Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Colt]

Jesus came to live the life of one of his own created beings as required by the Father. As a result of this final incarnation our creator Son achieved unquestioned sovereignty of his own creation.

 

[Colt]

To me that sentence is meaningless ─ the key word "God" might as well be "Superman".

To you it's meaningful.

So I doubt we're going to agree.

Go well.

Deny your maker but without him you ultimately have no meaning. God is the very source of meaning and the source minds that perceive it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes he did. He broke the Sabbath. He dishonored his parents to the point that he disowns them publicly in favor of his congregation. He vandalized stuff and killed a herd of pigs (pretty sure the swineherd wasn't thrilled). He ASSAULTED people with a WHIP. He was racist (which to me is breaking any sense of morality). He was a hypocrite ("Don't pray in public. I'm about to pray in public."). He was like your average televangelist ("I don't care about the poor as long as I get an expensive oil rubdown from the hot chick.").


They're about as reliable. Also, name one monologue from Jesus. Doesn't he almost always talk in relatively short quips?


So does the Mahabharata, which frankly is a much better written story.

I had to laugh when reading your post because it's hard to take it seriously!

Here's a good example of what l mean.
John 5:16-18. 'And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things [healing] on the sabbath day.
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and l work.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.'

So, Jesus broke man's law but not God's law. But whose will was he meant to follow? The will of other humans, or the will of his Father?

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:8, ' For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.'

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I had to laugh when reading your post because it's hard to take it seriously!

Here's a good example of what l mean.
John 5:16-18. 'And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things [healing] on the sabbath day.
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and l work.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.'

So, Jesus broke man's law but not God's law. But whose will was he meant to follow? The will of other humans, or the will of his Father?

As Jesus said in Matthew 12:8, ' For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.'

The laws were in the scripture which God dictated, right?

 

[blü 2]

Deny your maker but without him you ultimately have no meaning. God is the very source of meaning and the source minds that perceive it.

What meaning is that?

As far as I can tell, the meaning of life is whatever each of us may think it is, and since we've evolved to be gregarious primates, we have priorities to match, concerning finding a mate, breeding, a sense of group to which we belong, a satisfactory place in the peck order and so on.

So I'm curious as to your answer.

 

[Colt]

What meaning is that?

As far as I can tell, the meaning of life is whatever each of us may think it is, and since we've evolved to be gregarious primates, we have priorities to match, concerning finding a mate, breeding, a sense of group to which we belong, a satisfactory place in the peck order and so on.

So I'm curious as to your answer.

Any "meaning" that we derive as the result of living experience.

"To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness."

" Sooner or later, God is destined to be comprehended as the reality of values, the substance of meanings, and the life of truth."

 

[blü 2]

Any "meaning" that we derive as the result of living experience.

"To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains nothing.

On the contrary, in conjunction with the theory of evolution a great deal is explained, like what we are and how we got this way and our relationship to all living things.

If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon.

How do we get our concepts? We're born with capacity for language and with instincts that aid learning language and using abstraction. Adults all over the world speak to babies in "motherese", a kind of vocal relating with the infant not used for other purposes. And in learning language, the infant looks at the face of the carer, and also looks where the carer looks or points. The carer then provides a noun eg 'car' or 'doggy' if this is what's being pointed at, and the infant instinctively attempts to articulate the word. And is able after a number of examples of 'car' or 'dog' to abstract the notion of carness or dogness, and to identify cars and dogs it hasn't seen before. In the same way, certain instances are (a bit later) labelled as 'beautiful' or 'loving' or 'fair' or 'unjust' and the abstract idea of beauty, love, fairness, justice is likewise acquired.

The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry.

But they're built into human behavior, and equivalents of fairness, entitlement, possession, and hence their negatives, are found in other gregarious primate species.

A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness."

The human brain is the most complex natural phenomenon we know of in the universe, and it can know a great deal. It runs on very complex interacting chains of biochemical and bioelectrical cause and effect, possibly but not certainly interrupted by random QM events, so I dare say it would fit your notion of a machine. And its existence demonstrates that such a machine is born with instincts for handling such abstractions as you speak of, from earliest infancy.

" Sooner or later, God is destined to be comprehended as the reality of values, the substance of meanings, and the life of truth."

I don't know what any of those those three phrases actually might mean. All animals have values, many associated with the protection of their young, but values none the less. The substance of meaning is acquired as I've indicated above, and in more complex cases is found in a good dictionary or an expert exposition of a particular topic. I use the 'correspondence' definition of truth: truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

 

[Left Coast]

The first question regarding prophecy is whether you accept any of the prophecies of scripture. Isaiah, for example, prophesied the rise of Cyrus, by name, well before Cyrus' birth.

Show me.

The prophets also prophesied the rise of the great empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome.

Show me.

To me, Psalm 22 speaks eloquently about the events of the crucifixion. Jesus could not have engineered the details of his own death, so his words from the cross, quoting the opening words of Psalm 22, is an amazing confirmation of his understanding of God's will. All other people present at the time had difficulty understanding why he made this reference.

Most of Psalm 22 is not prophecy at all; its written in the present tense about events that were occurring to the author at the time of writing. There are only a few future predictions I see:

Verses 22-23:
"Deliver me from a lion’s mouth; from the horns of wild oxen rescue me.Then will I proclaim Your fame to my brethren, praise You in the congregation."

Jesus was never saved from a lion or wild oxen, and the "prediction" is rather mundane (lots of believers praise God, all the time).

Verses 30-32:
"All those in full vigor shall eat and prostrate themselves; all those at death’s door, whose spirits flag, shall bend the knee before Him. Offspring shall serve Him; the Lord’s fame shall be proclaimed to the generation to come; they shall tell of His beneficence to people yet to be born, for He has acted."

This clearly has not happened, nor did it happen in the time of Jesus. All have not prostrated and bent the knee to Yahweh. Future generations have been born who have been told how great God is, so that's something, but again, that's not a terribly impressive prediction. I can predict that right now, even as a godless heathen.

Again, if this is the best you can come up with, these "prophecy fulfillments" really don't pass mustard.

 

[Colt]

On the contrary, in conjunction with the theory of evolution a great deal is explained, like what we are and how we got this way and our relationship to all living things.
How do we get our concepts? We're born with capacity for language and with instincts that aid learning language and using abstraction. Adults all over the world speak to babies in "motherese", a kind of vocal relating with the infant not used for other purposes. And in learning language, the infant looks at the face of the carer, and also looks where the carer looks or points. The carer then provides a noun eg 'car' or 'doggy' if this is what's being pointed at, and the infant instinctively attempts to articulate the word. And is able after a number of examples of 'car' or 'dog' to abstract the notion of carness or dogness, and to identify cars and dogs it hasn't seen before. In the same way, certain instances are (a bit later) labelled as 'beautiful' or 'loving' or 'fair' or 'unjust' and the abstract idea of beauty, love, fairness, justice is likewise acquired.
But they're built into human behavior, and equivalents of fairness, entitlement, possession, and hence their negatives, are found in other gregarious primate species.
The human brain is the most complex natural phenomenon we know of in the universe, and it can know a great deal. It runs on very complex interacting chains of biochemical and bioelectrical cause and effect, possibly but not certainly interrupted by random QM events, so I dare say it would fit your notion of a machine. And its existence demonstrates that such a machine is born with instincts for handling such abstractions as you speak of, from earliest infancy.
I don't know what any of those those three phrases actually might mean. All animals have values, many associated with the protection of their young, but values none the less. The substance of meaning is acquired as I've indicated above, and in more complex cases is found in a good dictionary or an expert exposition of a particular topic. I use the 'correspondence' definition of truth: truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

On the contrary, in conjunction with the theory of evolution a great deal is explained, like what we are and how we got this way and our relationship to all living things.
How do we get our concepts? We're born with capacity for language and with instincts that aid learning language and using abstraction. Adults all over the world speak to babies in "motherese", a kind of vocal relating with the infant not used for other purposes. And in learning language, the infant looks at the face of the carer, and also looks where the carer looks or points. The carer then provides a noun eg 'car' or 'doggy' if this is what's being pointed at, and the infant instinctively attempts to articulate the word. And is able after a number of examples of 'car' or 'dog' to abstract the notion of carness or dogness, and to identify cars and dogs it hasn't seen before. In the same way, certain instances are (a bit later) labelled as 'beautiful' or 'loving' or 'fair' or 'unjust' and the abstract idea of beauty, love, fairness, justice is likewise acquired.
But they're built into human behavior, and equivalents of fairness, entitlement, possession, and hence their negatives, are found in other gregarious primate species.
The human brain is the most complex natural phenomenon we know of in the universe, and it can know a great deal. It runs on very complex interacting chains of biochemical and bioelectrical cause and effect, possibly but not certainly interrupted by random QM events, so I dare say it would fit your notion of a machine. And its existence demonstrates that such a machine is born with instincts for handling such abstractions as you speak of, from earliest infancy.
I don't know what any of those those three phrases actually might mean. All animals have values, many associated with the protection of their young, but values none the less. The substance of meaning is acquired as I've indicated above, and in more complex cases is found in a good dictionary or an expert exposition of a particular topic. I use the 'correspondence' definition of truth: truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

Yes, the evolution of life initiated and fostered by the celestial beings that planted life forms with inherent patterns on earth hundreds of millions of years ago, does explain a lot.

You are correct, God “built” a lot into his living things and their capacity. The universe is mind made and mind managed.

Evolution evolved minds that can search for God, find him or reject him.

 

[KerimF]

What meaning is that?

As far as I can tell, the meaning of life is whatever each of us may think it is, and since we've evolved to be gregarious primates, we have priorities to match, concerning finding a mate, breeding, a sense of group to which we belong, a satisfactory place in the peck order and so on.

So I'm curious as to your answer.

I liked what you wrote.
You did describe, better than I do, the main priorities of a human to whom I usually refer having a living flesh only to take care of.
I am afraid that such a human cannot even imagine what a human may have more than what he has... but this normal. For example, no matter how intelligent a born blind is he can't perceive colors like you and I do. But his state doesn't prevent him be, if he wants to, brilliant in one or more non-optic fields.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The laws were in the scripture which God dictated, right?

Yes, but they were intended for the good of men. God does not require man's rest, but man does require God's rest!

 

[blü 2]

Evolution evolved minds that can search for God, find him or reject him.

[HIm] or [Her] or [It] or [Them] or as each tribe evolves stories of superbeings, good, bad, neutral, having special interests, concerns, powers, places, devised to explain the mysteries of weather, storm, lightning, natural places with a distinctive atmosphere like springs, caves, rivers, oceans, to explain plague, famine, good and bad luck, not least at hunting, the mysteries of birth and death, and other questions that perplexed the pre-scientific mind. And religion as playing a part in tribal identity, hence tribal solidarity, hence enhanced cooperation, the thing humans do remarkably well, along with having language, customs, stories and heroes in common.

Since supernatural beliefs are found in virtually all cultures of the world, it seems they're something humans tend to default to when faced with mysteries they feel a need to explain; and since there's no consistency in the supernatural notions those cultures devised, it equally underlines their social function while removing any suspicion of genuine insight into arcana.

 

[blü 2]

I liked what you wrote.
You did describe, better than I do, the main priorities of a human to whom I usually refer having a living flesh only to take care of.
I am afraid that such a human cannot even imagine what a human may have more than what he has... but this normal. For example, no matter how intelligent a born blind is he can't perceive colors like you and I do. But his state doesn't prevent him be, if he wants to, brilliant in one or more non-optic fields.

What science demonstrates is its power to explore, describe and seek to explain the world external to the self, an idea that goes back to the pre-Socratic Greeks, but really begins to take systematic form with the enlightenment.

We've even begun to do the same thing with the human brain, and to understand from the outside the aspects of our own interior mentation, our sense of self.

It's in the latter that gods and the supernatural are found. Noting suggests they're aspects of objective reality.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Show me.



Show me.



Most of Psalm 22 is not prophecy at all; its written in the present tense about events that were occurring to the author at the time of writing. There are only a few future predictions I see:

Verses 22-23:
"Deliver me from a lion’s mouth; from the horns of wild oxen rescue me.Then will I proclaim Your fame to my brethren, praise You in the congregation."

Jesus was never saved from a lion or wild oxen, and the "prediction" is rather mundane (lots of believers praise God, all the time).

Verses 30-32:
"All those in full vigor shall eat and prostrate themselves; all those at death’s door, whose spirits flag, shall bend the knee before Him. Offspring shall serve Him; the Lord’s fame shall be proclaimed to the generation to come; they shall tell of His beneficence to people yet to be born, for He has acted."

This clearly has not happened, nor did it happen in the time of Jesus. All have not prostrated and bent the knee to Yahweh. Future generations have been born who have been told how great God is, so that's something, but again, that's not a terribly impressive prediction. I can predict that right now, even as a godless heathen.

Again, if this is the best you can come up with, these "prophecy fulfillments" really don't pass mustard.

Ok. Let's begin with Isaiah's prophecies regarding the Babylonian empire.

We are told that the visions of Isaiah took place within the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, so we know that Isaiah was prophesying about 170 years before the overthrow of the Babylonian empire. Yet, Isaiah says in chapter 13:19, 'Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah'.

Isaiah also foretold the name of the conqueror (Cyrus), the manner of its conquest, and the nation that would do the conquering (the Medes). [Isaiah 45:1-4; Isaiah 13:17]

When it comes to the four Gentile empires, we have to turn to the interpretations that Daniel placed on the dreams of king Nebuchadnezzar. You will need to read all of Daniel chapter 2.

Psalm 22, which ever version you read, is about an individual who is the 'object of reviling and scorn (6-8), without a helper (11), surrounded by enemies who overmaster him (16,20,21), and part his garments among them: whose bones are racked, whose heart is broken, who is brought into the dust of death (14,15). David was at no time without a helper; at the court of Saul he had Jonathan; in his banishment he was surrounded by faithful friends; the Gibborim were with him in his flight from Absalom; far from being despised by the people, their love and admiration were the causes of his persecution. Nor can any other individual in the sacred history be pointed out, to whom these circumstances in their combination are applicable. From first to last they are true of the Man of Sorrows, and to Him alone.' [Speaker's Commentary]

If the expression 'they pierced' presents an obstacle to belief, then read 'As a lion [they break up] my hands and my feet'. It really makes no difference to the meaning.

Even the promise that the bones of the Passover sacrifice should not be broken is linked to this passage, for it says, 'And all my bones are out of joint' not 'broken'. [See Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. Let's begin with Isaiah's prophecies regarding the Babylonian empire.

We are told that the visions of Isaiah took place within the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, so we know that Isaiah was prophesying about 170 years before the overthrow of the Babylonian empire. Yet, Isaiah says in chapter 13:19, 'Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah'.

Isaiah also foretold the name of the conqueror (Cyrus), the manner of its conquest, and the nation that would do the conquering (the Medes). [Isaiah 45:1-4; Isaiah 13:17]

When it comes to the four Gentile empires, we have to turn to the interpretations that Daniel placed on the dreams of king Nebuchadnezzar. You will need to read all of Daniel chapter 2.

Psalm 22, which ever version you read, is about an individual who is the 'object of reviling and scorn (6-8), without a helper (11), surrounded by enemies who overmaster him (16,20,21), and part his garments among them: whose bones are racked, whose heart is broken, who is brought into the dust of death (14,15). David was at no time without a helper; at the court of Saul he had Jonathan; in his banishment he was surrounded by faithful friends; the Gibborim were with him in his flight from Absalom; far from being despised by the people, their love and admiration were the causes of his persecution. Nor can any other individual in the sacred history be pointed out, to whom these circumstances in their combination are applicable. From first to last they are true of the Man of Sorrows, and to Him alone.' [Speaker's Commentary]

If the expression 'they pierced' presents an obstacle to belief, then read 'As a lion [they break up] my hands and my feet'. It really makes no difference to the meaning.

Even the promise that the bones of the Passover sacrifice should not be broken is linked to this passage, for it says, 'And all my bones are out of joint' not 'broken'. [See Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12]

What makes you think that the book of Isaiah was written then? There is no date on the book itself and modern scholars do not accept your date.

 

[Colt]

[HIm] or [Her] or [It] or [Them] or as each tribe evolves stories of superbeings, good, bad, neutral, having special interests, concerns, powers, places, devised to explain the mysteries of weather, storm, lightning, natural places with a distinctive atmosphere like springs, caves, rivers, oceans, to explain plague, famine, good and bad luck, not least at hunting, the mysteries of birth and death, and other questions that perplexed the pre-scientific mind. And religion as playing a part in tribal identity, hence tribal solidarity, hence enhanced cooperation, the thing humans do remarkably well, along with having language, customs, stories and heroes in common.

Since supernatural beliefs are found in virtually all cultures of the world, it seems they're something humans tend to default to when faced with mysteries they feel a need to explain; and since there's no consistency in the supernatural notions those cultures devised, it equally underlines their social function while removing any suspicion of genuine insight into arcana.

There is truth in the natural, biological roots of evolved religion. It is by design. It serves as the scaffolding for the reception of spiritually revealed religion.

 

[Left Coast]

Ok. Let's begin with Isaiah's prophecies regarding the Babylonian empire.

We are told that the visions of Isaiah took place within the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, so we know that Isaiah was prophesying about 170 years before the overthrow of the Babylonian empire. Yet, Isaiah says in chapter 13:19, 'Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah'.

Isaiah also foretold the name of the conqueror (Cyrus), the manner of its conquest, and the nation that would do the conquering (the Medes). [Isaiah 45:1-4; Isaiah 13:17]

I assume you're not aware of this, but the oldest manuscript of Isaiah we have, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates to 125 BCE - some 400+ years after the fall of Babylon.

dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

One of the first criteria of a remotely convincing prophecy, I hope you would agree, is that it has to predate the events it allegedly foretells.

Also, AFAIK Babylon was not conquered by the Medes, it was conquered by the Persians (who had also conquered the Medes).

When it comes to the four Gentile empires, we have to turn to the interpretations that Daniel placed on the dreams of king Nebuchadnezzar. You will need to read all of Daniel chapter 2.

As with Isaiah, the prophecy you're referencing in Daniel has manuscript evidence that goes back no further than the 2nd century BCE, ie after the existence of the kingdoms the text supposedly foretells.

Psalm 22, which ever version you read, is about an individual who is the 'object of reviling and scorn (6-8), without a helper (11), surrounded by enemies who overmaster him (16,20,21), and part his garments among them: whose bones are racked, whose heart is broken, who is brought into the dust of death (14,15). David was at no time without a helper; at the court of Saul he had Jonathan; in his banishment he was surrounded by faithful friends; the Gibborim were with him in his flight from Absalom; far from being despised by the people, their love and admiration were the causes of his persecution. Nor can any other individual in the sacred history be pointed out, to whom these circumstances in their combination are applicable. From first to last they are true of the Man of Sorrows, and to Him alone.' [Speaker's Commentary]

As I mentioned before, none of those things are prophecies, they are present tense descriptions of something occurring at the time of the author's writing. Secondly, how do you know that any of those things fit Jesus? Your only source for such claims would be the Gospels, and we've already reviewed multiple reasons why we should not trust what they have to say.

 

[KerimF]

What science demonstrates is its power to explore, describe and seek to explain the world external to the self, an idea that goes back to the pre-Socratic Greeks, but really begins to take systematic form with the enlightenment.

We've even begun to do the same thing with the human brain, and to understand from the outside the aspects of our own interior mentation, our sense of self.

It's in the latter that gods and the supernatural are found. Noting suggests they're aspects of objective reality.

Science?! I am a scientist myself. So it was rather easy for me to realize how Science is also used to deceive millions of people (if not billions) and guide them to where they are supposed to be and what they are supposed to do.
In the past there were prophets and the like, but now the news can tell the entire world any story (made for adults) that serves the interests of the powerful rich Elite in the name of 'scientists'. Naturally, the common people around the world have also no means (and the time) to verify to how far this or that scientific story is true and/or real. Yes, most people have no choice but to also have faith in the prophets of Science. I don't think it is wise exploring more about how people could be fooled in the name of science because we will end up talking politics (the art of controlling the common people while convincing them they are free).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science?! I am a scientist myself. So it was rather easy for me to realize how Science is also used to deceive millions of people (if not billions) and guide them to where they are supposed to be and what they are supposed to do.
In the past there were prophets and the like, but now the news can tell the entire world any story (made for adults) that serves the interests of the powerful rich Elite in the name of 'scientists'. Naturally, the common people around the world have also no means (and the time) to verify to how far this or that scientific story is true and/or real. Yes, most people have no choice but to also have faith in the prophets of Science. I don't think it is wise exploring more about how people could be fooled in the name of science because we will end up talking politics (the art of controlling the common people while convincing them they are free).

I am curious. What is your area of expertise? And how have scientists lied to and misled people?

 

[blü 2]

Science?! I am a scientist myself. So it was rather easy for me to realize how Science is also used to deceive millions of people (if not billions) and guide them to where they are supposed to be and what they are supposed to do.
In the past there were prophets and the like, but now the news can tell the entire world any story (made for adults) that serves the interests of the powerful rich Elite in the name of 'scientists'. Naturally, the common people around the world have also no means (and the time) to verify to how far this or that scientific story is true and/or real. Yes, most people have no choice but to also have faith in the prophets of Science. I don't think it is wise exploring more about how people could be fooled in the name of science because we will end up talking politics (the art of controlling the common people while convincing them they are free).

I don't doubt that anything, science included, can be abused, or bent to bad purposes, but of course so can religion ─ two millennia of Christian antisemitism are a famous example, the Thirty Years War was as savage and bloodthirsty as any war before or since, we still have Sunni v Shi'ite, and the Christian churches are still trying to recover from their appalling sex scandals.

Nonetheless, human decency continues to exist, and has as much support as I can give it.