Jesus Could Not Rise If He Was Dead

[Ken001]

Forgive me, this is not a rallying flag for atheists or a call to fervent Christians: its simply something which bothers me and I wonder if there is any rational answer.

In essence I do not believe the resurrection happened. I look at the universe and the rules of science which God imposed and reversal of death is not possible. Cells break down and bacteria immediately start to consume any dead organic creature. Jesus could not be a special case in this universe. Science does not allow it.

FYI I'm a Presbyterian, support my church but seldom go, like the biblical stories, and embrace the ethics of Christianity - and humanism.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, I guess it's possible to be a good person, following the various philosophical and ethical guidelines of Christianity (at least the ones that still apply to the modern world) while being indifferent to or dismissive of all its mystical aspects.

[WhyNot]

You ask for an answer, but I'm not sure I see a question.

Are you asking if there's a non-magical, non-religious explanation for Jesus' disappearance from the cave, assuming the rest of the story is true?

I think the easiest theory is that one or more of his followers moved his body. Possibly to create the "miracle" to lend credibility to their cult, possibly 'cause they just wanted him buried somewhere else, in a way keeping with Jewish law. Jewish law says that a body must be buried within 24 hours of death, unless that falls on the Sabbath. If it does, then the body may be placed in a temporary tomb (like a convenient cave), but it needs to be moved and put into the ground when the Sabbath is over.

If the question is, "how do I reconcile my belief in Christianity with my unbelief in the Resurrection," then I'm not sure how to answer that. If you're already believing 6 impossible things before breakfast, what's stopping you at 7?

[Rune]

Forgive me, this is not a rallying flag for atheists or a call to fervent Christians: its simply something which bothers me and I wonder if there is any rational answer.

In essence I do not believe the resurrection happened. I look at the universe and the rules of science which God imposed and reversal of death is not possible. Cells break down and bacteria immediately start to consume any dead organic creature. Jesus could not be a special case in this universe. Science does not allow it.

FYI I'm a Presbyterian, support my church but seldom go, like the biblical stories, and embrace the ethics of Christianity - and humanism.Why on Earth would you assume that God is limited by the rules of science? I work with computer programs that are programmed to follow certain rules, the same rules I constantly break to make things not possible within the rules. And I think perhaps that an omnipotent god that is above my paygrade, would be able to do things I am not.

[brittekland]

"Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen."

Isn't it a matter of faith? Or draw your own fine line....

[Ken001]

You ask for an answer, but I'm not sure I see a question.

Are you asking if there's a non-magical, non-religious explanation for Jesus' disappearance from the cave, assuming the rest of the story is true?



Quite right, my musings were badly worded.

My question: is there any scientific hypothesis for a man dying and then returning to life 3 days later?

Perhaps he wasn't dead but crucifixion usually did the job. One of the reasons is that breathing becomes impossible because of the pressure from hanging by the arms.

Rune suggests anything is possible but God created a universe with specific rules right down to the handedness of subatomic particles. There isn't wriggle room to reverse normal chemical and biological processes. For what its worth even Stephen Hawking says this.

[Ken001]

Isn't it a matter of faith? Or draw your own fine line....

Mmm...faith for me is a spiritual concept, that humans are not the high point of the universe, that indefinable abstracts such as love, goodness and mercy have a real meaning. And a real value.

I can't tell myself to believe in a material (as opposed to spiritual) event when it is an impossibility. I don't see the resurrection as being a matter of faith. Either it happened and has a rational explanation - or it didn't.

[Rune]

Steven Hawkins is a tottering old fool. But the argument that this or that in the Bible is impossible because it breaks some or other rule is much older than him, which hasn’t detracted from its general silliness. There are many good reasons not to believe in God, but this isn’t one of them. Besides God doesn’t need wriggle room when he can change the rules.

[brittekland]

Mmm...faith for me is a spiritual concept, that humans are not the high point of the universe, that indefinable abstracts such as love, goodness and mercy have a real meaning. And a real value.

I can't tell myself to believe in a material (as opposed to spiritual) event when it is an impossibility. I don't see the resurrection as being a matter of faith. Either it happened and has a rational explanation - or it didn't.

So you don't believe everything Bible tells you. Then what is the problem with cherry picking around the "Resurrection" story?

Also if I create little beings and their little reality, I wouldn't expose/give them everything right away. I might give them little more as they earn the right, by not doubting me, to go to their next little reality.

[Der Trihs]

Why on Earth would you assume that God is limited by the rules of science?Why would you assume he isn't? Just as we've no evidence for gods, we've no evidence that a god or anything else can ignore physical laws.

Quite right, my musings were badly worded.

My question: is there any scientific hypothesis for a man dying and then returning to life 3 days later?

Perhaps he wasn't dead but crucifixion usually did the job.I've heard that argument before. He wasn't really dead, just near death; even that there was a plot to get him out alive given that the Romans didn't break his legs as is normal.

Of course, in reality the fact is that it's just a legend written down by people with an agenda who weren't even there at the time. So the simplest assumption is that what really happened has little if any resemblance to the legend.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Perhaps he wasn't dead but crucifixion usually did the job. One of the reasons is that breathing becomes impossible because of the pressure from hanging by the arms.

Eventually, yeah. But when he slumped over -- right after drinking the special concoction someone gave him -- the other two guys being crucified right next to him were still alive, right? And according to Matthew, that's when folks took Jesus down off the cross; according to Mark, that's when folks took Jesus down off the cross; according to Luke, that's when folks took Jesus down off the cross; according to the obvious patch later story in John, that's when folks took Jesus down off the cross upon poking him first, at which point blood and water came out as if he were still alive, or something.

Regardless, at the guy's wake, some of his suggestible followers enjoyed hallucinogenic mushrooms -- some powdered and mixed into water for a euphoric wine-like effect in small doses, some as big fine broad flat caps that look like pita bread -- at which point they all saw what they most desperately wanted to see.

Throw in WhyNot's hint at the Bible's own proffered explanation -- some guys made off with the body, maybe by bribing a guard, and cue various differing stories about who found what in the tomb later -- and, hey, dueling explanations, each just as easy to believe as "back from the dead" magic.

[Half Man Half Wit]

Why on Earth would you assume that God is limited by the rules of science? I work with computer programs that are programmed to follow certain rules, the same rules I constantly break to make things not possible within the rules. And I think perhaps that an omnipotent god that is above my paygrade, would be able to do things I am not.
This is an often made argument for the capacity of god to work miracles, but it's not really apt -- a computer program, say a simulation, whose rules a programmer may break according to his whim, is not causally closed, which in a sense means it's not a complete universe. Thus, the 'laws' of the simulation are not laws of physics, but rather, local by-laws, supervening on the underlying rules that the computer itself follows (rules which the programmer can't change). So the apparent 'miracles' are just a consequence of incomplete knowledge.

Of course, our universe may be just that way -- a part of it may be inaccessible to us, and thus, what is accessible not be causally closed. But then, if miracles occur, this would provide us with a means to infer that there is such a missing part -- meaning that it is not inaccessible to us after all. In particular, we could study these occurrences, and postulate minimal extensions of the physical laws we know in order to account for them. Thus, we will gradually come to know the laws of the complete universe -- the causal closure of our world --, including the parts 'inaccessible' to us. Indeed, that's how science usually works -- most of the things studied by modern physics, for instance, are rather removed from what one would generally consider accessible.

Take, as an example, a case in which the sun is through some means removed from our access. We would be mystified by the question what it was that makes the planets go round, or where the light comes from, etc. But since we observe the planets to go around, and observe the light, we can postulate the existence of a massive, bright body in one of the focal points of the elliptic planetary orbits. So what is removed from us, but causally influences us, can be detected and characterized by its causal influences -- and this is actually the usual story, as we have direct knowledge of nothing* (except for our own minds). There could be additional parts that do not causally influence us, which we thus never can detect -- but then again, the question of their existence is wholly immaterial. For instance, the sun could 'really' be the fiery eye of a great red dragon, the rest of which does not exert any causal influence on the observable universe -- an epiphenomenal dragon -- but its existence or non-existence simply does not matter for the description of the universe.


*Most such inferences are however to immediate to even be noticed; for instance, we know that the sun is there because we see it. But this just means observing the light the sun emits, and inferring its existence as a consequence.

[John Mace]

Why don't you tell us what you do believe about God. Do you believe in any of the non-scientific aspects of God? If you do, why are those believable, but not others? If you don't, then why bother with that religion at all? A God that isn't above the laws of science is just a really smart alien.

[Jack Batty]

I appreciate the OP's quest for scientific explanations of things that could never happen in the real world, but he's asking about rising from the dead, from a book that also includes talking snakes, two people who populated the entire planet, talking burning bushes, seas parting, water turning into wine, two of every animal on earth fitting on one boat, angels floating down from the skies, people turning into pillars of salt, etc.

Forget it Jake, it's the Bible.

[Der Trihs]

I've got to say it; for some reason every time I see the thread title I keep thinking:

"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons death may die."


Cthulhujesus!

[kanicbird]

Jesus is not the only one to be raised from the dead in scriptures. Here is a list:

Widow of Zarephath's son (I Ki 17:17-24) raised by Elijah
Shunamite's son(II Ki 4:20-37) raised by Elisha
Man tossed into Elisha's tomb(II Ki 13:21) raised by God's Spirit
Widow of Nain's son(Lk 7:11-16) raised by Jesus
Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mk 5:35-43) raised by Jesus
Lazarus(Jn 11:1-44) raised by Jesus
Tabitha also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41) raised by Peter
Men raised upon Jesus' death (Mt 27:51-53) raised by God


We are gods and we are children of God. The laws of science are really just safety gates and child proof outlet covers designed to protect us when we are too young to understand. God our parent is not constrained by them and can remove them as He pleases.

We are ultimately the ones to control our natural world when we are ready. It is our inheritance, but God does not want to let us ruin it because we get the power too soon, before our heart is right (in other words we must learn to Love as Jesus loved). Part of that safety gate is such hard belief the OP expressed, it is scientifically impossible so God could not have done it. Actually I would challenge that it is scientifically impossible, but that's another aspect.

[John Mace]

We are gods and we are children of God. The laws of science are really just safety gates and child proof outlet covers designed to protect us when we are too young to understand. God our parent is not constrained by them and can remove them as He pleases.

We are ultimately the ones to control our natural world when we are ready. It is our inheritance, but God does not want to let us ruin it because we get the power too soon, before our heart is right (in other words we must learn to Love as Jesus loved). Part of that safety gate is such hard belief the OP expressed, it is scientifically impossible so God could not have done it. Actually I would challenge that it is scientifically impossible, but that's another aspect.

I would say that was nice poetry, but it isn't even that. You certainly can witness all you want in this forum, but what you posted is utter nonsense.

[TriPolar]

We had a hamster that died. We put him a ziploc bag and put him in the freezer while we arranged for his burial. When we open the freezer and took out the bag, he was still alive! Was that a miracle? Or was Jesus a hamster?

[Ludovic]

Fucking hamsters, how do they work?

[Der Trihs]

We had a hamster that died. We put him a ziploc bag and put him in the freezer while we arranged for his burial. When we open the freezer and took out the bag, he was still alive! Was that a miracle?
Nah; he was one of the hamsters that powers the SDMB, and just needed some downtime to reboot.

[Jack Batty]

Fucking hamsters, how do they work?

Well, first you need to wrap them in duct tape so they don't explode.

[Súil Dubh]

My question: is there any scientific hypothesis for a man dying and then returning to life 3 days later?

Certainly not hard evidence by any means, but an interesting read anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Serpent_and_the_Rainbow_(book)

The Serpent and the Rainbow is a book (1985) by ethnobotanist and researcher Wade Davis. He investigated Haitian Vodou and the process of making zombies. He studied ethnobotanical poisons, discovering their use in a reported case of a contemporary zombie, Clairvius Narcisse.

If you see someone bumping this thread years from now, please link back to this post.

[jtgain]

If you operate from the basic assumption (which the OP has done) that there is a higher power that has created the Universe, is omnipotent and so forth, then why is it hard to believe that he could magically bring someone back to life?

[CurtC]

My question: is there any scientific hypothesis for a man dying and then returning to life 3 days later?

I think the standard Christian answer is "it was a miracle." If there were a way to explain it with our knowledge of how physics works, then it wouldn't be a miracle.

The whole concept of Christianity for the last 1900 years or so, is that God performed this miracle to resurrect Jesus (who was also the same God). If you try to take away the miraculousness of it, aren't you kind of gutting Christianity of its central claim?

[Der Trihs]

The OP is clearly operating on the assumption that God isn't omnipotent, since an omnipotent can of course do anything logically possible.

[Meatros]

Jesus is not the only one to be raised from the dead in scriptures. Here is a list:

Widow of Zarephath's son (I Ki 17:17-24) raised by Elijah
Shunamite's son(II Ki 4:20-37) raised by Elisha
Man tossed into Elisha's tomb(II Ki 13:21) raised by God's Spirit
Widow of Nain's son(Lk 7:11-16) raised by Jesus
Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mk 5:35-43) raised by Jesus
Lazarus(Jn 11:1-44) raised by Jesus
Tabitha also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41) raised by Peter
Men raised upon Jesus' death (Mt 27:51-53) raised by God


We are gods and we are children of God. The laws of science are really just safety gates and child proof outlet covers designed to protect us when we are too young to understand. God our parent is not constrained by them and can remove them as He pleases.

We are ultimately the ones to control our natural world when we are ready. It is our inheritance, but God does not want to let us ruin it because we get the power too soon, before our heart is right (in other words we must learn to Love as Jesus loved). Part of that safety gate is such hard belief the OP expressed, it is scientifically impossible so God could not have done it. Actually I would challenge that it is scientifically impossible, but that's another aspect.

Also, remember that initially Jesus was thought to be John the Baptist risen from the dead.

Mark 6:14 And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

[Súil Dubh]

If you operate from the basic assumption (which the OP has done) that there is a higher power that has created the Universe, is omnipotent and so forth, then why is it hard to believe that he could magically bring someone back to life?

If I'm reading the OP correctly, I believe that he is questioning how a god can create a universe with the fixed Rule Set X, and then later insert contravening Incident Y.

The answer is, that if Incident Y occurs, it violates and invalidates the entire Rule Set X. The important thing to remember is that this god itself exists outside of Rule Set X.

This god is omnipotent and omniscient and can do whatever it wants. It can create a universe with Rule Set X, Rule Set Y, Rule Set XY, or whatever.

However, once creating a universe with Rule Set X, in order for this universe to exist properly, the set of rules must be abided by, and not interfered with, otherwise it all unravels.

I believe a similar analogy would be creating a fully-functioning computer program with Programming Language X (I have no experience with computer programming whatsoever, so I'm quite willing to stand corrected.)

If you didn't like the way the program turned out you could alter it, or scrap it and try again, or even try to write a whole different program with Programming Language Y. In this sense you're fairly omnipotent.

What you can't do, however, is fix your Programming Language X program by inserting a line of code from completely different Programming Language Y. Your program would crash.

Boethius came up with a similar explanation in his "Consolation of Philosophy" to explain the Christian God's omnipresence and omniscience. "Time" is merely a property of the Christian Universe that He created (i.e. a property of Rule Set X) and He exists outside this concept of time.

[John Mace]

If he could create the world with rule set "x", I see no reason to postulate that couldn't, at a later date, add rule "y" to rule set "x". How did you surmise that God is constrained to not be able to do that? It looks like an after-the-fact made up constraint to fit this particular issue.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm not sure it's necessary to add additional premises, i.e. that God exists "out of time", whatever that means. The simpler explanation, assuming someone actually did "rise from the dead" after three days was that he wasn't really dead at all. The apparent contradiction is from our limited understanding of the human body, i.e. the resurrection is not a violation of Rule Set X, it's that we have a few mistaken assumptions about Rule Set X, i.e. we assume someone who gets crucified also dies, and this is not necessarily so.

[LonesomePolecat]

I can't tell myself to believe in a material (as opposed to spiritual) event when it is an impossibility. I don't see the resurrection as being a matter of faith. Either it happened and has a rational explanation - or it didn't. Should we assume a rational explanation means a material explanation?

[Buck Godot]

Of course its hard to put together truth from testimony written with political intent decades after the event, but what always struck me as odd about the resurrection is that nobody seems to recognize Jesus after he was resurrected. My explanation that fits the facts presented in the bible is that Jesus's body was taken from the tomb for whatever reason and then one of Jesus' followers decides to keep his legacy alive by claiming that he Jesus reborn, even though he looks nothing like him.

[Skammer]

I'm with CurtC. No one in the last two millenia who has argued that Jesus literally rose from the dead have claimed that it is consistent with the natural law or science. The whole point of the resurrection, and Jesus' other miracles, is that they were miracles. If they were all illusions or misunderstandings, Jesus is no different than any other moral teacher.

And of course many people believe that; but then they don't let the story of the resurrection bother them any more than the story of Jesus walking on water or healing lepers. Either you accept that Jesus was able to break the rules or not.

[John Mace]

I'm with CurtC. No one in the last two millenia who has argued that Jesus literally rose from the dead have claimed that it is consistent with the natural law or science. The whole point of the resurrection, and Jesus' other miracles, is that they were miracles. If they were all illusions or misunderstandings, Jesus is no different than any other moral teacher.

And of course many people believe that; but then they don't let the story of the resurrection bother them any more than the story of Jesus walking on water or healing lepers. Either you accept that Jesus was able to break the rules or not.

Yeah, but if he breaks the rules, does it go on his permanent record?

[kanicbird]

Also, remember that initially Jesus was thought to be John the Baptist risen from the dead.

Mark 6:14 And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

What is interesting also is that after the resurection when He appeared to the apostels they did not reconize Him (Jn 20,13, 21:4, Lk 24:16)

Matt 16:12 has a interesting phrasing:
Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country.

If you also take the Gospel of Thomas, which I have not read, so just going on what I've heard about it. Jesus did not die or suffer on the cross, as this world could not kill Him, but somehow switched bodies or came out of His body into another and watched from a distance.

Going with the above, and the OP's tendency towards having science define what is real. We have not scientifically discovered what really is life, we can't yet explain it, if there is a 'soul' still is unfounded, and what exactly is consciousness. We have some hope of actually transferring human consciousnesses to a machine, such is the basis of some sci-fi storyline, but also I heard it expressed as a possible way to extend human life span or for human stellar travel, so it is not scientifically ruled out.

One may argue that the technology for that was not available back then, and still not today, though we might aspire to that today. To that, using scientific lines, I say that the universe is a very large place, and it is possible that we are not the only intelligent species out there, and as we exercise wisdom in limiting out contact with primitive people and wild animals in nature, a 'non-interference' morality, it is very likely that aliens would also develop this morality as they advanced if morality is absolute. So the use of high technology would be limited to perhaps a few people witnessing it. And that high level of technology would only be employed to help the species where it may otherwise fail, otherwise they would observe us as hands off and as out of sight as possible, as we tend to observe wild animals more so today then in the past.

So scientifically it is not ruled out that Jesus could have been raised from the dead, or even placed in another body, but it would take scientific knowledge beyond our current understanding, though that does not rule that out from others (aliens) using that technology.

[Lanzy]

Had to have been freezing. caused a coma.

[kunilou]

There is no rational answer. My father, who did not believe in God, used to address all the "I'm a Christian, but..." issues the same way.

"You say you believe in a God who made heaven and earth and all that is seen and unseen, and who is eternal, all-powerful and all-knowing. But you can't believe God could (insert miracle here)??????"

[Meatros]

What is interesting also is that after the resurection when He appeared to the apostels they did not reconize Him (Jn 20,13, 21:4, Lk 24:16)

What's REALLY interesting is that the appearances only appeared in later gospels (ie, legendary embellishment), as opposed to the earliest source (Mark)...

:D

[aruvqan]

Why don't you tell us what you do believe about God. Do you believe in any of the non-scientific aspects of God? If you do, why are those believable, but not others? If you don't, then why bother with that religion at all? A God that isn't above the laws of science is just a really smart alien.
There may have been an historical Jesus, however I doubt that he came back to life. There probably was a rabbi wandering around teaching certain things, who may have been executed by the Romans, however probably his corpse was made away with and hidden, if at all. Later, at least a generation after his death certain people made writings about the mystical happenings as an explanation of their particular cult. Doesn't mean his teachings were wrong, just that they mythologized him after the fact. As to the old testament, it is the religious text belonging to a religion that is not my own. Yes, Christianity started out as a jewish sub cult, but it differentiated long enough in the past that most christians have only vague understandings of it as we tend to concentrate on the new testament and Jesus, not Talmudic law and the Torah.

[clairobscur]

In essence I do not believe the resurrection happened. I look at the universe and the rules of science which God imposed and reversal of death is not possible. Cells break down and bacteria immediately start to consume any dead organic creature. Jesus could not be a special case in this universe. Science does not allow it.
.

I'm not sure I understand your issue. Since you believe in God, I would have assumed that you would have no issue whith him being able to subvert natural laws and work a miracle. And if I'm misunderstanting and that you actually not believing in god anymore, I fail to see how not believing in the resurrection could be an issue.


Do you mean that in your opinion, god wouldn't break the "rules" he has himself imposed on the universe?

[kanicbird]

What's REALLY interesting is that the appearances only appeared in later gospels (ie, legendary embellishment), as opposed to the earliest source (Mark)...

:D

I believe the Gospel of Thomas is though to be earlier.

[clairobscur]

The OP is clearly operating on the assumption that God isn't omnipotent, since an omnipotent can of course do anything logically possible.

In fact, IMHO, an omnipotent god could do even what is logically impossible. I'd have no issue with the usal concept of an omnipotent god creating a rock so heavy he himself couldn't lift it (and lifting it nevertheless, too).

After all, science showed us that even in the natural world, there are things that aren't logically possible in our casual understanding of logic. Quantum mechanic is filled with that. So, if our logic isn't even able to make sense of the natural world, you can't expect it to be of much help if we throw an omnipotent god into the mix.

[brittekland]

Yeah, but if he breaks the rules, does it go on his permanent record?

No, first offense just gets supervision.

[Voyager]

Not just the resurrection, but the parting of the waters, the supposed stopping of the sun, and a million other Bible stories can't be explained by science. It's magic. But the real question is whether it actually happened. There is no part in casting about for explanations until someone gives us evidence about the event occurring.

In the fourth movie, Indiana Jones survives an atomic test by hiding in a refrigerator. Now, we can compute the force of the blast at his position, we can compute the temperature from the shock wave and how well a 1950s refrigerator insulates, and we can compute the G forces he undergoes. But we really should relax. It is just a story, which is also true of the Bible.

The only occasion where I can see the reason for this kind of game is when the creationists, to get their crap recognized as science, try to invent explanations for the Flood and such because the obvious answer, it was a miracle, will get them kicked out of schools with no arguments. That is wrong but at least there is a reason.

So, we should all go off and do something useful like trying to make Star Trek consistent of figuring out which category of tornado could blow Dorothy's house to Oz.

[brittekland]

After all, science showed us that even in the natural world, there are things that aren't logically possible in our casual understanding of logic. Quantum mechanic is filled with that. So, if our logic isn't even able to make sense of the natural world, you can't expect it to be of much help if we throw an omnipotent god into the mix.

Again, I'm sticking with the hologram theory. :cool:

[Theophane]

Jesus Could Not Rise If He Was Dead

His resurrection would have meant nothing had he survived being crucified. If He had not died, He could not have risen. Whether or not He rose from the dead is a matter of belief.

[Lobohan]

His resurrection would have meant nothing had he survived being crucified.His resurrection did mean nothing. He didn't actually give anything up but a weekend.

It was a meaningless gesture where He sacrificed Himself to Himself to avert a punishment that He had inflicted.

None of that nonsense would be necessary for an omnipotent being, by the way.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Forgive me, this is not a rallying flag for atheists or a call to fervent Christians: its simply something which bothers me and I wonder if there is any rational answer.

In essence I do not believe the resurrection happened. I look at the universe and the rules of science which God imposed and reversal of death is not possible. Cells break down and bacteria immediately start to consume any dead organic creature. Jesus could not be a special case in this universe. Science does not allow it.

FYI I'm a Presbyterian, support my church but seldom go, like the biblical stories, and embrace the ethics of Christianity - and humanism.

God has determined the laws of science and how the universe operates. He can make exceptions if He wishes so because He is omnipotent and all powerful. Also you aren't really Presbyterian unless you adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith and you can't honestly attest even to the Apostles' Creed,.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, I daresay Christianity as we know it would have lacked that certain pizzazz if Jesus had been sentenced to, say, 100 hours of community service. It might've queered the whole deal.

[Musicat]

Forgive me, this is not a rallying flag for atheists or a call to fervent Christians: its simply something which bothers me and I wonder if there is any rational answer.

In essence I do not believe the resurrection happened. I look at the universe and the rules of science which God imposed and reversal of death is not possible. Cells break down and bacteria immediately start to consume any dead organic creature. Jesus could not be a special case in this universe. Science does not allow it. Is there a rational answer? Yes. It's a fictitious fairy story. Like the Brothers Grimm or Mother Goose. Do you question those tales based on the laws of nature?

People make shit up. Other people come along and make more shit up. The pious believe. The tale grows. This isn't history, it's fantasy.

[Bryan Ekers]

Also you aren't really Presbyterian unless you adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith and you can't honestly attest even to the Apostles' Creed,.

Oh? Well, just for that I declare myself a Presbyterian.

Now I'm not a Presbyterian.

Now I am one, again.

Now I'm not again.

If the Apostle Police want to come arrest me, let 'em. Meantime, I see no reason my declarations of Presbyterianhood (or, for that matter, non-Presbyterianhood) are inherently invalid.

[Voyager]

His resurrection did mean nothing. He didn't actually give anything up but a weekend.

It was a meaningless gesture where He sacrificed Himself to Himself to avert a punishment that He had inflicted.

Those nails had to hurt - but nothing like what his followers later inflicted on unbelievers. Thousands of Jews and infidels and heretics deserve savior credit more than Jesus ever did.
Now, I've heard some people say it was worse for Jesus because he was God's son - but that sounds like some rich brat going to Somalia and then whining about missing lunch.

[Shawn1767]

I am in the camp that wonders what the big sacrifice was if God can bring him back to life anyway? And since He is all knowing, that He knew how it was going to turn out. It always leads me to the conclusion that God is either A) really stupid for an omniscient/omnipotent being or B) a total asshole.

[kanicbird]

I am in the camp that wonders what the big sacrifice was if God can bring him back to life anyway? And since He is all knowing, that He knew how it was going to turn out. It always leads me to the conclusion that God is either A) really stupid for an omniscient/omnipotent being or B) a total asshole.

Here is a model that can help explain that:

Every death of a believe is not the believer dieing, they are taken to life as shown in Acts with the stoning of Stephan, and Jesus takes their place dieing for that person. We only experience the pain needed to bring us to salvation, the rest Jesus bears. This is why we must consume His body and blood, he must become us for us to become Him.

So it's not just the one time death, but that allowed Him to take our deaths from us, for every person who believes.

[JThunder]

I
However, once creating a universe with Rule Set X, in order for this universe to exist properly, the set of rules must be abided by, and not interfered with, otherwise it all unravels.
So any bending of the rules at all, no matter how infrequently, would cause the entire universe to unravel? I seen no reason to accept that claim.

[JThunder]

Of course its hard to put together truth from testimony written with political intent decades after the event, but what always struck me as odd about the resurrection is that nobody seems to recognize Jesus after he was resurrected. My explanation that fits the facts presented in the bible is that Jesus's body was taken from the tomb for whatever reason and then one of Jesus' followers decides to keep his legacy alive by claiming that he Jesus reborn, even though he looks nothing like him.
Such a claim would have fooled nobody, so it simply makes no sense.

It is also untrue that nobody recognized him. The Apostle Thomas certainly did, for example.

[Der Trihs]

Should we assume a rational explanation means a material explanation?Yes we should, given that we have no evidence that anything else is possible or even a meaningful concept. What does something "not being material" even mean? How can something exist without being made of something?

What is interesting also is that after the resurection when He appeared to the apostels they did not reconize Him (Jn 20,13, 21:4, Lk 24:16)
He was on the run from the law; wearing a disguise would be sensible.

In fact, IMHO, an omnipotent god could do even what is logically impossible. I'd have no issue with the usal concept of an omnipotent god creating a rock so heavy he himself couldn't lift it (and lifting it nevertheless, too).At that point we are just speaking nonsense then. If logic does not apply to something then we can say nothing meaningful about it, including applying terms like "omnipotent" to it. "If God is omnipotent then he can do 'X' '' is after all an argument using logic, something you are claiming does not apply.

[kanicbird]

So any bending of the rules at all, no matter how infrequently, would cause the entire universe to unravel? I seen no reason to accept that claim.

We also bend the rules all the time. When we study animals in their natural habitat we will sometimes relocate a animal, sometimes heal one etc. We do certainally voilate the rulles as the animal understands them. We try to do it with as little impact to their lives, but we certainally interfere.

Using that model for angels, they are not bound by our rules, they have been reported to interact with humanity, yet their influence is in such a way that it appears that they are trying to help with as little as obvious contact as possible, so jsut like the nautral animals, we stay in a natural state.

[Theophane]

The OP is clearly operating on the assumption that God isn't omnipotent, since an omnipotent can of course do anything logically possible.

An omnipotent can go beyond what is logically possible, or beyond what we consider logically possible.

[Der Trihs]

An omnipotent can go beyond what is logically possible, or beyond what we consider logically possible.
Again, that's just a nonsense phrase.

[Lobohan]

An omnipotent can go beyond what is logically possible, or beyond what we consider logically possible.No. An omnipotent being can't be omni-benevolent and allow evil to exist, for instance.

If your idea of God requires you to hold conflicting ideas, that's a flaw, not a feature.

[Theophane]

Again, that's just a nonsense phrase.

No it isn't.

[Lobohan]

Those nails had to hurt - but nothing like what his followers later inflicted on unbelievers. Thousands of Jews and infidels and heretics deserve savior credit more than Jesus ever did.
Now, I've heard some people say it was worse for Jesus because he was God's son - but that sounds like some rich brat going to Somalia and then whining about missing lunch.For serious. There are people burning to death right now who are suffering way, way fucking more than J-dizzle.

[Lobohan]

No it isn't.Yes, it isn't because, not grel, to fly, with balgus in sympathy on frell, nonse.

Bizzle-bop.

[Theophane]

Yes, it isn't because, not grel, to fly, with balgus in sympathy on frell, nonse.

Bizzle-bop.

I can't argue with that logic.

[kanicbird]

No. An omnipotent being can't be omni-benevolent and allow evil to exist, for instance.

If your idea of God requires you to hold conflicting ideas, that's a flaw, not a feature.

Ultimately no, but can allow evil to exist for a time for a purpose, such as having His children learn, because that would be for a greater good and thus negate the evil, so the evil never existed. But it sure seems like it does when the children are learning.

[kanicbird]

An omnipotent can go beyond what is logically possible, or beyond what we consider logically possible.

A being possessing highly advance technology would go beyond what is logically possible given our current level of technology. You don't need a omnipotent God for that.

[Lobohan]

Ultimately no, but can allow evil to exist for a time for a purpose, such as having His children learn, because that would be for a greater good and thus negate the evil, so the evil never existed. But it sure seems like it does when the children are learning.If your daughter was about to be raped by a Somali war band, or get bone cancer, or fall ten meters into a pit of rusty metal, or be carried off by a tsunami, would you stop it? If stopping it cost you literally no effort?

God could stop it. It would cost God, literally no effort. God doesn't love your daughter as much as you do. Therefore, He's not omni-benevolent or omnipotent or both.

No one learns anything by being shredded by wolves. The fact that those kinds of natural evils exist prove God is either too weak to stop it, or too indifferent or most likely, not here at all.

[Lobohan]

I can't argue with that logic.Now do you realize that you're speaking nonsense when you say that God can have conflicting attributes?

Don't appeal to logic if you have no intention of following it.

[kanicbird]

If your daughter was about to be raped by a Somali war band, or get bone cancer, or fall ten meters into a pit of rusty metal, or be carried off by a tsunami, would you stop it? If stopping it cost you literally no effort?

God could stop it. It would cost God, literally no effort. God doesn't love your daughter as much as you do. Therefore, He's not omni-benevolent or omnipotent or both.

No one learns anything by being shredded by wolves. The fact that those kinds of natural evils exist prove God is either too weak to stop it, or too indifferent or most likely, not here at all.

Our eternal life is not of this body, but of the soul/spirit which will live forever. Therefor anything can be done to the physical body and not touch one hair on the child's eternal soul, though the child will learn.

One aspect she may learn in being ripped apart by wolves is that when she becomes a goddess of her own world she may not want to create a wolf in it's current state because that would cause pain for other animal beings, having learned empathy.

[Lobohan]

Our eternal life is not of this body, but of the soul/spirit which will live forever. Therefor anything can be done to the physical body and not touch one hair on the child's eternal soul, though the child will learn. You should go to pediatric cancer wards and tell the children that they aren't really suffering. I bet you'd get a lot of thanks for that.

One aspect she may learn in being ripped apart by wolves is that when she becomes a goddess of her own world she may not want to create a wolf in it's current state because that would cause pain for other animal beings, having learned empathy.That is an assertion. It's not a fact. It's not something that is supported by anything but your imaginings.

Down here in fact-world we're still sticking with the idea that the problem of evil is a problem for omnipotent and omni-benevolent Gods. Thanks.

[kanicbird]

That is an assertion. It's not a fact. It's not something that is supported by anything but your imaginings.

This was from your assertion, your imaginary universe where you have defined what God can not be, which is a illogical starting premise.

[Der Trihs]

Our eternal life is not of this body, but of the soul/spirit which will live forever. Therefor anything can be done to the physical body and not touch one hair on the child's eternal soul, though the child will learn.

One aspect she may learn in being ripped apart by wolves is that when she becomes a goddess of her own world she may not want to create a wolf in it's current state because that would cause pain for other animal beings, having learned empathy.By your own "reasoning", what she should learn is a complete and utter lack of empathy since according to you nothing that happens to anyone actually matters. If she wants to flay people alive, set them on fire and watch them writhe, why not? It's just a learning experience, nothing compared to "eternal life".

You are essentially arguing for complete and utter sociopathy.

[kanicbird]

You should go to pediatric cancer wards and tell the children that they aren't really suffering. I bet you'd get a lot of thanks for that.

Where did I say they were not suffering? I claimed they are learning, perhaps learning what suffering is, perhaps learning what it is to suffer without any explanation, seems like a good thing for a god to know, and all without any harm to their eternal soul.

[Der Trihs]

Where did I say they were not suffering? I claimed they are learning, perhaps learning what suffering is, perhaps learning what it is to suffer without any explanation, seems like a good thing for a god to know, and all without any harm to their eternal soul.A position that demonstrates why belief in souls is not harmless, but actively destructive. It renders believers a danger to themselves and everyone around them.

[kanicbird]

By your own "reasoning", what she should learn is a complete and utter lack of empathy since according to you nothing that happens to anyone actually matters. If she wants to flay people alive, set them on fire and watch them writhe, why not? It's just a learning experience, nothing compared to "eternal life".

You are essentially arguing for complete and utter sociopathy.

What you are missing is the absolute law of God 'you reap what you sow', sometimes called karma. This child will not be given her eternal existence body, but will keep getting disposable ones till she learns. So yes she can do those things, and may be a powerful tyrant here on earth, but her reign of terror will end one day and she will find herself on the receiving end.

[kanicbird]

A position that demonstrates why belief in souls is not harmless, but actively destructive. It renders believers a danger to themselves and everyone around them.

That's fear talking, fear of a people living without legal restrictions or consequences but living by their hearts, living to love and be loved.

[Lobohan]

Where did I say they were not suffering? I claimed they are learning, perhaps learning what suffering is, perhaps learning what it is to suffer without any explanation, seems like a good thing for a god to know, and all without any harm to their eternal soul.Ahem:

Our eternal life is not of this body, but of the soul/spirit which will live forever. Therefor anything can be done to the physical body and not touch one hair on the child's eternal soul, though the child will learn.

So do you just make up stuff immediately? I assumed you had a coherent theory of mystical hooey that you referred to.

A God who is omnipotent has no need of suffering. He could make a universe without it. He didn't because either He isn't omnipotent (meaning he didn't have a choice or had limited choices on how to make our universe), He isn't omni-benevolent (meaning He's okay with needless suffering, perhaps for His ultimate ends) or He doesn't exist (which is of course what every intelligent person should assume, until the day that some evidence is put forward for His existence).

[Der Trihs]

That's fear talking, fear of a people living without legal restrictions or consequences but living by their hearts, living to love and be loved.:rolleyes: Free to enslave, slaughter and torture, more likely. People who buy your proposed view of the world are hardly likely to be benevolent.

Yes; I am afraid of anyone completely lacking in compassion or empathy, someone who would dismiss me burning alive as a "learning experience".

[jjimm]

My question: is there any scientific hypothesis for a man dying and then returning to life 3 days later?Ever seen Weekend at Bernie's?

[kanicbird]

Ahem:



So do you just make up stuff immediately? I assumed you had a coherent theory of mystical hooey that you referred to.

How does harm to a temporary body but not any harm to the eternal soul equate to harming of the eternal soul?

A God who is omnipotent has no need of suffering.
Again you are defining God, and in such a way that you have decided He can not exist in our world.

Teaching children to be gods could be the very reason why there is a need for suffering.

He could make a universe without it. He didn't because either He isn't omnipotent (meaning he didn't have a choice or had limited choices on how to make our universe), He isn't omni-benevolent (meaning He's okay with needless suffering, perhaps for His ultimate ends)


Or it is the best way to teach His children

or He doesn't exist (which is of course what every intelligent person should assume, until the day that some evidence is put forward for His existence).
Again you are defining what you would like to be, which supports your point, circular argument.

[Lobohan]

How does harm to a temporary body but not any harm to the eternal soul equate to harming of the eternal soul?You are saying that the suffering of the body isn't real, because the soul is the important part. So my comment about the pediatric cancer ward is totally on point.

One thing you're not factoring in, is that you aren't correct.

Again you are defining God, and in such a way that you have decided He can not exist in our world.God doesn't have to be omnipotent and omni-benevolent. Odin was neither. Zeus was neither. The God depicted in the old testament is neither. The so-called problem of evil isn't an argument against any God, it is simply an argument against an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God.

Teaching children to be gods could be the very reason why there is a need for suffering. And my wang could be the very reason that Jessica Alba was given a mouth. But neither is true. It's just nonsense assertions with no weight whatsoever behind them. You have no evidence, you are not arguing a fact. You are demanding that other people respect your daydreams.


Or it is the best way to teach His childrenAn omnipotent being isn't limited in ways to teach His children. He could have made them differently.

Again you are defining what you would like to be, which supports your point, circular argument.No, my argument is based on reality. You are asserting a nonsense God with contradictory attributes with no evidence.

[kanicbird]

And my wang could be the very reason that Jessica Alba was given a mouth. But neither is true. It's just nonsense assertions with no weight whatsoever behind them. You have no evidence, you are not arguing a fact. You are demanding that other people respect your daydreams.

hehehe


An omnipotent being isn't limited in ways to teach His children. He could have made them differently.

He could have, but He made them in His likeness. His children are gods, and have to be taught as gods

No, my argument is based on reality. You are asserting a nonsense God with contradictory attributes with no evidence.
Reality, really? Looks like you are defining what a God can and can not be, what type of reality is that anyway. You are the one arguing the nonsense here.

[Paralogic]

In essence I do not believe the resurrection happened.

It's not a matter of belief.

Resurrection is impossible to happen for human beings. That much is true.

[kanicbird]

It's not a matter of belief.

Resurrection is impossible to happen for human beings. That much is true.

So you believe it is not technological achievable at all?

[Paralogic]

Science does not allow it.

You're right.

But if you accept the existence of a god then any consequent based on that acceptance could be true.

For example, if a god exists then a human being may be able to resurrect himself... if you accept the hypothetical as true then everything else is fodder for the believers of the first hypothetical.

[Trinopus]

So you believe it is not technological achievable at all?

For my part, yes. Once cell tissue has degraded, and the body has decomposed, then the information in the cells is permanently lost. It cannot be recovered.

You can't reconstitute a piece of wood from burned coals and ashes: vital bits of information (such as the growth rings) are simply gone forever.

It'd be like resurrecting an ice-sculpture once it has melted. Y'just can't. The water no longer "remembers" the pretty sculpture. The pattern no longer exists, anywhere.

A "miraculous" spiritual power might (or might not) be able to do it. Who knows? The notion is beyond our ability to explore.

But within any conceivable rules of technology, nu-uh. The body would have rotted beyond any means of repair.

[Farmer Jane]

So the other day, some kids were telling my son that he was going to Hell for being Jewish.
And he says, "Well, your guy DIED!"
Other kid: "But he ROSE UP FROM THE DEAD!"
My son: "Oh yeah? Well, I DON'T BELIEVE IN ZOMBIES!"

(:

[Paralogic]

My son: "Oh yeah? Well, I DON'T BELIEVE IN ZOMBIES!"

(:

That's wrong too.

All beliefs are wrong. There's no resurrected being and there are no zombies either.

All religions are false.

[kanicbird]

For my part, yes. Once cell tissue has degraded, and the body has decomposed, then the information in the cells is permanently lost. It cannot be recovered.

You can't reconstitute a piece of wood from burned coals and ashes: vital bits of information (such as the growth rings) are simply gone forever.

It'd be like resurrecting an ice-sculpture once it has melted. Y'just can't. The water no longer "remembers" the pretty sculpture. The pattern no longer exists, anywhere.

A "miraculous" spiritual power might (or might not) be able to do it. Who knows? The notion is beyond our ability to explore.

But within any conceivable rules of technology, nu-uh. The body would have rotted beyond any means of repair.

Let me ask again in another way, using extremely advanced technology that today we might consider sci-fi, there is still no hope of doing a resurrection. For instance no hope of pulling the life force out of the flesh of a person while they are at the point of death, preserving the body in some sort of status field to prevent decay, and no cellular regeneration technology that could allow the body t be repaired in the tomb.

It is flat out impossible for the resurrection, not even in the realms of what we might be able to aspire to one day?

[monavis]

I find it rather strange, that none of Jesus followers( or even his mother) believed he would ressurect. They went to the grave(according to the writers) to anoint his body, and even Mary Magdeline( who was close to him), didn't recognize him! Then the writers had a story about Thomas who wouldn't believe he arose from the dead until he put his fingers in the holes in Jesus hands. Jesus at one time comes through a wall (not possible with a human body) then eats so they will believe he is still a human!

[Trinopus]

Let me ask again in another way, using extremely advanced technology that today we might consider sci-fi, there is still no hope of doing a resurrection. For instance no hope of pulling the life force out of the flesh of a person while they are at the point of death, preserving the body in some sort of status field to prevent decay, and no cellular regeneration technology that could allow the body t be repaired in the tomb.

It is flat out impossible for the resurrection, not even in the realms of what we might be able to aspire to one day?

If you made a recording of every particle in the person's body before he died, then, yes, it might be possible (Star Trek level tech) to re-create it.

It would, however, take a very large technological installation: computers, storage devices, machines to put particles back in place, and so on.

Without massive and advanced technological support, then, no, it can't be possible.

Unless someone wants to propose the intervention of invisible UFO aliens with super-advanced technology, then, nope.

[Musicat]

I find it rather strange, that none of Jesus followers( or even his mother) believed he would ressurect. They went to the grave(according to the writers) to anoint his body, and even Mary Magdeline( who was close to him), didn't recognize him! Then the writers had a story about Thomas who wouldn't believe he arose from the dead until he put his fingers in the holes in Jesus hands. Jesus at one time comes through a wall (not possible with a human body) then eats so they will believe he is still a human!It's been many years since I studied this, but the one thing I recall is that the stories about Jesus before his death describe quite a different person than after.

Before, he wasn't invisible. He could be identified (by Judas), recognized (by everyone) and had all the aspects of a physical person. He walked, talked, ate and slept. Indeed, that was what some later followers claimed him to be, the physical embodiment of a God.

But after, he wasn't recognized by all, wasn't seen by all, no one saw him walk out of the grave, and he ascended into heaven. Much more of a spiritual concept than a flesh & blood, human being.

None of this is surprising if the latter stories are manufactured to match the expectations and predictions. A god-like, incorporeal being wouldn't have to have a physical body, would it? But it doesn't suggest eyewitness accounts, either. It suggests a pious redaction.

Only the gullible or the super-religious (same thing) would swallow the whole story without question.

[kanicbird]

If you made a recording of every particle in the person's body before he died, then, yes, it might be possible (Star Trek level tech) to re-create it.

It would, however, take a very large technological installation: computers, storage devices, machines to put particles back in place, and so on.

Without massive and advanced technological support, then, no, it can't be possible.

Unless someone wants to propose the intervention of invisible UFO aliens with super-advanced technology, then, nope.

Bold mine, yes I propose it, so the resurrection is possible then.

[rat avatar]

That would be a clone not literal coming back to life of the biologically dead.

[Trinopus]

Bold mine, yes I propose it, so the resurrection is possible then.

You seriously propose that invisible UFO aliens resurrected Jesus?

Okay... Good to know... Sounds a little like Scientology, but, whatever...

[Trinopus]

That would be a clone not literal coming back to life of the biologically dead.

Well, maybe...but maybe not... It's the whole Star Trek question: "Are you the same guy who went into the Transporter?" If Captain Kirk is the same afterward as before, then someone restored by the same technology could still be "the same."

(Frankly, I could argue either way on that, and I think most of us, here, could also. Is he the same, isn't he the same, tra la la. I know a few people who are absolutists on this: "No, he isn't the same person! The original is DEAD! The replicate has no legal rights!" etc. Too weird...)

For instance, what if the restoration process uses the existing, rotting, decomposed, stinking cadaver, but slowly, one molecule at a time, repairs it, using recorded data as a template. A kind of "piecewise continuity" comes in to play, which is the usual defense against the "loss of sameness" we experience when growing from infants to adults.

It's all so wonderfully Platonic. If you re-grow my arm, am I not still myself? If you re-grow my entire body, am I not still myself? Where does one draw the line?

[Der Trihs]

You are killed. A time traveler grabs you one microsecond before the bullet impacts, and drops you off at your own funeral. Have you been resurrected? I mean, you're alive when you were dead before the time traveler intervened; but at the same time there's your body right over there.

[kanicbird]

That would be a clone not literal coming back to life of the biologically dead.

If we took the life of Jesus as reported, perhaps not as it would appear that a 'soul' or 'spirit' can be placed in another body. His conception was not normal, Jesus being of the heavens was placed inside the womb of Mary by something we would call God. If today we had that capability, would anyone want to try to experience live as a wild animal, by living out that live, then pulled out at the point of that animal's death?

Also at the cross His words are 'Father into your hands I commit my spirit' . If we take the model as proposed, this would seem indicate that it is likely that the spirit can be removed from the body.

We have yet to discover if a soul/spirit actually exists, but it is not ruled out. If it is real then it would not be a clone, but actually the same 'spirit'.

[kanicbird]

You seriously propose that invisible UFO aliens resurrected Jesus?

Okay... Good to know... Sounds a little like Scientology, but, whatever...

The OP makes the statement that the resurrection is impossible, I'm just pointing out that it is very possible even without magic.

I think that is it more then likely that there is advanced intelligent life, it makes a lot more sense then we are alone in this universe. I think that our pattern of studying wild animals and also helping them also is instructive as how they might be observing us, with as little contact as possible. Only actually revealing themselves when it is absolutely needed, and to as few as possible without record of their existence to the best of their ability.

[Gagundathar]

OK, Kanickbird assume that the spirit is the same as the body.
(That is what you are saying, right?)
If the body decomposes, does the spirit leave the body?

If the body is recomposed, does the spirit return to the body?

[rat avatar]

If we took the life of Jesus as reported, perhaps not as it would appear that a 'soul' or 'spirit' can be placed in another body. His conception was not normal, Jesus being of the heavens was placed inside the womb of Mary by something we would call God. If today we had that capability, would anyone want to try to experience live as a wild animal, by living out that live, then pulled out at the point of that animal's death?

Also at the cross His words are 'Father into your hands I commit my spirit' . If we take the model as proposed, this would seem indicate that it is likely that the spirit can be removed from the body.

We have yet to discover if a soul/spirit actually exists, but it is not ruled out. If it is real then it would not be a clone, but actually the same 'spirit'.

Actually I do not want to derail this derailed thread but there is absolutely no evidence that a "spirit" exists and biologically we do have explanations for behavior, so it would be a clone despite any mental gymnastics.

[Musicat]

If the body decomposes, does the spirit leave the body?

If the body is recomposed, does the spirit return to the body?Only if the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak.

:)

[kanicbird]

OK, Kanickbird assume that the spirit is the same as the body.
(That is what you are saying, right?)
If the body decomposes, does the spirit leave the body?

If the body is recomposed, does the spirit return to the body?

Going on the scripture/alien model, the spirit can be separated from the body. The body would really just be a cover, a machine without any consciousness for the spirit to control.

This model also allows technology to accomplish the above, take a spirit out of a body and replace it in the same or another. So the spirit can be returned to the body, but doesn't have to be.

[Trinopus]

Where's Dr. Frankenstein when we really need him?

[kanicbird]

Where's Dr. Frankenstein when we really need him?

Didn't the towns folk lynch him and destroy his lab and writings a while back for proving the spirit was separable from the body or something? :p

[Ken001]

If I'm reading the OP correctly, I believe that he is questioning how a god can create a universe with the fixed Rule Set X, and then later insert contravening Incident Y.

The answer is, that if Incident Y occurs, it violates and invalidates the entire Rule Set X. The important thing to remember is that this god itself exists outside of Rule Set X.

This god is omnipotent and omniscient and can do whatever it wants. It can create a universe with Rule Set X, Rule Set Y, Rule Set XY, or whatever.

However, once creating a universe with Rule Set X, in order for this universe to exist properly, the set of rules must be abided by, and not interfered with, otherwise it all unravels.



Thankyou thankyou, that is exactly what I'm asking.

....Once cell tissue has degraded, and the body has decomposed, then the information in the cells is permanently lost. It cannot be recovered.

You can't reconstitute a piece of wood from burned coals and ashes: vital bits of information (such as the growth rings) are simply gone forever.

It'd be like resurrecting an ice-sculpture once it has melted. Y'just can't. The water no longer "remembers" the pretty sculpture. The pattern no longer exists, anywhere.

A "miraculous" spiritual power might (or might not) be able to do it. Who knows? The notion is beyond our ability to explore.

But within any conceivable rules of technology, nu-uh. The body would have rotted beyond any means of repair.

My point exactly.

Whether God is within this universe or outside it, there are certain rules inside this structure. Even quantum uncertainty has its rules.

So its safe to say that bringing a biological being back from death is impossible. Cloning, copying - that may be possible but not yet and certainly not 2000 years ago.

Which then raises the question - why was a resurrection story necessary? Possibly to give weight to the nascent religion and for the symbolism of dying for our sins followed by rebirth. In the context of the times, that was a powerful and effective story. Sacrifice and hope.

Still there is a major ethical problem: the most widely spread religion in the world has a falsehood at its core. I do find that troubling.

[aldiboronti]

Take Tertullian as your guide.

From De Carne Christi

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.

The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

There's a belief with big brass balls. A belief you can admire (even if you don't share it.)

[jjimm]

Still there is a major ethical problem: the most widely spread religion in the world has a falsehood at its core. I do find that troubling.But all religions have falsehoods at their core. It's a defining characteristic of religion - whence their requirement for faith, because not a single one of the thousands extant stands up to logical scrutiny.

[robinson]

Substitute "some" for "all" and you have a pretty good idea of what's going on.

[robinson]

Cite please?

[Lobohan]

Cite please?Are you asking yourself for a cite?
:D

In any case, every religion on Earth proposes a supernatural answer (except for whatever non-supernatural religions you might like to put forward, so exempt those) for life's questions.

Nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated. The evidence points to a mundane universe. Since none of the religions of the world have met the burden of evidence for their supernatural claims, it's fair to say they all are false. Not necessarily lies, I'm sure many are well-meaning but incorrect.

[robinson]

No, I was asking Der Trihs to help me by providing a reference to the lines of poetry he quoted: "That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons death may die." I would like to read the poem, if you don't mind.

[Czarcasm]

No, I was asking Der Trihs to help me by providing a reference to the lines of poetry he quoted: "That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons death may die." I would like to read the poem, if you don't mind.And how many people posted between that quote and your request for a cite? Next time, try to be a bit more specific.

[Czarcasm]

Substitute "some" for "all" and you have a pretty good idea of what's going on.If you are referring to this:But all religions have falsehoods at their core., could you name some religions that don't qualify?

[Meatros]

No, I was asking Der Trihs to help me by providing a reference to the lines of poetry he quoted: "That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons death may die." I would like to read the poem, if you don't mind.

Call of Cthulhu, HP Lovecraft.

If that doesn't register, then get thee to a library! You have some (very entertaining) reading to do!

[Musicat]

The answer is but a google away:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fgutenberg.net.au%2Febooks06%2F0600031h.html

[Musicat]

Here's the link I meant to give when the phone rang:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600031h.html

[ShibbOleth]

Jesus wasn't all dead; he was only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
[/Miracle Max]

[Paralogic]

Forgive me, this is not a rallying flag for atheists or a call to fervent Christians: its simply something which bothers me and I wonder if there is any rational answer.

In essence I do not believe the resurrection happened. I look at the universe and the rules of science which God imposed and reversal of death is not possible. Cells break down and bacteria immediately start to consume any dead organic creature. Jesus could not be a special case in this universe. Science does not allow it.

FYI I'm a Presbyterian, support my church but seldom go, like the biblical stories, and embrace the ethics of Christianity - and humanism.

What's your question?

It's a fact that no human being has ever or will ever "rise" after they're dead.

Bio-cloning techniques from a shred of DNA in the far distant future are excluded... I don't even know about them.

No humans ever "risen". No gods exist either.

[jjimm]

Substitute "some" for "all" and you have a pretty good idea of what's going on.Again, which religions fall into your definition of "some" please? And if there is more than one religion in that group, please demonstrate how they don't contradict each other (thus negating their inclusion in that group).