Resurrections and hyperdimensions

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 169 by Volbrigade]

The problem with your replies is that you aren't providing rational evidence for any of your religious beliefs or claims.

All your posts amount to are the standard "preaching" techniques of this religious cult that tries desperately to denigrate anyone who refuses to join and support it.

It's not going to be productive to simply attempt to denigrate people who refuse to be convinced. In fact, that is actually in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus anyway. Jesus never instructed his disciples to argue with or accuse anyone of anything. To the contrary, he clearly instructed them to move on if people aren't interested in hearing the message.

I'm not sure whether you're lecturing or preaching here. A bit of both?

I fail to see where I have denigrated anybody. I did mention the "vague beliefs" expressed by those with opposing arguments. Is that what you refer to?

But that is exactly what they, themselves, express. "I don't claim to know what our origins are, or what our destiny is..."; "I am comfortable with not knowing...". Sound familiar?

So when a theist does nothing but argue to the bitter death with non-believers I don't see where they are paying attention to the teachings of Jesus.

All due respect, but if I am looking for insight into the "teachings of Jesus", I will look elsewhere than to a non-theist.

"Argue to the bitter death"? That's a colorful way of putting it, isn't it? From my perspective, I'm just visiting a message board dedicated to the discussion and debate of Christianity. And expressing my reasons for being a Christian. Which generates oppositional views, which I then address.

If by "bitter death", you mean until both parties begin to repeat themselves -- well, yes. am willing to engage to that point. A point we seem to have reached, in our discussion.

If I were going to preach to people I would at least follow Jesus' instructions and only preach to those who are interested in hearing the message.

Is that a nice way of saying "shut up"?

Again -- it is perhaps a good thing that the prohibition against "preaching" (however defined -- apparently, it means "sharing the Good News"; which is an odd injunction on a site devoted to Christianity...) does not extend to "lecturing", of which I cetainly have been the recipient of my share -- as here.

I think, in general, theists "preach" (against the rules);
non-theists "lecture" (within the rules).

Perhaps that has a bearing on the subject of the OP?

In the meantime, if you are attempting to argue or debate for why the religion has merit, I haven't seen where you have supplied any compelling arguments.

I certainly regret to hear that.

But I don't see where that is a compelling argument that I haven't made any.

[/quote]

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

Just as everyone must choose for themselves what to do with Jesus Christ:

— worship Him as Lord, the Creator manifested as a man;
— revile Him as a liar, for making that claim;
— or reject Him as a lunatic, for the same reason.

Anything else is tepid treacle. A half measure.

— worship Him as Lord, the Creator manifested as a man;
Nope. I admire both Abraham Lincoln, and Albert Einstein. But I don't worship them.

— revile Him as a liar, for making that claim;
Jesus left nothing written in his own hand. It would be unfair and unreasonable to brand Jesus a liar based on the words placed in his mouth by anonymous others years after he was dead.

— or reject Him as a lunatic, for the same reason.
Same problem as above. Reaching conclusions as to Jesus' sanity based on claims made by others concerning the things he said, did or believed is entirely unreasonable.

I think you"re ignoring the case before us.

There is ample circumstantial evidence to support the events surrounding the Crucifixion.

Not the least of which is this site, and others: we're still talking about it. We're still discussing it. The incidents and events of the life of Christ have had more impact on our world than any other event in history.

I trace that back to the fact the Man actually existed, had followers who observed those incidents and events, and "turned the world upside down" as a result of what they observed; suffering cruel persecution and execution in the process, rather than deny what they knew to be true.

So -- what was the man crucified for?

Certainly, he must've run afoul of the Roman authorities. But what we're told is that His real crime was against the Jewish religious leadership -- blasphemy against their God, YHWH. John's account, especially, makes it clear that He claimed to be YHWH (though the synoptics do, as well, in more subtle ways).

This was understandably intolerable to the Jewish leadership. And so the charges they persuaded a reluctant Pilate to bring against Him were of insurrection --claiming to be the Jewish King and Messiah, a usurping of Caesar's authority, and a capital crime.

With which they -- the Jews -- threatened Pilate: "you are no friend of Caesar's if you don't take action...". IOWs -- "if Rome hears you did nothing about this... you're finished. And Rome will hear..."

All of this is knit together so tightly -- both internally, and with the ancient Scriptures used to support the tale -- that it strains credulity to think that a bunch of rag-tag Jewish laymen (fishermen, tax collectors, and so forth) could have put it all together from their imaginations. Especially in light of the Jewish culture that engendered them, and from which they were ostracized as a result of promoting the Christ, and the worship of Him.

Of course, you are free to dismiss all of that. And ignore it.

But that doesn't mean it's not true.

To me, the evidence is sufficient to indicate that a Jewish man was executed on the grounds that He claimed to be the Creator God of the Tanakh, which motivated the Jewish leadership to have Him executed by Rome (its representative of Imperial power) on charges of insurrection.

Which means that claim was either a deliberate lie (He wasn't God, and knew it)
The ravings of a madman (He's wasn't God, but didn't know it, and thought He was)

Or the Truth.

That God entered His creation, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Indeed, the most important truth in our world; and the truth that all other truths must conform with.

And they do.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

I think you"re ignoring the case before us.

There is ample circumstantial evidence to support the events surrounding the Crucifixion.

Crucifixion was a form of punishment/execution employed by the Romans on non Roman citizens to keep conquered peoples in line. The historical use of crucifixion by the Romans is not in question. The question you are asking is, according to the story at hand, was the crucifixion of Jesus right and righteous? Not by modern standards certainly. But those were different times. The forms of tortures and executions that would come to be employed by Christians on those accused of not rigidly conforming to rigid Christian doctrine over the centuries were also horrible and repugnant. But, again, those were different times and none of us is in a position to undo them. The best we can do is attempt to stop using nonsense as an excuse for cruelty, and cruelty as a weapon of state policy.

The real question before us however is not the potential accuracy of the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. That story is historically plausible, and might even be true. The real question is the part where the corpse of Jesus returned to life and flew away. That portion of the story is not plausible by any consideration of it.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 176 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The real question before us however is not the potential accuracy of the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. That story is historically plausible, and might even be true. The real question is the part where the corpse of Jesus returned to life and flew away. That portion of the story is not plausible by any consideration of it.

Unless, of course, He was who He claimed to be.

Did I misunderstand you?

What I attempted to do was clear up that Jesus was, indeed, crucified. And the reason He was crucified is that He claimed to be YHWH.

The Resurrection validated that claim.

I'm going to go way out on a limb, and suppose that you don't think it happened.

But I do.

Would you like to discuss WHY I think it happened?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 176 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The real question before us however is not the potential accuracy of the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. That story is historically plausible, and might even be true. The real question is the part where the corpse of Jesus returned to life and flew away. That portion of the story is not plausible by any consideration of it.

Unless, of course, He was who He claimed to be.

Unless he was who others claimed that he was. Jesus left no indication of what he personally claimed to believe at all.

Did I misunderstand you?

What I attempted to do was clear up that Jesus was, indeed, crucified. And the reason He was crucified is that He claimed to be YHWH.

I agree that the Romans were known historically to use crucifixion as a form of capitol punishment on non Roman citizens. That Jesus was crucified by the Romans is a plausible story. But he was crucified on a charge of sedition, based on rumors that Jesus had claimed to be the king of the Jews. According to the story, Jesus would neither affirm or deny the charges, and was condemned to death as a result.

The Resurrection validated that claim.

Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

The tomb of Joseph DID prove to be empty, and the disciples of Jesus DID spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. Which validated the suspicions of the Jewish priests.

I'm going to go way out on a limb, and suppose that you don't think it happened.

But I do.

You believe that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. It's true that I consider that to be a perfectly silly claim. Objectively, and in the light of all reason, logic and common sense, which of the two of us appears to be standing on firmer footing?

Would you like to discuss WHY I think it happened?

I would like you to spell it out in your own words.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 178 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:

I'm going to go way out on a limb, and suppose that you don't think it happened. Cool

But I do.

You believe that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. It's true that I consider that to be a perfectly silly claim. Objectively, and in the light of all reason, logic and common sense, which of the two of us appears to be standing on firmer footing?

Volbrigade wrote:

Would you like to discuss WHY I think it happened?

I would like you to spell it out in your own words.

Gladly!

First -- let me tell you what I DON’T think happened:

I DON'T think that

a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away.

I think that we’re talking about something that is, at a minimum, hyderdimensional in aspect.

I think that our dimensionally finite existence is but a subset of another one — our cosmos, which is finite on both ends of the size spectrum (the macrocosm and microcosm), a subset of a transcending metacosm.

I think what happened in Joseph of Arimethea’s tomb that first Sunday after Passover was that the man was “translated� into the metacosm. I don’t claim to understand the technology: whether the fungible atoms that composed His body underwent a transformation into a hyperdimensional state (they, perhaps, already ARE in that state, in a limited sense); or if perhaps those atoms were simply dispelled by the sovereign will of God.

But I think the body that was resurrected was a 4D manifestation of a hyperdimensional mode of existence — again, at a minimum. A cube, if you will, manifesting as a square in our reality — an allusion to the Flatland analogy, with which I think everyone is familiar (surely).

He could therefore do any of the things that a corporeal body could do — eat, drink; touch and be touched — but He was not limited to those physical acts; He could appear in an enclosed 6-sided space, without penetrating any of its sides.

And when His disciples observed His “Ascension�, what they saw was Him leaving our natural environment, for His supernatural one. One that we can’t observe or measure, any more than we can observe or measure any of the extra dimensions physicists assure us must exist.

I think that their observance of these phenomena (along with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit — I mention that Third Person of the Trinity in the interest of accuracy, and full disclosure; but let’s not get ahead of ourselves) so profoundly impacted these ordinary laymen, that they were able to turn the world upside down with the message they validated: that God had entered His creation as a man.

I also think that by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were given insights into what it all means — an important, if not the chief, one being that we will “see Him as He is — because we will be like Him.� (1 John 3:2)

I think that’s pretty cool.

I also think it’s pretty cool how, when properly understood, the Old and New Testaments complete an “integrated message system� that is about Him, in its entirety, with its theme being “Redemption�.

“The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed; the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.�

The ability to supervise the compilation of such a text is a quality that is exclusive of an Entity, and Author, that is “outside our time domain.�

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 178 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:

I'm going to go way out on a limb, and suppose that you don't think it happened. Cool

But I do.

You believe that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. It's true that I consider that to be a perfectly silly claim. Objectively, and in the light of all reason, logic and common sense, which of the two of us appears to be standing on firmer footing?

Volbrigade wrote:

Would you like to discuss WHY I think it happened?

I would like you to spell it out in your own words.

Gladly!

First -- let me tell you what I DON’T think happened:

I DON'T think that

a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away.

I think that we’re talking about something that is, at a minimum, hyderdimensional in aspect.

I think that our dimensionally finite existence is but a subset of another one — our cosmos, which is finite on both ends of the size spectrum (the macrocosm and microcosm), a subset of a transcending metacosm.

I think what happened in Joseph of Arimethea’s tomb that first Sunday after Passover was that the man was “translated� into the metacosm. I don’t claim to understand the technology: whether the fungible atoms that composed His body underwent a transformation into a hyperdimensional state (they, perhaps, already ARE in that state, in a limited sense); or if perhaps those atoms were simply dispelled by the sovereign will of God.

But I think the body that was resurrected was a 4D manifestation of a hyperdimensional mode of existence — again, at a minimum. A cube, if you will, manifesting as a square in our reality — an allusion to the Flatland analogy, with which I think everyone is familiar (surely).

He could therefore do any of the things that a corporeal body could do — eat, drink; touch and be touched — but He was not limited to those physical acts; He could appear in an enclosed 6-sided space, without penetrating any of its sides.

And when His disciples observed His “Ascension�, what they saw was Him leaving our natural environment, for His supernatural one. One that we can’t observe or measure, any more than we can observe or measure any of the extra dimensions physicists assure us must exist.

I think that their observance of these phenomena (along with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit — I mention that Third Person of the Trinity in the interest of accuracy, and full disclosure; but let’s not get ahead of ourselves) so profoundly impacted these ordinary laymen, that they were able to turn the world upside down with the message they validated: that God had entered His creation as a man.

I also think that by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were given insights into what it all means — an important, if not the chief, one being that we will “see Him as He is — because we will be like Him.� (1 John 3:2)

I think that’s pretty cool.

I also think it’s pretty cool how, when properly understood, the Old and New Testaments complete an “integrated message system� that is about Him, in its entirety, with its theme being “Redemption�.

“The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed; the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.�

The ability to supervise the compilation of such a text is a quality that is exclusive of an Entity, and Author, that is “outside our time domain.�

I don't claim to understand the function of "metacosm" either. But then, since the word "metacosm" is an entirely made up word, that is understandable. What we are dealing with here is pure double speak. In other words, grade A make believe.

You're essentially suggesting you believe that magic occurred.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 179 by Volbrigade]

I have no problem allowing that a supernatural God could do all the miracles stated in the Bible without any problem at all.

The problem I have is with the idea that a God would actually do those things.

The whole thing is utterly absurd and even immoral as far as I can see. Any God who would do these things would not have earned my respect or admiration at all. And yet that is utmost importance. Not just from my personal perspective, but from the larger perspective that the God we are talking about here would need to be "My Creator".

That's the problem right there. We simply cannot have a decent person like myself (and millions like me) not recognizing the morality or intelligence of this God's behavior and ultimate plan.

That just doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned the people who actually condone the behavior of this God are themselves highly questionable in their moral values.

I reject the Biblical God precisely because it represents the epitome of immorality and indecency. Of course, there are also the myriad of self-contradictions within these tales that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the stories are clearly false anyway.

But even putting that aside, this God of the Bible (and we're not talking about Jesus here but the FATHER GOD), the ultimate God who would have had to have been the sick demented immoral mastermind behind this whole religion.

This religion is nothing short of disgusting.

In fact, can any Christian truly say that they would be disappointed in any way to discover that this religion is false? I can't imagine any clearly-thinking individual who would be upset to discover that Christianity is a false religion.

It would seem to me that even Christians should have ample reason to jump for joy and rejoice to the highest mountains to discover that Christianity is false. Yet so many of them act like precisely the opposite would be true. They would be devastated and depressed to discover that Christianity is false.

How in the world could anyone be depressed to discover that Christianity is false?

That would be the GREATEST NEWS that anyone could possibly want to hear.

How on earth could anyone be depressed to discover that they are not disgustingly evil, they are not guilty of lusting after sin and rejecting God, and that no God ever had to have is totally innocent loving Son brutally beaten and crucified on their behalf?

I just can't imagine how anyone could be disappointed to discover that Christianity is false.

Yet so many Christians continue to believe in it based on PURE FAITH?

Why one earth would anyone believe in such a clearly depressing and disgusting religion on pure faith?

Any sane reasonable person should be far more interested in placing their faith in the belief that the religion is as false as it can possibly be.

It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Never mind the fact that it contains endless self-contradictions and requires believing that a supernatural God did tons of extremely stupid things. Not the least of which would be arranging to have his only begotten Son brutally crucified at the request of his very own corrupt priests.

This God would either need to be extremely inept and helpless, or extremely sick and demented. There's just no other excuse for him.

And besides, how does having humans brutally crucify an innocent God or demigod redeem them of being horrible people? The whole thing is based on an utter absurdity. This demands that humans committing yet another major sin redeems them of having committed sins. It makes no sense at all.

And then we need to condone this on our behalf lest we'll be cast into hell.

Can you honestly say that you would be disappointed to discover that Christianity is false?

And if not, then why on earth would you believe it on pure faith?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 178 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:

I'm going to go way out on a limb, and suppose that you don't think it happened. Cool

But I do.

You believe that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. It's true that I consider that to be a perfectly silly claim. Objectively, and in the light of all reason, logic and common sense, which of the two of us appears to be standing on firmer footing?

Volbrigade wrote:

Would you like to discuss WHY I think it happened?

I would like you to spell it out in your own words.

Gladly!

First -- let me tell you what I DON’T think happened:

I DON'T think that

a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away.

I think that we’re talking about something that is, at a minimum, hyderdimensional in aspect.

I think that our dimensionally finite existence is but a subset of another one — our cosmos, which is finite on both ends of the size spectrum (the macrocosm and microcosm), a subset of a transcending metacosm.

I think what happened in Joseph of Arimethea’s tomb that first Sunday after Passover was that the man was “translated� into the metacosm. I don’t claim to understand the technology: whether the fungible atoms that composed His body underwent a transformation into a hyperdimensional state (they, perhaps, already ARE in that state, in a limited sense); or if perhaps those atoms were simply dispelled by the sovereign will of God.

But I think the body that was resurrected was a 4D manifestation of a hyperdimensional mode of existence — again, at a minimum. A cube, if you will, manifesting as a square in our reality — an allusion to the Flatland analogy, with which I think everyone is familiar (surely).

He could therefore do any of the things that a corporeal body could do — eat, drink; touch and be touched — but He was not limited to those physical acts; He could appear in an enclosed 6-sided space, without penetrating any of its sides.

And when His disciples observed His “Ascension�, what they saw was Him leaving our natural environment, for His supernatural one. One that we can’t observe or measure, any more than we can observe or measure any of the extra dimensions physicists assure us must exist.

I think that their observance of these phenomena (along with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit — I mention that Third Person of the Trinity in the interest of accuracy, and full disclosure; but let’s not get ahead of ourselves) so profoundly impacted these ordinary laymen, that they were able to turn the world upside down with the message they validated: that God had entered His creation as a man.

I also think that by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were given insights into what it all means — an important, if not the chief, one being that we will “see Him as He is — because we will be like Him.� (1 John 3:2)

I think that’s pretty cool.

I also think it’s pretty cool how, when properly understood, the Old and New Testaments complete an “integrated message system� that is about Him, in its entirety, with its theme being “Redemption�.

“The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed; the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.�

The ability to supervise the compilation of such a text is a quality that is exclusive of an Entity, and Author, that is “outside our time domain.�

I don't claim to understand the function of "metacosm" either. But then, since the word "metacosm" is an entirely made up word, that is understandable. What we are dealing with here is pure double speak. In other words, grade A make believe.

You're essentially suggesting you believe that magic occurred.

"Magic"? Did you say "magic"?

___________________________


Those whose minds are made up will likely remain unpersuaded by any arguments for the Deity of Christ. For the benefit of the open-minded, however:

Since we know that the universe had a beginning, and is thus finite in terms of both time and space; and that “everything that HAS A BEGINNING must have a CAUSE�; then it is reasonable — not “magical� — to infer that the Cause for our spacial, temporal reality must reside outside of it.

And, owing to the spectacular evidence of detailed, intricate design and order in our universe, it is further reasonable — not “magical� — to infer that the cause of our reality has both Mind, Will, and Intelligence.

That is why, even by the limited scientific knowledge and understanding of the 1st century, Paul was able to declare that those who deny the Creator were “without excuse� — since “His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…�.

That is as true today as it was then — arguably, more so, as we continue to discover the exquisite sychronicitous fine tuning involved with (e.g.) the gravitational, strong and weak atomic forces, and electro-magnetic constants; and the 4-letter code of the DNA molecule, expressed in three dimensions; etc.

Now, when it comes to the Biblical claim that God created man to have free will, in order to willingly CHOOSE whether to be in relationship and communion with Him: that is a claim each of us must CHOOSE to either accept or reject.

I maintain that it is reasonable — not “magical� — to accept that an omniscient God, who is outside of space and time, and “knows the end from the beginning� would devise a plan for His creation in which “all things work to the good for as many as love Him, and are called according to His purpose.� A plan which satisfies both our capacity for free will, and His divine sovereignty; the working out of which occurs in dimensional regions beyond our senses or measurement, in addition to our own physical reality.

And it is further reasonable — not “magical� — to marvel at the working out of that plan, described in 66 books, written by 40 authors over a span of 1,700 years, but which is “ an integrated message system from outside our time domain�. A plan in which the Creator himself enters His creation. A plan whereby only one man had to suffer a fall from the state of grace, so that through one man, Jesus Christ, all can be redeemed to that state of grace, and of eternal life.

And if that sounds magical — it is. DEEP magic.

Because reasonable people understand that magic is underrated, and reason is overrated.

And that we exist in a paradigm where secular science un-ironically asks us to accept that “once there was nothing — and then it exploded�; the existence of ten dimensions; the particle-wave duality of light —

and the most “magical� claim of all: that animals turn into other animals — microbe to sponge to fish to lizard to rodent to ape to man — through the magic potion of “lots and lots of time�.

Break out the wizard hat and wand.

Past a certain point, we must choose which “magic� we will choose to accept.

Just as everyone must choose for themselves what to do with Jesus Christ:

— worship Him as Lord, the Creator manifested as a man;
— revile Him as a liar, for making that claim;
— or reject Him as a lunatic, for the same reason.

Anything else is tepid treacle — a half measure.

________________________

Round and round we go.

You think that dimensions superior to ours is "magic".

DI thinks that God is immoral. Which itself may well be "immoral".

Why wouldn't it be? Who decides morality?

And why wouldn't there be more dimensions than the four measurable, perceived ones?

And how would we know know they were there, if they were?

(EDIT) -- great title, btw, Z.

Thanks for the new thread -- great topic!

[Divine Insight]

DI thinks that God is immoral. Which itself may well be "immoral".

Why wouldn't it be? Who decides morality?

If you are going to preach to me a religion that proclaims that your God is "moral" then I am the one who decides whether or not I agree with your claim.

I see no reason why I should have to lower my moral standards in order to embrace your religion if I see your religion as being immoral.