ercatli

G'day Elijah,

I wasn't actually making that statement to start another discussion, but merely to spell out to Tharn some of the meaning of the word "natural". At present he is defending the proposition that "dead men cannot rise". If we ever resolve that, then perhaps I may be willing to move on to a discussion of whether the miracle of the resurrection actually occurred.

I'm not all that familiar with Justin Martyr's theology, and while I am happy to hear any viewpoint, I have no reason to regard him as an authority.

But I think God always having the same nature and God never doing anything are two different propositions. I'm inclined to accept the first but not the second. I'm afraid I'm a bit wary and a bit weary of theology, especially any theology that doesn't come from revelation. So I appreciate what you have said, but I find no inconsistency.

Thanks.

Loomis

“Special” event my ass. Adonis and Tammuz were resurrected – so was Lazarus of Bethany. There are also group resurrections prophesized in Ezekiel 37:12-14 and some sort of third-day resurrection in Hosea 6:2. But the real elephants in the room are the zombies in Matthew 27:52. Their resurrections are extremely similar to Jesus’ resurrection.

You are wrong. The claim that Jesus was resurrected is not unique at all. It is not a “special” event - it’s ordinary fiction.

ercatli

Like I said to Elijah (above), the main purpose of this statement was as part of a discussion of the statement "dead men cannot rise". And yes, if I was arguing for a miracle, including the resurrection, I'd have to meet this objection. And I would further agree with your implied statement that most alleged miracles do not meet this test. The questions are (1) Can alleged miracles never ever meet the test (a difficult proposition to prove, in my view impossible without making question-begging assumptions)?, and (2) Is there enough evidence in any particular case (e.g. the resurrection)?

It may be "more likely" in general, but I don't think it can be established that it is always more likely. And in the case of the resurrection (which Antony Flew called "the best attested miracle claim in history") there are some arguments and historical facts that have to be addressed before one can say what you say here. I'm not contesting that you and others don't believe the evidence justifies the belief, but it is not an open and shut case, and I and many others believe it does.

This is a probabilistic statement, which I think is the correct sort of statement to make in this case. And our assessment of questions of the existence of God and the historicity and nature of Jesus will have a large bearing on our conclusion. For me, I think the probabilities are quite opposite to what you think. But then we knew that already, didn't we?

I appreciate your comments, for they illustrate where I think the differences lie, and how discussion of the resurrection should proceed. Thanks.

Elijah

Sorry I didn’t mean to try to take you off topic, I just thought there was a much easier explanation then trying to fit your understanding of god into the contradiction of “in theory” not being spatial or temporal but then at the same time using the same theory to explain why god operates at single instances of space and time.

I didn’t put Justin up there for an authority but for a clear description of the Christian God. If you have one that you think better reflects your understanding then please share it, but that’s the most efficient description of God I know of in Christian literature. He’s not saying that God doesn’t do anything, he’s saying that what god does is constant throughout everything. What God was, God is and will be. God doesn’t at one moment do something one way here and different there and then change to something else in another location, that isn’t a god that is outside of time, it’s a God that changes with time.

The faith idea was meant to give you a more rational explanation of the miracles if you find it necessary to believe in them that doesn’t require you bringing a contradiction into the understanding of God.

Loomis

How is Matthew’s claim that Jesus rose from the dead significantly different from his claim that the zombies (27:52) rose from the dead?

What’s so special about it?

If you accept that Jesus rose from the dead then you must also accept that the zombies rose from the dead.

aa5874

Fantastic point!

All reports of the dead comimg back to life must now be accepted as very likely to be true by ercatli.

ercatli

I had at least three reasons why Jesus' resurrection was unique:

1. It is the only one I'm aware of that historians are willing to concede may be able to be verified as history.
2. It was claimed to be the Son of God being resurrected.
3. Other claimed resurrections (e.g. Lazarus) were different in that they came back to ordinary life, to die again later. Jesus is the only one who it is believed went through death to a new type of life, never to die again.

Thus very unique (to use bad grammar!). Best wishes.

Loomis

Why would a historian consider the issue of if people come back from the dead? Isn’t that area of research better suited for medical doctors?

And what is preventing those historians from verifying the zombie claim?

Imho you can tell a lot about the truthfulness of a claim by looking at the company it keeps. The Bible claims that Jesus and the zombies came back from the dead. It also claims that animals (donkeys, pigs, snakes, etc.) can talk. In your opinion is there any reason why a historian should spend more time evaluating the resurrection claims than the talking animal claims?

Loomis

There is nothing in Matthew to indicate that the zombies died. As far as the text is concerned they may still be alive today. And that would be consistent with Ezekiel 37:12-14.

Loomis

Not true. There is a communal resurrection passage in Ascension of Isaiah 9:6-9, 14-18.