Best Objection against Jesus' Resurrection -

[shrooma]

am i on the wrong website??

the scientific debates on this site usually get hijacked by the religious, claiming 'god made it', with absolutely no sense of humour whatsoever!

but here is a religious discussion that's gradually taken on a scientific bent, and some of you are even BEING HUMOUROUS!!

.

it's a miracle!!

.

(places tongue in cheek.)

:-)

[eight bits]

Doug1o29

Howdy, Doug.

1 is so far the popular choice (with Darkwind's calling BS on the whole thing runner up) .

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.

I don't know Paul's whereabouts at the time. He did, however, know the story. From 1 Corinthians 15: 3-10 (widely thought to be a genuine letter of a First Century Paul):

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.For I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been ineffective. Indeed, I have toiled harder than all of them; not I, however, but the grace of God [that is] with me. Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

So, Paul knows the party line, and however much he insists that he relies entirely on his own visions, he says that he preaches about this just what the others preach about it. So, it would seem that he must have heard what they preach, even if he had other sources of his own.

(Note in my first post in this thread, I said that there is no record that James, brother of Jesus, referred to by Dr Habermas, saw the risen Jesus. The "James" above may be that James, or he may be the apostle James, son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve. If so, then he would have had three or four visits... but so would Peter, Cephas. Anyway, I 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.)

3 is correct, there are no records. I am unsure that I would expect any. Jesus didn't get very far with his Messianic program. A perennial objection, which I think arises from Celsus, is that he didn't appear in risen form to Pilate and Caiaphas. That I would have expected a record of, but apparently Jesus didn't choose to visit them. It's completely unclear when Pilate died.

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.

You and I have talked about this before, I think, a long while ago. (But long term memory being what it is, maybe I talked with somebody else about it )

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:

We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day.

Either resurrection was easy, or telling a story about a resurrection that receieved credence was easy in those days.

[Mr Walker]

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 "...

One reason i dont use U tube is the age and slowness of my computer but i also dont feel comfortable with the modern phenomenum of social media.

I think it falsifies and subverts much of the reality of human interaction. It makes us feel false symapthy for people totally unconnected to us, for example, and almost hysterically raises human emotions in individuals and groups when we should be working on reducing emotive responses.

In my experience and observation most of the conflict among school children today is generated from various social media sites. I like factual inforative information and I just dont trust most of the stuff on social media.I like my information vetted, cross referenced, verified and checked.

I have bruce willis's reaction from die hard 4 to your concerns about official media. In australia at least I can acces solid factual information from media sources including online sources.

I do not agree that one will find more truth on U tube than in official media. One can just find information and opinion to confirm ones own beliefs and prejudices or world views.creating an illusion of greater truth and accuracy.

They also concentrate human knowledge and responses into a more limited and resticted mould. For example, where teenage girls were once great readers and thus gained access to ahuge range of historical and cultural perspectives, today they are being increasingly homogenised in their views. They read far less from traditional sources and concentrate on the limited and restrictive world views found within social media. So they have little or no understanding of the past or about non- connected world peoples.

Many of the children I teach are unaware that humans once lived without access to the web for example, or that mobile phones once never existed. They grow up from birth in an online world of social networking. They never allow their phones from their possession and feel disconnected if they lose access to one. When i told my home class of young teenagers that i did not own a mobile phone and found absolutely no practical use for one, I was met by complete and absolute disbelief. That world view was incomprehensible to every one of them.

I almost feel our basic humanity is being hijacked/resahped by technology, much as i actually love the concept of advanced technology, But it makes for interesting times.

[Mr Walker]

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.

Human demographics illustrate that all the developed world is now below replacement fertility. Australia for example has to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants just to maintain its population So does all of europe. Japan is working to create robots to replace huamns in aged care etc because its fertility is so low.

In the third world fertility has alos dropped quickly and will reach negative numbers by 2050. (under 2.1 children per female)

At that time world population will stabilise at a fairly high number for some time due to the number of very young people in the third world, and then very rapidly begin to drop. The second half of this centiry will be a time in which declining and aging populations are the central prolem for humanity. In the end it is necessary, and good for the earth's sustainability but we still have people thinking that only continued growth can support human development. In a finite ecosystem, this is so demonstrably wrong that it is hard to credit that some people still believe it.

Define you.

We know from present science and technologicla abilities that in the future you will be able to upload or transfer your present conscious self awreness into a number of entities, be they clones or "androids" Each can go off and learn new things and have new experiences or, more likely and prosaicalay be used/employed to remotely operate deep sea mines or space probes. Then in a year, or on a regular basis, they can have all their experiences combined, so that each has all the knowledge and experience of the others.

Also if one host "dies" or is destroyed, the prerecorded self aware consciousness of that host can be stored and transferred into another. All of this will happen. The ethical and philosophical questions may delay it more than the scientific issues and difficulties, but it will happen in the life time of young, presently living, human beings.

[Ultima Weapon]

What do you mean by thorough? I am not a polymath, and I don't know Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, or Syriac. I have not formally studied historicity or epigraphy. Likewise I have not studied archeology or historical criticism and theological interpretation of scripture. Ok, well maybe a little.

But I don't think one has to be an expert in all these fields and disciplines. There are several more plausible explanations to choose from rather than that of a miraculous resurrection of a dead man.

Off the top of my head;

p1 "orthodox" scripture was "corrupted"

p2 the early members misinterpreted an event and/or statement, much like Paul misinterpreted the imminent parousia.

p3 a coverup explanation to account for the ignoble end of yet another Messiah.

p4 the old passover plot conspiracy theory, the crucifixion was not lethal.

There are more, but I only have to posit one example that is more plausible than a dead man being brought back to life. bAnd by dead I don't mean someone with no vital signs or someone near death who recovers and tells stories of tunnels of light etc. I mean someone who is deceased and cannot be put back to together again, much like Humpty Dumpty.

The New Testament writers don’t just say that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead—they actually back up that testimony with dramatic action. First, virtually overnight they abandon many of their long-held sacred beliefs and practices. Among the 1,500-year-old-plus institutions they give up are the following:

• The animal sacrifice system– they replace it forever by the one perfect sacrifice of Christ.
  
• The binding supremacy of the Law of Moses– they say It’s powerless because of the sinless life of Christ.
  
• Strict monotheism– they now worship Jesus, the God-man, despite the fact that 1) their most cherished belief has been, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4); and 2) man-worship has always been considered blasphemy and punishable by death.
  
• The Sabbath– they no longer observe it even though they’ve always believed that breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death (Ex. 31:14).
  
• Belief in a conquering Messiah– Jesus is the opposite of a conquering Messiah.He’s a sacrificial lamb (at least on his first visit!).
  

And it’s not just the New Testament writers who do this– thousands of Jerusalem Jews, including Pharisee priests (Acts 6:7), convert to Christianity and join the New Testament writers in abandoning the set reasured beliefs and practices. Even references from ancient non-biblical sources attest to this Jewish movement we now call Christianity. J.P. Moreland helps us understand the magnitude of these devout Jews giving up their established institutions virtually overnight:

[The Jewish people] believed that these institutions were entrusted to them by God. They believed that to abandon these institutions would be to risk their souls being damned to hell after death. Now a rabbi named Jesus appears from a lower-class region. He teaches for three years, gathers a following of lower- and middle-class people, gets in trouble with the authorities, and gets crucified along with thirty thousand other Jewish men who are executed during this time period. But five weeks after he’s crucified, over ten thousand Jews are following him and claiming that he is the initiator of a new religion.And get this: they’re willing to give up or alter all five of the social institutions that they have been taught since childhood have such importance both sociologically and theologically. . . . Something very big was going on.

How do you explain these monumental shifts if the New Testament writers were making up a story? How do you explain them if the Resurrection did not occur? Second,not only do these new believers abandon their long-held beliefs and practices, they also adopt some new radical ones. These include:

• Sunday, a work day, as the new day of worship
  
• Baptism as a new sign that one was a partaker of the new covenant (as circumcision was a sign of the old covenant)
  
• Communion as an act of remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice for their sins
  

Communion is especially inexplicable unless the Resurrection is true. Why would Jews make up a practice where they symbolically eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus?

Only an “impact event” like a Resurrection could explain such a swift and monumental shift in Jewish thinking and practice. What’s an impact event?An impact event is something that is so dramatic in your life that it changes you forever. It’s something that you can’t forget. Where were you when the second plane hit the tower? Why can you remember where you were and what you were doing on September 11, 2001 but not September 11, 2007? Because an impact event changes everything. An impact event known as the resurrection of Jesus Christ changed everything for thousands of Jews two thousand years ago, and today it can still change you, me and the rest of the world. That’s why we still celebrate Easter.

There is no logical reason for early Christians to lie in scripture obviously, what did they have to gain? Death and martyrdom. No one is willing to be tortured and killed for a known lie. Therefore even if what they had seen had been misinterpreted (which is highly unlikely) it would make much more logical sense to do everything they can to convince others they're telling the truth. So how do we know they did?

Quite possibly the greatest evidence we have that the New Testament writers were telling the truth is found from Luke and John. Luke peppers the second half of the book of Acts with at least 84 historically confirmed eyewitness details and includes several others in his Gospel. Luke's trustworthiness affirms that of Matthew and Mark because they record the same basic story. John includes at least 59 historically confirmed or historically probable eyewitness details in his Gospel.

And as for the theory that the crucifixion wasn't lethal, C. Truman Davis, M.D., wrote a vivid description of Christ's suffering and crucifixion:

http://www.thecross-photo.com/Dr_C._Truman_Davis_Analyzes_the_Crucifixion.htm

If Jesus Christ were to somehow miraculously survive all that, gather the strength to move a rediculously heavy stone, defeat two strong Roman guards single handedly, and run off to the disciples; it would be miraculous, no doubt. However you could hardly call it a resurrection story, more like a survival story, and the disciples would know that. He wouldn't be their mighty and risen savior, he'd be a super lucky survivor. Besides, it doesn't explain the account of his ascension to heaven, nor what he would be doing afterward. Did he suddenly go into suclusion? He'd have to after being beaten that badly with that many scars... Logically this theory simply makes no sense.

There is absolutely no reason to believe these New Testament writers aren't telling the truth, nor that the ressurection did not happen. The resurrection is actually the most plausible explanation of what actually happened. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[Ultima Weapon]

AquilaChrysaetos

Really? But surely Dr Habermas accepts that miracles are possible. There is no tomb of Mary except empty ones (just as there are plural candidates for Jesus' tomb). She has been sighted thousands of times, or otherwise perceived and interacted with by living people. On one occasion, in modern times, tens of thousands of people at once are reported to have watched her work an astronomical miracle in broad daylight.

Even scripturally, Paul describes Jesus as the first fruits of a general resurrection event; in which everybody will participate eventually, but not everybody all at once. Jesus went first. Speaking of logic, somebody has to go second in that case. Why not his Mum?

And yet, on information and belief, Dr Habermas does not teach the bodily Ressurrection and Assumption of Mary of Nazareth. Nor does he teach the variant allowed by Paul, that some may be changed without tasting death. That would be a nice present for anyone's Mother.

Seriously, AC, if it was within your power to spare your mother from death, or failing that, to see to it that she suffered no lasting ill effects from a final distress, wouldn't you do it? For your mother? And if she then needed a place to stay, and you had a really big house available, with many apartments, wouldn't you let her have one? This is your mother we're talking about.

If you answered "no," then would you be willing to tell your mother that, face to face? Or better yet, would you demonstrate to her your power to do it, and then withhold it from her when she needed it?

Assuming you answer "yes," that you'd help your Mom, and assuming Jesus didn't help his Mom, then what are you saying? That you're a better son than Jesus? I'd do it for my Mom. Am I a better son than Jesus?

So, here's how logic works. If Dr Habermas allows that a rational person may believe that Mary wasn't bodily transformed and assumed into Heaven, then he must allow that a rational person may believe that Jesus wasn't, either. It is his business that he disagrees personally, for whatever reasons, but he cannot object logically to anyone reaching similar conclusions about similar uncertain questions, based on similar evidence.

Here's how logic works.

If the definition of death is not death of the body, but death of the spirit, then Christ's mother was never "dead" to begin with, nor could anyone or anything truly kill her. She was alive through Christ, and therefore no matter what pain, suffering, or even physical "death" she might suffer; nothing will seperate her from her eternal glory afterwards.

You're speaking through an earthly perspective, so there's no wonder you don't understand.

[eight bits]

AquilaChrysaetos

You're speaking through an earthly perspective, so there's no wonder you don't understand.

Actually, it was Dr Habermas, in his video that was presented in the OP, who proposed that stories about the resurrection of Gospel heroes during the First Century should be investigated according to an earthly perspective. Perhaps it slipped his mind that there are at least two such stories, both equally accepted as historical and earthly facts by the churches to which a majority of Christians belong.

If you and I are agreed that Dr Habrmas erred when he made his recommendation, then our understandings would be identical.

[redhen]

The New Testament writers don’t just say that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead—they actually back up that testimony with dramatic action. First, virtually overnight they abandon many of their long-held sacred beliefs and practices. Among the 1,500-year-old-plus institutions they give up are the following:

First I have to ask if you believe the NT is inerrable. If so, then that pretty much ends the dialogue. New sects, in all religions, start up all the time, some survive most wither away.

Only an “impact event” like a Resurrection could explain such a swift and monumental shift in Jewish thinking and practice. What’s an impact event?An impact event is something that is so dramatic in your life that it changes you forever. It’s something that you can’t forget. Where were you when the second plane hit the tower? Why can you remember where you were and what you were doing on September 11, 2001 but not September 11, 2007? Because an impact event changes everything. An impact event known as the resurrection of Jesus Christ changed everything for thousands of Jews two thousand years ago, and today it can still change you, me and the rest of the world.

Your concept of an impact event sounds like the psychological theory of the flashbulb memory. The two ideas are similar in that it is not necessarily something where the subject is an actual eyewitness, but can also be the long term memory of "the moment and circumstances in which a piece of surprising and consequential (or emotionally arousing) news was heard" (Wiki). But what if the news is wrong or misleading? How many actual eyewitnesses to the 9/11 WTC attacks were there? How many different stories are there about what people saw or heard on that day?

That’s why we still celebrate Easter.

Easter is a syncretic appropriation of a feasting time for a Germanic fertility goddess named Ēostre, complete with bunnies and eggs.

There is no logical reason for early Christians to lie in scripture obviously, what did they have to gain? Death and martyrdom.

Scripture has been modified and added to at much later dates. The pericope of the adulteress is a good example. The original writers could also have been wrong or misinformed.

No one is willing to be tortured and killed for a known lie.

Talk to the Cathars, and all the other heretics who chose death instead of recanting their particular interpretation of scripture. Did they all believe they were dying for a lie? Seems outrageous, I would bet that they all held firm convictions that they were right.

Quite possibly the greatest evidence we have that the New Testament writers were telling the truth is found from Luke and John. Luke peppers the second half of the book of Acts with at least 84 historically confirmed eyewitness details and includes several others in his Gospel.

"historically confirmed eyewitness details". Confirmed how? In the NT? Any other sources?

And as for the theory that the crucifixion wasn't lethal, C. Truman Davis, M.D., wrote a vivid description of Christ's suffering and crucifixion:If Jesus Christ were to somehow miraculously survive all that, gather the strength to move a rediculously heavy stone, defeat two strong Roman guards single handedly, and run off to the disciples; it would be miraculous, no doubt.

Josephus writes of at least one person who survived a crucifixion. Death by crucifixion was not immediate, it could last days. "Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died."Mark 15:44

There is absolutely no reason to believe these New Testament writers aren't telling the truth, nor that the ressurection did not happen.

It's quite likely they did think they were telling the truth. People make mistakes, people sometimes believe what they want to believe. People believe all sorts of outlandish things, with conviction. (reference to some exemplary accepted "religions" deleted).

The resurrection is actually the most plausible explanation of what actually happened. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Sometimes people get carried away in their new found fervour, and project their wishes. Paul went around the Mediterranean firmly convinced the second coming was imminent. Turned out he was wrong.

[eight bits]

Now that redhen has answered, I'd like to comment on the same post.

There is no record that anybody in the apostolic generation died after refusing an amnesty for recanting the story of Jesus' resurrection.

Nothing that can be verified by historians happened in the early church that exceeds what might be expected from people who believed that Jesus flfilled ancient prophecy by his death, and believed that Jesus himself had predicted that he would soon return in glory. In the meantime, his devotees performed practical miracles in his name and organized charity. If you happen still to be alive when Jesus returns, then you would never die at all, ever. If you had died waiting, then you will be restored bodily. If you had died "for" Jesus, then you get extra perks.

Sounds like a great idea for a religion to me, just the sort of thing that might catch on.

[conspiracy buff]

There are different historical texts from the Bible that describe Jesus' resurrection. 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. Science cannot explain how the image got onto the shroud and why the man on it had wounds and marks that matched up EXACTLY with the biblical account of Jesus' resurrection. 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.

[eight bits]

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?

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/collections/object/shekel-of-tyre-with-head-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?

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.

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.

[Doug1029]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[+Liquid Gardens]

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.

[eight bits]

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.

[Doug1029]

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

[Mr Walker]

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 April 23, 2013 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

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.

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.

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.

[Mr Walker]

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.