The Resurrection

[joer]

I recently(over the last few weeks) saw several Discovery Channel and PBS documentaries describing similar historical detail as presented in these stories of the Resurrection written over 75 years ago. BUT I hadn't found evidence with that same historical detail until recently.

I was just wondering how others have seen the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times. It seems as we continue to develop our historical understanding of the times of Jesus, more and more details of his life and death fall into place in terms of validity.

The Resurrection Of Jesus

At two forty-five Sunday morning, the Paradise incarnation commission, consisting of seven unidentified Paradise personalities, arrived on the scene and immediately deployed themselves about the tomb. At ten minutes before three, intense vibrations of commingled material and heavenly activities began to issue from Joseph's new tomb, and at two minutes past three o'clock, this Sunday morning, April 9, A.D. 30, the resurrected heavenly form and personality of Jesus of Nazareth came forth from the tomb.

After the resurrected Jesus emerged from his burial tomb, the body of flesh in which he had lived and wrought on earth for almost thirty-six years was still lying there in the sepulchre niche, undisturbed and wrapped in the linen sheet, just as it had been laid to rest by Joseph and his associates on Friday afternoon. Neither was the stone before the entrance of the tomb in any way disturbed; the seal of Pilate was still unbroken; the soldiers were still on guard. The temple guards had been on continuous duty; the Roman guard had been changed at midnight. None of these watchers suspected that the object of their vigil had risen to a new and higher form of existence, and that the body which they were guarding was now a discarded outer covering which had no further connection with the delivered and resurrected heavenly personality of Jesus.

Mankind is slow to perceive that, in all that is personal, matter is the skeleton of morontia, and that both are the reflected shadow of enduring spirit reality. How long before you will regard time as the moving image of eternity and space as the fleeting shadow of Paradise realities?

As far as we can judge, no creature of this universe nor any personality from another universe had anything to do with this morontia resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. On Friday he laid down his life as a mortal of the realm; on Sunday morning he took it up again ... There is much about the resurrection of Jesus which we do not understand. But we know that it occurred as we have stated and at about the time indicated. We can also record that all known phenomena associated with this mortal transit, or heavenly resurrection, occurred right there in Joseph's new tomb, where the mortal material remains of Jesus lay wrapped in burial cloths.

We know that no creature of the local universe participated in this heavenly awakening. We perceived the seven personalities of Paradise surround the tomb, but we did not see them do anything in connection with the Master's awakening. Just as soon as Jesus appeared beside Gabriel, just above the tomb, the seven personalities from Paradise signalized their intention of immediate departure for Paradise.

Let us forever clarify the concept of the resurrection of Jesus by making the following statements:

His material or physical body was not a part of the resurrected personality. When Jesus came forth from the tomb, his body of flesh remained undisturbed in the sepulchre. He emerged from the burial tomb without moving the stones before the entrance and without disturbing the seals of Pilate.

He did not emerge from the tomb as a spirit nor as Ruler of the local universe; he did not appear in the form of the Creator Sovereign, such as he had had before his incarnation in the likeness of mortal flesh on Earth.

He did come forth from this tomb of Joseph in the very likeness of the heavenly personalities of those who, as resurrected heavenly ascendant beings, emerge from the resurrection halls of the first mansion world of this local system. And the presence of the Michael memorial in the center of the vast court of the resurrection halls of mansonia number one leads us to conjecture that the Master's resurrection on earth was in some way fostered on this, the first of the system mansion worlds.

The first act of Jesus on arising from the tomb was to greet Gabriel and instruct him to continue in executive charge of universe affairs under Immanuel, and then he directed the chief of the Melchizedeks to convey his brotherly greetings to Immanuel. He thereupon asked the Most High for the certification of the Ancients of Days as to his mortal transit; and turning to the assembled heavenly groups of the seven mansion worlds, here gathered together to greet and welcome their Creator as a creature of their order, Jesus spoke the first words of the postmortal career. Said the heavenly Jesus: "Having finished my life in the flesh, I would tarry here for a short time in transition form that I may more fully know the life of my ascendant creatures and further reveal the will of my Father in Paradise."

After Jesus had spoken, he signaled to the Personalized Adjuster, and all universe intelligences who had been assembled on Earth to witness the resurrection were immediately dispatched to their respective universe assignments.

Jesus now began the contacts of the heavenly level, being introduced, as a creature, to the requirements of the life he had chosen to live for a short time on Earth. This initiation into the transitional heavenly world required more than an hour of earth time and was twice interrupted by his desire to communicate with his former associates in the flesh as they came out from Jerusalem wonderingly to peer into the empty tomb to discover what they considered evidence of his resurrection.

Now is the mortal transit of Jesus—the transitional heavenly resurrection of the Son of Man—completed. The transitory experience of the Master as a personality midway between the material and the spiritual has begun. And he has done all this through power inherent within himself; no personality has rendered him any assistance. He now lives as Jesus of heavenly transition, and as he begins this Transitional heavenly life, the material body of his flesh lies there undisturbed in the tomb. The soldiers are still on guard, and the seal of the governor about the rocks has not yet been broken.

I recently(over the last few weeks) saw several Discovery Channel and PBS documentaries describing similar historical detail as presented in these stories of the Resurrection written over 75 years ago. BUT I hadn't found evidence with that same historical detail until recently.

I was just wondering how others have seen the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times. It seems as we continue to develop our historical understanding of the times of Jesus, more and more details of his life and death fall into place in terms of validity. While many aspects of the resurrection are still taken on Faith, the historical evidence for the possibility of the Resurrection slowly grows over time.

The Resurrection Of Jesus

At two forty-five Sunday morning, the Paradise incarnation commission, consisting of seven unidentified Paradise personalities, arrived on the scene and immediately deployed themselves about the tomb. At ten minutes before three, intense vibrations of commingled material and heavenly activities began to issue from Joseph's new tomb, and at two minutes past three o'clock, this Sunday morning, April 9, A.D. 30, the resurrected heavenly form and personality of Jesus of Nazareth came forth from the tomb.

After the resurrected Jesus emerged from his burial tomb, the body of flesh in which he had lived and wrought on earth for almost thirty-six years was still lying there in the sepulchre niche, undisturbed and wrapped in the linen sheet, just as it had been laid to rest by Joseph and his associates on Friday afternoon. Neither was the stone before the entrance of the tomb in any way disturbed; the seal of Pilate was still unbroken; the soldiers were still on guard. The temple guards had been on continuous duty; the Roman guard had been changed at midnight. None of these watchers suspected that the object of their vigil had risen to a new and higher form of existence, and that the body which they were guarding was now a discarded outer covering which had no further connection with the delivered and resurrected heavenly personality of Jesus.

Mankind is slow to perceive that, in all that is personal, matter is the skeleton of morontia, and that both are the reflected shadow of enduring spirit reality. How long before you will regard time as the moving image of eternity and space as the fleeting shadow of Paradise realities?

As far as we can judge, no creature of this universe nor any personality from another universe had anything to do with this morontia resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. On Friday he laid down his life as a mortal of the realm; on Sunday morning he took it up again ... There is much about the resurrection of Jesus which we do not understand. But we know that it occurred as we have stated and at about the time indicated. We can also record that all known phenomena associated with this mortal transit, or heavenly resurrection, occurred right there in Joseph's new tomb, where the mortal material remains of Jesus lay wrapped in burial cloths.

We know that no creature of the local universe participated in this heavenly awakening. We perceived the seven personalities of Paradise surround the tomb, but we did not see them do anything in connection with the Master's awakening. Just as soon as Jesus appeared beside Gabriel, just above the tomb, the seven personalities from Paradise signalized their intention of immediate departure for Paradise.

Let us forever clarify the concept of the resurrection of Jesus by making the following statements:

His material or physical body was not a part of the resurrected personality. When Jesus came forth from the tomb, his body of flesh remained undisturbed in the sepulchre. He emerged from the burial tomb without moving the stones before the entrance and without disturbing the seals of Pilate.

He did not emerge from the tomb as a spirit nor as Ruler of the local universe; he did not appear in the form of the Creator Sovereign, such as he had had before his incarnation in the likeness of mortal flesh on Earth.

He did come forth from this tomb of Joseph in the very likeness of the heavenly personalities of those who, as resurrected heavenly ascendant beings, emerge from the resurrection halls of the first mansion world of this local system. And the presence of the Michael memorial in the center of the vast court of the resurrection halls of mansonia number one leads us to conjecture that the Master's resurrection on earth was in some way fostered on this, the first of the system mansion worlds.

The first act of Jesus on arising from the tomb was to greet Gabriel and instruct him to continue in executive charge of universe affairs under Immanuel, and then he directed the chief of the Melchizedeks to convey his brotherly greetings to Immanuel. He thereupon asked the Most High for the certification of the Ancients of Days as to his mortal transit; and turning to the assembled heavenly groups of the seven mansion worlds, here gathered together to greet and welcome their Creator as a creature of their order, Jesus spoke the first words of the postmortal career. Said the heavenly Jesus: "Having finished my life in the flesh, I would tarry here for a short time in transition form that I may more fully know the life of my ascendant creatures and further reveal the will of my Father in Paradise."

After Jesus had spoken, he signaled to the Personalized Adjuster, and all universe intelligences who had been assembled on Earth to witness the resurrection were immediately dispatched to their respective universe assignments.

Jesus now began the contacts of the heavenly level, being introduced, as a creature, to the requirements of the life he had chosen to live for a short time on Earth. This initiation into the transitional heavenly world required more than an hour of earth time and was twice interrupted by his desire to communicate with his former associates in the flesh as they came out from Jerusalem wonderingly to peer into the empty tomb to discover what they considered evidence of his resurrection.

Now is the mortal transit of Jesus—the transitional heavenly resurrection of the Son of Man—completed. The transitory experience of the Master as a personality midway between the material and the spiritual has begun. And he has done all this through power inherent within himself; no personality has rendered him any assistance. He now lives as Jesus of heavenly transition, and as he begins this Transitional heavenly life, the material body of his flesh lies there undisturbed in the tomb. The soldiers are still on guard, and the seal of the governor about the rocks has not yet been broken.

The Disposition Of Jesus' Physical Body

At ten minutes past three o'clock, as the resurrected Jesus fraternized with the assembled heavenly personalities from the seven mansion worlds. the chief of archangels—the angels of the resurrection—approached Gabriel and asked for the mortal body of Jesus. Said the chief of the archangels: "We may not participate in the transitional heavenly resurrection of the bestowal experience of Michael our sovereign, but we would have his mortal remains put in our custody for immediate dissolution. We do not propose to employ our technique of dematerialization; we merely wish to invoke the process of accelerated time. It is enough that we have seen the Sovereign live and die on Earth; the hosts of heaven would be spared the memory of enduring the sight of the slow decay of the human form of the Creator and Upholder of a universe. In the name of the celestial intelligences of all the universe, I ask for a mandate giving me the custody of the mortal body of Jesus of Nazareth and empowering us to proceed with its immediate dissolution."

And when Gabriel had conferred with the senior Most High of Edentia, the archangel spokesman for the celestial hosts was given permission to make such disposition of the physical remains of Jesus as he might determine.

After the chief of archangels had been granted this request, he summoned to his assistance many of his fellows, together with a numerous host of the representatives of all orders of celestial personalities, and then, with the aid of the Earth midwayers, proceeded to take possession of Jesus' physical body. This body of death was a purely material creation; it was physical and literal; it could not be removed from the tomb as the transitional heavenly form of the resurrection had been able to escape the sealed sepulchre. By the aid of certain transitional heavenly auxiliary personalities, the transitional heavenly form can be made at one time as of the spirit so that it can become indifferent to ordinary matter, while at another time it can become discernible and contactable to material beings, such as the mortals of the realm.

As they made ready to remove the body of Jesus from the tomb preparatory to according it the dignified and reverent disposal of near-instantaneous dissolution, it was assigned the secondary earth midwayers to roll away the stones from the entrance of the tomb. The larger of these two stones was a huge circular affair, much like a millstone, and it moved in a groove chiseled out of the rock, so that it could be rolled back and forth to open or close the tomb. When the watching Jewish guards and the Roman soldiers, in the dim light of the morning, saw this huge stone begin to roll away from the entrance of the tomb, apparently of its own accord—without any visible means to account for such motion—they were seized with fear and panic, and they fled in haste from the scene. The Jews fled to their homes, afterward going back to report these doings to their captain at the temple. The Romans fled to the fortress of Antonia and reported what they had seen to the centurion as soon as he arrived on duty.

The Jewish leaders began the sordid business of supposedly getting rid of Jesus by offering bribes to the traitorous Judas, and now, when confronted with this embarrassing situation, instead of thinking of punishing the guards who deserted their post, they resorted to bribing these guards and the Roman soldiers. They paid each of these twenty men a sum of money and instructed them to say to all: "While we slept during the nighttime, his disciples came upon us and took away the body." And the Jewish leaders made solemn promises to the soldiers to defend them before Pilate in case it should ever come to the governor's knowledge that they had accepted a bribe.

The Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus has been based on the fact of the "empty tomb." It was indeed a fact that the tomb was empty, but this is not the truth of the resurrection. The tomb was truly empty when the first believers arrived, and this fact, associated with that of the undoubted resurrection of the Master, led to the formulation of a belief which was not true: the teaching that the material and mortal body of Jesus was raised from the grave. Truth having to do with spiritual realities and eternal values cannot always be built up by a combination of apparent facts. Although individual facts may be materially true, it does not follow that the association of a group of facts must necessarily lead to truthful spiritual conclusions.

The tomb of Joseph was empty, not because the body of Jesus had been rehabilitated or resurrected, but because the celestial hosts had been granted their request to afford it a special and unique dissolution, a return of the "dust to dust," without the intervention of the delays of time and without the operation of the ordinary and visible processes of mortal decay and material corruption.

The mortal remains of Jesus underwent the same natural process of elemental disintegration as characterizes all human bodies on earth except that, in point of time, this natural mode of dissolution was greatly accelerated, hastened to that point where it became well-nigh instantaneous.

The true evidences of the resurrection of Michael are spiritual in nature, albeit this teaching is corroborated by the testimony of many mortals of the realm who met, recognized, and communed with the resurrected transitional heavenly Master. He became a part of the personal experience of almost one thousand human beings before he finally took leave of earth.

[Zzyzx]

.

I was just wondering how others have seen the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times. It seems as we continue to develop our historical understanding of the times of Jesus, more and more details of his life and death fall into place in terms of validity.

Your version seems about as credible as the original. However, both assume that a body was placed in a tomb and the tomb was later found empty. Neither assumption can be shown to be accurate. Only hearsay, fake “eyewitness accounts” and legend support the tale.

A more rational explanation of the "resurrection" is, in my opinion, that "believers" and "followers" made up tales about their dead leader and that those tales were exaggerated over time before being recorded decades later and incorporated into a book centuries later.

[Cephus]

A more rational explanation of the "resurrection" is, in my opinion, that "believers" and "followers" made up tales about their dead leader and that those tales were exaggerated over time before being recorded decades later and incorporated into a book centuries later.

Probably the most rational explanation is that early Christians "borrowed" attributes from the pagan religions around them at the time, most notably from the story of Attis, who supposedly died on Black Friday and was resurrected three days later each year as part of a fertility ritual. We already know that Christians "borrowed" many other elements, such as the timing of Christmas and Easter, to appeal to pagans that they wanted to convert, why is it unreasonable to think that this element of the Jesus myth wasn't likewise borrowed from the common elements of pagan religions extant at the time?

[joer]

Hi Zz and Cephus! It gives me delight to hear from you both again on this special day for me. Thank you my friends and I hope this day is enjoyable for you both.

Zzyzx wrote:

A more rational explanation of the "resurrection" is, in my opinion, that "believers" and "followers" made up tales about their dead leader and that those tales were exaggerated over time before being recorded decades later and incorporated into a book centuries later.

Cephus wrote:

why is it unreasonable to think that this element of the Jesus myth wasn't likewise borrowed from the common elements of pagan religions extant at the time?

Both your post make reference to “reason” . And of course in the context of your posts your explanations ARE in fact reasonable. But apart from Reason that is another aspect of life called “Truth”, And it is this reference that acknowledges Reason BUT eludes to a Truth of the Resurrection that has not been recognized yet and remains a mystery to many of us as “reasonable human beings” looking for Truth rather than “JUST” reason.

The Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus has been based on the fact of the "empty tomb." It was indeed a fact that the tomb was empty, but this is not the truth of the resurrection. The tomb was truly empty when the first believers arrived, and this fact, associated with that of the undoubted resurrection of the Master, led to the formulation of a belief which was not true: the teaching that the material and mortal body of Jesus was raised from the grave. Truth having to do with spiritual realities and eternal values cannot always be built up by a combination of apparent facts. Although individual facts may be materially true, it does not follow that the association of a group of facts must necessarily lead to truthful spiritual conclusions.
The tomb of Joseph was empty, not because the body of Jesus had been rehabilitated or resurrected, but because the celestial hosts had been granted their request to afford it a special and unique dissolution, a return of the "dust to dust," without the intervention of the delays of time and without the operation of the ordinary and visible processes of mortal decay and material corruption.

[Zzyzx]

.

Both your post make reference to “reason”. And of course in the context of your posts your explanations ARE in fact reasonable. But apart from Reason that is another aspect of life called “Truth”,

How is “truth” known or discovered?

Must one believe in supernaturalism in order to find “truth”?

Does (or must) “truth” involve or require the supernatural?

And it is this reference that acknowledges Reason BUT eludes to a Truth of the Resurrection that has not been recognized yet and remains a mystery to many of us as “reasonable human beings” looking for Truth rather than “JUST” reason.

What, exactly, is the “mystery” aspect of the purported “resurrection” that is not recognized?

What is the origin of the quotation you used? Is it “The Urantia Book”?

The Urantia book purports to be a text recieved via channeling from extra-terrestrial beings, and is believed to provide an explanation of the purpose of the universe, the missing biography of Jesus, and the nature of God.
http://altreligion.about.com/od/urantia/Urantia.htm

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book
http://www.religioustolerance.org/urantia.htm

[My responses in bold]

The Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus has been based on the fact of the "empty tomb." It was indeed a fact that the tomb was empty, but this is not the truth of the resurrection.

There is no verification that there was a tomb or that the tomb was empty – only claims in religious writings.

Is the “truth” to which this refers a belief in the religious writings?

The tomb was truly empty when the first believers arrived,

How can anyone KNOW that the tomb was empty?

What evidence is there to indicate an empty tomb other than bible stories?

and this fact, associated with that of the undoubted resurrection of the Master,

The “undoubted resurrection of the master” applies ONLY to some religious followers. What anyone believes or believed may or may not be true and accurate. The bible stories recorded decades later are hearsay, NOT personal observation. There is no way to verify their accuracy.

led to the formulation of a belief which was not true: the teaching that the material and mortal body of Jesus was raised from the grave.

INTERESTING perspective. Is this a serious proposal that the resurrection was NOT physical? If not physical, what was it?

Is this theory contrary to Christianity – or to the body of Christianity that insists that the “resurrection” was a raising of the “mortal body of Jesus from the grave”?

What evidence is presented to verify this theory?

Truth having to do with spiritual realities and eternal values cannot always be built up by a combination of apparent facts. Although individual facts may be materially true, it does not follow that the association of a group of facts must necessarily lead to truthful spiritual conclusions.

Agreed that individual facts, even though true, may be assembled into incorrect conclusions. How does one find “truth” according to these ideas?

Are “spiritual conclusions” different from conclusions based on reality, experience and nature?

The tomb of Joseph was empty,

There is no assurance that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, that the tomb was provided by a person named Joseph of Arimathea, that the tomb was sealed and/or guarded, or that the tomb was found to be empty.

No tomb has been identified, “Joseph” is unknown outside biblical accounts, and accounts of guards, sealing of the tomb, and the “empty tomb” are NOT verified by anything other than bible stories. What we have is . . . . . bible stories.

Are bible stories “truth”?

not because the body of Jesus had been rehabilitated or resurrected, but because the celestial hosts had been granted their request to afford it a special and unique dissolution, a return of the "dust to dust," without the intervention of the delays of time and without the operation of the ordinary and visible processes of mortal decay and material corruption.

If I understand correctly, this is a theory that the body of Jesus disintegrated (decayed, turned to dust) very quickly and did NOT “come back to life”. Is that correct?

What indication is there that “celestial hosts” had granted a request that the body return to dust without decay?

Who made the request? How do we know that is true?

Is this quote from the same source that says:

189:0.1 Soon after the burial of Jesus on Friday afternoon, the chief of the archangels of Nebadon, then present on Urantia, summoned his council of the resurrection of sleeping will creatures and entered upon the consideration of a possible technique for the restoration of Jesus. These assembled sons of the local universe, the creatures of Michael, did this on their own responsibility; Gabriel had not assembled them. By midnight they had arrived at the conclusion that the creature could do nothing to facilitate the resurrection of the Creator. They were disposed to accept the advice of Gabriel, who instructed them that, since Michael had " laid down his life of his own free will, he also had power to take it up again in accordance with his own determination. " Shortly after the adjournment of this council of the archangels, the Life Carriers, and their various associates in the work of creature rehabilitation and morontia creation, the Personalized Adjuster of Jesus, being in personal command of the assembled celestial hosts then on Urantia, spoke these words to the anxious waiting watchers:
http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p189.htm

[joer]

Actually Zz the truth is this:

I recently(over the last few weeks) saw several Discovery Channel and PBS documentaries describing similar historical detail as presented in these stories of the Resurrection written over 75 years ago. BUT I hadn't found evidence with that same historical detail until recently.

And the question is this:

I was just wondering how others have seen the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times. It seems as we continue to develop our historical understanding of the times of Jesus, more and more details of his life and death fall into place in terms of validity.

The rest is information relayed to us from sources that some people question and other people believe in.

So my question to people with interest in this thread is "how others have seen the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times?" It appears from your answer and consistent with your position of destroying any belief in God or anything to do with God that you DO NOT RECOGNIZE "the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times."

Would you say in terms of the original question posed that is a fair assessment of your position in regards to that question?

[Zzyzx]

.

Actually Zz the truth is this:

I recently(over the last few weeks) saw several Discovery Channel and PBS documentaries describing similar historical detail as presented in these stories of the Resurrection written over 75 years ago. BUT I hadn't found evidence with that same historical detail until recently.

I do not doubt that your claim that you “found evidence” to support the “resurrection” recently.

I question the evidence you found and parts of which you quote (without citation) in debate. The Urantia Book is NOT new information. It was actually written about fifty years ago based upon supposed “experiences” from twenty years earlier.

Citing the Urantia Book as “evidence” is highly questionable. The story reads like science fiction and is NOT supported by independent sources.

And the question is this:

I was just wondering how others have seen the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times. It seems as we continue to develop our historical understanding of the times of Jesus, more and more details of his life and death fall into place in terms of validity.

You are indicating “recent HISTORICAL developments” regarding the resurrection. There is no indication that the information presented is recent OR historical.

The rest is information relayed to us from sources that some people question and other people believe in.

The source of information presented should be properly identified to allow others to evaluate its credibility.

Whether people “believe” or not has no bearing on the validity of information presented.

So my question to people with interest in this thread is "how others have seen the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times?" It appears from your answer and consistent with your position of destroying any belief in God or anything to do with God

Are you authorized to state my position or are you being presumptuous (or something else)?

“Destroying any belief in god and anything to do with god” is YOUR statement – NOT mine. I ask for evidence of truth and allow religionists to destroy god theories by stumbling for answers, using circular “reasoning”, citing scripture to those who are known to not accept the tales as truth, employing questionable or dishonest tactics in debate / discussion, and generally presenting a very weak “defense” for beliefs that cannot be substantiated with reason or evidence.

Kindly quote me exactly regarding my position rather than supplying your own made up INCORRECT version. Inventing positions for others reflects poorly upon your credibility – indicating a tendency to invent stories or to say whatever appears to promote your cause (as does citing sources of “evidence" anonymously).

that you DO NOT RECOGNIZE "the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times."

Would you say in terms of the original question posed that is a fair assessment of your position in regards to that question?

That much was a good guess. I do not recognize any “development of recent ‘historical’ evidence regarding the claimed ‘resurrection’”.

However, you should not “assess” or assign (guess) an adversary’s answers to questions but should ASK (whether you happen to guess right once in a while or not).

If religious belief is true and valid it should NOT be necessary to do ANYTHING questionable in its support – even when (or particularly when) addressing people who do not accept the same beliefs.

[Cephus]

Both your post make reference to “reason” . And of course in the context of your posts your explanations ARE in fact reasonable. But apart from Reason that is another aspect of life called “Truth”, And it is this reference that acknowledges Reason BUT eludes to a Truth of the Resurrection that has not been recognized yet and remains a mystery to many of us as “reasonable human beings” looking for Truth rather than “JUST” reason.

The question is, how do you determine just what is "truth", especially how do you do so without reason? There is nothing about the resurrection that would point to it being demonstrably and factually true so there is nothing reasonable about it not being recognized yet.

All you have is faith that the resurrection happened because you need it in order to hold particular religious beliefs. Faith, however, is just the permission we give ourselves to believe things that we have no good reason to believe, so that's not much of a reason to accept it as true.

[twobitsmedia]

The question is, how do you determine just what is "truth", especially how do you do so without reason? There is nothing about the resurrection that would point to it being demonstrably and factually true so there is nothing reasonable about it not being recognized yet.

Based on your response, the question is how do you define reason? Reason does not have to be demonstratable in order to be factually true. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#Reason_and_logic
In western philosophy, reason has had a twofold history. On the one hand, it has been taken to be objective and so to be fixed and discoverable by dialectic, analysis or study. Such objectivity is the case in the thinking of Plato, Aristotle, Alfarabi, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Aquinas and Hegel. In the vision of these thinkers, reason is divine or at least has divine attributes. Such an approach compelled religious philosophers--Aquinas, for example, Gilson more recently--to square reason with revelation, no easy task.

On the other hand, since the seventeenth century rationalists, reason has been taken to be a subjective faculty, or rather the unaided ability (eg., pure reason) to form concepts. For Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, the effort resulted in significant developments in mathematics. For Kant, in contrast, pure reason was shown to have the ability to form concepts (time and space) that are the conditions of experience. Kant made his argument in opposition to Hume, who denied that reason had any role to play in experience.

Discussion about reason especially concerns:

* (a) its relationship to several other related concepts: language, logic, consciousness etc,
* (b) its ability to help people decide what is true, and
* (c) its origin.

Also see practical reason and speculative reason.

The concept of reason is connected to the concept of language, as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word "logos", later to be translated by Latin "ratio" and then French "raison", from which the English word derived. As reason, rationality, and logic are all associated with the ability of the human mind to predict effects as based upon presumed causes, the word "reason" also denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used synonymously with the word "cause".

All you have is faith that the resurrection happened because you need it in order to hold particular religious beliefs.

I don't understand this definition of faith. Having faith in something does not make it so.

Faith, however, is just the permission we give ourselves to believe things that we have no good reason to believe, so that's not much of a reason to accept it as true.

Also, a definition I dont understand. Faith is nothing more the a conviction or belief in something that has not occurred yet. I am not even sure of how one might or (want to) have faith in the ressurrection since it is a past event.

[joer]

Zz wrote:

Are you authorized to state my position

I didn't know authorization was necessary to restate an opponants position. I thought the only authorizing needed was to be a member in good standing of this site. Did you have to get special permission to state your prespective of your opponants position? Who did you ask?

zz wrote:

or are you being presumptuous (or something else)?

I don't what's up with statement Zz. We're you looking in the mirror shaving or something when you wrote it?

Zz also wrote:

“Destroying any belief in god and anything to do with god” is YOUR statement – NOT mine. I ask for evidence of truth and allow religionists to destroy god theories by stumbling for answers, using circular “reasoning”, citing scripture to those who are known to not accept the tales as truth, employing questionable or dishonest tactics in debate / discussion, and generally presenting a very weak “defense” for beliefs that cannot be substantiated with reason or evidence.

Kindly quote me exactly regarding my position rather than supplying your own made up INCORRECT version. Inventing positions for others reflects poorly upon your credibility – indicating a tendency to invent stories or to say whatever appears to promote your cause

I'm sorry Zz if I represented you in a poor light. Let me let you represent yourself in that light lest someone believe that I might be included in your accusations of those who employ "questionable or dishonest tactics in debate / discussion, and generally presenting a very weak “defense” for beliefs that cannot be substantiated with reason or evidence. "

On another thread ZZ wrote:

My position is very obvious and repeatedly stated. I am an enemy of religion – which I regard as the greatest evil ever perpetrated on mankind. Most religionist agree that “other” religions are evil or false paths – but claim that their chosen religion is “true”. I make no exceptions.

ZZ also wrote:

joer wrote:
that you DO NOT RECOGNIZE "the development of historical evidence surrounding details of The Resurrection in recent times."

Would you say in terms of the original question posed that is a fair assessment of your position in regards to that question?

That much was a good guess. I do not recognize any “development of recent ‘historical’ evidence regarding the claimed ‘resurrection’”.

However, you should not “assess” or assign (guess) an adversary’s answers to questions but should ASK (whether you happen to guess right once in a while or not).

I thought I did "ASK". I asked,

Would you say in terms of the original question posed that is a fair assessment of your position in regards to that question?

Aren't you being a little bit overly demanding? And in terms of your response:

I do not recognize any “development of recent ‘historical’ evidence regarding the claimed ‘resurrection’”.

I think ST_JB adquately pointed out the the shortcomings of your logic and arguments on this question here:
Faith and reason

here

.

I am also willing to debate on the subject "resurrection" should you can provide your honest stand on the matter by laying down your arguments and the foundation of your claim not only "skepticisms" and throwing questions one after the other.

My “honest stand” regarding “resurrection” is that there has been no convincing, real world evidence from impartial, independent sources (outside the bible) presented to verify that the story of a dead body coming back to life as claimed by Christianity is true. In the absence of evidence, I choose to not accept the story as anything other than fable, fiction or fraud.

Notice that I make no claims. There is nothing to attack. The only rational response is to provide evidence from impartial, independent sources. It appears as though that cannot be done.

My “honest stand” regarding the existence of ANY god (or godman) is the same: there has been no convincing, real world evidence from impartial, independent sources presented to verify that the claim that any invisible super beings exist (or inhabit human bodies). In the absence of evidence, I choose to not accept “god stories” as anything other than fable, fiction or fraud.

Those who make claims regarding their favored invisible super beings and nature-defying “miracles” have the burden of proving that their claims are true (particularly when they attempt to convince others to believe and worship as they do). People who dislike questions being asked about the claims they make should not make claims they cannot or will not verify.

Please accept my appreciation for your honest reply. I am most grateful.

Now, it is more clear to me where you exactly are standing on the issue. As I have said, I am only here to defend my faith against false assumptions and misconstrued notion presented against Christianity in general and against my "faith" in particular.

Should there be no claim on your part, I guess there is no need for me to take up any defense for my faith. But what worries me more is your statement "In the absence of evidence, I choose to not accept the story as anything other than fable, fiction or fraud." I guess this statement warrants that a claim has been made on your side.


Please note that "resurrection" is part of theological teachings of religion and history doesn't record 'supernatural" events. It is in this regard that I raised the issue on Jesus' historicity. To say that there is no 'evidence" on Jesus existence in flesh would be a BIG lie. I will challenge whosoever makes such a claim - in a fair and square presentation of "acceptable" forms of evidence.

It is more easy to say that you have not done considerable study or reseach or examination on the subject the reason you are not inclined to believe the story than make an unsupported or biased statement such as quoted above.

A statement suggesting, lest affirming as if he has the evidence to show or to present to warrant the claim as fable, fiction or fraud is rediculous. It is in this regard that I have challenged you and your claims.