What really happened to Jesus when he died? (Earth, body, about)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you ascribe your conversion or Faith to Feellngs rather than evidence, I can only say that this is not a rational reason, and 'evidence' and reason is not the issue, but Faith - which is a different argument altogether.
Like many Christians, my born-again experience was a sudden, unexpected, unsought supernatural experience (and that is all I care to say about it). I was alone and completely astonished by what occurred. This is precisely why, within a year or two, I began to question the reality of the experience and decided to pretty much ignore it and begin my spiritual quest from scratch. Only decades later did I accept that what I initially thought had occurred had indeed occurred and that I had, in reality, been born again as Christians understand that term.
Quote:
As to the resurrection, you are welcome to debate the validity of the resurrection accounts any time you like. I doubt whether you really HAVE heard all the arguments. Because for some reason, redaction -criticism, though a basic tool of Gospel -analysis, seems to have escaped everyone, Believer and Skeptic alike. I can only assume because the believer doesn't want to know and the non -believer doesn't want to bother.
I don't who you are think you're dealing with, but I happen to have an intellect of the first magnitude (no, I'm not modest about it), an education up to and including a doctorate, and happen to have spent more than six decades in an intense quest for truth. There is essentially nothing I do not know about the Resurrection, pro and con. There is essentially nothing I do not know about form criticism, including redaction criticism, and every other form of criticism to which the biblical texts have been subjected. You can "doubt" all you want, but I believe our posts speak for themselves in terms of who is dealing in substance and who is posturing. Your notion that believers and skeptics alike - except you? - are unaware of redaction criticism is nonsensical to the point of being delusional. It's the oldest form of biblical criticism.
I skimmed from time to time your "Readactively Critiqued" thread - there is no such word as readactively, BTW - and found it unworthy of participation. There is absolutely nothing new in it, and the points are very badly and convolutedly stated. It's simply self-flattering mental masturbation by internet discussion forum pseudo-intellectuals who succeed mostly in making fools of themselves. I decline to wade into the muck. If you think you have something new to say about the Resurrection, get it published in a reputable journal and I'll read it. With a plethora of world-class scholars at my fingertips, why would I want to "debate the validity of the Resurrection accounts" with you?
Like many Christians, my born-again experience was a sudden, unexpected, unsought supernatural experience (and that is all I care to say about it). I was alone and completely astonished by what occurred. This is precisely why, within a year or two, I began to question the reality of the experience and decided to pretty much ignore it and begin my spiritual quest from scratch. Only decades later did I accept that what I initially thought had occurred had indeed occurred and that I had, in reality, been born again as Christians understand that term.
I don't who you are think you're dealing with, but I happen to have an intellect of the first magnitude (no, I'm not modest about it), an education up to and including a doctorate, and happen to have spent more than six decades in an intense quest for truth. There is essentially nothing I do not know about the Resurrection, pro and con. There is essentially nothing I do not know about form criticism, including redaction criticism, and every other form of criticism to which the biblical texts have been subjected. You can "doubt" all you want, but I believe our posts speak for themselves in terms of who is dealing in substance and who is posturing. Your notion that believers and skeptics alike - except you? - are unaware of redaction criticism is nonsensical to the point of being delusional. It's the oldest form of biblical criticism.
I skimmed from time to time your "Readactively Critiqued" thread - there is no such word as readactively, BTW - and found it unworthy of participation. There is absolutely nothing new in it, and the points are very badly and convolutedly stated. It's simply self-flattering mental masturbation by internet discussion forum pseudo-intellectuals who succeed mostly in making fools of themselves. I decline to wade into the muck. If you think you have something new to say about the Resurrection, get it published in a reputable journal and I'll read it. With a plethora of world-class scholars at my fingertips, why would I want to "debate the validity of the Resurrection accounts" with you?
Well. Despite your declaration of your own magnificent brilliance, I reckon that you don't dare to discuss the resurrection accounts with me.
I believe the above. I do not believe it's possible to be a Christian without believing this. As the apostle Paul recognized, it's the sine qua non of Christianity.
Now that is a good question that I am asking myself. Paul says Jesus took on human form to be crucified, but does he say he was resurrected in human form, especially when he argues Christians will be resurrected into a spiritual body already waiting for them
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I've read literally every scholarly text about the Resurrection, pro and con. Scores of books and innumerable online presentations and debates. I know all the arguments on which the naysayers rely.
Naysayers. That sounds like well poisoning, as if we are simply saying nay without looking at the evidence, such as the gospels NOT being independent accounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
By no means is the evidence compelling. It consists of the Gospel accounts, the oral traditions out of which the Gospel accounts arose, ...
How old are you to be there to hear the oral accounts? Because oral traditions written down are no longer oral. And if you do not have these written 'oral' accounts, you can not argue from them, as you do not know if they existed or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
... inferences to be drawn from the transformation of the disciples and the early worship of Jesus as divine, ...
The transformations of the disciples as described in the gospels and Acts. So you are using the gospels to prove the gospels. And you think this is credible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
... and to an extent the failure of the opponents of Christianity to produce a body or otherwise convincingly refute the Christian claims.
You can not use the alleged opponents in the gospels as that is again circular. And you can not use the 2nd century AD opponents as they are responding to Christian claims, and would not know where to look. So this whole argument is useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Does any of this constitute "proof" of the Resurrection? Obviously not. It's sufficient for me and other Christians, including scientists and scholars of the highest caliber, to regard the Resurrection as plausible.
Again with the scholars and scientists who are famous for things that have nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus. Why do you keep playing this game since we showed how bogus it is the first time you argued this?
I don't who you are think you're dealing with, but I happen to have an intellect of the first magnitude (no, I'm not modest about it), an education up to and including a doctorate, and happen to have spent more than six decades in an intense quest for truth.
Ummm ..... Mister superior intellect - "I don't who you are think you're dealing with" !?
I don't who you are think you're dealing with, but I happen to have an intellect of the first magnitude (no, I'm not modest about it), an education up to and including a doctorate, and happen to have spent more than six decades in an intense quest for truth.
Your support for creationism and constant use of fallacies says you are just another pseudo-intellectual, a paper tiger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
There is essentially nothing I do not know about the Resurrection, pro and con. There is essentially nothing I do not know about form criticism, including redaction criticism, and every other form of criticism to which the biblical texts have been subjected. You can "doubt" all you want, but I believe our posts speak for themselves in terms of who is dealing in substance and who is posturing.
We deal with the actual arguments, including what the original texts say in their original language, you do not make even one argument. Yes. 'our posts speak for themselves in terms of who is dealing in substance and who is posturing'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I skimmed from time to time your "Readactively Critiqued" thread - there is no such word as readactively, BTW - and found it unworthy of participation. There is absolutely nothing new in it, and the points are very badly and convolutedly stated. It's simply self-flattering mental masturbation by internet discussion forum pseudo-intellectuals who succeed mostly in making fools of themselves. I decline to wade into the muck.
Avoidance of credible arguments and ad hominem fallacy noted. Keep posturing, but you are fooling no one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
If you think you have something new to say about the Resurrection, get it published in a reputable journal and I'll read it. With a plethora of world-class scholars at my fingertips, why would I want to "debate the validity of the Resurrection accounts" with you?
Your problem is that what I have observed has also been independently confirmed by 'a plethora of world-class scholars', or I have verified what 'a plethora of world-class scholars' have written in papers published in reputable journals.
So should you ever stop posturing and decide to actually debate something, you will be debating material 'a plethora of world-class scholars' agree with.
Ummm ..... Mister superior intellect - "I don't who you are think you're dealing with" !?
I've already seen his arguments and I know they don't add up to a row of beans. Harry has already stamped them flat. His attempts to intimidate me had no hope of working and my challenge remains, and I already know he;'s lost and so does he as he doesn't dare.
Fact is Christian apolpogetics lost the debate long ago. Now they have only lawyer -tricks.
If the Resurrection is not an historical and theological truth, as I believe it is. Don't try to play word games with me, pal.
You can only claim the resurrection to be a theological truth since supernatural events cannot be historical truth. Additionally you have no historical evidence for a physical resurrection.
I believe the above. I do not believe it's possible to be a Christian without believing this. As the apostle Paul recognized, it's the sine qua non of Christianity. One can be an admirer of Jesus without believing this, but not a Christian. If this isn't true, Christianity is a fraud - simple as that.
Whether I believe it as a theological assertion or a matter of evidence is somewhat of a chicken-or-egg question. I was born again before I'd given any great thought to the Resurrection per se. So my subsequent studies of the Resurrection were in that context (although that context also included a questioning of my born again experience and a commitment to start my quest for truth from scratch, so I don't believe I had any deep bias).
I believe I'm rational enough that I would've simply rejected Christianity if my studies had forced me to conclude "Look, there is just no reason to believe this ever happened. It's nonsense." If the bones of Jesus were ever identified beyond any dispute, I'd cease to be a Christian overnight.
I've read literally every scholarly text about the Resurrection, pro and con. Scores of books and innumerable online presentations and debates. I know all the arguments on which the naysayers rely. My belief in the Resurrection nonetheless remains strong.
By no means is the evidence compelling. It consists of the Gospel accounts, the oral traditions out of which the Gospel accounts arose, inferences to be drawn from the transformation of the disciples and the early worship of Jesus as divine, and to an extent the failure of the opponents of Christianity to produce a body or otherwise convincingly refute the Christian claims.
Does any of this constitute "proof" of the Resurrection? Obviously not. It's sufficient for me and other Christians, including scientists and scholars of the highest caliber, to regard the Resurrection as plausible. Because we share a conviction that Christianity is true for a host of other reasons, including in most cases personal experience, this plausibility is sufficient to provide the foundation for a strong conviction about the Resurrection.
So where is his physical body now? Floating up there in heaven? If so, Is it the same physical body he had down here on earth?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That sounds like well poisoning, as if we are simply saying nay without looking at the evidence, such as the gospels NOT being independent accounts.
