Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume that there was a guy about 2000 years ago who was the son of God and did die for all of our sins, and did rise from the dead. In any case, if there was a guy who died and rose again, how would it be possible? How would Jesus' body function with a hole in his chest, after a couple of days of being dead? How can something go from being totally dead to alive and walking around?
Lazarus too, was also raised from the dead, after decaying somewhat too. And there was another instance I heard of in te old Testament somewhere where more people were raised from the ground.
But then, how would it be possible to do so?
Preferrably a better answer than "through God, all things are possible", or "It isn't possible it just didn't happen it's all a sham", please.
Challenge
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Challenge
Post #11Bah. As I see it, "scientifically advanced nano-technology" is just another word for "magic", since, as far as we currently know, such nanotech is in fact impossible. It would be nice to have magical powers that let us manipulate atoms at will, but the laws of physics are not on our side there.mishmash wrote:Sufficiently advanced nano-technology would work. The nanobots had memory of the original state of the body, so they reconstructed it...
Post #12
micatala wrote:One could certainly accept that the person referred to as Jesus in the Bible existed, but that some of what is written about him in the Bible is not true (eg. he did miracles, he was raised from the dead, etc.).
One could certainly do this. But, on what basis, would one 2000+ years later say the this is true or that is false? If you feel that part of what the Bible says about Jesus is a lie, why would you assume that other parts are true? This would apply especially to the resurrection. If you could prove that this was false, that would completely destroy the Gospel of Christ. And, if the Gospel of Christ were not true, why should anyone give a wit about Jesus.
I have resolved to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified.
Re: Challenge
Post #13Are you speculating that science might never advance to a point where resurrection is possible? What makes you think this is at all likely? Resurrection is a simple matter of storing enough data and re-constructing the body in working condition.Bugmaster wrote:Bah. As I see it, "scientifically advanced nano-technology" is just another word for "magic", since, as far as we currently know, such nanotech is in fact impossible. It would be nice to have magical powers that let us manipulate atoms at will, but the laws of physics are not on our side there.
As to manipulating atoms at will being impossible, can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm pretty sure my hand is made of atoms, and I have no trouble manipulating it.
Re: Challenge
Post #14mishmash wrote:I have serious doubts about it, yes. I suppose the chances for resurrection might improve if we had some kind of a "backup" system, periodically storing our state in case of emergency.Bugmaster wrote:Are you speculating that science might never advance to a point where resurrection is possible?
No no, I mean, arranging individual atoms however the user sees fit, making matter essentially from scratch.As to manipulating atoms at will being impossible, can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm pretty sure my hand is made of atoms, and I have no trouble manipulating it.
-
vanillamoon
- Student
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:21 am
Post #15
Perhas, but considering Jesus, I doubt it would be the case; Jesus still sported the fatal wounds that killed him, so his body didn't heal back into a previous stage, if that's what you mean.Another possibility would be a localized time warp that rewound the body to a previous state. Perhaps the ability to manipulate time in this way gave Jesus the ability to walk through walls and levitate after the resurrection as well.
I think I know where Bugmaster is coming from, but still, as a note, nanotechnology is being developed today. It may not yet be some super-advanced creation like you might see on science-fiction shows, and I guess it is mostly about nanowires or nanotubes..... and probably isn't like you describe;Bah. As I see it, "scientifically advanced nano-technology" is just another word for "magic", since, as far as we currently know, such nanotech is in fact impossible. It would be nice to have magical powers that let us manipulate atoms at will, but the laws of physics are not on our side there.
No no, I mean, arranging individual atoms however the user sees fit, making matter essentially from scratch.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #16
Just for fun I thought I would add some stuff. If there is a God then I belive everything is in the mind of God as memory.
Now the only witness is Paul. Paul had visions of the Christ. He states that Peter was the first to have a vision and then names off others including James(Jacob)Jesus' brother and 500 un-named people.
There is no other record. Not one other original disciple even wrote.
The letters of James and Peter are all suspect. All the Gospels were written from Paul's point of view and took his word for it. I see no reason to rely on Paul's testimony considering he says he preaches a different gospel then The Followers of Jesus including the disciples in Jerusalem. They had a falling out and Paul was arrested and Played the Roman card. Paul was not a good Jew or good follower of Jesus teachings if he even knew any. He was a good Roman. Which is why Christianity made such head way after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple along with the original followers of Jesus.
Now the only witness is Paul. Paul had visions of the Christ. He states that Peter was the first to have a vision and then names off others including James(Jacob)Jesus' brother and 500 un-named people.
There is no other record. Not one other original disciple even wrote.
The letters of James and Peter are all suspect. All the Gospels were written from Paul's point of view and took his word for it. I see no reason to rely on Paul's testimony considering he says he preaches a different gospel then The Followers of Jesus including the disciples in Jerusalem. They had a falling out and Paul was arrested and Played the Roman card. Paul was not a good Jew or good follower of Jesus teachings if he even knew any. He was a good Roman. Which is why Christianity made such head way after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple along with the original followers of Jesus.
Post #17
I have had the experience of what would be considered as a miraculous healing on my own body - the rapid healing of injured flesh - as a result of fasting and meditation. I can remember feeling and knowing at the time, that there was the power within me to recreate, or heal, the physical form in any way at all, and therefore the idea of resurrection is completely feasible to me.
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #18
The resurrection is possible in the same way as Jack's magic beans grew overnight up into the clouds and the same way that Cinderella's coach was formed from a pumpkin and the same way that the Enterprise goes faster than light.
-
nikolayevich
- Scholar
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Post #19
Jack and Cinderella are told for the sake of fiction, whereas the resurrection is told as a history. This doesn't negate what you think about their shared relevance, but it's apples to oranges. Even if Jack and Cindy did have a supposed historical existence, they had no human witnesses (outside of undisputed fiction). Jesus at least has disputed witnesses.McCulloch wrote:The resurrection is possible in the same way as Jack's magic beans grew overnight up into the clouds and the same way that Cinderella's coach was formed from a pumpkin and the same way that the Enterprise goes faster than light.
Just a point.
Post #20
From my brother McCulloch!
Atheists also believe in miracles too since their idea of creation is literally coming from "muck" as well.
When do you take the collar?
The resurrection and indeed the re-animation of Lazarus were framed as to not be capable of swoon theories. They are not presented as myth, anaolgy or allegory. In fact most doctors will tell you how in depth Luke went to describe a very accurate condition of dying from crucifixion.
Jesus died.
He resurrected Himself.
There are many, many written works about the death of Jesus. I particularly like this ones from an anti-Christian at infidel.org or whatever. He enters the usual smug skepticism but that is tolerable to me.
It must be excused because everything that an atheist believes in must oppose Jesus. His ubiquitous use of caveat is also so typical. Why not let his fellow freethinkers decide things with out all of the prequalifying inter-diatribe.
Of course it is interesting and some what laughable that in one frame he says Jesus died, and then again, that he may not have becuase he expired faster than is usual in crucifixion. But he some how neglects the evidence presented in the Gospel that Jesus went to the Cross almost beaten to death in the first place. The sword in the side also would not bode well for first century medical technology.
But oh well . . .
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=88
Doctors Pronounce Jesus Dead!
by Richard Carrier
There is a genre of medical literature that declares Jesus dead. No kidding. It is usually referred to as a "special communication" or something like that, to distance the publisher from claiming it as a serious medical research paper, but the genre has a long tradition going all the way back to 1805, with many examples even from the last fifty years. These things have also found their way into prestigious medical journals. Many of these are cited in the latest example brought to my attention, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ," by William Edwards (M.D.), Wesley Gabel (M.Div.), and Floyd Hosmer (M.S., A.M.I.), which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986 / 255:11, pp. 1455-1463), though curiously this omits mention of perhaps the most important example of the genre, a research report on actual experimentation with crucifixion effects (F.T. Zugibe, "Death by Crucifixion," Canadian Society of Forensic Science, 1984 / 17:1, pp. 1-13).
So Jesus died? This is hardly news. Even I agree with the conclusion that Jesus probably died on the cross. I calculate the odds of this to be better than 98% in my own comprehensive survey of the evidence (cf. Section 2 of my essay "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story"). But this is not sufficient to be certain that Jesus died, in the way we can be certain, for instance, that Caesar crossed the Rubicon...no medical examiner would be able to legally pronounce Jesus dead on the sparse and problematic information we have about Jesus and crucifixion generally. Indeed, appearances of the man after he was supposedly killed would in normal practice rule out death in the eyes of a medical examiner, who otherwise had only the few bits of inconclusive data we actually have about Jesus' apparent demise. Above all, we cannot be sufficiently certain of his death to assert that his appearances afterward could only be a miracle (as opposed to mere ordinary luck--or as some would argue, human trickery). This is what I demonstrate in the above cited essay, and it is a different argument than "Jesus probably survived," which I do not believe because it is far more probable that Jesus only "appeared" in mystic visions and thus in reality stayed plain dead. But even if we could rule this out, we would have more reason to believe he survived the cross than that he was resurrected.
///
It goes on in length and of course denies everything it can.
Preach it Preacher!Hey, if you believe in a God that can create humans out of muck then you can believe anything. Once you allow for miracles, anything is possible.
Atheists also believe in miracles too since their idea of creation is literally coming from "muck" as well.
When do you take the collar?
The resurrection and indeed the re-animation of Lazarus were framed as to not be capable of swoon theories. They are not presented as myth, anaolgy or allegory. In fact most doctors will tell you how in depth Luke went to describe a very accurate condition of dying from crucifixion.
Jesus died.
He resurrected Himself.
There are many, many written works about the death of Jesus. I particularly like this ones from an anti-Christian at infidel.org or whatever. He enters the usual smug skepticism but that is tolerable to me.
It must be excused because everything that an atheist believes in must oppose Jesus. His ubiquitous use of caveat is also so typical. Why not let his fellow freethinkers decide things with out all of the prequalifying inter-diatribe.
Of course it is interesting and some what laughable that in one frame he says Jesus died, and then again, that he may not have becuase he expired faster than is usual in crucifixion. But he some how neglects the evidence presented in the Gospel that Jesus went to the Cross almost beaten to death in the first place. The sword in the side also would not bode well for first century medical technology.
But oh well . . .
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=88
Doctors Pronounce Jesus Dead!
by Richard Carrier
There is a genre of medical literature that declares Jesus dead. No kidding. It is usually referred to as a "special communication" or something like that, to distance the publisher from claiming it as a serious medical research paper, but the genre has a long tradition going all the way back to 1805, with many examples even from the last fifty years. These things have also found their way into prestigious medical journals. Many of these are cited in the latest example brought to my attention, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ," by William Edwards (M.D.), Wesley Gabel (M.Div.), and Floyd Hosmer (M.S., A.M.I.), which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986 / 255:11, pp. 1455-1463), though curiously this omits mention of perhaps the most important example of the genre, a research report on actual experimentation with crucifixion effects (F.T. Zugibe, "Death by Crucifixion," Canadian Society of Forensic Science, 1984 / 17:1, pp. 1-13).
So Jesus died? This is hardly news. Even I agree with the conclusion that Jesus probably died on the cross. I calculate the odds of this to be better than 98% in my own comprehensive survey of the evidence (cf. Section 2 of my essay "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story"). But this is not sufficient to be certain that Jesus died, in the way we can be certain, for instance, that Caesar crossed the Rubicon...no medical examiner would be able to legally pronounce Jesus dead on the sparse and problematic information we have about Jesus and crucifixion generally. Indeed, appearances of the man after he was supposedly killed would in normal practice rule out death in the eyes of a medical examiner, who otherwise had only the few bits of inconclusive data we actually have about Jesus' apparent demise. Above all, we cannot be sufficiently certain of his death to assert that his appearances afterward could only be a miracle (as opposed to mere ordinary luck--or as some would argue, human trickery). This is what I demonstrate in the above cited essay, and it is a different argument than "Jesus probably survived," which I do not believe because it is far more probable that Jesus only "appeared" in mystic visions and thus in reality stayed plain dead. But even if we could rule this out, we would have more reason to believe he survived the cross than that he was resurrected.
///
It goes on in length and of course denies everything it can.
