not only might mary have been resurrected in contrast to biblical teachings but also people might go to heaven and hell on teir death whisch is also clearly catholic dogma, but not biblical. And i should have made it clear that many other christian churches, deriving from or taking their lead from, the catholics hold similar non biblical positions.

I am not knocking catholic belief but just saying that it is often directly contrary to bilical truths. Catholics can legitimately justify this within their own dogma and logic. Non catholics cannot use the same rationale for altering what is written in the bible into other belief- based opinion.

[Mr Walker]

I think this is wishful thinking.

A clone is not the original person. A digital data storage device is not the original person. I think we're stretching our definition of resurrection too far. Continue down this path of equivocation, and I'll make a Buddhist out of you.

No it is science, which scientists all over the world have been working on for nearly fifty years. Those involved claim that their children, for betteror for worse, will not have to die. A CONSERVATIVE estimate for this to be practical is about 15 to 20 years. Many believe that it will be achievable sooner.

A human being is basically two things. An organic host and a self aware inteligence. We can already clone ourselves and create another copy of our organic host.

In a few years, current technologies will allow us, first to capture and store every element of our consciousness, memory, and self awareness and secondly to duplicate and transfer it to other hosts including a clone or an artificial computer storage system This wil allow both our genetic material and our complete sense of self to go on living theoretically for ever and practically for centuries if not millenia This is NOT science fiction, any more than 3D televisions are. It is science.

Today, scientists can read a memory, create a false memory, and remove a particular unwanted or traumatic memory from a mind. They can identify which neuron a specific memoery is stored on, and measure and induce the electronic and chemical function of the brain as it thinks. They can read a person's mind via electronic imaging, and very soon wil be able to capture specific speech from the electronic signals of the mind.

What is "an original person"? Christ was not the "original person" after resurrectionas many did not even recognise him. But for every intent and purpose, if my mind, thoughts, memories, world view, language etc carries on uniterrupted, in a genetically identical copy of my body, then first i might never know i was not the original, and second it IS immortality of body and soul.

It is the ONLY form of true immortality logically and physically possible. If we do not have ongoing, uninterrupted continuity of self awareness, we do not possess immortality, and if we are so physically altered that it forces a re-evalution of our interaction with our environment, then we become a different person. But maintaining self awareness continually, in the same body form, creates functional immortality.Ie i go on for thousands of years using the same body form (with perhaps genetic improvements and modifications) and with a memory going back for all that time and with uninterrupted continuity. This will cretae functional difficulties, but they can and will be engineered around, by for example attaching external hard drives to our brains to store extra long term memories, or to input new knowledge and skills such as a language or a technical ability.

[eight bits]

Mr W

just to be clear. I am just pointing out that using the evidences presented within the bible, christ rose from the dead froming the foundation of christian belief and hope, ...

And just to be equally clear, the topic of the thread is Dr Habermas' approach, in which historical methods are supposed to be applied to the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead.

You and I seem to be in agreement that Dr Habermas' project is unsound, although perhaps for different reasons. Also, as I have already said, I don't object to anybody taking whatever appeals to them on faith.

Mary's situation comes up because it is always useful to test a proposed "principaled approach" for inference by applying it to more than just one case. Mary's situation is not only parallel to her son's, but it is a case which, apparently, Dr Habermas himself would decide differently.

If Dr Habermas would distinguish the cases on any of the grounds you've proposed, then that would illustrate my objection to his approach. The difference between the Bible and any other book is faith. The idea that Jesus was divine is faith. The idea that Jesus still lives is faith.

With faith, all things are possible. With history, not so much.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Today, scientists can read a memory,

They can read a person's mind via electronic imaging,

Citation please. Scientists can image the brain, not the 'mind', and they certainly cannot 'read' it. Perhaps someday, but this is currently, indeed, science fiction.

[White Crane Feather]

No it is science, which scientists all over the world have been working on for nearly fifty years. Those involved claim that their children, for betteror for worse, will not have to die. A CONSERVATIVE estimate for this to be practical is about 15 to 20 years. Many believe that it will be achievable sooner.

A human being is basically two things. An organic host and a self aware inteligence. We can already clone ourselves and create another copy of our organic host.

In a few years, current technologies will allow us, first to capture and store every element of our consciousness, memory, and self awareness and secondly to duplicate and transfer it to other hosts including a clone or an artificial computer storage system This wil allow both our genetic material and our complete sense of self to go on living theoretically for ever and practically for centuries if not millenia This is NOT science fiction, any more than 3D televisions are. It is science.

Today, scientists can read a memory, create a false memory, and remove a particular unwanted or traumatic memory from a mind. They can identify which neuron a specific memoery is stored on, and measure and induce the electronic and chemical function of the brain as it thinks. They can read a person's mind via electronic imaging, and very soon wil be able to capture specific speech from the electronic signals of the mind.

What is "an original person"? Christ was not the "original person" after resurrectionas many did not even recognise him. But for every intent and purpose, if my mind, thoughts, memories, world view, language etc carries on uniterrupted, in a genetically identical copy of my body, then first i might never know i was not the original, and second it IS immortality of body and soul.

It is the ONLY form of true immortality logically and physically possible. If we do not have ongoing, uninterrupted continuity of self awareness, we do not possess immortality, and if we are so physically altered that it forces a re-evalution of our interaction with our environment, then we become a different person. But maintaining self awareness continually, in the same body form, creates functional immortality.Ie i go on for thousands of years using the same body form (with perhaps genetic improvements and modifications) and with a memory going back for all that time and with uninterrupted continuity. This will cretae functional difficulties, but they can and will be engineered around, by for example attaching external hard drives to our brains to store extra long term memories, or to input new knowledge and skills such as a language or a technical ability.

Sounds like fun. I can't wait. I'll keep takeing my vitamins. I'm 34 so I might make it there. Have you seen the documentary about Ray Kurzweil?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhB6J23Qjs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Mr Walker]

Mr W

And just to be equally clear, the topic of the thread is Dr Habermas' approach, in which historical methods are supposed to be applied to the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead.

You and I seem to be in agreement that Dr Habermas' project is unsound, although perhaps for different reasons. Also, as I have already said, I don't object to anybody taking whatever appeals to them on faith.

Mary's situation comes up because it is always useful to test a proposed "principaled approach" for inference by applying it to more than just one case. Mary's situation is not only parallel to her son's, but it is a case which, apparently, Dr Habermas himself would decide differently.

If Dr Habermas would distinguish the cases on any of the grounds you've proposed, then that would illustrate my objection to his approach. The difference between the Bible and any other book is faith. The idea that Jesus was divine is faith. The idea that Jesus still lives is faith.

With faith, all things are possible. With history, not so much.

I think in general terms we are in agreeance. I dont watch u tube both for pratical and principled reasons so i was responding only to your initial post. Ongoing conversation has clarified this for me.

My persoanl differnce is in the context of the biblical story line. It states christ was resurrected. it does not state mary was.

Thus logically the two occurences have different sources, and to a biblically based christian, very differnt credibilty. Individuals mut establish the physical and independent reality of their own experiences for them selves.

[Mr Walker]

Sounds like fun. I can't wait. I'll keep takeing my vitamins. I'm 34 so I might make it there. Have you seen the documentary about Ray Kurzweil?

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhB6J23Qjs&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/media]

Yes. It raises many ideas and questions which have now been around for decades, such as the singularity.

As with all human progress it is not one line of advance but many simultaneous threads, being worked on all around the world, which will come together to create that advance. While one thread is in vitual human immortaity via scientific transformation and extension of life, another is in accepeting death, but enabling resurrection. It does seem that most scientists see an intermediatary step of placing a human mind into an articficial storage unit ie computer, but actually science will probably reach the abilty for direct mind to mind transference of thoughts before we manage artificial storage. Already we can read thoughts almost up to interpeting speech from thoughts, and we can directly interface a variety of machines t o operate directly from human thoughts.

DARPA has done a lot of work on this, both to provide help for soldiers badly injured by warthrough robotic prothesese, and also to enable more effective remote interface with all sorts of military drones. Another area of research is working to remove memeory sources which cause post traumatic stress in people, especailly soldiers, by targetting the removal of the memories underlying them.

These can also be replaced by happier/more neutral, artificially created memories, which are indistinguishable from the memory of external events.

[Mr Walker]

Citation please. Scientists can image the brain, not the 'mind', and they certainly cannot 'read' it. Perhaps someday, but this is currently, indeed, science fiction.

You need to do more reading.

Currently scientists read the mind ie the source of memories and the electical patterns of thoughts. Aguably you could see this as the brain, but that is all thoughts and memories are, electrical and chemical storage, and patterns or systems in our brain.

Hence as stated above, we are on the verge of being able to actually see words/speech by brain imaging.

Words have to be formed mentally before they can be spoken orally, And scientists interpet the brian signals to "read" the words while they are still in the mind At the moment the comlexity of this is naking it difficult so only clear simple word constructs like up and down or yes and no can be interpreted or read, but practice, understanding and increased computing power means we are already beginning the process. Simpler thoughts are alreading being read and understood and transmitted from one mind to another via implants and radio waves. This is denonstrated by people simply thinking words to make prosthetic devices operate remotely That ability is now over 10 years old and no longer cutting edge.

Seriously if you are interested in this, read up on it in a variety of scientific journalss or magazines like the new scientist. You might even find some of the latest work in internet articles .

[+Liquid Gardens]

You need to do more reading.

Indeed I do! Thanks for the mention of the moving prostheses by thinking of the words; I was aware of moving via hooking sensors up to the motor cortex but not by just thinking words. Fascinating stuff. I do think your timeline and predictions for transferring the 'complete sense of self' to be way overstated (curiously, I likewise find your (I think it was you) comments on the minds of animals to be understated), but again,interesting stuff nonetheless.

[White Crane Feather]

Indeed I do! Thanks for the mention of the moving prostheses by thinking of the words; I was aware of moving via hooking sensors up to the motor cortex but not by just thinking words. Fascinating stuff. I do think your timeline and predictions for transferring the 'complete sense of self' to be way overstated (curiously, I likewise find your (I think it was you) comments on the minds of animals to be understated), but again,interesting stuff nonetheless.

I'm inclined to think that way to. But look what has happened in the last ten years. When we started to sequence the human genome experts were saying it would take 700 years because they think of progress happening in a linier fashion. In truth it is happening in an exponential fashion. It took seven years to complete. Ray Kurzweil has statistical proof of this. Moores law may have limits, but that is only thinking with today's knowledge and technology. Tomorrow it will look much different. Whatch this lecture. Very fascinating.

[Doug1029]

Best objections to Jesus and the Resurrection (Take your pick):

1. No evidence of miracles that violate the laws of physics (No person who has undergone cellular death is known to have survived that condition.).

2. No witnesses. Not even St. Paul (if he existed), who was purportedly in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' execution, expressed any knowledge of the event. No ancient writer professes any first-hand knowledge of Jesus. All we have is "visions (hallucinations)" by St. Paul and others who wanted to claim sainthood.

3. No records. The Romans did not keep records of executions. Apparently, neither did the Jews. Pontius Pilate and several others were historical figures, but they never mentioned Jesus in their writings. What does it say if the principal judge didn't think the event worth mentioning, especially since Pilate survived to see the beginnings of Christian persecutions?

4. Inconsistent dates: the "great darkness (a solar eclipse)" occurred on March 20, 33 AD. Passover that year was on April 3rd, two weeks later. Jesus was executed during a great darkness or at Passover, but to do it both times would require a genuine miracle.

5. The only "historical" first-hand account of any of Jesus followers is by Papias. He says he heard John the Apostle speak and personally spoke with "the daughters of Philip." But there is some doubt as to whether Papias, himself, was a real person and not a Christian redaction of history. At any rate, Papias laments the lack of any biographical information on Jesus and says that the writings of Mark consisted of a collection of sayings - not the Mark we know. Papias wrote this sometime between 110 and 140 AD. If he is a Christian redaction, none of this is true; but if he was real, then the modern Gospels did not yet exist in 110 AD. You can take your pick, but you don't get it both ways.

These inconsistencies are probably nothing more than poor scholarship and/or bad story-telling. There well might have been a wandering faith-healer named Jesus. But nothing of the story we have of him can be trusted - including the resurrection.

Doug

[Just Dave]

Youtube is still a good source of videos... You just need to assess its credibility..I watch RT,Lpac and many more other channels which bring far more thruth than newspapers and TVs which are all manipulated for wider public. YT has millions of fake or missinformative informations or videos, but still has alot of true and real data too... This is because people say " i dont do YT "...

[Mr Walker]

Indeed I do! Thanks for the mention of the moving prostheses by thinking of the words; I was aware of moving via hooking sensors up to the motor cortex but not by just thinking words. Fascinating stuff. I do think your timeline and predictions for transferring the 'complete sense of self' to be way overstated (curiously, I likewise find your (I think it was you) comments on the minds of animals to be understated), but again,interesting stuff nonetheless.

It might well be understated. (the timeline) I am going by the words of the scientists involved in several projects who, five years ago, said this would be done in 20 years. Other scientists put a more achievable date at about 35 years from now. Still that would mean childen, and even young adults, alive today could gain virtual immortality. Many issues will have to be dealt with when this happens but fortunately it will begin when we are starting a process of fairly rapid population decline

The discovery of movement by thought was discovered by a lazy monkey who found he could move a lever remotely without actually moving his own robotically linked lever, as he had been trained to do, but simply by thinking of doing so.

Animal thought is restricted by lack of language. Human level thought is a product of language and the conceptual symbolic and other abilites with words that language gives us. Words/labels attach to a single neuron in the human brain and actually transform the minds memory and perception of an object which does not have a name attached to it when it is named. A new neuron based memory is created every time we attach a name to an object, concept or idea. Then other descritors and understandings atach to it as well so we build a mental "picture" or construct of a chair or of love hate etc. This is really a sort of "mini neural network" giving us the object/construct, name we know it by and parameters of the object.

Without language, non human animals can't do this in any more than a very restricted form. ie they cant "think" as we can. They have no concept or understanding of love, hate, lawful killing vs unlawful killing, the permanent nature of death etc., although they feel emotions which we humans know as hate, or anger, or fear, or even grief. Humans have that biological component of all those things, but also an intellectual self aware understanding of them. We grieve differently because we "know" the permanance and nature of death.

[Mr Walker]

double post

Edited April 20, 2013 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

It might well be understated. (the timeline) I am going by the words of the scientists involved in several projects who, five years ago, said this would be done in 20 years. Other scientists put a more achievable date at about 35 years from now. Still that would mean childen, and even young adults, alive today could gain virtual immortality. Many issues will have to be dealt with when this happens but fortunately it will begin when we are starting a process of fairly rapid population decline

Hmm, you know we have a rapid population decline coming up in 35 years? Maybe I'm reading that wrong. There are scientists saying we may be able to transfer our 'complete sense of self' to another clone in 20 years? Again interesting predictions, I'm definitely skeptical about whether it is really 'you' that is achieving virtual immortality with your predictions, as opposed to copies of 'you'. It would seem fairly clear that they are not 'you' actually as there's no reason that you couldn't download your 'self' and transfer it to a clone while you were still alive; it's difficult to come with definitions of 'you' that refer simultaneously to two separate entities, both your original body and the cloned one.

[shrooma]

I maintain the Jesus may well NOT have been on that cross.

-

he wasn't.

it was brian.....

;-)