Easter Is Coming in 8 Weeks

Quote: TheCesspit

Does it? Neither of these need a 'supernatural' cause. Either could be 'just what it is'.

Quote: Evenbob

We don't know how the universe started,
so we have to assume it's been here forever
at this point.

Quote: TheCesspit

What we don't know if there was anything before this, or if this starting event is unique

Quote: Evenbob

Once you understand when the NT was
written, the truth is obvious. The puzzle
is, why weren't any of the gospels written
till decades after Jesus died. The only
answer is, there was nothing to write about.

As time went on, people made up stories
about a physical resurrection. That's why
Paul doesn't mention it, there wasn't one.
After a couple decades, the urban myths
all sounded somewhat similar to each other
and they started to write them down.

When the Bible was put together, they left
in myths that met their agenda, and disregarded
the rest.

Think about it. This thing happened, supposedly
this life changing thing, and nobody records
it for decades?

For Paul there were no empty tombs, no
disappearance from the grave of the physical
body, no physical resurrection, no physical
appearances of a Christ who would eat fish,
offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically
into the sky after an appropriate length of time.

That's because they never happened and
would be invented later. It's all so obvious.

Quote: TheCesspit

Odd, 1 Corinthians seems to disagree with this piece of bible theory from you.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm tempted to let you stay with the idea that Jesus was spiritually resurrected and chalk it up as a movement in the right direction. This argument as I've mentioned at least recognizes the historical fact that the Paul and the early disciples had a real experience of Jesus that galvanized them to spread the Good News throughout the world. I could also take solace in the recognition of Bob that in this argument the spiritual exists. Like acknowledging that the universe had a cause or force, even if one does not recognize this cause as a being, is a step in the right direction. I'm tempted to rest in the acknowledgement of a spiritual resurrection as a step in the right direction. Alas, my conscience will not let me do so because this idea of Paul's experience of the Resurrected Christ differing so radically from the Gospel accounts is non Biblical.

The misconception of the nature of Jesus' Resurrection can be traced to an early heresy called Docetism that claimed that Jesus Himself was not fully human, but more of a spiritual reality even when He walked the earth. This means that He never really died and He never was physically Resurrected because there was no true physicality to Him in the first place. This heresy was rejected explicitly in the Council of Nicea in 325AD. It was resurrected in the 19th and 20th century in an attempt to reconcile the Resurrection to what modern philosophy and thinking would find more acceptable. Dr. Craig writes this:

"So although many theologians try to play off the 'massiven Realismus' of the gospels against a Pauline doctrine of a spiritual resurrection body, such reasoning rests on a fundamental and drastic misunderstanding of Paul's doctrine. One cannot but suspect that the real reason for scholarly scepticism concerning the historicity of the gospel appearances is that, as Bultmann openly stated, this is offensive to 'modern man,' and that Paul has been made an unwilling accomplice in critics' attempts to find reasons to support a conclusion already dictated by a priori philosophical assumptions. But Paul will not allow himself to be put to this use; a careful exegesis of Pauline doctrine fully supports a physical resurrection body. And, it must be said, this was how first century Christians apparently understood him, for the letters of Clement and Ignatius prove early wide acceptance of the doctrine of physical resurrection in first century churches, including the very churches where Paul himself had taught. The ground is thus cut from beneath those scholars who object to the historicity of the gospel resurrection narratives because of their physicalism."

Paul's Meaning of Resurrection

This quote also mentions and I alluded to it in referencing the Council of Nicea that using Paul against the Gospels is a modern invention that the early Christians would find as ridiculous as we do when we truly look at it in the perspective of the early Church. A key point is to remember that Paul, who was a Pharisee content on persecuting Christians precisely because of their claims about the Resurrection of Jesus had a conversion experience. Immediately afterwards He received instruction from the disciples and went to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. There he received his nihil obstat if you will, to begin his missionary journeys. Luke and Mark where both his companions on these journeys. He was obviously in complete agreement concerning the most important fact of Christianity, namely the real physical Resurrection of Jesus before heading out to evangelize the world with the blessings of the first Pope and the community.

Paul being a Pharisee had a very real physical understanding of what was meant by resurrection. He appealed to his fellow Pharisees in this regard when at trial in Acts 23:6. The Pharisees took resurrection so literally as to claim that the very bones of the deceased, which remained after the flesh was gone, was part of the resurrection. I mention this only to point out the radical physical nature of the resurrection that was deeply ingrained in Paul and the Jewish leaders of the time. Without going to much into the ancient understanding of soma, which Paul uses to describe the resurrection. Suffice it to say for now that this concept for Paul meant body, form, and substance. While it is clear in Paul's teaching and that of the early Church that the Resurrection of Jesus was a glorified body, very different than the "flesh and blood" we have right now, it was without a doubt a real physical resurrection in line with his Pharisic background and the understanding of orthodox Christianity at the time.

Quote: Nareed

It comes back to what I keep saying : "We don't know."

But there's also one inescapable fact: the universe is what it is, and as it is, whether or not there is a creator.

Quote: Evenbob

So if I said the ghost of a dead saint
appeared to me and I want to join the
fold, you would consider that 'proof'?
There's no proof whatever.

Quote:

'Approved medical miracles'?

Quote:

In fact, it's the exact opposite of that. If it's
been here forever, that's just the fact of it,
nothing supernatural at all.

Quote:

At this point in
human time, it's the only explanation that
makes logical sense.

Quote:

It erases all the questions.
No head scratching involved.

Quote:

It's like this. You can apply this to anything.
I don't know where the road in front of my
house came from, so I start with the theory
it's been there forever. I start my investigation
and find quickly that it hasn't been there
forever and I correct my thinking.