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

[JehovahsWitness]

No where there does it say why you prefer one verse over a contradictory verse.

....

Thanks for your participation

I don't see the verses as contradictory and do not answer loaded questions.


You're welcome!



JW

[nobspeople]

No where there does it say why you prefer one verse over a contradictory verse.

....

Thanks for your participation

I'dont see the verses as contradictory and do not answer loaded questions.


You're welcome!



JW

You crack me up! Thanks for that!

[nobspeople]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

The Believer assumes that waving away all problems leaves the Bible (that is to say, Godfaith) the default. But it isn't. Not unless one already has Faith as the default.

That is a good point to make, not only here but in most, if not all, other aspects of the bible. In order to accept most any of it, you have to have faith: faith in god, faith in those that wrote it, faith in those that edited it, faith in those that translated it (if necessary), faith in those that agreed what should and shouldn't go in it. Faith faith faith.
And how does one get that faith?
Accepting 'god'.
Why would one do that?
Well, who wants to spend eternity in hell when you can spend it in heaven?
Duh.
It seems, no matter if one believes in the physical resurrection or not, it, like all things 'bible', comes down to faith.

True. But the fact is that Faith is not incurable. The 'Rachel Slick' apologetic is one of the main reasons why people Lose Faith - they realise that the Bible does not warrant belief. A god of some sort, possibly, but That god - no. The other major deconverter is the problem of evil and despite some tough apologetics (though it usually ends up with variants upon 'God knows best'), some do decide either that Hell cannot be real and opt for UR or give up on Biblegod altogether.,

Despite those who say 'You cannot change peoples' minds' the fact is, that people can change their own minds. Sometimes while they are doing their most furious battles for the Faith.

I think faith is something innate to humanity. Where that faith is placed isn't.
Of course religious faith isn't incurable. Myself and a myriad of others are proof.

A god of some sort, possibly, but That god - no.

Well, that's because that god makes no sense.

The other major deconverter is the problem of evil and despite some tough apologetics (though it usually ends up with variants upon 'God knows best'), some do decide either that Hell cannot be real and opt for UR or give up on Biblegod altogether.,

The concept of hell and the arguing amongst believers sure don't help convince people hell is real. Why would god let that happen? Oh wait... yeah.

Despite those who say 'You cannot change peoples' minds' the fact is, that people can change their own minds.

Thankfully, I've never said that!!

[JehovahsWitness]

An apparent contradiction can be pointed out. Such as John says that Thomas was absent Sunday night when Jesus showed up, while Luke says the 'eleven' (minus Judas of course) were there.

Luke doesnt actually say all eleven were present when Jesus appeared on Sunday night ; only that they "found the eleven" , were informed and spoke of the days events [2] and at some moment during an unspecified discussion [3] on the subject the appearance of Jesus he [Jesus] reappeared.

LUKE 24: 34

And they got up in that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and they found the Eleven [1] and those assembled together with them, 34 who said: “For a fact the Lord was raised up, and he appeared to Simon!”+ 35 Then they related the events on the road [2][/b]and how he became known to them by the breaking of the bread.

36 While they were speaking of these things [3][/b] , he himself stood in their midst and said to them: “May you have peace.”

• Was "the eleven" used as a collective title rather than a head count?

• Did Luke include Mathais who would later be selected to join the eleven faithful Apostles?

• Were all all eleven present for the entire discussion?

• Does LUKE say the "they" [3] included all eleven of the Apostles ?

Luke was not precise enough to provide a definitive answer these questions, and assumptions do not a contradiction make.





RELATED POSTS

Are OMISSIONS contradictions [legion]?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6#p1005966

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[Diagoras]

And in the Garden, consider also that God was there in the Garden with them. He walked in the Garden. It had supernatural "trees" in it (the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the tree of Life).

God wouldn't necessarily 'impart' a supernatural nature on the garden, just because he was there in it. Also, the two trees mentioned appear to be physical, not supernatural:

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

The Bible goes on to describe the physical location of this Garden of Eden. Furthermore, in the third chapter of Genesis, Eve recounts how God has commanded them not to eat of, or touch the tree in the middle of the garden. If such a tree was 'supernatural' (i.e. not physical), then a physical being wouldn't be able to touch it.

Clearly, the story is of a rather 'special' tree - one that has curious properties, to say the least. There's a body of research into people at that time using psychedelics, and that might plausibly be one interpretation of the 'Eve and the fruit' story.

I realise that since you and I posted on Page 1, the debate's moved on rather quickly. However, I thought it was still relevant to challenge the claim that the Garden of Eden had any kind of 'astral' or 'supernatural' form.

[Veridican]

God wouldn't necessarily 'impart' a supernatural nature on the garden, just because he was there in it. Also, the two trees mentioned appear to be physical, not supernatural:

If God is there...and you're there...I'd call that a supernatural place. If you can eat from a tree and it gives you eternal life, I'd call that supernatural.

[Diagoras]

God wouldn't necessarily 'impart' a supernatural nature on the garden, just because he was there in it. Also, the two trees mentioned appear to be physical, not supernatural:

If God is there...and you're there...I'd call that a supernatural place. If you can eat from a tree and it gives you eternal life, I'd call that supernatural.

<bolding mine>

So a 'supernatural place' can be any physical place where God is, according to your view? In that case, since God is purportedly omnipresent, then every point in the physical universe is equally 'supernatural'. Such a state appears to be no different from the 'combined' physical and supernatural state that you envision will occur in the future. In which case, why claim that the physical and supernatural are currently separate?

I'm not sure that defining a term to simply be whatever fits one's beliefs really helps the debate. 'Supernatural' can be meant as a range of things, from simply 'something mysterious and/or unusual' all the way to 'an order of existence beyond the physical universe'. I'm using the word in the latter sense, so a tree planted in a garden on Earth - no matter how life-giving - is better described as fictional.

Also regarding the tree, you'll have to point to evidence of someone who has eternal life to make me believe that it's supernatural. Is there such a person living?

[Veridican]

So a 'supernatural place' can be any physical place where God is, according to your view? In that case, since God is purportedly omnipresent, then every point in the physical universe is equally 'supernatural'. Such a state appears to be no different from the 'combined' physical and supernatural state that you envision will occur in the future. In which case, why claim that the physical and supernatural are currently separate?

Good point.

I'm not sure that defining a term to simply be whatever fits one's beliefs really helps the debate. 'Supernatural' can be meant as a range of things, from simply 'something mysterious and/or unusual' all the way to 'an order of existence beyond the physical universe'. I'm using the word in the latter sense, so a tree planted in a garden on Earth - no matter how life-giving - is better described as fictional.

I can see that, but I do consider it a true story (the Garden), because Jesus Christ made reference to it as if it were true--and he's the Truth.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6 KJV)

And then there is the revelation I've had: that there was a combined astral and physical plane. Man, via his freewill, rebelled against God, so there was a separation (Man was put out of the garden), then there is the atonement of Jesus Christ to save whomever God chooses, then there is the tribulation, the millennium, the battle between Christ and Satan, and then the new heaven and earth, or heaven-earth I like to call it.

That's what I think is true. I don't care about reason, in that regard. I don't care about science, in that regard. I don't care about probability. I don't care about what university professors say or how cool Bart Ehrman thinks he is for being an academic. I have what Jesus said, and I have what God has said to me.

And I'm not trying to be snippy; I'm just stating how it is for me.

Also regarding the tree, you'll have to point to evidence of someone who has eternal life to make me believe that it's supernatural. Is there such a person living?

No offense, my friend, but I don't have to point to anything. I don't have to prove anything to you. I don't know whether or not God has chosen you to be one of the Elect, so I have no idea if you are even capable of believing anything about God, the supernatural, the astral, heaven, Jesus, any of that.

I can tell you that I believe it. I can tell you how and why I believe it, but those things would never satisfy you. They can't. You can't have the experience of the revelation I've had. You'd have to have a revelation of your own. And that means you'd have to have a relationship with God on your own.

Again, I don't mean this to sound snippy. I don't intend it that way, and I don't feel that way. But when it comes to talking to skeptical atheists, I would assume you'd rather have me tell it to you straight.

There are things that are beyond logic that do occur in this world: the palcebo effect, telepathy, remote viewing, faith healing, speaking in tongues, ghosts. Heck: dreams are impossible, if you think about it. Consciousness: everyone has it--every animal has it--and there is not one good theory at all as to why it exists. Protozoa swim around hunting for food in a drop of water, displaying will and memory. They can even be trained with classical conditioning, and they have 0--let me repeat that--0 neurology of any kind. Gravity might as well be magic. Electromagnetism might as well be magic. The Big Bang is more incredible than the Garden of Eden.

But the atheist will pooh-pooh all of that. All of it. And then he will walk around the halls of some college feeling so superior in his intellect, sniggering as he walks by the big Holy Bible on display in the library. You know? I mean, so what is one Mississippi minister going to tell you that would make any difference at all?

And again, I know how things come across in writing on the internet. I don't mean any meanness; I'm just dialoging with you. I mean, you sound like a smart person, to me.

Now, my dog has to go pee. I need a whiskey, and then I'm going to go binge watch my favorite comedy actor, Ricky Gervase (After Life).

[Diagoras]

I can see that, but I do consider it a true story (the Garden), because Jesus Christ made reference to it as if it were true--and he's the Truth.

Maybe we have to leave it at that. I could happily point out that this is begging the question, but then you said:

I don't care about reason, in that regard. I don't care about science, in that regard. I don't care about probability.

Well, no-one's forcing you to care, I suppose. Plenty of people (and I'm not singling out you, Christians or even religious groups as a whole) have beliefs that they consider sufficient for them to live their lives.

I have what Jesus said, and I have what God has said to me.

I've never experienced any god talking to me, but I can appreciate it might have a profound effect on anyone who believes they've done so. As far as I can tell, such experiences are most likely to simply be auditory hallucinations, but of course I have absolutely no way of verifying this.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I don't know whether or not God has chosen you to be one of the Elect, so I have no idea if you are even capable of believing anything about God, the supernatural, the astral, heaven, Jesus, any of that.

All I can say is that if God exists and he has planned for me to suddenly turn religious, then he most assuredly works in 'mysterious ways'...

I can tell you that I believe it. I can tell you how and why I believe it, but those things would never satisfy you. They can't. You can't have the experience of the revelation I've had. You'd have to have a revelation of your own. And that means you'd have to have a relationship with God on your own.

One day in the future, perhaps, the technology will exist to allow 'sharing minds'. Probably not in my lifetime, so for all intents and purposes we agree on the above.

Again, I don't mean this to sound snippy. I don't intend it that way, and I don't feel that way. But when it comes to talking to skeptical atheists, I would assume you'd rather have me tell it to you straight.

You're not coming across as snippy, and I appreciate the straight talking.

There are things that are beyond logic that do occur in this world

I prefer the phrase "not yet fully understood" for some of those, and being merely the result of coincidence or charlatanry for the rest.

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.

Gravity might as well be magic. Electromagnetism might as well be magic. The Big Bang is more incredible than the Garden of Eden.

That last one? Yeah, I'm totally with you there. If by 'incredible' you mean 'fills me with a sense of wonder and a thirst for knowledge' - not in the sense of 'unbelievable'.

But the atheist will pooh-pooh all of that. All of it. And then he will walk around the halls of some college feeling so superior in his intellect, sniggering as he walks by the big Holy Bible on display in the library. You know? I mean, so what is one Mississippi minister going to tell you that would make any difference at all?

<bolding mine>

I can't deny that some atheists of the smug, sniggering type do exist. In the same way that there exists a similar type of theist who's clutching that same Bible to his chest and feeling special for having been 'chosen'. Let's not go down the track of assuming that anyone in particular conforms to those rather unfair stereotypes.

I don't mean any meanness; I'm just dialoging with you. I mean, you sound like a smart person, to me.

You're no slouch yourself.

Now, my dog has to go pee. I need a whiskey, and then I'm going to go binge watch my favorite comedy actor, Ricky Gervase (After Life).

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.

[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'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.