I’m not looking to convince you. I have no need to. I’m just pointing out that Paul’s hallucinations are not evidence.
Your problem here is that you’re confusing a fact with hypothesis. It is a fact, not a hypothesis, that dead people can’t appear and communicate with other people after they’re dead.
I don’t have to say that about things that are impossible. I have no burden here.
[/QUOTE]
No, you don’t have any burden, but there is no argument, either.
A: overcome my null hypothesis, that these things are impossible.
B: Ok, let’s assume for a second, that your hypothesis is incorrect. That this vision was a real encounter. Just for the sake of argument. We will just assume that your hypothesis may be wrong, that it is possible to overcome it.
A: I don’t have to say that about things that are impossible.
B: And that’s why we don’t have a discussion.
edit__________
A: Your problem here is that you’re confusing a fact with hypothesis. It is a fact, not a hypothesis, that dead people can’t appear and communicate with other people after they’re dead.
B: But, the appearance of one resurrected person would nullify that “fact.” Using that “fact” to dismiss all claims of appearance is not critical thinking, it is circular reasoning.
Jesus appeared to St. Paul after the Ascension. The accounts in his epistles, and in Acts clearly indicate that Jesus appeared in a spiritual form. All accounts in the New Testament indicate that Jesus appeared on the first Easter in a physical form.
The Book of Mormon was a work of creative fiction similar to J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings. It claims to be a detailed history of pre Columbian America from about 600 BC to about 421 AD. There is no evidence that any of the events in The Book of Mormon happened, and much evidence that none of them happened.
This is what the Smithsonian Institution has to say about The Book of Mormon:
Then prove it happened. Mere claims are not sufficient to prove it.
Paul makes no distinction in his formula between Jesus’ appearances to Cephas and “the Twelve,” et al, and the apearance to Paul himself. What indication are we given, from Paul’s words alone, that he intended to imply that Jesus appeared in a different form to Paul than he did to the apostles?
You keep demanding scientific proof of the physical resurrection. You keep claiming that the absence of that proof proves that God does not exist.
We’ve been through this before. :smack:
The same can be said for most of the Bible.
Actually, right there in the title of thread he asks for evidence, not proof, and this thread isn’t about the existence of God. The reason he started a thread asking for scientific evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus is that, in another thread, another poster said he had such evidence and would come forth with it if a thread on that subject was started.
All clear now?
Wait just a minute.
How would Paul have recognized this dude as Jesus if he had never met him before that unfortunate incident with the cross?
The Bible mentions individuals, nations, and empires that we know existed from contemporary sources that are independent of the Bible. Biblical archaeology exists. There is no authentic Book of Mormon archaeology.
Now that - is the right question to ask.
Great swaths of the OT are demonstrably ahistorical. The entire books of Genesis and Exodus, for instance. The whole tale of the captivity in Egypt, Moses, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan - all fiction. It is not consequential that the Bible occasionally mentions real places. So does Homer. That doesn’t make a story more likely to be true.
Yes, I do dispute that the physical resurrection is impossible. That is entirely what the discussion is about. If you can’t see how assuming the resurrection didn’t happen as your starting point and then using that to show that the resurrection didn’t happen is circular, then I don’t think that there is anything that I can say to help you.
Secondly, what evidence/argument can you present to show that the null is valid? Just to be clear, the Christian claim is NOT that Jesus rose from the dead by some obscure natural process. The claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead in a way that was outside of nature. Therefore stating that natural processes do not allow someone to rise from the dead means that the resurrection cannot have happened. I agree that people don’t naturally rise from the dead. I think that God raised Jesus in a supernatural fashion, and therefore appeals to natural laws are simply out of place.
Out of interest, in your mind did the planet Uranus exist in the 14th century? And if so was the statement “There is no 8th planet in our solar system” true? It would seem that following your logic that you must conclude that it was, which is Uranus did exist is absurd.
It’s a pity then that you don’t seem to use much of the information that you acquire doing a degree. From my view what you present is ultra left-wing scholarship and try to pass it off as mainstream. No matter how you slice it, N. T. Wright is a well respected, mainstream scholar. The fact that you dismiss him out of hande shows that you must be using some definition of “mainstream” that is different to everyone else.
The point Paul is making in talking about flesh and blood is about the eternality of the resurrected body, not the form of it. What he is saying is that thre present body cannot inherit eternal life, but needs to be transformed. He is not making a general statement that physical matter cannot inherit eternal life. Clearly physical matter encompasses more than just “flesh and blood” so interpreting it to mean that is quite a stretch.
I can’t see any problem with saying that Jesus appeared to Paul in physical form.
You dispute the laws of physics? A physical resurrection violates the laws of physics, true or false? If true, then a physical resurrection is, by definition, physically impossible. The only way to deny this is to deny the laws of physics. If you want to assert that the laws of physics were violated by magic, then you need actual evidence.
I’m starting with the assumption that it is, by definition, physically impossible. That is a perfectly valid and logically necessary assumption.
None is necessary. The null is the null. I have no burden at all.
Yes, I know. You say it was magic. That’s just begging the question, though.
It means you have a pretty high mountain to climb to prove it happened. Physical impossibility is quite a hurdle. Attributing it to magic is well and good, but as I said, is question begging and you would have to show why an actual magic event should be taken as a scientifically more likely explanation for the resurrection story than fiction.
You didn’t arrive at this asinine analogy by following any logic I’ve asserted.
The fact that you think there is such a thing as “ultra left wing” Biblical scholarship shows that you don’t know anything about Biblical scholarship. I am presenting scholarship that is totally mainstream.
Wright is a respected NT scholar but is not credentialed in historical criticism. As I said, his credentials are doctrinaire, not scientific.
Horseshit. He explicitly says that the celestial “flesh” is different from “earthly” flesh. [quite]What he is saying is that thre present body cannot inherit eternal life, but needs to be transformed. He is not making a general statement that physical matter cannot inherit eternal life. Clearly physical matter encompasses more than just “flesh and blood” so interpreting it to mean that is quite a stretch.
[/quote]
Paul thought of the spirit as a kind of substance, but not the same substance as a fleshly body.
That makes it kind of hard to explain why Paul thought physical bodies couldn’t resurrect then, and it’s a little bit silly. You think Jesus came back down a few years after he ascended, still sporting the same physical body? Why? Do you think he’s still in his physical body now?
Why didn’t it get destroyed when he took it into outer space?
Maybe he had a name tag on his shirt. “Hello, my name is Jesus, how may I save you today?”
Let me outline the argument I made in my less-than-clear post.
Paul believes in a spiritual resurrection for ordinary humans. His beliefs about the exact nature of Christ’s resurrection are a matter of speculation. Jesus Christ != ordinary humans.
Carrier’s cites that “Jesus was raised the same way we would be” are unpersuasive. I listed them for reference: feel free to pick the best of them for examination.
We know a fair amount of what Paul believed. We just don’t know everything.
I address Diogenes the Cynic: "Sorry, where does Paul have his allegedly psychotic experience? No snark intended, I just missed what you’re referring to. What I will be looking for is whether it could be a meditative experience. Christians routinely commune with the Father when they pray over a decision or just pray in general. It’s not necessarily hallucinatory, though it may be presented that way. "
(Feel free to ignore that, DtC, if you think it’s too tangential to this thread).
I used to think a physical encounter between Paul and Jesus was plausible. Now that I know a little more about the Roman state, I’d put the odds south of 15%, but north of 0.000%. Paul could have traveled alongside an imposter though. There may have been some storytelling/showmanship involved as well. Or he could have had a vision/hallucination (is this the one you were referring to?) Anyway, I can’t rule out the possibility that Paul was referencing an actual discussion, inspired by the Lord or zeitgeist.
To be clear, physical resurrection is not impossible. People wake up from comas all the time. A few even survive executions. Routinely and colloquially, such events are characterized as miraculous.
Time out a second:
I have to admit, I’m confused by your position - here’s how I see it and please correct me where I have it wrong:
You seem to have said:
Jesus was resurrected physically - so he was in his physical body. This is the body that Paul says that everyone will get after they resurrect.
After the ascension, Jesus got a different body, a spiritual body.
Is this correct? I feel like I’m misinterpreting you or missing something.
Not really… Those creative fictions were actually entertaining…
Okay, I can sort of buy that view, since Jesus was supposed to be Godish… 
My head is foggy this morning, so I can’t recall whether or not Paul actually states this - does he make a distinction and if so, can you point me to those passages?
As to 2, this might be in the eye of the beholder, but I would like to hear your explanation of what Paul might have meant in the following passages (which I curbed from your prior posts):
This seems to me to mean that our resurrection will be analogous with Jesus’s.
Again, it seems that our resurrection is to be analogous. I think Roman’s 6 also makes the case, but you say it’s metaphorical.
1 Cor 15:12 - 19
If Paul is saying that Christ would have a different resurrection body, then his logic in the above verse makes no sense. It’s a non sequitur.
We can agree to disagree and I can respect your opinion, but I do not think it is the correct interpretation of Paul.
I think this is fair - however I would say that Paul is mostly interpreted through the Gospels that came decades after him, which color our interpretation of him. It doesn’t seem to make sense to me that if Paul believed in a physical resurrection why there was any sort of Gnostic movement so close to core of Christianity. It also doesn’t make sense why Paul would have had to clarify, repeatedly, what he meant to the Corinthians (and others). Now, on the other view, it makes sense, since it’s not very easy to follow.
You are addressing DtC, but I think he’s referring to Paul’s experience on the Road to Damascus. I don’t think that experience could be a meditative experience.