Resurrection Posts culled from the Matthew thread.

[Gordon]

No, Gordon thinks that resurrection is a supernatural claim and wonders why I suggest it might natural and he has said they never happen. These are positive assertions.

My how you struggle - if you think the resurrection is a naturalistic claim then explain how it happens naturally that a 3 day dead corpse gets reanimated. I say it is a supernatural claim because you guys claim it is a miracle, and I reject that because you have no underlying method to substantiate that claim.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

This thread has been created for the posts on the 'Matthew' thread that were on the topic of the Resurrection - further discussion on this should occur in this thread.

[Dicky Underpants]

No, Gordon thinks that resurrection is a supernatural claim and wonders why I suggest it might natural and he has said they never happen. These are positive assertions.
You entertained the idea of resurrection being natural and then said let's though get back to reality. The reality being that resurrection is a supernatural claim.
If as you seem to be saying you now aren't arguing either, then goodnight.

Hey ho - back to basics Vlad. You really need to scrutinise those ancient texts from which you derive your beliefs. That you believe that Christ was raised from the dead, I don't dispute. However, you seem stuck on this idea of the resurrection of a physical body, and this you suggest is a natural claim. The argument is ultimately futile, because of the contradictory nature of the original, already no doubt corrupted texts.
The first accounts that concern the Resurrection are of course St Paul's (and we need not concern ourselves here whether his accounts of his experience of the risen Christ was a real event). However, he did go to some lengths to describe what he meant by resurrection, and it certainly did not refer to a resurrection of a physical body - "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven". And of Christ "So it is written; the first Adam became a living soul; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit". Further, in the 15th chapter of Corinthians, he goes on to strongly imply that the physical body dies "It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body " He also refers to Christ as "the first fruits of them that sleep", indicating that such a spiritual resurrection had never occurred before. It is important in all this to understand that Paul is still talking about bodies, except that he didn't believe the resurrected body of Christ - or any following - was physical.


This of course raises the question of how the much later gospel accounts of the Resurrection in Luke and John are at great pains to stress the physicality of Jesus' resurrected body. Apart from the fact that the idea of any eye-witness testimony there is much in doubt, I'd say that the already emerging beliefs of Gnosticism and Docetism were becoming a threat to the established idea that Jesus did walk on earth in a physical body, and that physical body suffered and died. These later beliefs insisted there was no real incarnation of a divine spirit, and that Jesus earthly appearance was just that - an appearance, or at best a mortal man who had temporarily been inhabited by the divine. So the writers of Luke and John did their bit to counter these beliefs, as did the writer of the much later letter of 1John.

In the light of this, I'd say that we are indeed faced with accounts of the supernatural, and I really don't see any methodology to determine the veracity of such claims. Have there been 'further fruits' of resurrected people since?

[Spud]

Hey ho - back to basics Vlad. You really need to scrutinise those ancient texts from which you derive your beliefs. That you believe that Christ was raised from the dead, I don't dispute. However, you seem stuck on this idea of the resurrection of a physical body, and this you suggest is a natural claim. The argument is ultimately futile, because of the contradictory nature of the original, already no doubt corrupted texts.
The first accounts that concern the Resurrection are of course St Paul's (and we need not concern ourselves here whether his accounts of his experience of the risen Christ was a real event). However, he did go to some lengths to describe what he meant by resurrection, and it certainly did not refer to a resurrection of a physical body - "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven". And of Christ "So it is written; the first Adam became a living soul; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit". Further, in the 15th chapter of Corinthians, he goes on to strongly imply that the physical body dies "It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body " He also refers to Christ as "the first fruits of them that sleep", indicating that such a spiritual resurrection had never occurred before. It is important in all this to understand that Paul is still talking about bodies, except that he didn't believe the resurrected body of Christ - or any following - was physical.


This of course raises the question of how the much later gospel accounts of the Resurrection in Luke and John are at great pains to stress the physicality of Jesus' resurrected body. Apart from the fact that the idea of any eye-witness testimony there is much in doubt, I'd say that the already emerging beliefs of Gnosticism and Docetism were becoming a threat to the established idea that Jesus did walk on earth in a physical body, and that physical body suffered and died. These later beliefs insisted there was no real incarnation of a divine spirit, and that Jesus earthly appearance was just that - an appearance, or at best a mortal man who had temporarily been inhabited by the divine. So the writers of Luke and John did their bit to counter these beliefs, as did the writer of the much later letter of 1John.

In the light of this, I'd say that we are indeed faced with accounts of the supernatural, and I really don't see any methodology to determine the veracity of such claims. Have there been 'further fruits' of resurrected people since?

Don't forget that Paul's encounter with Jesus was after the ascension. The Gospel writers wrote about Jesus' earthly life up until the Ascension,.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Gospel writers wrote about Jesus' earthly life up until the Ascension,.

Or in the case of Mark (the earliest gospel) didn't ... well until later actors doctored it.

[Dicky Underpants]

Don't forget that Paul's encounter with Jesus was after the ascension. The Gospel writers wrote about Jesus' earthly life up until the Ascension,.

The account of the Ascension only occurs in Acts, that most fantastical* and obviously unhistorical book in the NT (It contradicts Paul). The account there is just Luke's peculiar obsession with insisting that Jesus had a physical body from the first (the Docetists must have really got to him)

*and that's saying something.

[Spud]

The account of the Ascension only occurs in Acts, that most fantastical* and obviously unhistorical book in the NT (It contradicts Paul). The account there is just Luke's peculiar obsession with insisting that Jesus had a physical body from the first (the Docetists must have really got to him)

*and that's saying something.

The point is, Paul saw Jesus in heaven in a vision, because he was too late on the scene to see him in the flesh. He describes his body as 'glorious', in contrast with our 'lowly' bodies, in Philippians 3:21. Stephen also saw him in a vision. In John's gospel Jesus says he is going to the Father, clearly a reference to his ascension. In Matthew he says he will be with us always, a similar reference.

[jeremyp]

Go and study the biology of sheep and find out why giving birth to an identical sheep never happens...oh but of course it does doesn't it.

You mean twins? Sheep never give birth to twins? Is that what you are claiming.

A decomposed body - even one that has only been decomposing for a few hours cannot be resurrected because that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hey ho - back to basics Vlad. You really need to scrutinise those ancient texts from which you derive your beliefs. That you believe that Christ was raised from the dead, I don't dispute. However, you seem stuck on this idea of the resurrection of a physical body, and this you suggest is a natural claim. The argument is ultimately futile, because of the contradictory nature of the original, already no doubt corrupted texts.
The first accounts that concern the Resurrection are of course St Paul's (and we need not concern ourselves here whether his accounts of his experience of the risen Christ was a real event). However, he did go to some lengths to describe what he meant by resurrection, and it certainly did not refer to a resurrection of a physical body - "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven". And of Christ "So it is written; the first Adam became a living soul; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit". Further, in the 15th chapter of Corinthians, he goes on to strongly imply that the physical body dies "It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body " He also refers to Christ as "the first fruits of them that sleep", indicating that such a spiritual resurrection had never occurred before. It is important in all this to understand that Paul is still talking about bodies, except that he didn't believe the resurrected body of Christ - or any following - was physical.


This of course raises the question of how the much later gospel accounts of the Resurrection in Luke and John are at great pains to stress the physicality of Jesus' resurrected body. Apart from the fact that the idea of any eye-witness testimony there is much in doubt, I'd say that the already emerging beliefs of Gnosticism and Docetism were becoming a threat to the established idea that Jesus did walk on earth in a physical body, and that physical body suffered and died. These later beliefs insisted there was no real incarnation of a divine spirit, and that Jesus earthly appearance was just that - an appearance, or at best a mortal man who had temporarily been inhabited by the divine. So the writers of Luke and John did their bit to counter these beliefs, as did the writer of the much later letter of 1John.

In the light of this, I'd say that we are indeed faced with accounts of the supernatural, and I really don't see any methodology to determine the veracity of such claims. Have there been 'further fruits' of resurrected people since?

Yes you can probably suggest that the resurrection was purely spiritual but the case for the narrative outlining a physical resurrection I think is far stronger.
Again I feel you are using the term Supernatural without due care and attention to issues surrounding naturalism.

[Gordon]

Yes you can probably suggest that the resurrection was purely spiritual but the case for the narrative outlining a physical resurrection I think is far stronger.

So you think there is strong case for a physical resurrection the - and the details are?

Again I feel you are using the term Supernatural without due care and attention to issues surrounding naturalism.

By definition, and in practice, the two terms are mutually exclusive: the 'natural' is explored through the development of methodologies, and the 'supernatural' isn't. You're just diverting again.

What, in practice, and beyond your fevered imagination, are the specific 'issues' you see in naturalism: and to save time and effort, since I don't think anyone here subscribes to 'philosophical naturalism', you should maybe give that term a rest (and since it gets you a bit over-excited).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you think there is strong case for a physical resurrection the - and the details are?

I did say a strong case in the narrative in the bible since Dicky was appealing to the new testament for his point(which suggested I needed to reread it.

The historical case is what it's always been letters, gospels, the existence of the early Christian community. Against which there seems to be no contradictory historical evidence. Indeed your case against is not historical and deliberately so dependent as it is on what apparently can be believed and what can't.

By definition, and in practice, the two terms are mutually exclusive: the 'natural' is explored through the development of methodologies, and the 'supernatural' isn't. You're just diverting again.

But this statement can only be true if you count a physical resurrection as a purely spiritual event but we have a physical person. Physical objects can notionally be studied. I think you missed where I said that historical study would have to find a natural cause since any supernatural cause is off limits to it

What, in practice, and beyond your fevered imagination, are the specific 'issues' you see in naturalism: and to save time and effort, since I don't think anyone here subscribes to 'philosophical naturalism', you should maybe give that term a rest (and since it gets you a bit over-excited)

Straight off there is a history of things considered supernatural reclassified as natural. Secondly. Philosophical naturalism states that supernatural events don't happen. Thirdly methodological naturalism deals with processes which are natural and what is natural is not clear cut unlike methodological materialism and empiricism where definitions are in other words methodological naturalism carries some com.itment to philosophical naturalism and this is not the case with methodological empiricism or materialism.

[Gordon]

I did say a strong case in the narrative in the bible since Dicky was appealing to the new testament for his point(which suggested I needed to reread it.

The historical case is what it's always been letters, gospels, the existence of the early Christian community. Against which there seems to be no contradictory historical evidence. Indeed your case against is not historical and deliberately so dependent as it is on what apparently can be believed and what can't.

I don't have a 'case'. I'm merely pointing out that if your 'case' is dependent on a bunch of ancient anecdotes that have no substantive provenance, then you don't really have a 'case' at all.

But this statement can only be true if you count a physical resurrection as a purely spiritual event but we have a physical person. Physical objects can notionally be studied. I think you missed where I said that historical study would have to find a natural cause since any supernatural cause is off limits to it

The study of history is methodologically naturalistic, and if you'd like professional historians to study claimed supernatural events, as opposed to people having supernatural beliefs, then you'll need to instruct them on how to go about it.

Straight off there is a history of things considered supernatural reclassified as natural.

True: but only because the development of methodological naturalism has allowed cumulative investigation: so we know what causes thunder, what comets are and have developed germ theory. The important bit being that these have been shown to be natural phenomena. Thus the supernatural claim of Jesus not stayed dead can be contradicted by what we now know about the biology of death and that is what, in your 'case', you will need to overcome without descending into fallacies: the burden of proof here is all yours, since you are the claimant.
 

Secondly. Philosophical naturalism states that supernatural events don't happen. Thirdly methodological naturalism deals with processes which are natural and what is natural is not clear cut unlike methodological materialism and empiricism where definitions are in other words methodological naturalism carries some com.itment to philosophical naturalism and this is not the case with methodological empiricism or materialism.

Firstly, your obsession with philosophical naturalism is misleading you: nobody here subscribes to that and I certainly don't for the obvious reason that I can recognise that there may well be unknown unknowns, and that the certainty you ascribe to philosophical naturalism is a fool's paradise. Secondly, I don't think you understand the terms that you throw around so blithely, which makes it easy to see that your 'case' has more holes in it than a kitchen colander.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes you can probably suggest that the resurrection was purely spiritual but the case for the narrative outlining a physical resurrection I think is far stronger.
Again I feel you are using the term Supernatural without due care and attention to issues surrounding naturalism.

I myself of course don't believe in any resurrection; I do believe certain early Christians experienced phenomena which were purely psychological (more on this later).

The case for reports of disciples experiencing a physical risen Jesus on the contrary are not at all strong, for some of the reasons I wrote above. Those accounts were written much later and I suggest were pure invention. The earliest written witness is Paul, and he makes quite clear the state of belief about Jesus right at the beginning of 1Corinthians 15: "For  I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received"
And that was very different from what Luke and John in particular wrote. Note he says Jesus first appeared to Peter and then to the twelve (including Judas presumably). Now this may be total moonshine, but it is the tradition of belief which he received; the rest of the chapter may also be the result of a fevered imagination, but at least it asserts that dead physical bodies stay dead and rot.

[Spud]

I myself of course don't believe in any resurrection; I do believe certain early Christians experienced phenomena which were purely psychological (more on this later).

The case for reports of disciples experiencing a physical risen Jesus on the contrary are not at all strong, for some of the reasons I wrote above. Those accounts were written much later and I suggest were pure invention. The earliest written witness is Paul, and he makes quite clear the state of belief about Jesus right at the beginning of 1Corinthians 15: "For  I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received"
And that was very different from what Luke and John in particular wrote. Note he says Jesus first appeared to Peter and then to the twelve (including Judas presumably). Now this may be total moonshine, but it is the tradition of belief which he received; the rest of the chapter may also be the result of a fevered imagination, but at least it asserts that dead physical bodies stay dead and rot.

Not sure if you read my reply to your earlier post. Just to add, Luke 24 also mentions that Jesus had appeared to Simon, before the 'Twelve' had seen him. So this is consistent with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus appeared first to Peter.