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 post 6 by Volbrigade]

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.

If you're going to bring higher dimensions into this discussion, surely you can supply the required mathematics? I'm not a mathematician myself, but I am aware of others who are, who talk about dimensions greater in number than the 3 dimensions of space and the 1 of time that I am familiar with. Whenever they do, they tend to bring equations with them, to show their work. Shall we expect of you to do the same?

It has been said that there are only two categories of people who don’t have trouble with the concept of hyperspaces of more than four dimensions:

Mathematicians with highly specialized training.

And little children.

“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.� (Mt. 18:3)

It seems to me that it would be folly to produce the mathematical equations involved with turning water into wine, while bypassing the usual natural processes; or of the Resurrection — assuming such equations apply, or could be written or understood, this side of Heaven — to someone who is not a mathematician.

Nor are equations of any kind necessary to conceptualize the existence of hyperdimensions. Analogy and metaphor are much better vehicles for conveying an understanding in that regard: an understanding that can be successfully transacted only if the recipient of the information is honest, open-minded, and seeking the truth.

Which means that faith is a matter of individual choice.

“So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.� (Romans 10:17)

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.� (Romans 1:20)

“Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?� Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.� (John 18:37)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 111 by Volbrigade]

I may not be a mathematician but I know for a fact there are some people on the site who are. I just cannot recall who.
So are you going to show your work?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 112 by rikuoamero]

I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 113 by Volbrigade]

Show you what? I'm not the one claiming that dimensional transformations happened 2,000 years ago. I'm merely asking you to show the class your work, to back up your claims.
That is all.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 114 by rikuoamero]

I'm not claiming anything, either.

I am merely asserting my assent to claims that are well-attested to, and go back thousands of years.

While throwing in that in the case of the risen Christ, we are dealing with an entity that is, at a minimum, hyperdimensional in nature (whatever else He may be, we won't fully know, until "we...see Him as He is...", "because we shall be like Him." -- 1 John 3:2)

I throw that in, because it fits in with the hyperdimensional nature of our reality that has come to light in recent decades; that we live in a bounded subset of a higher reality, as expressed here:

"...One implication is that the constants we observe may not, in fact, be the truly fundamental ones. Those live in the full higher-dimensional space, and we see only their three-dimensional shadows." (Barrow, J., & Webb, J. (2006). Inconstant Constants. Scientific American, 64-71)

We are continually catching up with the reality that the Bible has presented all along, my friend. And that is because The Bible is propositional truth, a message from beyond our time domain, from the Author of our reality, both bounded and unbounded (iwo, "Heaven and Earth"). And the fullness of that truth resides in the Person of Jesus Christ. Those who are "of the truth" hear His call. Clearly, those who aren't, don't.

I find your request to show the mathematical equations involved with His Resurrection to be a callow and vaguely asinine one; and bordering on offensive -- though excusable, due to its manifest callowness.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 115 by Volbrigade]

So...you're not making a claim...but you go on to say that the bible is a message from beyond our domain. That the resurrection really happened.
I'll let readers decide what you're doing.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 115 by Volbrigade]

So...you're not making a claim...but you go on to say that the bible is a message from beyond our domain.

That is an observation.

That the resurrection really happened.

That is one of the aforementioned claims, that is not made by me, but is one that I assent to.

Here are some others, related to it:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

I'll let readers decide what you're doing.

Yes.

Truth is always to found in consensus. After all, without an absolute standard for truth -- where else can it be found?

That is the vague and low thermal outlook of the Whateverist. (shrug)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 117 by Volbrigade]

Very well then I am bowing out. If all you're doing is listing what it is you believe, then quite rightly you don't have to substantiate that with evidence. Also...there is no debate then, just so you know. Debate requires substantiation.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 117 by Volbrigade]

Very well then I am bowing out. If all you're doing is listing what it is you believe, then quite rightly you don't have to substantiate that with evidence. Also...there is no debate then, just so you know. Debate requires substantiation.

Suit yourself.

There is abundant evidence for my beliefs. As I have documented over the course of this thread. "Please provide your mathematical equations to support the Resurrection" is not a legitimate request for substantiation -- it is an absurd request, which is too clever by half.

My intent is not to simply "list what I believe". It is to share what, if true, is the most important thing in the world, or conceivable. And which, if not true, renders any other truth claims of subjective and doubtful importance. And I'm not interested in "debate", with its arbitrary and legalistic rules.

This is a "discussion", not debate, page. For exchanging information.

You're welcome to exchange some, if you have any.

[JoeyKnothead]

Let this thread be an example of what can happen when we have a "chat" section on a debate site... Some'll confuse one with the other.

I propose if one could produce an "abundance" of evidence in support of their beliefs, they wouldn't hafta rely on the one section of the site where debate is discouraged.

Alas, an "abundance of evidence" is found to be "an abundance of air, the temperature of which, while indeterminate, is only indeterminate 'cause we couldn't get us close enough to poke us a thermometer in it".