Romans 16

[Khatru]

Yet the known laws of physics (in fact the known laws of all 'science') don't fully explain every aspect of the natural world and - especially for humanity - human life.  As a result, the term 'suspension' is a misnomer in the context.  As a Christian, I'm quite happt to accept the laws of biology, chemistry and physics in the areas of life that they impinge on.  What I am not willing to accept is their spurious application to aspects of life that they don't (and in my view can't and therefore won't) impinge on.

So that explains how Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithras, Adonis and numerous others were able to return to life after they died.

[ippy]

So that explains how Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithras, Adonis and numerous others were able to return to life after they died.

Quite.

ippy

[Hope]

So that explains how Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, Mithras, Adonis and numerous others were able to return to life after they died.

If they ever did, Khat. 

[Nearly Sane]

If they ever did, Khat.

whoosh went the point

[Khatru]

If they ever did, Khat.

They definitely did.  I've read about it in the books.

You musn't doubt what is written, it comes from eye-witness accounts you know.

[floo]

They definitely did.  I've read about it in the books.

You musn't doubt what is written, it comes from eye-witness accounts you know.

Eye witness accounts aren't always accurate, especially when related many years after the event!

[Sassy]

They definitely did.  I've read about it in the books.

You musn't doubt what is written, it comes from eye-witness accounts you know.

Eye-witness accounts??? Where are their witnesses for these gods?
Christ was the son of God he was not a god.
I can see God raising his son but I see no gods dying and raising themselves. Has such a thing been done where the witness can confirm the god died and whilst dead raised himself. Now that would be a feat where is the eye -witness accounts.
There were a lot for Christ but so far none I know for the others.

Paul actually taught:-
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Where are we going with such notions that these other resurrections were the same as Christs?
I know one thing the others if they raised to life seems to be nowhere to be found. No miracles or worshippers really.
But YHWH has his people curing the sick and many miracles happening. In fact the faith in his through Christ has gone all over the world as it did with Abrahams covenant.  Surely we are not making comparison of something like Christ rising from the dead to something that died because it was the myths they were?

[floo]

There is no evidence Jesus was anymore than the biological son of Joseph or another man.

[Maeght]

You could hardly say that was rediscovered. We didn't forget that the World was round after the Greeks and Romans went away.

Exactly, the idea that there was a period when everyone thought the earth was flat is not correct - scholars through history have considered the Earth to be a sphere.

[Hope]

Exactly, the idea that there was a period when everyone thought the earth was flat is not correct - scholars through history have considered the Earth to be a sphere.

But a lot of the early aspects of modern 'Western' science are deemed to be 'rediscoveries' of older, Eastern science ideas.

[Hope]

There is no evidence Jesus was anymore than the biological son of Joseph or another man.

Unfortunately, since there don't appear to be any physical remains of this 'Jesus' , it is hard if not impossible, to do any DNA work to show that your assertion is correct, Floo.

[Maeght]

But a lot of the early aspects of modern 'Western' science are deemed to be 'rediscoveries' of older, Eastern science ideas.

Maybe - was just commenting on that example.

[Hope]

Maybe - was just commenting on that example.

Except that was largely what early Western 'science' was all about - rediscovery. 

[Nearly Sane]

Except that was largely what early Western 'science' was all about - rediscovery.

what are you referring to as 'early western science'?

[Hope]

NS, I refer to the likes of Boyle, Hookes, Copernicus, Vesalius, Harvey, ... Almost all they came up with had already been discovered and charted by Eastern scientists - many Chinese.

[Dicky Underpants]

NS, I refer to the likes of Boyle, Hookes, Copernicus, Vesalius, Harvey, ... Almost all they came up with had already been discovered and charted by Eastern scientists - many Chinese.

Harvey? Didn't he correctly identify the heart as the pump that promotes the circulation of the blood? The Chinese certainly had no correct conception of this - as can be seen from the peculiar anatomical references that underlie their theories of acupuncture.

[Nearly Sane]

NS, I refer to the likes of Boyle, Hookes, Copernicus, Vesalius, Harvey, ...

then I would suggest you are in the most part wrong. There is a certain amount that you might argue for rediscovery, though most of that is substantially earlier. Vesalius to take an example, effectively replaces earlier works completely. Harvey is not mirrored in the earlier times. Indeed even the very concept of science changed hugely, removing the debt to the philosophy of Aristotle, both in the work of Copernicus as mentioned and by Bacon in Novum Organum. Indeed just as there is an argument to be made that in some sense the Reformation gives rise to modern atheism, it also can be argued that it gives rise to science, though my suspicions are that it lean more on corelation rather than causation.

Part of the issue was the almost sanctification of Aristotle in the church following Aquinas so that much of what The Philosopher had written became almost holy writ. That meant that some hypothesis from earlier times did not get the attention they deserved but there is little that is wholesale 'rediscovered' from these.

[Hope]

then I would suggest you are in the most part wrong. There is a certain amount that you might argue for rediscovery, though most of that is substantially earlier. Vesalius to take an example, effectively replaces earlier works completely. Harvey is not mirrored in the earlier times. Indeed even the very concept of science changed hugely, removing the debt to the philosophy of Aristotle, both in the work of Copernicus as mentioned and by Bacon in Novum Organum. Indeed just as there is an argument to be made that in some sense the Reformation gives rise to modern atheism, it also can be argued that it gives rise to science, though my suspicions are that it lean more on corelation rather than causation.

Part of the issue was the almost sanctification of Aristotle in the church following Aquinas so that much of what The Philosopher had written became almost holy writ. That meant that some hypothesis from earlier times did not get the attention they deserved but there is little that is wholesale 'rediscovered' from these.

But your references to Aristotle, something that so often occurs when talking about 'ancient' science ignore the fact that he was no less 'Western' than many of the others we've referred to.  There were Eastern scientists who were streets ahead of him and other early Western philosophers and philosophical naturalists (I think that is the term they are often given nowadays) even before he and the others arrived on the scene. 

[Nearly Sane]

I note you've added in Chinese science here, I think we have to be very careful when we look at China in these terns, much of what might be 'rediscovered' has to be taken carefully in that the Chinese made in general gphuge technological advances rather than necessarily scientific ones. The idea that to say that Copernicus rediscovered anything would be a mistake since the Chinese were assiduous but not systematical astronomers. Indeed the great thing about Copernicus is that the calculations were essentially the same as everyone else's, he just realised that the constant introduction of epicycles made little sense.

There is a superficial appeal to the idea of ancient wisdom being rediscovered but little in the scientific advances of the 1500 to 1700 period that backs this up. Indeed as Dicky Underpants has highlighted the Chinese approach in many ways had lead to a stagnation of development for them as it became hidebound in a version of authority simular to that of the role of Aristotle in the west. That there are differing levels of advancement at different times is undoubtedly true but you need to do much more work to justify your idea that this was to any great extent rediscovery of ancient knowledge.

[Nearly Sane]

But your references to Aristotle, something that so often occurs when talking about 'ancient' science ignore the fact that he was no less 'Western' than many of the others we've referred to.  There were Eastern scientists who were streets ahead of him and other early Western philosophers and philosophical naturalists (I think that is the term they are often given nowadays) even before he and the others arrived on the scene.

referring to the as philosophical naturalists is wrong, you are understandably getting it confused with natural philosophers.  And I've coveted the China bit elsewhere. Note I covered Aristotle because that's the direct influence on Western thought and I was trying to put it into an historical context. You also need to be careful about using a term such as rediscovery and then just referring to Eastern scientists since much of what cane out of the East in terns of medicine and mathematics, and let's avoid the thorny question of whether they are sciences,were simple transfers of knowledge on which advances were built.


ETA: just to note picking up someone for mentioning Aristotle is a trifle odd given your first post on the idea of rediscovery specifically cites Greek and Roman ideas as being 'rediscovered'

[Nearly Sane]

I am also somewhat bemused by these ancient philosophers who were 'streets ahead' of Aristotle. Let's be careful here, most of Aristotle's output is lost, there are many errors in the work in terns of science, indeed as Hope has already noted the very idea of what science was is different. But the old Greek bugger is a monumentally important thinker whose work is crucial to what science now is, and many other disciplines. His writing that we at least know of was hugely diverse and influential and remains so.

I still see articles on a regular basis that effectively argue that we are only ever Platonists or Aristoteleans, and while I think that tends to be somewhat simplistic it does have some explanatory power. My knowledge of anciebnt Eastern thought is patchier than that of Greek philosophy but I've done what are sold as the highlights and I am not sure I would regard anyone as his equal, never mind 'streets ahead'. There is a tremendous amount to be taken from Eastern philosophy, and undoubtedly bits I have missed but we are talking about a specific thing on scientific 'rediscovery' here. The point I was making about Aristotle was not about what was being rediscovered but that the attitude to him in the Church actively held up progress in some ways

[torridon]

Christ was the son of God he was not a god.

What would 'son' even mean incthat context ? Does its mean that Jesus was not a clone of God, rather he had a regular mashup of characteristics, half from his mother and half from God, half of his chromosomes were from Mary, and the other half were divine, perfect, in some way  ?

[ekim]

What would 'son' even meaninthat context ? Does its mean that Jesus was not a clone of God, rather he had a regular mashup of characteristics, half from his mother and half from God, half of his chromosomes were from Mary, and the other half were divine, perfect, in some way  ?

'Son of', like 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of' are Hebrew idioms.  Son of man probably means 'human' and 'son of God' probably means 'divine', rather than anything to do with parentage.

[Nearly Sane]

'Son of', like 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of' are Hebrew idioms.  Son of man probably means 'human' and 'son of God' probably means 'divine', rather than anything to do with parentage.

Problem with that with Sassy is that she isn't a trinitarian so I think torridon's question has import based on that.

[NicholasMarks]

'Son of', like 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of' are Hebrew idioms.  Son of man probably means 'human' and 'son of God' probably means 'divine', rather than anything to do with parentage.

That sounds just about right to me ekim...The son of man is a lesser title than the Son of God and Jesus, knowing that he was the highest intelligent force on all the Earth was happy to think of himself as the son of man but humbly rejected the title of Son of God until his work was completed. He then stood on the same, identical ground as Almighty God, himself...of equal status, but he rejected this truth, humbly remaining the Son of God to whom he owed his entire eternal existence to...not just by divine intervention...but by the righteous science his father had taught him.