The apostles trilemma

[Maeght]

Except the definition of death is exactly not clear and has been the subject if much revision and confusion over time. It is generally a set of characteristics that we use, and what we would be saying here is that even given those characteristics being agreed with to start, should someone then be alive after showing those characteristics then they weren't 'truly' dead

Absolutely.

- and at that point you have your redefinition.

If there isn't a clear and fully understood definition to begin with, disagreeing about a definition doesn't make it an NTS. An NTS is a approach to an argument where the definition is changed by one person for no valid reason. The fact that the exact definition of the point of death is open to debate doesn't make using an alternative deginition to the other person throughout an argument an NTS.

The statement that dead people don't come back to life is fairly loose since it could be argued that people considered dead by one definition of death have been resuscitated. I also think this statement misses the point about Jesus supposedly being devine so except from the normal laws of nature - hence the resurrection would be considered a supernatural event and a miracle. If people did regularly come back to life having died then this would take away the special nature of Jesus wouldn't it?

[Nearly Sane]

Absolutely.

If there isn't a clear and fully understood definition to begin with, disagreeing about a definition doesn't make it an NTS. An NTS is a approach to an argument where the definition is changed by one person for no valid reason. The fact that the exact definition of the point of death is open to debate doesn't make using an alternative deginition to the other person throughout an argument an NTS.

The statement that dead people don't come back to life is fairly loose since it could be argued that people considered dead by one definition of death have been resuscitated. I also think this statement misses the point about Jesus supposedly being devine so except from the normal laws of nature - hence the resurrection would be considered a supernatural event and a miracle. If people did regularly come back to life having died then this would take away the special nature of Jesus wouldn't it?

On the first point, it's still a redefinition if they normal characteristics are just rejected as no longer meaning 'truly' dead. Let's imagine that Frankenstein was true, then corpses that were truly dead by all judgements up to then are capable of revivification. That then becomes a redefinition.


The problem with the second point is that Floo's statement applies there to mean that if Jesus was resurrected by supernatural means then he wasn't truly dead. This seems to argue against your idea that it's not an NTS because he was truly dead.


ETA Perhaps it will help if I phrase the idea as follows. If the statement is no one who comes back from the dead can gave be truly dead, then it is saying no matter what tests agreed beforehand to establish death are, if something is then alive after that, the tests will not be accepted. It's a circular argument arising from a redefining of what dead means. 

[floo]

On the first point, it's still a redefinition if they normal characteristics are just rejected as no longer meaning 'truly' dead. Let's imagine that Frankenstein was true, then corpses that were truly dead by all judgements up to then are capable of revivification. That then becomes a redefinition.


The problem with the second point is that Floo's statement applies there to mean that if Jesus was resurrected by supernatural means then he wasn't truly dead. This seems to argue against your idea that it's not an NTS because he was truly dead.


ETA Perhaps it will help if I phrase the idea as follows. If the statement is no one who comes back from the dead can gave be truly dead, then it is saying no matter what tests agreed beforehand to establish death are, if something is then alive after that, the tests will not be accepted. It's a circular argument arising from a redefining of what dead means.

So how do you define dead?

[Nearly Sane]

So how do you define dead?

Depends on how one defines life which is not an easy thing to do. But have a look at the Problem of Definition in the wiki entry below.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death




At base though on your position it doesn't matter how death is defined because  you will reject all agreed definition if something revivifies.

[floo]

My definition of death is complete cessation of life, which cannot be reactivated.

[Nearly Sane]

My definition of death is complete cessation of life, which cannot be reactivated.

As noted that makes it dependent on how you define life. See the lunk for some of the issues on that.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

[floo]

As noted that makes it dependent on how you define life. See the lunk for some of the issues on that.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

I have said it before and I will say it again, you and my husband have so much in common.

[Dicky Underpants]

As noted that makes it dependent on how you define life. See the lunk for some of the issues on that.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Two parts of the Trinity remained alive - Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus was of course God the Son (before he was the Son of God). Was the Trinity really broken at the Incarnation, or was Jesus still God the Son (kenosis* notwithstanding)? Was the Trinity broken even more at Jesus' 'death'? L'esprit se boggle (and that's mine, not the Holy one)

*https://carm.org/kenosis

[Maeght]

On the first point, it's still a redefinition if they normal characteristics are just rejected as no longer meaning 'truly' dead. Let's imagine that Frankenstein was true, then corpses that were truly dead by all judgements up to then are capable of revivification. That then becomes a redefinition.

But not an NTS.

The problem with the second point is that Floo's statement applies there to mean that if Jesus was resurrected by supernatural means then he wasn't truly dead.

Really?

This seems to argue against your idea that it's not an NTS because he was truly dead.

I don't see how if you look at the definition of an NTS.

ETA Perhaps it will help if I phrase the idea as follows. If the statement is no one who comes back from the dead can gave be truly dead, then it is saying no matter what tests agreed beforehand to establish death are, if something is then alive after that, the tests will not be accepted. It's a circular argument arising from a redefining of what dead means.

But not an NTS.

[jeremyp]

I see you are struggling with the the NTS. If the statement no true dead person can ever come back fro the dead,  then that's it. It is part of logic. Your incredulity fallacy addition doesn't help.

Nope because what dead people do, as a matter of course, is not come back alive again.

[jeremyp]

Except the definition of death is exactly not clear

That makes it a bit difficult to claim NTS then

and has been the subject if much revision and confusion over time. It is generally a set of characteristics that we use, and what we would be saying here is that even given those characteristics being agreed with to start, should someone then be alive after showing those characteristics then they weren't 'truly' dead - and at that point you have your redefinition.

I would suggest though, the one of defining characteristics of death is that it is final and the main reason the other characteristics have changed over the years is because somebody has been classified as dead under those characteristics but subsequently been revived. For example, clinical death was defined by the heart and respiiration  stopping. It was decided that clinical death was not enough when medicine began to be able to resuscitate such people.

[Sassy]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Sass, I know quite a number of liars and deceivers, who claim to be followers of Jesus, including people I have met on-line!

 So you know writers of the gospels who post on-line? Who are both liars, deceivers and claim to be followers of Jesus?
So your comments are completely off-topic and have no bearing on the subject being discussed whatsoever.

I am sure there are many atheists who attend Church for family occasions and have no belief are doing the same.
You have to be careful when judging others that your own life isn't part of deception or lies like many atheist.
After all, I am sure you would never attend a church service and not mention yourself to have no belief or write something
which would show you did when you didn't , would you?

I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online. Did you actually have a point?
Because I see no connection to the gospel writers.

[Shaker]

I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online.

Your personal incredulity knows no bounds.

[floo]

So you know writers of the gospels who post on-line? Who are both liars, deceivers and claim to be followers of Jesus?
So your comments are completely off-topic and have no bearing on the subject being discussed whatsoever.

I am sure there are many atheists who attend Church for family occasions and have no belief are doing the same.
You have to be careful when judging others that your own life isn't part of deception or lies like many atheist.
After all, I am sure you would never attend a church service and not mention yourself to have no belief or write something
which would show you did when you didn't , would you?

I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online. Did you actually have a point?
Because I see no connection to the gospel writers.

Sass I am just gobsmacked by that comment of yours, you can't be serious! Some believers are the biggest liars of all time, especially when they state something is true and factual when it is a mere belief with no evidence to support it.

[Sebastian Toe]

Sass I am just gobsmacked by that comment of yours, you can't be serious! Some believers are the biggest liars of all time, especially when they state something is true and factual when it is a mere belief with no evidence to support it.

You forgort the GOOJFC.
If they are liars then of course they cannot possibly be believers!
TRUE believers that is of course.

[floo]

You forgort the GOOJFC.
If they are liars then of course they cannot possibly be believers!
TRUE believers that is of course.

In my 67 years on this planet many of the most unpleasant people I have come across have been extreme Christians. Lying and cheating on their partners, and their business dealings were less than honest too! Because they believed in the, 'once saved, always saved' stupidity, they reckoned they would go to heaven whatever they did. 

[ippy]

So you know writers of the gospels who post on-line? Who are both liars, deceivers and claim to be followers of Jesus?
So your comments are completely off-topic and have no bearing on the subject being discussed whatsoever.

I am sure there are many atheists who attend Church for family occasions and have no belief are doing the same.
You have to be careful when judging others that your own life isn't part of deception or lies like many atheist.
After all, I am sure you would never attend a church service and not mention yourself to have no belief or write something
which would show you did when you didn't , would you?

I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online. Did you actually have a point?
Because I see no connection to the gospel writers.

                                                    "I cannot imagine"

You manage to imagine everything in your manual is based on reality, what's the problem here Sass?

ippy

[ekim]

My definition of death is complete cessation of life, which cannot be reactivated.

Christians might see it differently though.  They may see the physical body as a vehicle for 'life' , or as they like to call it, 'soul'.  The body is dead when life is absent from it, but the soul goes marching on.  The resurrection of the body could then be a return of the soul which then reanimates the body so that it is life bearing again, or alive.

[floo]

Christians might see it differently though.  They may see the physical body as a vehicle for 'life' , or as they like to call it, 'soul'.  The body is dead when life is absent from it, but the soul goes marching on.  The resurrection of the body could then be a return of the soul which then reanimates the body so that it is life bearing again, or alive.

They might see it that way, but there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.

[ekim]

They might see it that way, but there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.

That's why it is called a 'belief', not a 'truth'.  'Hope' is being open to the possibility and 'faith' is pursuing and persisting with a way or method to self validate a belief and realise it as a personal truth.  Each individual then becomes responsible for finding their own 'evidence' rather than playing mind games with hypotheses.  They would have to walk the walk, not talk the talk.

[jeremyp]

I cannot imagine a believer writing something which was a lie or untrue online.

You write plenty of stuff online that is untrue (I won't say "lie" because I believe your posts are sincere). Do you not count yourself as a believer?

[Robbie]

In my 67 years on this planet many of the most unpleasant people I have come across have been extreme Christians. Lying and cheating on their partners, and their business dealings were less than honest too! Because they believed in the, 'once saved, always saved' stupidity, they reckoned they would go to heaven whatever they did. 

You've certainly known some unpleasant charlatans floo. Where d'you go to meet them?

[Sassy]

Your personal incredulity knows no bounds.

I said TRUE believer.  Even by your own logic to admit the true believer exists would mean that you would be admitting God exists
and all that which makes a believer true. Christ being the perfect example.

Sometimes you need to move past your limitations and think what it means to be a 'true believer' in the sense of the word defining a Christian.

Maybe it is your own inability to think beyond what you choose to believe.

[Sassy]

In my 67 years on this planet many of the most unpleasant people I have come across have been extreme Christians. Lying and cheating on their partners, and their business dealings were less than honest too! Because they believed in the, 'once saved, always saved' stupidity, they reckoned they would go to heaven whatever they did. 

A Christian may fall but it does not make them worse than those unpleasant people who lie and cheat on their partners all the time.
Those who are always dishonest in their business dealings.

Your logic doesn't work. The truth is you are more likely to sin and do wrong than a believer.

One of your worst points is always insulting and putting down believers as above. Which is very unpleasant. But nevertheless does not stop you putting everyone who believes down. They don't do it to you but you are just the unbelieving equal to those in America who judge none believers. Both are as bad as each other. Christians are not here to judge the wicked God has set a day for that.
But sinners like yourself do nothing but berate others just because they are believers.

[Sassy]

                                                    "I cannot imagine"

You manage to imagine everything in your manual is based on reality, what's the problem here Sass?

ippy

Gospel writers and the relevance please.