Body or no?

[nobspeople]

In reading through the below article, it seems there's a divisive ideology over rather the body of jesus was physically raised at the resurrection or not.
For discussion:
Do you believe jesus physically rose or not?
Why does it matter one way or the other?
Or does it not matter and why?



https://www.yahoo.com/news/baptists-hol ... 43339.html

[Tcg]

You did state that you don't care about science, but when you use words like protozoa and neurology, I do wonder if that's 100% true. If you did want to hear a 'good' theory of what consciousness is, you might enjoy this YouTube video. I've posted the link on this forum a couple of times.

I'll definitely watch this at lunch.

I'm partial to a Wild Turkey on occasion, although a single malt's my much preferred dram. You'll never prove to me that Scotch isn't the finer spirit, but that's ok - vive la difference, as they say.

Enjoy Ricky. I approve.

True story: My wife is retired military. We go out to the base for our booze runs--ahem, I mean to occasionally, restock the bar--because it's cheaper, and no tax. They have this brand called "Military Whiskey - American Blend." It is the best whiskey, I swear to God, in the world. It's better than Jameson. And it's $11 a GALLON--and no tax.

You've obviously never tasted Tullamore Dew.


Tcg

[Veridican]

You've obviously never tasted Tullamore Dew.


Tcg

No, I haven't, but I looked it up. An Irish Whiskey. If I see it in the liquor store next time, I'll give it a shot--so to speak.

[1213]

...
So what it comes down to is (a) can the apparent contradiction be explained or not?
...

If something seems to be in contradiction, it can be because one just doesn't see straight, as it seems to be in these "contradiction" claims. All of the Gospels tell small part of the whole story and they can be put together for one to have bigger picture of the events, without contradictions. I think it is interesting, why atheists seem to want to see Bible contradictory. Does their atheism collapse, if they can't believe Bible is contradictory? Would you believe in God, if you would understand Bible without contradictions?

[Veridican]

You did state that you don't care about science, but when you use words like protozoa and neurology, I do wonder if that's 100% true. If you did want to hear a 'good' theory of what consciousness is, you might enjoy this YouTube video. I've posted the link on this forum a couple of times.

I must say, I'm disappointed. I thought atheists demanded a more scientific approach to things. In the video the commentator agrees that no one really understands what consciousness is or where it comes from. Then he says it "probably" evolved over eons of time, from simpler forms to greater forms. And then he goes on to act as if that's true. He's just guessing, but he works from that as if it were verified truth. That's con artistry. That's what fortunetellers do. That's what scammers do.

That's why I hold scientism today in such low regard.

Not your fault! I'm just commenting on that video.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Veridican in post #54]

I feel flattered that you took the time to watch the whole video. Bearing in mind that the whole Kurzgesagt channel is really about explaining 'hard' scientific concepts in simple and interesting ways, perhaps I should have prefaced my recommendation by stating that it was never about presenting a theory of consciousness as a settled fact. More about just being a fun and educational introduction to a topic which many people are curious about.

In that vein, when you say:

I thought atheists demanded a more scientific approach to things.

I was deliberately not posting more 'rigorous' examples of scientific research into consciousness. And I'm not even sure whether the narrator/author of that video is an atheist. To my mind, it wouldn't matter anyway.

You've already said your piece, and taken the trouble to consider an opposing view (watched a video), so I don't really have any complaint here.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
So what it comes down to is (a) can the apparent contradiction be explained or not?
...

If something seems to be in contradiction, it can be because one just doesn't see straight, as it seems to be in these "contradiction" claims. All of the Gospels tell small part of the whole story and they can be put together for one to have bigger picture of the events, without contradictions. I think it is interesting, why atheists seem to want to see Bible contradictory. Does their atheism collapse, if they can't believe Bible is contradictory? Would you believe in God, if you would understand Bible without contradictions?

Well, certainly if the Resurrection account wasn't so demonstrably contradictory then I, at least (I haven't seen anyone else do it) could not claim that the accounts mutually self -destruct. Then the conclusion would be that actually the body (dead or alive) was removed because that's the conclusion one arrives at from reading the accounts of the trial and crucifixion.

The excuses and improvised stories that apologists produce to try to account for it working as a real resurrection would fill a decent sized truck if written on rice -paper, but excuses is what they are, and it is only because religious apologetics has had the voice for centuries is the reason that people have been fooled into thinking that it is a reliable eyewitness account.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
So what it comes down to is (a) can the apparent contradiction be explained or not?
...

If something seems to be in contradiction, it can be because one just doesn't see straight, as it seems to be in these "contradiction" claims. All of the Gospels tell small part of the whole story and they can be put together for one to have bigger picture of the events, without contradictions. I think it is interesting, why atheists seem to want to see Bible contradictory. Does their atheism collapse, if they can't believe Bible is contradictory? Would you believe in God, if you would understand Bible without contradictions?

Well, certainly if the Resurrection account wasn't so demonstrably contradictory then I, at least (I haven't seen anyone else do it) could not claim that the accounts mutually self -destruct. Then the conclusion would be that actually the body (dead or alive) was removed because that's the conclusion one arrives at from reading the accounts of the trial and crucifixion.

The excuses and improvised stories that apologists produce to try to account for it working as a real resurrection would fill a decent sized truck if written on rice -paper, but excuses is what they are, and it is only because religious apologetics has had the voice for centuries is the reason that people have been fooled into thinking that it is a reliable eyewitness account.

[1213]

...if the Resurrection account wasn't so demonstrably contradictory...

By what I know, it is contradictory only if you interpret it in such way. I don't think it is reasonable to do so.

[brunumb]

...if the Resurrection account wasn't so demonstrably contradictory...

By what I know, it is contradictory only if you interpret it in such way. I don't think it is reasonable to do so.

By what I know, it is not contradictory only if you interpret it in such way. I don't think it is reasonable to do so. See how that works?

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. Damn, another duplicate post. I'll have to take more pains.

Yes. The contradictions can be shown to apparently exist. It is simply denialist to...deny them. The Believer then has to explain why they are not really contradictory. Just sayiong 'Interpretation' won't cut it.

Take for instance that Luke has the evening appearance of Jesus but not a word about Thomas. To explain this using the 'he didn't bother to mention it' apologetic is really stretching credibility. An iconic event like that and he didn't mention it?

In addition, he says the 11 (minus Judas of course) were there, so Thomas wasn't absent. This absolutelu contradicts John's account and I don't know how they are going to 'Interpret' their way out of that, other than blinkered denial, which is what I've come to expect.

That contradiction by the way is not even having to use that in Luke Jesus shows his hands and feet but not his side, which he wouldn't if there is no spear -stab in the Synoptics, or to refer to Matthew having no Sunday night appearance at all. Those who want to explain away the contradiction of the Resurrection have a job of work to do, and apart from one poster who came up with a nice explanation of why Luke says the women didn't see Jesus when Matthew says they did, most of the time, they prefer to do various kinds of denial and dismissal.

Oh yes...the point about contradiction is more than just 'The Bible isn't accurate'. It is what it tells us about the implications, the conclusions and Gospel construction. What they are, and thus, what they are not. And reliable eyewitness (or even reliable reporting) is what they are not.