|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: If we found the bones of Jesus
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That would seem to contradict Paul's idea of a new, nor re, creation in 1 Cor 15:
I'd say that's pretty good proof you're misreading Paul. The tomb was empty. End of.
Paul never mentions the empty tomb. he seems to be unaware of it.
Did the Gospels drop out of the bibles at your church? How bizarre.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
This seems to me to be as facile as the Shroud of Turin myth.
The Shroud might well be genuine.
Except for that pesky carbon dating they did which definitively proved it wasn't.
Carbon dating done by taking fragments which wouldn't spoil the main part of the cloth and which were, therefore, part of the medieval fabric used for mending the shroud after fire.
quote:
"The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic,"...[The radiocarbon sample] has obvious painting medium, a dye and a mordant that doesn't show anywhere else," ...."This stuff was manipulated - it was coloured on purpose.[The radiocarbon sample] has obvious painting medium, a dye and a mordant that doesn't show anywhere else," "The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about AD 1290, agreeing with the age determined in 1988. However, the shroud itself is actually much older."
Rogers, retired chemist from Los Alamos National aboratory in New Mexico, US.
Seriously, who the hell cares? The reason finding the bones of Jesus might affect the faith of people is because there aren't supposed to be any bones. The existence of a burial shroud for Jesus is not in dispute. Whether a particular shroud is Jesus' shroud or someone else's shroud is a debate with no theological significance whatsoever, except for people who like the idolatry of worshiping inanimate objects.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That would seem to contradict Paul's idea of a new, nor re, creation in 1 Cor 15:
I'd say that's pretty good proof you're misreading Paul. The tomb was empty. End of.
Paul never mentions the empty tomb. he seems to be unaware of it.
Did the Gospels drop out of the bibles at your church? How bizarre.
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
[ 12. October 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
If the bones of Jesus were found and authenticated to the satisfaction of the whole world(!) it would at least prove that Jesus existed. There are some atheists around who find that hard to believe.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That would seem to contradict Paul's idea of a new, nor re, creation in 1 Cor 15:
I'd say that's pretty good proof you're misreading Paul. The tomb was empty. End of.
Paul never mentions the empty tomb. he seems to be unaware of it.
Did the Gospels drop out of the bibles at your church? How bizarre.
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
I think you're being rather literal in your interpretation of mousethief's point. If Paul was writing a theology that was incompatible with the empty tomb presented in the Gospels, I think it's reasonable that such a central point would have come up when compiling the Bible. It seems far more likely that they felt Paul was perfectly compatible with the empty tomb.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you're being rather literal in your interpretation of mousethief's point. If Paul was writing a theology that was incompatible with the empty tomb presented in the Gospels, I think it's reasonable that such a central point would have come up when compiling the Bible. It seems far more likely that they felt Paul was perfectly compatible with the empty tomb.
Not literal. realistic. The NT church didn't have a party line. there were lots of different opinions and beliefs.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
I don't understand how leo can be simultaneously arguing that a) the Shroud of Turin is genuine but b) the tomb might not have been empty. If the tomb wasn't empty, how (and why) would anyone have removed the shroud?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here, which went like this:
Me: The tomb was empty
You: Paul didn't mention that.
That's not at all relevant unless anything Paul didn't mention can't be assumed to have happened. But we have the Gospels, and we as Christians assume that what they say happened, happened. Particularly something as monumental as the empty tomb. If you are going to only draw your beliefs from Paul, you're going to have a grossly distorted and rather legalistic view of Christianity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you're being rather literal in your interpretation of mousethief's point. If Paul was writing a theology that was incompatible with the empty tomb presented in the Gospels, I think it's reasonable that such a central point would have come up when compiling the Bible. It seems far more likely that they felt Paul was perfectly compatible with the empty tomb.
Not literal. realistic. The NT church didn't have a party line. there were lots of different opinions and beliefs.
You mean heresies though you would never say that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The question, "If Jesus didn't rise from the dead but just decomposed in the grave, would it change your faith?" is an interesting and telling question about the nature and content of Christian faith, so I answered it.
But is that the question? I don't see the finding of bones as proof that there was no Resurrection event.
I Corinthians 15:44 quote:
... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
I don't think the idea that Jesus appeared to the disciples, in a real body that was recognisably and tangibly him, is incompatible with the idea that he had somehow sloughed off his earthly husk. There was definitely something unusual about the risen Christ. Why didn't they recognise him on the Emmaus road? How did he suddenly appear in their midst in a loecked room? The body was real, warm, alive, but surely not 'just' his old body re-vivified. That, in my view, is ridiculous.
If life after death is a real thing, we are stuck with the problem that we are, really, very much our bodies, and yet clearly our bodies our finite. If there is eternal then it has to be with bodies that are real but not real, located in a place not currently locatable within the known universe. So I don't personally see why anyone who is currently prepared to believe that our identities survive death should find it so hard to believe that Jesus is really alive whilst, at the same time, the bones of his erstwhile carcass are here on earth.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you're being rather literal in your interpretation of mousethief's point. If Paul was writing a theology that was incompatible with the empty tomb presented in the Gospels, I think it's reasonable that such a central point would have come up when compiling the Bible. It seems far more likely that they felt Paul was perfectly compatible with the empty tomb.
Not literal. realistic. The NT church didn't have a party line. there were lots of different opinions and beliefs.
You mean heresies though you would never say that
The concept of heresy didn't exist until 3 centuries later.
If you think the NT contains within itself heresies, rather than different points of view, then that is something entirely new.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the specifically Christian story would be finished.
Each to their own of course but I think we might be being a little hard on ourselves.
OK, no verifiable remains of Jesus have come to light ,(and probably not likely to), yet just think how many Christians have secretly pondered as to whether all that supernatural stuff really happened ? The majority is my guess.
According to the Gospels, on discovering the tomb to be empty ,finding the body of Jesus didn't sound like a pressing issue for the Apostles.
I mean who's to say that in reality they didn't get to see the crucified body of Jesus in an embalmed state at some other location . Seeing it may have contributed to a transcendental experience . Something that clearly had a powerful effect on each of them , the last one being Thomas.
Although St Paul seems to the source of some disagreement above , the very fact that he succumbed to a dramatic conversion without ever meeting the historical Jesus, alive or dead, is more than enough evidence for me of Christ's power.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Bones would not change the beliefs of many people, not how it works.
Jesus himself could tell people he didn't exist, and they'd not believe him.
[ 12. October 2013, 17:44: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I mean who's to say that in reality they didn't get to see the crucified body of Jesus in an embalmed state at some other location . Seeing it may have contributed to a transcendental experience . Something that clearly had a powerful effect on each of them , the last one being Thomas.
If that's what happened, and they then went out into the world to proclaim that Jesus is risen, then they were mistaken. They may have been holy and mistaken, or inspired and mistaken, but they would have been simply wrong about the factual claim that most mattered to them and on which they based their teaching of faith in Christ.
And if that were proved to me, I wouldn't lose my respect for St Peter's sincerity and courage, but knowing that he was basically wrong about his central factual claim would undermine my confidence in the message of salvation that he derives from that claim.
Could I explain the apostles' teaching on the hypothesis that Jesus wasn't raised? Sure. Could I trust it? No. Because my trust isn't in St Peter's or St Thomas's transcendental experiences, and they never intended that it should be - they called people to trust not in their personal mystical insights, but in the risen Lord. It might be possible to construct a religion based on the premise that a factually mistaken view of the resurrection led to profound spiritual insights, but that religion would be conceptually different from the one traditionally known as Christianity.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
Nicely avoided. You can't. I win by default.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
But the Christians that Paul was writing to had heard the Christian message before Paul ever wrote his letters. The letters were not meant to be a detailed description of all aspects of Christian theology. They addressed those points on which there appeared to be misunderstandings.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
Does it? I understand Paul to be saying that the resurrected body is changed from the "earthly" body, but he still seems to assert that it is the same body that is changed, not a new body that replaces the old.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If Paul contradicts the gospels, I'd say "too bad for Paul." The Gospels were written after Paul, indicating where the Church was at the time they were written. If they had moved on from Paul's ressurectionology, then Paul's doctrine is old news, and the Gospels trump it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
[ 12. October 2013, 22:14: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
The resurrection may ultimately belong in the realm of real science - that is, it really happened and, one day, we will understand the science - but it's not really there right now, is it? We don't know, and we're not even close to beginning to know, how such an event could be real. But if the resurrection is real, then why should spirit not also be real? Does the Holy Spirit not really exist?
If Jesus' body was resuscitated, it's pretty unlikely that he would have been able to stand up and walk around three days after being crucified. Of course, the resurrection could have involved a miraculous healing - but then, he wasn't healed, was he? The wounds were still there. Lucky he didn't get septicaemia.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So if I have scars, I'm not healed?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Yes, but if the Resurrection was some kind of 'spiritual event' it wouldn't be a miracle, because it wouldn't be in conflict with real science. I rather think that is Zach's point.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Yes, but if the Resurrection was some kind of 'spiritual event' it wouldn't be a miracle, because it wouldn't be in conflict with real science. I rather think that is Zach's point.
That's the idea.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Thank you for this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So if I have scars, I'm not healed?
Yes, but a re-animated earthly body would not be healed to the point of scarring by the third day.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[qb] No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Yes, but if the Resurrection was some kind of 'spiritual event' it wouldn't be a miracle, because it wouldn't be in conflict with real science. I rather think that is Zach's point.
That's the idea.
That assumes that spiritual events don't or can't have objective correlatives. That assumes that spirits are so detached from bodies that the survival of a spirit after death is not, in itself, miraculous.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
But when (if?) we are resurrected there will be no resuscitation will there? I can't see my ashes gathering themselves together after being scattered at sea.
Why would our eternal life be any different from Jesus's?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So if I have scars, I'm not healed?
Yes, but a re-animated earthly body would not be healed to the point of scarring by the third day.
We're not talking about reanimation we're talking about resurrection. No Christian believes Jesus was reanimated. (Do they? Well some maybe do. But that's not the Church's teaching.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We're not talking about reanimation we're talking about resurrection. No Christian believes Jesus was reanimated. (Do they? Well some maybe do. But that's not the Church's teaching.)
Same question - will my ashes fly back together to be my resurrected body, or will other matter be used?
If other matter, then Jesus could have been 'done' in the same way. If not it will be very confusing as some fish may be using my ashes at the time!
<edited to correct code>
[ 13. October 2013, 07:32: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Same question - will my ashes fly back together to be my resurrected body, or will other matter be used?
If other matter, then Jesus could have been 'done' in the same way. If not it will be very confusing as some fish may be using my ashes at the time!
I do not know what will happen to people whose atoms have been scattered. But Jesus' atoms weren't scattered; he was dead less than 48 hours. So it's rather irrelevant.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So if I have scars, I'm not healed?
Yes, but a re-animated earthly body would not be healed to the point of scarring by the third day.
We're not talking about reanimation we're talking about resurrection. No Christian believes Jesus was reanimated. (Do they? Well some maybe do. But that's not the Church's teaching.)
I don't believe that the Resurrection had anything to do with the dead body of Jesus, but I think Zach does.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
I don't think the Resurrection was a Resuscitation Plus event. I don't know why the tomb was empty. It's possible that the bones were consumed to dust and ash by whatever process occurred, but maybe they weren't. It's possible that the tomb was merely empty of what it was expected to hold. What matters is the encounter with the living Christ; the bones are irrelevant.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Sorry to post twice in succession, but ...
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If Paul contradicts the gospels, I'd say "too bad for Paul." The Gospels were written after Paul, indicating where the Church was at the time they were written. If they had moved on from Paul's ressurectionology, then Paul's doctrine is old news, and the Gospels trump it.
What I find bizarre about your stance is this: it would normally be assumed that people who witnessed an event would give the more reliable account of what went on (thus giving precedence to Paul, as being closer to the apostles). Of course, it's possible that they wouldn't fully understand what they saw, and that someone coming later, with more developed thinking and perhaps, in some cases, a better scientific understanding, would be able to better understand and explain what the witnesses experienced. But here's the thing: your stance seems to draw a line in the sand. Anything before that line wasn't understood properly and anything after that line can't be right because ... well it just can't. I call that having your cake and eating it.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I do not know what will happen to people whose atoms have been scattered. But Jesus' atoms weren't scattered; he was dead less than 48 hours. So it's rather irrelevant.
Is it? Jesus' resurrection was a one off?
I thought his resurrection was a blue-print for ours?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
Nicely avoided. You can't. I win by default.
Not at all - a thread on 1 Cor 15 has been done before in Kerygmania.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I don't believe that the Resurrection had anything to do with the dead body of Jesus, but I think Zach does.
As do I. The tomb was empty.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
What I find bizarre about your stance is this: it would normally be assumed that people who witnessed an event would give the more reliable account of what went on (thus giving precedence to Paul, as being closer to the apostles).
Paul didn't witness the resurrection. This is bizarre.
quote:
your stance seems to draw a line in the sand. Anything before that line wasn't understood properly and anything after that line can't be right because ... well it just can't. I call that having your cake and eating it.
Are you speaking to me? I said anything after some line can't be right?
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Is it? Jesus' resurrection was a one off?
I thought his resurrection was a blue-print for ours?
No, and yes. It has to do with the presence of the dead body. I thought I made that clear, but if not I apologize.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
Nicely avoided. You can't. I win by default.
Not at all - a thread on 1 Cor 15 has been done before in Kerygmania.
The only reason you believe there is a contradiction is because you have decided beforehand that there is one. It's entirely relevant to the thread.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
What I find bizarre about your stance is this: it would normally be assumed that people who witnessed an event would give the more reliable account of what went on (thus giving precedence to Paul, as being closer to the apostles).
Paul didn't witness the resurrection. This is bizarre.
I know Paul didn't witness the Resurrection (in fact nobody witnessed the actual moment of Resurrection). You said that his letters pre-dated the gospels, and my point was that he was closer to those who witnessed the events at the first Easter. He worked alongside the apostles. quote:
quote:
your stance seems to draw a line in the sand. Anything before that line wasn't understood properly and anything after that line can't be right because ... well it just can't. I call that having your cake and eating it.
Are you speaking to me? I said anything after some line can't be right?
Yes, I was talking to you. I understand that, as a member of the Orthodox Church, you take the view that no new doctrine - even (am I right?) no new understanding of doctrine - can be formed after the Great Schism. So what I find bizarre is your saying that, if Paul and the gospels differ, the gospels have the edge, because they're later (even though, as someone else has pointed out, the Church included both in the canon); but then you would presumably say that anything before 1054 has the edge over anything after 1054, because it's earlier. So it's as though our understanding of Christ reached its apogee in the middle of the 11th century and we are then tied to that forever, or at least until the Second Coming.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
Nicely avoided. You can't. I win by default.
Not at all - a thread on 1 Cor 15 has been done before in Kerygmania.
The only reason you believe there is a contradiction is because you have decided beforehand that there is one. It's entirely relevant to the thread.
Lots of scholars see two kinds of belief going on - Pauline and the gospels (and Mark has a line all of his own as there are no res. appearances.
So it is not me making up my mind beforehand.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The reasoning is always faulty. It goes along the lines of "This and that therefore...must etc." They're always complete non sequiturs. This is why modern scholarship isn't worth shit.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Could I explain the apostles' teaching on the hypothesis that Jesus wasn't raised? Sure. Could I trust it? No. Because my trust isn't in St Peter's or St Thomas's transcendental experiences, and they never intended that it should be - they called people to trust not in their personal mystical insights, but in the risen Lord. It might be possible to construct a religion based on the premise that a factually mistaken view of the resurrection led to profound spiritual insights, but that religion would be conceptually different from the one traditionally known as Christianity.
I see what your saying , but this could well be why our traditional Christianity is on the way out . Without wanting to put too fine a point on it , how can we really expect 21st Century minds to fall for the Resurrection in the way that our superstition-ridden ancestors did ?
Only this morning I heard on the news that Pentecostal Christianity is enjoying a boom in the UK , while traditional Christianity continues to decline.
Do those attending charismatic healing worship worry about Jesus' bones , the authenticity of the Resurrection, or who wrote what/when in the Bible ? I very much doubt it .
Whilst the origins of Christianity are indeed a fascinating and irresistible source of mystery , they have also, alas, contributed to terrible tensions and deadly consequences which , as is evident in this thread , still rumble on today.
Coming back to the OP , my opinion is that Christianity would not be destroyed if the earthly remains of Jesus were identified . It might even make the next 2000 yrs rather less angst-ridden than the last for those wishing to pursue it.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reasoning is always faulty. It goes along the lines of "This and that therefore...must etc." They're always complete non sequiturs. This is why modern scholarship isn't worth shit.
So could you give an example of this rather than dismissing it?
You've just given one regarding the resurrection and the Apostle and the Gospels.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I see what your saying , but this could well be why our traditional Christianity is on the way out . Without wanting to put too fine a point on it , how can we really expect 21st Century minds to fall for the Resurrection in the way that our superstition-ridden ancestors did ?
Ancient minds were every bit as good as 21st Century ones, I submit. They knew as well as we do that dead people don't rise. Indeed Acts records the Athenians scoffing at it. It was just as wacky then as it is now.
quote:
Only this morning I heard on the news that Pentecostal Christianity is enjoying a boom in the UK , while traditional Christianity continues to decline.
Do those attending charismatic healing worship worry about Jesus' bones , the authenticity of the Resurrection, or who wrote what/when in the Bible ? I very much doubt it .
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) I am very sure that most charismatics and Pentecostals do indeed reckon that the tomb was empty and the Resurrection authentic and. I am incredibly surprised that you think that they don't.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I see what your saying , but this could well be why our traditional Christianity is on the way out . Without wanting to put too fine a point on it , how can we really expect 21st Century minds to fall for the Resurrection in the way that our superstition-ridden ancestors did ?
You forgot to add that our "ancestors" were irremediably stupid. For mine, I'm so glad to be living in the 21st Century, otherwise I wouldn't know how clever I was.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I know Paul didn't witness the Resurrection (in fact nobody witnessed the actual moment of Resurrection). You said that his letters pre-dated the gospels, and my point was that he was closer to those who witnessed the events at the first Easter. He worked alongside the apostles.
He also explicitly said he didn't get his gospel from the apostles. Anyway saying "Paul didn't mention an empty tomb" is an argument from silence anyway.
quote:
Yes, I was talking to you. I understand that, as a member of the Orthodox Church, you take the view that no new doctrine - even (am I right?) no new understanding of doctrine - can be formed after the Great Schism.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by a "new understanding of doctrine." What would that look like?
You're wrong about the Great Schism -- hesychasm postdates 1054.
Part of the reason the OC is so frozen in time is the one-two punch of the Ottomans and the Soviets. The church has been in hunker-down mode since 1453 and not a lot of new anything has gotten done. It's a shame, and some people have spoken out about it (including at least one saint), but it's the situation on the ground at the moment.
Regarding Paul and the Gospels -- The church was still hammering things basic doctrines in the first century. We see this in the NT itself -- can gentiles be Christians? Under what circumstances?
We're no longer still hammering out things of such a basic level.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
