Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Andy on June 29, 2015, 07:53:39 PM
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
-
[/popcorn]
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
More than likely it is still in the tomb into which it was put after his execution.
Seeing as how there is no agreement as to where this tomb is or was, there are, I think I read somewhere, at least five sites that are supposedly Christ's tomb.
-
Decomposed, I'd imagine.
-
Most of it will have been recycled through the biosphere but there might be a few bone fragments somewhere in the ground.
-
Most of it will have been recycled through the biosphere but there might be a few bone fragments somewhere in the ground.
HMM. If any bone fragments existed, I would think that they were sold as relics by the Catholic church around the time of Henry VIII.
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
Happy to answer, Andy. Are you asking what the NT records as happening and purely that or is this to be a thread about those records and then yet another discussion about whether the records are or could be correct and whether God exists?
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
More than likely it is still in the tomb into which it was put after his execution.
Seeing as how there is no agreement as to where this tomb is or was, there are, I think I read somewhere, at least five sites that are supposedly Christ's tomb.
Apparently, even the authorities agreed that this was not the case. There are 3 or 4 options; 1) the Jewish authorities removed the body so as to ensure (in their minds, at least) that this troublemaker could not become the central figure in any further trouble;
2) the Roman authorities removed the body for reasons unknown
3) the disciples stole the body - though for what purpose is hard to see since resurrection was a theological concept in those days, not a practical one - and getting past the guards that had been put on the tomb would not have been easy;
4) Jesus actually rose from the dead - as the Bible states.
Regarding the suggestion that there are up to 5 sites that are supposedly Christ's tomb, at least one is nowhere near Jerusalem - and nearer Delhi!! Another is the site that it is thought that the 4th century Romans chose to pick (and which became the 'official' site); the others are all within easy walking distance of the location of Golgatha.
It is interesting that the site of the tomb was actually irrelevant for the first 300+ years of the church. It was only when the Romans began to take an interest that a site for the tomb was felt necessary - by the Romans (though whether Helena - Constantine's mother - really did pick a site as tradition suggests is true or not who knows).
-
HMM. If any bone fragments existed, I would think that they were sold as relics by the Catholic church around the time of Henry VIII.
I doubt it would have been that late, Nat. Most relic selling took place long before that - the late 1st millennium and into the early 2nd (perhaps 750 - 1350 AD). If what I have read is correct, the bulk of it took place around the time of the Crusades.
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
Happy to answer, Andy. Are you asking what the NT records as happening and purely that or is this to be a thread about those records and then yet another discussion about whether the records are or could be correct and whether God exists?
I'm asking what people believe. I'm not interested in dissecting the Bible, but I can't dictate where some will take the discussion.
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
More than likely it is still in the tomb into which it was put after his execution.
Seeing as how there is no agreement as to where this tomb is or was, there are, I think I read somewhere, at least five sites that are supposedly Christ's tomb.
Apparently, even the authorities agreed that this was not the case. There are 3 or 4 options; 1) the Jewish authorities removed the body so as to ensure (in their minds, at least) that this troublemaker could not become the central figure in any further trouble;
2) the Roman authorities removed the body for reasons unknown
3) the disciples stole the body - though for what purpose is hard to see since resurrection was a theological concept in those days, not a practical one - and getting past the guards that had been put on the tomb would not have been easy;
4) Jesus actually rose from the dead - as the Bible states.
Regarding the suggestion that there are up to 5 sites that are supposedly Christ's tomb, at least one is nowhere near Jerusalem - and nearer Delhi!! Another is the site that it is thought that the 4th century Romans chose to pick (and which became the 'official' site); the others are all within easy walking distance of the location of Golgatha.
It is interesting that the site of the tomb was actually irrelevant for the first 300+ years of the church. It was only when the Romans began to take an interest that a site for the tomb was felt necessary - by the Romans (though whether Helena - Constantine's mother - really did pick a site as tradition suggests is true or not who knows).
So where is his body now?
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
Happy to answer, Andy. Are you asking what the NT records as happening and purely that or is this to be a thread about those records and then yet another discussion about whether the records are or could be correct and whether God exists?
I'm asking what people believe. I'm not interested in dissecting the Bible, but I can't dictate where some will take the discussion.
So, you will willing accept the proposition that Jesus rose from the dead, that his fully physical body ceased to exist at that point and that the answer to this thread is therefore 'nowhere'?
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
Happy to answer, Andy. Are you asking what the NT records as happening and purely that or is this to be a thread about those records and then yet another discussion about whether the records are or could be correct and whether God exists?
I'm asking what people believe. I'm not interested in dissecting the Bible, but I can't dictate where some will take the discussion.
So, you will willing accept the proposition that Jesus rose from the dead, that his fully physical body ceased to exist at that point and that the answer to this thread is therefore 'nowhere'?
I'm willing to accept that you believe that, if you do. I'm not sure how to take it that his fully physical body ceased to exist at that point and that it is now nowhere. Did it just vanish? What body was Jesus using between resurrection and ascension?
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
-
All over the place....
It's called "The Church."
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
A joke! I presume?
We know Christ rose from the dead and we know he ascended up into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father... WITH his body... ::)
-
I'm willing to accept that you believe that, if you do.
You asked for opinions, yet here you are questioning an opinion. That doesn't seem to match your original claim.
I'm not sure how to take it that his fully physical body ceased to exist at that point and that it is now nowhere. Did it just vanish? What body was Jesus using between resurrection and ascension?
OK, if we take the Biblical record as correct - at least for now - we know that the resurrected Jesus was able to walk through walls and do other things that a normal body would not have been able to do (there are no such claims prior to his death, other than his walking on water - Matthew 14: 22ff). This suggests that his post-resurrection body was no longer a fully human body - even though people were able to touch him and feel the scars of his crucifixion, and he was able to eat solid food. Now, if he was nothing more than a human being in the first place, how could this be? If, on the other hand, he was God in human form, why couldn't this have taken place? In this latter case, his body could, literally, have been transformed thus making the need for it to exist 'elsewhere' obsolete.
Let's take a scientific example. We all now that certain elements have half-lives, during which they decay and become a different element. Are we to believe that the original element is still out there somewhere, just waiting to be discovered perhaps as a 'skeletal' form of that element? Not a perfect example, but then is there actually a perfect example of a lot of what happens in everyday life?
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
-
All over the place....
It's called "The Church."
Well said, Jim, but I don't think that that was what Andy meant by "Jesus' body". His OP makes it clear that he is hung up on the location of the physical body of Christ.
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
-
All over the place....
It's called "The Church."
Well said, Jim, but I don't think that that was what Andy meant by "Jesus' body". His OP makes it clear that he is hung up on the location of the physical body of Christ.
-
I know dis.
You know dis....but, hey, I couldn't let the opportunity pass - could I?
-
I know dis.
You know dis....but, hey, I couldn't let the opportunity pass - could I?
Of course not!! ;)
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
More than likely it is still in the tomb into which it was put after his execution.
Seeing as how there is no agreement as to where this tomb is or was, there are, I think I read somewhere, at least five sites that are supposedly Christ's tomb.
Apparently, even the authorities agreed that this was not the case. There are 3 or 4 options; 1) the Jewish authorities removed the body so as to ensure (in their minds, at least) that this troublemaker could not become the central figure in any further trouble;
2) the Roman authorities removed the body for reasons unknown
3) the disciples stole the body - though for what purpose is hard to see since resurrection was a theological concept in those days, not a practical one - and getting past the guards that had been put on the tomb would not have been easy;
4) Jesus actually rose from the dead - as the Bible states.
Regarding the suggestion that there are up to 5 sites that are supposedly Christ's tomb, at least one is nowhere near Jerusalem - and nearer Delhi!! Another is the site that it is thought that the 4th century Romans chose to pick (and which became the 'official' site); the others are all within easy walking distance of the location of Golgatha.
It is interesting that the site of the tomb was actually irrelevant for the first 300+ years of the church. It was only when the Romans began to take an interest that a site for the tomb was felt necessary - by the Romans (though whether Helena - Constantine's mother - really did pick a site as tradition suggests is true or not who knows).
There are three sites in Jerusalem - only one can be the real one and no-body can prove (show any evidence) that any of the three is the real one!
-
There are three sites in Jerusalem - only one can be the real one and no-body can prove (show any evidence) that any of the three is the real one!
and as I pointed out before, its location is of little or no importance to most Christians - and certainly of no importance as far as salvation is concerned. It seems to me that it is the non-Christians here - and especially the atheists - who get hung up on inconsequential issues of this sort. Can you explain why? Could it be that you are all desperate to be able to prove that Jesus never rose from death and that therefore the basis of Christianity is empty?
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
A joke! I presume?
We know Christ rose from the dead and we know he ascended up into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father... WITH his body... ::)
No, it's not a joke. I don't expect to get the same answer from everyone.
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
A joke! I presume?
We know Christ rose from the dead and we know he ascended up into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father... WITH his body... ::)
No, it's not a joke. I don't expect to get the same answer from everyone.
And you haven't. Unfortunately, some of the responders have failed to attempt to provide an answer, just tried to diss others' suggestions.
What's your opinion - and just why do you want to know?
-
There are three sites in Jerusalem - only one can be the real one and no-body can prove (show any evidence) that any of the three is the real one!
and as I pointed out before, its location is of little or no importance to most Christians - and certainly of no importance as far as salvation is concerned. It seems to me that it is the non-Christians here - and especially the atheists - who get hung up on inconsequential issues of this sort. Can you explain why? Could it be that you are all desperate to be able to prove that Jesus never rose from death and that therefore the basis of Christianity is empty?
Crikey - the resurrection of Christ is "of little or no importance to most Christians" and is "inconsequential "!
Could it be that you are all desperate to be able to prove that Jesus never rose from death and that therefore the basis of Christianity is empty?
In view of the fact that the resurrection and ascension of Christ is one of the very cornerstones of Christian belief we are all desperate to see YOU prove that it happened and not just by quote-mining!
-
I'm willing to accept that you believe that, if you do.
You asked for opinions, yet here you are questioning an opinion. That doesn't seem to match your original claim.
I don't remember claiming that I wouldn't be asking questions on them. Feel free to not answer them.
I'm not sure how to take it that his fully physical body ceased to exist at that point and that it is now nowhere. Did it just vanish? What body was Jesus using between resurrection and ascension?
OK, if we take the Biblical record as correct - at least for now - we know that the resurrected Jesus was able to walk through walls and do other things that a normal body would not have been able to do (there are no such claims prior to his death, other than his walking on water - Matthew 14: 22ff). This suggests that his post-resurrection body was no longer a fully human body - even though people were able to touch him and feel the scars of his crucifixion, and he was able to eat solid food. Now, if he was nothing more than a human being in the first place, how could this be? If, on the other hand, he was God in human form, why couldn't this have taken place? In this latter case, his body could, literally, have been transformed thus making the need for it to exist 'elsewhere' obsolete.
Let's take a scientific example. We all now that certain elements have half-lives, during which they decay and become a different element. Are we to believe that the original element is still out there somewhere, just waiting to be discovered perhaps as a 'skeletal' form of that element? Not a perfect example, but then is there actually a perfect example of a lot of what happens in everyday life?
His body before the resurrection does seem to be have been able to pull off feats just the same as it did post-resurrection. I don't see how you can say he had a normal body that can walk on water and do other miraculous stuff, and then say that he has a human body+ post-resurrection as if the miraculous stuff he did then was somehow distinct from the ones pre-resurrection.
But anyway, regardless of that, let's take it that he has a normal human body and then had a transformed human body after the resurrection. What was it transformed into? If you're happy to go with what I said before, what is the +?
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
A joke! I presume?
We know Christ rose from the dead and we know he ascended up into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father... WITH his body... ::)
No, it's not a joke. I don't expect to get the same answer from everyone.
And you haven't. Unfortunately, some of the responders have failed to attempt to provide an answer, just tried to diss others' suggestions.
What's your opinion - and just why do you want to know?
What's my opinion on what - Jesus' body?
I ask because I see some potential discrepancies, depending on what is believed, but I'm not going to build up a straw man if no-one believes it. That's why I ask first.
-
Where is Jesus' body now?
Heaven, for that is where he lives and reigns.
-
OK, if we take the Biblical record as correct - at least for now - we know
Believe.
-
OK, if we take the Biblical record as correct - at least for now - we know
Believe.
Surely the predication on taking it 'if we accept it as correct' allows this formulation
-
And what would be the rationale for simply accepting it as correct as-is? 'This document is correct because I assume it to be correct, therefore it is correct' may very well satisfy Hopeless and his cohorts but down here in the real world normal people don't act that way.
-
OK, if we take the Biblical record as correct - at least for now - we know
Believe.
No, if we take the position, at least for now, that the documents in question are correct, then we KNOW, because we are taking what they say to be correct.
I know that some here find accepting the NT material to be a problem, but it is documentary evidence, it is not word for word evidence that tends to poinbt to collaboration and it is supported to some degree by contemporary records. Therefore, to simply suggest that 'taking it as correct' is mere belief, is actually to misrepresent it.
-
And what would be the rationale for simply accepting it as correct as-is? 'This document is correct because I assume it to be correct, therefore it is correct' may very well satisfy Hopeless and his cohorts but down here in the real world normal people don't act that way.
Actually, the comment 'this document is correct' is often based on perfectly legitimate linguistic, rational and historical grounds (see my previous post). I have been involved in this debate for well over 40 years now, and I have yet to find anyone produce an argument that does anything more than 'suggest' that the NT documents aren't legitimate evidence. Certanly no-one here has ever managed to make a convincing argument. That is not to say that we might not - in time - find some evidence that makes the idea of their legitimacy unacceptable, but 2000-odd years of effort hasn't produced much.
To concentrate on the single question
And what would be the rationale for simply accepting it as correct as-is?
Over the centuries, several alternative explanations have been posited, yet no supporting evidence that stands up to questioning is ever provided. As such, the evidence of the NT documents has to be accepted as at least one legitimate explanation, especially as no evidence that conclusively denies this legitimacy has ever been proposed.
One can choose not to believe its legitimacy, but then of course, we get back to that knotty problem of 'metaphysical' evidence opposed to 'physical' evidence. In other words you get back to 'belief' against 'belief'.
-
Actually, the comment 'this document is correct' is often based on perfectly legitimate linguistic, rational and historical grounds
There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life.
And as I know you have been told many, many times history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic. There is no methodology for assessing the 'truth' of supernatural claims - unless you know otherwise, of course. In which case, let's hear about it.
(see my previous post).
I'd rather not.
I have been involved in this debate for well over 40 years now
I can well imagine ::)
and I have yet to find anyone produce an argument that does anything more than 'suggest' that the NT documents aren't legitimate evidence. Certanly no-one here has ever managed to make a convincing argument. That is not to say that we might not - in time - find some evidence that makes the idea of their legitimacy unacceptable, but 2000-odd years of effort hasn't produced much.
To concentrate on the single question
And what would be the rationale for simply accepting it as correct as-is?
Over the centuries, several alternative explanations have been posited, yet no supporting evidence that stands up to questioning is ever provided. As such, the evidence of the NT documents has to be accepted as at least one legitimate explanation, especially as no evidence that conclusively denies this legitimacy has ever been proposed.
One can choose not to believe its legitimacy, but then of course, we get back to that knotty problem of 'metaphysical' evidence opposed to 'physical' evidence. In other words you get back to 'belief' against 'belief'.
No, what we get back to is the fact that you're yet again wheeling out your beloved negative proof fallacy, which you did just the other day. It's tremendously popular with religionists.
But hey: now that I've pointed it out yet again, it's the perfect opportunity for you to waste some more electrons on bitching and whining about it rather than adducing evidence for your claims.
-
Actually, the comment 'this document is correct' is often based on perfectly legitimate linguistic, rational and historical grounds
There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life.
We're not talking about the rationality of the event, Shaker. We're talking about the rational nature of the evidence that is being presented, or are you suggesting that written documentation is insufficiently rational a means of presentation.
And as I know you have been told many, many times history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic. There is no methodology for assessing the 'truth' of supernatural claims - unless you know otherwise, of course. In which case, let's hear about it.
Precisely, but there is plenty of methodology for determining whether the written documentation that is used to support such a claim is in any legitimate. For instance - and again you have been told this on numerous occasions - there is what I've heard referred to as linguistic fingerprinting - ie is the language used appropriate to the claimed date of authorship; does the language deal with ideas and concepts that were around at the time; ...? Then there are other corrobative methods - is the subject of the documentation mentioned by contemporary writers; is the material (if from more than one author) sufficiently different to rule out plagiarism or collaboration?
Only once one has ruled out all the possible questions about the documentation can one begin to question its contents.
All I have seen from folk here is comments along the lines of your opening comment "There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life" followed by a conclusion such as 'The documents must be wrong'. That is not a scientific approach and you know that perfectly well (I assume that you are in some way or other scientific).
No, what we get back to is the fact that you're yet again wheeling out your beloved negative proof fallacy, which you did just the other day. It's tremendously popular with religionists.
Not according to the linguists I have heard on this area. If you are going to challenge the validity of the documentation, you have to do more than simply say that 'what is claimed can't have happened; therefore the doumentation is invalid'. In a case like this, where there 3 or 4 different possible options, you have got to show that one or more of those alternative options is correct.
-
Actually, the comment 'this document is correct' is often based on perfectly legitimate linguistic, rational and historical grounds
There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life.
We're not talking about the rationality of the event, Shaker. We're talking about the rational nature of the evidence that is being presented, or are you suggesting that written documentation is insufficiently rational a means of presentation.
And as I know you have been told many, many times history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic. There is no methodology for assessing the 'truth' of supernatural claims - unless you know otherwise, of course. In which case, let's hear about it.
Precisely, but there is plenty of methodology for determining whether the written documentation that is used to support such a claim is in any legitimate. For instance - and again you have been told this on numerous occasions - there is what I've heard referred to as linguistic fingerprinting - ie is the language used appropriate to the claimed date of authorship; does the language deal with ideas and concepts that were around at the time; ...? Then there are other corrobative methods - is the subject of the documentation mentioned by contemporary writers; is the material (if from more than one author) sufficiently different to rule out plagiarism or collaboration?
Only once one has ruled out all the possible questions about the documentation can one begin to question its contents.
All I have seen from folk here is comments along the lines of your opening comment "There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life" followed by a conclusion such as 'The documents must be wrong'. That is not a scientific approach and you know that perfectly well (I assume that you are in some way or other scientific).
No, what we get back to is the fact that you're yet again wheeling out your beloved negative proof fallacy, which you did just the other day. It's tremendously popular with religionists.
Not according to the linguists I have heard on this area. If you are going to challenge the validity of the documentation, you have to do more than simply say that 'what is claimed can't have happened; therefore the doumentation is invalid'. In a case like this, where there 3 or 4 different possible options, you have got to show that one or more of those alternative options is correct.
Hope, all the documentation may well be correct, no one is bothered one way or the other if places and certain governors names tally with other historic documents. Many novel writers go to a great deal of trouble to get all the various geographic and historic facts right before they spin a tale between them.
The only thing most of us argue about are the supernatural aspects, the virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water etc. These are where the theist and the atheist disagree.
If you can find anything other than the bible stories to back up those claims, we would all listen.
-
Car park? Jerusalem?
Ippy
-
Dear Hope,
The basis of Christianity is empty :o :-[ :'(
But I suppose that is organised Church Christianity.
Gonnagle.
-
The only thing most of us argue about are the supernatural aspects, the virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water etc. These are where the theist and the atheist disagree.
But can you provide evidence to show that they didn't happen. Surely, once the claims had begun to become public, Jewish writers would have sought out witnesses who could prove that such events didn't happen? Is there such evidence? Remembere that the Jewish authorities pushed for the execution of this guy specifically to stop what they saw as his blasphemy from spreading - yet by this very act - they helped it spread. Would they not have wanted to provide evidence to their people that what was being claimed was untrue?
If you can find anything other than the bible stories to back up those claims, we would all listen.
Would you? If you find the supernatural aspects hard to accept, why would any additional documentation make you change your way of thinking? It would still be documentary evidence of supernatural events.
-
Car park? Jerusalem?
Ippy
:)
-
All I have seen from folk here is comments along the lines of your opening comment "There's nothing rational about virgin-born miracle-working god-men who die and come back to life" followed by a conclusion such as 'The documents must be wrong'. That is not a scientific approach and you know that perfectly well (I assume that you are in some way or other scientific).
You see this from a lot of non-believers here, but not all. jjohnjil doesn't seem to be one of them. There is indeed no methodology for the supernatural claims, but there certainly is for other aspects of the gospels and the epistles. I do not think the value of the NT writings stands or falls on its supernatural claims, and you yourself are always stating that the life of God's Kingdom begins right here.
-
Car park? Jerusalem?
Ippy
Sorry, I can't help you there. I'm told that the Jerusalem municipality and the Ministry of Transportation began to operate three Park and Ride lots back in 2011 with a total of 1,000 spaces along the light rail route. Not sure what other parking facilities there are.
-
But can you provide evidence to show that they didn't happen.
The same howling fallacy not only within the same day but within a few hours.
It must be a record.
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
Good - I am glad you have decided that it is probable that Jesus existed.
-
Can you provided evidence that fairies aren't hiding at the bottom of my garden? Virgin birth, resurrection and walking on water are just as unbelievable! ::)
As are many scientific 'discoveries' that we only hear about at 3rd or, at best 2nd, hand Floo. I doubt that many here have actually experienced or been part of the discoveries that are referred to on this forum, especially the more esoteric ones.
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
More than likely it is still in the tomb into which it was put after his execution.
More than likely it would not have been put in a tomb. As a criminal he would probably have been buried in an unmarked - possibly mass - grave.
-
But can you provide evidence to show that they didn't happen.
The same howling fallacy not only within the same day but within a few hours.
It must be a record.
No, Shaker; you have already been unable to provide any evidence in support of your world view. All I'm now asking is that you provide me with a reason for not understanding what happened in 1st century Palestine, as described in the New Testament documents, in the way I do.
As you already know, reliance on purely physical, scientific reasoning doesn't cut it.
-
Can you provided evidence that fairies aren't hiding at the bottom of my garden? Virgin birth, resurrection and walking on water are just as unbelievable! ::)
So clearly if extra-Biblical evidence was to be presented, it wouldn't make you change your mind, Floo.
-
3) the disciples stole the body - though for what purpose is hard to see since resurrection was a theological concept in those days, not a practical one - and getting past the guards that had been put on the tomb would not have been easy;
Yes it is so unlikely that we must discount it...
4) Jesus actually rose from the dead - as the Bible states.
Oh, actually, this one is impossible. How come Christians discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body and yet they do not apply the same critical standards to the possibility of resurrection. I sense confirmation bias at work.
-
3) the disciples stole the body - though for what purpose is hard to see since resurrection was a theological concept in those days, not a practical one - and getting past the guards that had been put on the tomb would not have been easy;
Yes it is so unlikely that we must discount it...
Well, a lot of people over the centuries have tried to find the evidence for this particular option; they have come nowhere near doing so. Obviously, it and the other alternative options constantly reoccur in my and other Christians' minds - but we have nothing to indicate that the ideas have any validity.
4) Jesus actually rose from the dead - as the Bible states.
Oh, actually, this one is impossible.
Why is it impossible for God to rise from death?
How come Christians discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body and yet they do not apply the same critical standards to the possibility of resurrection. I sense confirmation bias at work.
jeremy, we tend to discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body because of the very same critical standards which you claim to be using - with the exception that we do not believe that the physically scientific is the only dimension that is acceptable within such standards.
-
Why is it impossible for God to rise from death?
That's called begging the question.
How come Christians discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body and yet they do not apply the same critical standards to the possibility of resurrection. I sense confirmation bias at work.
jeremy, we tend to discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body because of the very same critical standards which you claim to be using
But you then discard those critical standards when you claim Jesus rose from the dead.
with the exception that we do not believe that the physically scientific is the only dimension that is acceptable within such standards.
I told you the "scientific" thing is a red herring. This is critical thinking, you can't relax the standards just for the things you believe in.
If you assume god, all critical thinking has to go out of the window. Could God have raised a man from the dead? Of course. Could God have helped the disciples steal the body and manufacture a resurrection myth. Of course. All possibilities become equally likely.
If you want to believe in God and that he did loads of wonderful things, that's fine but stop trying to insult our intelligence by dressing up your ideas as critical thinking or as evidence. Assuming the existence of God invalidates all of that.
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
Good - I am glad you have decided that it is probable that Jesus existed.
As a Pagan I have never denied the existence of Jesus Christ as a human being.
You see, my belief is that there is no fundamenhtal difference between the spells of a witch (me) and the miracles of Jesus.
They are both used to effect a change in the physical world by using the mental power/concentration/belief of the practitioner and the natural forces of the world together with the aquiescence or assistance of a deity.
The bitch of it is that no-one, whilst writing the ruddy bible, bothered to write down the incantations/spells for feeding the 5,000 making the blind see (except in one case) and the lame walk. If only we had those words and the deity to whom they were addressed - considering the Christian god and church's attitude to witches I cannot see the Christian god aiding a witch like Jesus.
-
But can you provide evidence to show that they didn't happen.
The same howling fallacy not only within the same day but within a few hours.
It must be a record.
No, Shaker; you have already been unable to provide any evidence in support of your world view.
Yes, Hopeless. I've never even begun to go into my worldview in any depth thus far on this thread; this is entirely about the fact, and it is a fact, that you seem to be addicted to invoking the same weary old fallacy over and over again. As you know it goes by a variety of different names. The negative proof fallacy is one. The Argument from Ignorance is another. The Appeal to Ignorance is yet another. They all amount to the same thing and you keep on doing it. It's been pointed out to you any number of times but you persist. Tedious as this is, the penny may drop some day, even if that is the triumph of hope - see what I did there? - over experience. You never know.
All I'm now asking is that you provide me with a reason for not understanding what happened in 1st century Palestine, as described in the New Testament documents, in the way I do.
As you already know, reliance on purely physical, scientific reasoning doesn't cut it.
Why not?
-
Why is it impossible for God to rise from death?
That's called begging the question.
How come Christians discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body and yet they do not apply the same critical standards to the possibility of resurrection. I sense confirmation bias at work.
jeremy, we tend to discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body because of the very same critical standards which you claim to be using
But you then discard those critical standards when you claim Jesus rose from the dead.
with the exception that we do not believe that the physically scientific is the only dimension that is acceptable within such standards.
I told you the "scientific" thing is a red herring. This is critical thinking, you can't relax the standards just for the things you believe in.
If you assume god, all critical thinking has to go out of the window. Could God have raised a man from the dead? Of course. Could God have helped the disciples steal the body and manufacture a resurrection myth. Of course. All possibilities become equally likely.
If you want to believe in God and that he did loads of wonderful things, that's fine but stop trying to insult our intelligence by dressing up your ideas as critical thinking or as evidence. Assuming the existence of God invalidates all of that.
But Jezzer, if you assume ''not God'' you are equating critical thinking with atheism.
If you do the right thing and assume ''could be God'' then I'm afraid you have two roads and two destinations for your ''commitment'' on the God/no God issue. And then the question ''am I running towards a commitment of fleeing from one''.
-
Why is it impossible for God to rise from death?
That's called begging the question.
How come Christians discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body and yet they do not apply the same critical standards to the possibility of resurrection. I sense confirmation bias at work.
jeremy, we tend to discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body because of the very same critical standards which you claim to be using
But you then discard those critical standards when you claim Jesus rose from the dead.
with the exception that we do not believe that the physically scientific is the only dimension that is acceptable within such standards.
I told you the "scientific" thing is a red herring. This is critical thinking, you can't relax the standards just for the things you believe in.
If you assume god, all critical thinking has to go out of the window. Could God have raised a man from the dead? Of course. Could God have helped the disciples steal the body and manufacture a resurrection myth. Of course. All possibilities become equally likely.
If you want to believe in God and that he did loads of wonderful things, that's fine but stop trying to insult our intelligence by dressing up your ideas as critical thinking or as evidence. Assuming the existence of God invalidates all of that.
This, I think, is the reason the "Why couldn't God raise Jesus from the dead if he wants to" argument is dead in the water. If God can do anything he fancies doing, he could put fairies at the end of Floo's garden; make elephants fly or do any of the things the theists here dismiss as fantasy.
Why not jump off tall buildings if you think God loves you and will protect you, you can do anything! Nothing is ruled out.
-
Taken from the Why only three days thread:
Act 1:1-6 NIV
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withfn water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
-
Why is it impossible for God to rise from death?
That's called begging the question.
Perhaps you ought to ask God. ;)
How come Christians discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body and yet they do not apply the same critical standards to the possibility of resurrection. I sense confirmation bias at work.
jeremy, we tend to discount the possibility of the disciples stealing the body because of the very same critical standards which you claim to be using
But you then discard those critical standards when you claim Jesus rose from the dead.
No, the latter is one of the possible explanations of the events that occurred, and is the only one for which there is even a scrap of evidence. Its folk like yourself who choose to accept possibilities for which there is absolutely no documentary evidence who are discarding the standards.
This is critical thinking, you can't relax the standards just for the things you believe in.
Couldn't agree with you more.
If you assume god, all critical thinking has to go out of the window.
Why?
Could God have helped the disciples steal the body and manufacture a resurrection myth. Of course.
He could have done, but to what purpose? The disciples had all scattered, scared that they were going to be arrested like the Rabbi they had been following for 3 years. Is it likely that he would have used these pathetic creatures to run a scam? After all, that is what you are suggesting occurred. How many people that you know would be willing to die for a scam?
All possibilities become equally likely.
Not really; we still have to look for the evidence for those possibilities. Perhaps you have evidence that no-one else has about one of the alternatives.
If you want to believe in God and that he did loads of wonderful things, that's fine but stop trying to insult our intelligence by dressing up your ideas as critical thinking or as evidence. Assuming the existence of God invalidates all of that.
No-one is trying to insult anyone's intelligence.
-
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
As you have been asked before, why is where it went/became of it important to you?
-
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
As you have been asked before, why is where it went/became of it important to you?
I answered that.
-
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
As you have been asked before, why is where it went/became of it important to you?
I answered that.
Sorry, I hadn't seen that post. What 'potential discrepancies' do you see? Remember that people have been trying to uncover discrepancies of this sort for centuries without a great deal of success.
-
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
As you have been asked before, why is where it went/became of it important to you?
I answered that.
Sorry, I hadn't seen that post. What 'potential discrepancies' do you see? Remember that people have been trying to uncover discrepancies of this sort for centuries without a great deal of success.
How about we go back two steps and you answer my question first? Like I said, I'm not going to argue against a straw man.
-
Or maybe it's here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm
:)
-
Why is it impossible for God to rise from death?
That's called asking a question
That's called begging the question.
That's called avoiding a question
-
Taken from the Why only three days thread:
Act 1:1-6 NIV
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withfn water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
To heaven.
-
Taken from the Why only three days thread:
Act 1:1-6 NIV
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withfn water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
To heaven.
So heaven is physical?
-
How about we go back two steps and you answer my question first? Like I said, I'm not going to argue against a straw man.
I have already answered your question. I have also questioned the logical validity of the question.
-
Taken from the Why only three days thread:
Act 1:1-6 NIV
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withfn water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
To heaven.
So heaven is physical?
Pass. It is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body and we will have bodies too. So some might call it "physical". :)
-
He doesn't.
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
Good - I am glad you have decided that it is probable that Jesus existed.
As a Pagan I have never denied the existence of Jesus Christ as a human being.
You see, my belief is that there is no fundamenhtal difference between the spells of a witch (me) and the miracles of Jesus.
They are both used to effect a change in the physical world by using the mental power/concentration/belief of the practitioner and the natural forces of the world together with the aquiescence or assistance of a deity.
The bitch of it is that no-one, whilst writing the ruddy bible, bothered to write down the incantations/spells for feeding the 5,000 making the blind see (except in one case) and the lame walk. If only we had those words and the deity to whom they were addressed - considering the Christian god and church's attitude to witches I cannot see the Christian god aiding a witch like Jesus.
Scrote your film's on tonight 1-7-15 at 2100 ITV 4.
ippy
-
Taken from the Why only three days thread:
Act 1:1-6 NIV
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withfn water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
To heaven.
So heaven is physical?
Pass. It is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body and we will have bodies too. So some might call it "physical". :)
And you know that for a fact, because?
See #8.
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
Good - I am glad you have decided that it is probable that Jesus existed.
As a Pagan I have never denied the existence of Jesus Christ as a human being.
You see, my belief is that there is no fundamenhtal difference between the spells of a witch (me) and the miracles of Jesus.
They are both used to effect a change in the physical world by using the mental power/concentration/belief of the practitioner and the natural forces of the world together with the aquiescence or assistance of a deity.
The bitch of it is that no-one, whilst writing the ruddy bible, bothered to write down the incantations/spells for feeding the 5,000 making the blind see (except in one case) and the lame walk. If only we had those words and the deity to whom they were addressed - considering the Christian god and church's attitude to witches I cannot see the Christian god aiding a witch like Jesus.
Scrote your film's on tonight 1-7-15 at 2100 ITV 4.
ippy
My film?
A classic horror film, but fiction not fact.
This is one of those misconceptoions about Pagan practice and ritual started by the late and (in academic and pagan circles) unlamented Margaret A Murray, a lady who talked a lot of rubbish and, while being a respected Egyptologist, ruined her academic reputation by fitting the evidence to her theory of witchcraft having survived underground since pre-christian times rather than the other way round.
Neo-paganism was not "invented"/Paganism was not "revived" until the 1950s after the repeal of the Witchcraft Acts and their replacement with the Fraudulant Mediums Act and, even then, such an occurrance would have been on the front pages of every scandal-rag red-top paper in the country for weeks.
The Wicker Man is fiction pure and simple.
Brilliant performances by Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward though.
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
Good - I am glad you have decided that it is probable that Jesus existed.
As a Pagan I have never denied the existence of Jesus Christ as a human being.
You see, my belief is that there is no fundamenhtal difference between the spells of a witch (me) and the miracles of Jesus.
They are both used to effect a change in the physical world by using the mental power/concentration/belief of the practitioner and the natural forces of the world together with the aquiescence or assistance of a deity.
The bitch of it is that no-one, whilst writing the ruddy bible, bothered to write down the incantations/spells for feeding the 5,000 making the blind see (except in one case) and the lame walk. If only we had those words and the deity to whom they were addressed - considering the Christian god and church's attitude to witches I cannot see the Christian god aiding a witch like Jesus.
Scrote your film's on tonight 1-7-15 at 2100 ITV 4.
ippy
My film?
A classic horror film, but fiction not fact.
This is one of those misconceptoions about Pagan practice and ritual started by the late and (in academic and pagan circles) unlamented Margaret A Murray, a lady who talked a lot of rubbish and, while being a respected Egyptologist, ruined her academic reputation by fitting the evidence to her theory of witchcraft having survived underground since pre-christian times rather than the other way round.
Neo-paganism was not "invented"/Paganism was not "revived" until the 1950s after the repeal of the Witchcraft Acts and their replacement with the Fraudulant Mediums Act and, even then, such an occurrance would have been on the front pages of every scandal-rag red-top paper in the country for weeks.
The Wicker Man is fiction pure and simple.
Brilliant performances by Christopher Lee and Edward Woodwatrd though.
Are you sure about that? No naked dancing?
ippy
-
Only Britt Ekland.
And not Edward Woodward*, thank goodness.
* Whose name was once described, by Sir John Gielgud I think, as sounding like a fart in a bathtub.
-
It's probably in an unmarked grave in or around Jerusalem.
Good - I am glad you have decided that it is probable that Jesus existed.
As a Pagan I have never denied the existence of Jesus Christ as a human being.
You see, my belief is that there is no fundamenhtal difference between the spells of a witch (me) and the miracles of Jesus.
They are both used to effect a change in the physical world by using the mental power/concentration/belief of the practitioner and the natural forces of the world together with the aquiescence or assistance of a deity.
The bitch of it is that no-one, whilst writing the ruddy bible, bothered to write down the incantations/spells for feeding the 5,000 making the blind see (except in one case) and the lame walk. If only we had those words and the deity to whom they were addressed - considering the Christian god and church's attitude to witches I cannot see the Christian god aiding a witch like Jesus.
Scrote your film's on tonight 1-7-15 at 2100 ITV 4.
ippy
My film?
A classic horror film, but fiction not fact.
This is one of those misconceptoions about Pagan practice and ritual started by the late and (in academic and pagan circles) unlamented Margaret A Murray, a lady who talked a lot of rubbish and, while being a respected Egyptologist, ruined her academic reputation by fitting the evidence to her theory of witchcraft having survived underground since pre-christian times rather than the other way round.
Neo-paganism was not "invented"/Paganism was not "revived" until the 1950s after the repeal of the Witchcraft Acts and their replacement with the Fraudulant Mediums Act and, even then, such an occurrance would have been on the front pages of every scandal-rag red-top paper in the country for weeks.
The Wicker Man is fiction pure and simple.
Brilliant performances by Christopher Lee and Edward Woodwatrd though.
Are you sure about that? No naked dancing?
ippy
In England - you must be bloody joking! Most of the time - not this week obviously - it is too bloody cold.
And, as my first High Priestess put it, "I cannot see why I need to take my knickers off to have a good ritual!"
-
As you already know, reliance on purely physical, scientific reasoning doesn't cut it.
The ''reliance'' is actually a faith position. Not that the knuckle draggers are going to get that
-
We only have a few insights into the nature of the Lord's glorified body, (and what ours will be like). It's not like the bodies we have now.
eg
Behold, I show you a secret thing, We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall blow, and the dead shall be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption: and this mortal must put on immortality.54 So when this corruptible hath put on incorruption, and this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying, that is written, Death is swallowed up into victory. (from 1 Cor:15)
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (from 1 John 3)
-
Taken from the Why only three days thread:
Act 1:1-6 NIV
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withfn water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
To heaven.
So heaven is physical?
Pass. It is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body and we will have bodies too. So some might call it "physical". :)
Then surely you would have to apply a "pass" for this universe too, as it is also able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body.
-
Taken from the Why only three days thread:
Act 1:1-6 NIV
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withfn water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
To heaven.
So heaven is physical?
Pass. It is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body and we will have bodies too. So some might call it "physical". :)
Then surely you would have to apply a "pass" for this universe too, as it is also able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body.
Yes, it is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body. It did so between the resurrection and his ascension to heaven.
-
Then surely you would have to apply a "pass" for this universe too, as it is also able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body.
Yes, it is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body. It did so between the resurrection and his ascension to heaven.
So are you passing on the universe being labelled physical too, or are you one of those people who might call heaven physical?
-
Then surely you would have to apply a "pass" for this universe too, as it is also able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body.
Yes, it is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body. It did so between the resurrection and his ascension to heaven.
So are you passing on the universe being labelled physical too,
Er, no.or are you one of those people who might call heaven physical?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago (#72).
-
Then surely you would have to apply a "pass" for this universe too, as it is also able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body.
Yes, it is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body. It did so between the resurrection and his ascension to heaven.
So are you passing on the universe being labelled physical too,
Er, no.or are you one of those people who might call heaven physical?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago (#72).
Yes, you said "pass", but I'm finding it difficult to find a distinction here so that you can label the universe physical but pass on heaven.
-
Then surely you would have to apply a "pass" for this universe too, as it is also able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body.
Yes, it is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body. It did so between the resurrection and his ascension to heaven.
So are you passing on the universe being labelled physical too,
Er, no.or are you one of those people who might call heaven physical?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago (#72).
Yes, you said "pass", but I'm finding it difficult to find a distinction here so that you can label the universe physical but pass on heaven.
OK, I would say it is "physical"-like. Physical with knobs on. However, you want to put it. Scripture teaches that we will have bodies, so presumably there will be some resemblance to our current setup. I'm not sure what label to attach to it though.
-
Taken from the Why only three days thread:
Act 1:1-6 NIV
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized withfn water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
The part I've put in bold is kinda where I'm at with all of this. This is the last time anyone ever saw Jesus' body, so where did it go?
To heaven.
So heaven is physical?
Pass. It is able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body and we will have bodies too. So some might call it "physical". :)
Then surely you would have to apply a "pass" for this universe too, as it is also able to accommodate Jesus' glorified body.
Don't we know that this universe is physical?
-
OK, I would say it is "physical"-like. Physical with knobs on. However, you want to put it. Scripture teaches that we will have bodies, so presumably there will be some resemblance to our current setup. I'm not sure what label to attach to it though.
But I still don't see a distinction, as you say, the universe accommodates that too... <shrugs>
-
OK, I would say it is "physical"-like. Physical with knobs on. However, you want to put it. Scripture teaches that we will have bodies, so presumably there will be some resemblance to our current setup. I'm not sure what label to attach to it though.
But I still don't see a distinction, as you say, the universe accommodates that too... <shrugs>
Precisely, the universe accomodates that; does the purely scientific universe?
-
OK, I would say it is "physical"-like. Physical with knobs on. However, you want to put it. Scripture teaches that we will have bodies, so presumably there will be some resemblance to our current setup. I'm not sure what label to attach to it though.
But I still don't see a distinction, as you say, the universe accommodates that too... <shrugs>
Precisely, the universe accomodates that; does the purely scientific universe?
Don't know what you mean by "purely scientific universe".