Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 02-23-2012, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

I thought it was common knowledge there are two schools of thougt here.

A physical ressurrection

And a spiritual ressurrection

As Toto points out, there are indeed two schools of thought as to what the early church thought. Or, more accurately, there were two schools of thought among the early church. The Gnostics argued for a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one.

All of which is immaterial to what the Gospel stories say. The canon of scripture was established after the Gnostics lost the battle for Christian Orthodoxy, and thus reflect the "physical resurrection" side of the argument. Had the Gnostic Christians been politically victorious, we can assume that the canon would be quite different, and would reflect their theology.

But it doesn't.

Understood

The hellenized version is all were left with to try and sift out how the ressurrection "evolved"

Chili · 02-23-2012, 02:20 PM

. . . just go to Gen.2:25 when they were both naked to wit and felt no shame and compare that with Gen. 3:10 where first he heard 'you' in particular, and then realized he was naked and thus not longer naked to wit after having gained objective vision in the TOK, and so the ego awareness was formed as a second identity that was first called Adam there by name (simply because it did not exist until 'his eyes were opened' and could see as 'like god' now.

So then this second identity was not created by God but by conjecture only in the conscious mind where only shame can be conceived to exist (under hypnosis there is no shame or pain), and it is to this identity that the Jews wanted him to die in a manner he could walk away from it.

outhouse · 02-23-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

I thought it was common knowledge there are two schools of thougt here.

A physical ressurrection

And a spiritual ressurrection

There are two schools of thought today about what early Christians believed back then - a physical or a spiritual resurrection.

There are many more schools of thought about what actually happened - resurrection as a supernatural event, or an emotional experience by the disciples, or a metaphor, or a fictional plot, or a mistake, or a hoax, or -- probably more.

what actually happened??? he was put in pit more then likely.

I always thought a stolen body would fly. But it makes more sense to think Joseph A had the body thrown in a pit, and stated he put it in his tomb.

Chili · 02-23-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

I thought it was common knowledge there are two schools of thougt here.

A physical ressurrection

And a spiritual ressurrection

As Toto points out, there are indeed two schools of thought as to what the early church thought. Or, more accurately, there were two schools of thought among the early church. The Gnostics argued for a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one.

All of which is immaterial to what the Gospel stories say. The canon of scripture was established after the Gnostics lost the battle for Christian Orthodoxy, and thus reflect the "physical resurrection" side of the argument. Had the Gnostic Christians been politically victorious, we can assume that the canon would be quite different, and would reflect their theology.

But it doesn't.

It is nuts to talk about a spiritual resurrection as the only option to physical resurrection. So what is a spiritual resurrection? one that we can's argue over but must believe by faith?

And so now Gnostics are believers too?

funinspace · 02-23-2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

So we see without question that the Synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus was alive again after he died. To claim that this is not "Bible proof" of the resurrection simply because there are no accounts of the actual resurrection itself is absurd. It's like claiming that a certain house was never actually built, because although we have "before" photos of the empty lot and "after" photos of a house on that lot, we have no photos of the building in progress, ergo the building did not take place.

As for John, the most embellished of the Gospels, it claims that Jesus was stabbed with a spear to make sure he was dead, and that later he cooked and ate some fish with Peter on the shores of the Kinneret (Galilee).

The Bible Stories agree: Jesus was dead. Later, Jesus was alive, and did various things to prove to the 12 that he was not a ghost. We see the person dead, and later the same person alive. The conclusion is inescapable: this person rose from the dead.

Hum…and if this were an insurance claim of jewels stolen from the house we could have something like this:

Mark: Yeah, well we had bunch of jewelry stolen while we at a sporting event.

Matt: We left town on Wednesday morning on a road trip thru the Sonoran desert, stopped in Vegas, and got back on Sunday. We noticed that there was broken glass as we went in the front door. Some things were smashed up. 4 strands of pearls, 3 gold necklaces, 2 diamand rings, and a fir coat were stolen. Oh, and that Grecian vase was taken as well.

Mary: Oh, it was so terrible. We left Wednesday afternoon on a road trip thru the California wine country, and got back on Sunday. When we got home, I noticed that some of the lights on the house were on, which was odd. Then we saw the broken Grecian vase that was handed down in our family. We realized that we were robbed. And found that a large gold necklace, 3 strands of pearls, and some diamond rings were stolen.

John: We hopped a flight to San Fransisco to go to Berkley for a retreat on getting to know ones inner self. Lo and behold, I just knew we had been robbed by the strange feeling I was having on the ride back from the airport in the limo. The hugest diamond you have ever seen was taken along with the finest leather and fur coat. Pearls were laying all over the entry as they must have been dashed against our Grecian vase.

Insurance agent: Well there is definitely a fleecing going on…but who is the thief?

Doug Shaver · 02-23-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdahalishi Mjumbe

There is no biblical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.

Obviously, there can't be, if you presuppose that the Bible itself cannot be evidence for anything. But in that case, all you're saying is that there is no evidence for the resurrection.

The Bible states unambiguously that the resurrection happened, so a denial of biblical evidence makes no sense except as a redundant way of denying that the Bible can constitute evidence.

Mdahalishi Mjumbe · 02-23-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdahalishi Mjumbe

There is no biblical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.

Obviously, there can't be, if you presuppose that the Bible itself cannot be evidence for anything. But in that case, all you're saying is that there is no evidence for the resurrection.

Yes, I am saying there is no evidence for the resurrection. And yes, if the conflicting gospel reports of Mary Magdalene's involvement in the discovery of the empty tomb can not be made into one non-contradictory account then the reader has to decide which report is the truthful one. If the others contain falsehoods then they should be discarded. How can they be sure there are not other falsehoods? I am interested in how a Christian would decide which gospel, or gospels, were completely truthful.

Quote:

The Bible states unambiguously that the resurrection happened, so a denial of biblical evidence makes no sense except as a redundant way of denying that the Bible can constitute evidence.

Unambiguously stating something happened is not evidence it happened. If the bible is internally conflicted, how can it be a source of evidence?

Mdahalishi Mjumbe · 02-23-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

The OP is absolute bullshit.

First of all, the very idea of "Biblical evidence" is a crock. It would be more accurate to claim that the stories in the Bible, taken together, do or do not claim this or that. There is no "evidence" involved, only stories which are clearly a mish-mash of history and fiction - mostly fiction.

Secondly, to make the claim that the Bible stories do not claim the resurrection of Jesus is to ignore the content of the stories. By cherry-picking a single account, the OP harms rather than helps the case.

The OP is about evidence, not claims. There is a difference.

You claim the OP is bullshit. You presented no evidence.

Or-

You presented evidence that denied a claim I did not make.

outhouse · 02-23-2012, 08:50 PM

the only evidence is the scripture we are left with.

take it for what it is.

We know he didnt physically resurrect, we dont know if they ment he spiritually resurrected.

a missing body, or fiction.

this is something out of what is thought to be known with certainty in scholarships

Chili · 02-24-2012, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

the only evidence is the scripture we are left with.

take it for what it is.

We know he didnt physically resurrect, we dont know if they ment he spiritually resurrected.

a missing body, or fiction.

this is something out of what is thought to be known with certainty in scholarships

I do think it is a physical resurrection as Jesus died to set Christ free in us, and just walk away from it? So what is it? . . . could now be asked and then say: who was this Jesus anyway when Christ was born?

It has something to do with substance and reality and the difference between them, wherein substance is temporal while reality is eternal, and if Jesus was not Christ why should we 'cling' to him? or just call him 'teacher' and then leave him behind and walk away from 'it', just left hanging there as if it was that which we no longer need, and then never go back again to say 'Amen' as final word.

A nice foreshadow here is to say "Amen" when receiving "the body of Christ" while looking at Jesus on the cross and then say "and what about him?" like Peter asked and he was the 'faith' for us.

So it becomes a rather first-hand answer and then we know.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-23-2012, 02:20 PM	#32
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	. . . just go to Gen.2:25 when they were both naked to wit and felt no shame and compare that with Gen. 3:10 where first he heard 'you' in particular, and then realized he was naked and thus not longer naked to wit after having gained objective vision in the TOK, and so the ego awareness was formed as a second identity that was first called Adam there by name (simply because it did not exist until 'his eyes were opened' and could see as 'like god' now. So then this second identity was not created by God but by conjecture only in the conscious mind where only shame can be conceived to exist (under hypnosis there is no shame or pain), and it is to this identity that the Jews wanted him to die in a manner he could walk away from it.

02-23-2012, 08:50 PM	#39
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	the only evidence is the scripture we are left with. take it for what it is. We know he didnt physically resurrect, we dont know if they ment he spiritually resurrected. a missing body, or fiction. this is something out of what is thought to be known with certainty in scholarships

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.