Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Best Objection against Jesus' Resurrection -


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#61    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,217 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 22 April 2013 - 11:19 AM

Quote

There are different historical texts from the Bible that describe Jesus' resurrection.

Now we're getting somewhere. Even the Bible doesn't have a description of Jesus' resurrection. These texts must be in the public domain. Got links?

Quote

Also, there's the "Shroud of Turin" and the "Sudarium" that were both proported cloths that covered the actual body of Jesus of Nazareth.  The shroud itself cannot be disproven by science because of the controversy over the carbon dating and the mistakes made with the cloth on it that was used to repair it.  

I don't understand. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts owns a mint condition Shekel of Tyre, a silver "Temple coin."

http://www.mfa.org/c...of-melkart-3399

Science can't disprove that this was one of the coins paid to Judas. Does that mean that this coin is evidence that Judas betrayed Jesus for money? Why not, if it agrees with the Bible account, and science can't disprove it? Must be so, right?

By the way, how does a cloth being stained in way that suggests having been laid upon a corpse bear on whether the corpse came back to life? Is it a clue that the corpse looks like Albrecht Durer?

Quote

Science cannot explain how the image got onto the shroud ...

So, what you're saying is that nobody else knows what staining the funerary linen would have to do with reanimation, either.

Quote

To me, it is an issue of faith in which you either believe or you don't.  Anything else is conjecture and strictly subjective by those with an opinion either way.

Great. Anyone may believe on faith whatever they like, without any complaint from me. It's when you try to pass off a cloth stain you can't explain as evidence that you know the explanation, that's when I object.

Posted Image

#62    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,383 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 22 April 2013 - 01:26 PM

View Posteight bits, on 20 April 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

1 is so far the popular choice (with Darkwind's calling BS on the whole thing runner up) :) .
If one were a scientist investigating this phenomenon, one would first have to ask:  Do we know of any other miracles?  What evidence do we have that there is such a thing as a "miracle"?  Before we can say that X was a miracle, we need evidence that such a miracle is even possible.  There are numerous rationalizations that "explain" the resurrection as a temporary loss of consciousness during which time Jesus was removed from the cross and interred.  But that would mean he didn't die on the cross and didn't actually rise from the dead - their explanation of the "miracle" is that there was no miracle.

Because there is no scientific explanation of the resurrection does not mean it was miraculous.  It may just mean that there is a physical phenomenon of which we are unaware.  That applies to the Shroud of Turin discussion, too.

Quote

just throw this in to clarify what I worte earlier... there is no unambiguous record of James, brother of Jesus, seeing Jesus after the Resurrection, but Dr Habermas might choose to interpret Paul that way.)
What I meant by "no witnesses" is not only is there no account by a person who actually saw the resurrection, or even Jesus, there is no account by anyone who was actively writing at the time.  Josephus hadn't been born yet; his writings were 60 years in the future and Tacitus' were 50 years ahead.  All we have is hearsay.

Quote

d of, but apparently Jesus didn't choose to visit them. It's completely unclear when Pilate died.
The Catholic Encyclopedia thinks Pilate committed suicide in 37 AD, shortly before the death of Tiberius.  They admit, however, that the evidence is not that good.  Apparently I was wrong about Pilate living to see the first persecutions.

Quote

4: I don't think it's unusual that memorable coincidences get smushed together. The year 33 had both the solar eclipse (dark at midday in Jerusalem) in the begiinning of the astronomical month (our March 19), and a lunar eclipse at mid-month (our April 3). Peter alludes to this in Acts 2:20. But the crucifixion might have been a few years before the dual eclipses, or a few years after; it's not lying, it's just how long term memory and maybe errors of transmission work.
That's pretty much what I think, too.  Memory of the events was garbled by the time they got written down.

Quote

5 Papias is indeed shaky as being an associate of any apostle. Polycarp maybe? Anyway, here are the not entirely consistent fragments of Papias brought to us by Irenaeus and Eusebius:

http://www.earlychri...ext/papias.html

Papias isn't quoted to have said that Mark is the sayings of Jesus, but the oral teaching of Peter about Jesus' words and deeds. However, of some relvance to our present concern:



Either resurrection was easy, or telling a story about a resurrection that receieved credence was easy in those days.
The big problem with Papias is that his writings aren't dated with sufficient accuracy.  WHEN he wrote is as important as WHAT he wrote and we have little evidence of the when.  Papias told a story involving some grapes, if memory serves.  It is trivial, except that he says he got it from the daughters of Philip!  He also says he had "the words of John wringing in my ears."  That is taken to mean that he had heard John speak.  He doesn't directly say he is talking about John the Apostle, but his style and implications are that he was.

I found a quote from Irenaeus that says that Origen was a student of John, but I have not found it in Origen's own writings.  Doesn't mean it's not there, somewhere, just that I haven't found it.  Haven't had time to look lately.

The bottom line here is that the only real accounts of Jesus, the Apostles, Paul and the resurrection, all come from the Gospels, which were written L-O-N-G after events, probably not even within the lifetimes of anyone who might have experienced them - and that even includes John, supposedly the last surviving member of The Twelve.  The stories, at best, are legends supported by only the thinnest of evidence.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#63    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,677 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:16 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 21 April 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

Define you.

Well, I guess I'd ask you to define 'resurrection' then, as you were likening what you believe science will be able to do with the contents of our brains to that concept, if I'm reading you correctly.  My understanding of what you are talking about is better termed 'duplication' at best, not 'resurrection'.  Please feel free to define the 'you' that is being resurrected if I am not correctly understanding your point here.  

The scientific 'resurrection' that you feel will soon be possible seems to not include that I will actually experience what my clones will, short of a transference of that clone's experiences back to me, assuming "I'm" still alive.  Which of course is not an actual transference of the experience, but of the memory of it.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#64    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,217 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:28 PM

Doug

If Jesus existed, then I do think he was killed, because Romans were competent at killing people they wanted to kill. It is possible to survive, but I don't think it is seriously possible.

What concerns me is the flimsiness of the witness of any sort of  miracle afterwards. A body was lost, and then some people who had seen Jesus in life chatting with Elijah and Moses saw him in death walking through doors and eating fish and chips. The people who tell me that they saw Jesus after death also tell me that demons cause mental illness. And the first witness of the risen Jesus, they tell me, once had seven demons that needed to be removed. What if there actually were eight demons, I wonder.

Thank you for clearing up where you were going with Paul as a witness. We seem to be generally in agreement there, as we now also are about Pilate.

Origen was born about 185, so he couldn't possibly have been a student of any apostolic generation figure. There is a tangle of well-attested "students of John" that revolve around Irenaeus.

Irenaeus is an eyewitness of a real-life Polycarp, and Tertullian says that Polycarp was a student of John the Apostle. Jerome was also aware of the tradition. Irenaeus says that Polycarp was a companion of Papias, who was also someone who heard John preach, according to Irenaeus. Polycarp has the rare distinction of having a surviving letter written to him, by Ignatius of Antioch, another supposed student of John.

The Apostle John is speculative as either the evangelist John or the long-lived Beloved Disciple. All of John 21 appears to be a "second edition" appendix, and it simply doesn't say that the Beloved Disciple wrote the Gospel of John. All it says for sure is that the Beloved Disciple wrote something, at least about the incident where Jesus talks with Peter about the Beloved Disciple's death, and that writing is the basis for the Gospel story about that one thing. The statement could mean more than that, but it doesn't explicitly say more than that.

There is no particular reason to think that the Beloved Disciple is one of the Twelve, even. He was Jesus' guest at the Last Supper, and was either mature enough, or came from a sufficiently wealthy family, that the dying Jesus bequeathed his mother to him. More than that, John doesn't say. Mark places some young man with Jesus in Gethsemane during the arrest scene, who doesn't seem to be one of the Twelve. Maybe that man was the Beloved Disciple.

Posted Image

#65    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,383 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 22 April 2013 - 09:49 PM

View Posteight bits, on 22 April 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Origen was born about 185, so he couldn't possibly have been a student of any apostolic generation figure. There is a tangle of well-attested "students of John" that revolve around Irenaeus.
I was thinking of Polycarp.  Sorry.

Memory's a little foggy.  It has been several years since I had time to look into any of this.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#66    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,466 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 23 April 2013 - 02:44 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 22 April 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

Well, I guess I'd ask you to define 'resurrection' then, as you were likening what you believe science will be able to do with the contents of our brains to that concept, if I'm reading you correctly.  My understanding of what you are talking about is better termed 'duplication' at best, not 'resurrection'.  Please feel free to define the 'you' that is being resurrected if I am not correctly understanding your point here.  

The scientific 'resurrection' that you feel will soon be possible seems to not include that I will actually experience what my clones will, short of a transference of that clone's experiences back to me, assuming "I'm" still alive.  Which of course is not an actual transference of the experience, but of the memory of it.

OK FAir comment. Resurrection is where the "death" of an organism and a memory occurs  and the organism is no longer aware of anything. Then (After a short or long period of time) the body and self aware consciousness are both restored. However, to me the crtitical ressurection is that of the self aware consciosness. If "I" am brought back to full self aware consciousness then i am resurrected. It is really irrelevant (to me) if i am resurrected in an identical copy of my self, in the body of another human or in a functioning android/robotic body  The converse is that the resurrection of my body without resurrection of my conscious self awareness, would NOT contitute resurrection because consciousness defines "I" and I would not be aware that my body was reconstituted.

You are correct but also wrong. You will have memory of your clones, but it wil also be your memory. Humans ONLY have memories as their self awareness, along with present ongoing thought based on their memories.

So once "melded", each host body will begin processing memories via their own new individual environmental connections. But the basic mind will be the same, and when those minds are reconnected next year, they will combine ALL new memories, including the memories of their individual books read, sights seen, feelings felt in response to each new experience. They will contain feelings of love, joy, wonder, creativity and perhaps less positive emotional memories. The transfer will  even in clude the reponses to the tastes of food eaten. Musings philosphical and abstract thoughts etc over the year. Each "new" mind will be able to compare, contrast and ecvaluate,  individually, their common memories.

Edited by Mr Walker, 23 April 2013 - 02:48 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#67    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,677 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:33 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 23 April 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

OK FAir comment. Resurrection is where the "death" of an organism and a memory occurs  and the organism is no longer aware of anything. Then (After a short or long period of time) the body and self aware consciousness are both restored. However, to me the crtitical ressurection is that of the self aware consciosness. If "I" am brought back to full self aware consciousness then i am resurrected. It is really irrelevant (to me) if i am resurrected in an identical copy of my self, in the body of another human or in a functioning android/robotic body  The converse is that the resurrection of my body without resurrection of my conscious self awareness, would NOT contitute resurrection because consciousness defines "I" and I would not be aware that my body was reconstituted.

But then I disagree that your self-aware consciousness is 'you', and again I think just by modifying your scenario slightly this is made evident.  If I'm understanding you, you feel it may be possible to download your mind, your current body dies, but we can upload your mind to another host; from the most important perspective, that being yours, it doesn't seem to me that the host is 'you'.  Let's say that I download my mind (i.e. "self aware consciousness") today, and let's call me 'LG1', which I will refer to also as "I" or "me".  Now while I'm still living, I upload my mind to 4 other hosts, LG2-5.  In what meaningful way, from my perspective, are these other LGs 'me'?  I don't experience what they experience, I don't necessarily know what they are thinking or feeling any more than any other person.  And I don't see how any of that changes under your scenario where I die first.  Thus it seems clear that "I" die when I die.

Quote

You are correct but also wrong. You will have memory of your clones, but it wil also be your memory. Humans ONLY have memories as their self awareness, along with present ongoing thought based on their memories.

Hmmm, I'll have to think about that one some more, interesting.  There sure seems to be a pretty big difference between the experience of having sex and the memory of it though.

Quote

So once "melded", each host body will begin processing memories via their own new individual environmental connections. But the basic mind will be the same, and when those minds are reconnected next year, they will combine ALL new memories, including the memories of their individual books read, sights seen, feelings felt in response to each new experience. They will contain feelings of love, joy, wonder, creativity and perhaps less positive emotional memories. The transfer will  even in clude the reponses to the tastes of food eaten. Musings philosphical and abstract thoughts etc over the year. Each "new" mind will be able to compare, contrast and ecvaluate,  individually, their common memories.

Again, interesting thoughts.  I don't know why we should restrict this to just clones of our minds though, it seems like the technology to be able to upload other people's memories and consciousness to our own wouldn't be far behind.  It seems then that the result of that would be a hybrid you/not you, which of course would now instantly be the new 'you'.  Uploading someone else's mind wouldn't really be that much different than me cloning myself and my mind at age 15 and then sending the clones off to live their lives away from each other and then we re-merge when we're 60 or so; those clones sure seem like they'd be very different people than I am, and in no meaningful way are they, 'me', more like family at best.  If we can share minds perhaps the universal mind is in our future (or maybe we become the Borg).

Regardless, 'duplication' seems like a more correct description of this from our point of view than 'resurrection'.  However, I'm thinking now from another person's perspective as long as there is one clone of me and it had a full upload of my mind right before my death, it may as well be a resurrection; it just wouldn't be from 'my', dead, perspective.  I think we need souls in order to enable the kind of resurrection I think you are talking about.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#68    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,466 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 24 April 2013 - 11:28 PM

Really then our only difference is that I consider that our soul is indeed our self aware consciousness, which allows us to know  constructive choices from destructive ones, and to make decisions on what thoughts and actions we will chose, in full knowledge of the consequences. Mkae that "immortal" and we have an immortal soul.

This is why self aware sapient beings (including future artificial intelligences ) have a soul, while all other entities do not itis how/why we can grow or  damage or even destroy our soul it is why only human level or above self aware entities create beliefs, and have an observable spiritual dimension leading to the construction of religions.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users