Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

Well, they are not scientists for one understanding of science.

Theists who see evidence for God in nature can also be scientists. That is all I am saying.

 

[Brian2]

Your standard of your "I" is not the only I. I am also one.

Of course.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, and it's clear that Mark is the first gospel, and it's clear that Mark 13:2 'predicts' the destruction of the Temple (which happened in 70 CE), and for his trial scene uses as a partial guide and orchestration a Josphus text that wasn't available till 75 CE.

Really? Which text is that?

And in the middle, the appalling quality of the evidence, not a single eyewitness (not even a purported one), not a single independent witness or account, no account or mention from anyone at all till more than 20 years after the traditional date.

The gospel story was being spread orally from Pentecost on, by people who knew Jesus had died and who had seen Him alive after that.
Luke tells us that people had already written about Jesus when he wrote. We don't know when the first person wrote but can work out that Luke wrote before 70AD and so Mark also did because Luke got information from Mark it seems.

Exactly the same thing? In a pig's ear, is a polite response to that.

What I meant is that the Church did not change the gospel accounts to make them all say exactly the same thing.
I'll have to go through your list of "contradictions" and answer later.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The whole of the older book belongs as much to the Jews who became Christians, as to those who did not.

You presume they don't because of your worldview, but they are not physical things.
Does a falling tree make a noise if someone is not there to hear it?

That is appropriation, pilferage, plagiarism. Claiming something to be your's which really is not.
A failed simile.

There is nothing in the world which is not physical. The tree and the noise (sound), both are physical.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is appropriation, pilferage, plagiarism. Claiming something to be your's which really is not.
A failed simile.

There is nothing in the world which is not physical. The tree and the noise (sound), both are physical.

Are time and space physical?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Theists who see evidence for God in nature can also be scientists. That is all I am saying.

Yeah, there are thousands of disciplines in science. And a theists may be engaged in research in those disciplines. Their belief does not interfere in their research. But if they place their belief above their research where they interfere, then they would not be scientists, they will be creationists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are time and space physical?

If they are observed and measured, then they are physical.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If they are observed and measured, then they are physical.

It’s thr objects and events arranged in time and space that are observable. Indeed, without time and space those objects and events could not exist or unfold. But the dimensions which allow them to be measured, appear to have no independent physical existence of their own. You can point at the movements of the hands of a clock, but that is not pointing at time itself.

 

[RestlessSoul]

@Aupmanyav , are dreams physical? What about ideas, concepts, theories?

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Aupmanyav , are dreams physical? What about ideas, concepts, theories?

Created by brain, epiphenomenal, physical. Love, beauty fall in this category.

It’s the objects and events arranged in time and space that are observable. Indeed, without time and space those objects and events could not exist or unfold. But the dimensions which allow them to be measured, appear to have no independent physical existence of their own. You can point at the movements of the hands of a clock, but that is not pointing at time itself.

Why time, space, energy exist, is not yet answered by science. It is not answered by philosophy and religion as well. We have to wait for the next Einstein or Max Planck.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Created by brain, epiphenomenal, physical. Love, beauty fall in this category.

Why time, space, energy exist, is not yet answered by science. It is not answered by philosophy and religion as well. We have to wait for the next Einstein or Max Planck.

Sensations associated with love and beauty may register in the brain, but you cannot reduce qualities of the mind entirely to physiological processes, and still account for conscious awareness.

Thoughts and sensations may be observable as electro-chemical activity in the brain, but this activity is self evidently not a full description of Schrodinger’s equation, or of myth and metaphor in a poem by Shelley.

 

[wellwisher]

Created by brain, epiphenomenal, physical. Love, beauty fall in this category.

Why time, space, energy exist, is not yet answered by science. It is not answered by philosophy and religion as well. We have to wait for the next Einstein or Max Planck.

We live in space-time where the propagation of time is connected to changes in space. Photons of energy have wavelength and frequency connected; units of space and time. This limitation is characterized by the laws of Physics.

Consciousness, not the other hand, exists not only in space-time but also in separated space and separated time, where each variable can act independently of the other. For example, fiction is not real in terms of existing in space-time, even of we make it into play on stage. Therefore, since it does exist, fully in space-time, it partially exists where time and space are not connected.

Innovation initially exists only in the imagination. It is not tangible and subject to the laws of physics until it takes material form. When independent space and independent time merge into space-time, then its potential energy appears. Religions are less about space-time and more about independent space and independent time; creation processes.

This is simple enough that even children will do the advance physics of tomorrow.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, spiritual experiences are by definition subjective, though they can be undertaken collectively; which is the purpose really of religious ritual.

But to the extent that's true, each of them is having her or his experience (in the collective case to a large extent a guided experience) internally and personally and not an experience in common arising from objective phenomena.

The material world is easily observed, calibrated and defined, while the qualities of the mind are more elusive.

Yes, but brain research is advancing all the time, and our understanding of the parts of the brain, their functions and their interplays is advancing all the time. It's a fascinating subject, and you'd enjoy reading about progress from popular sources like Science Daily.

Matters of the spirit are bewildering, unworldly, difficult to describe and communicate; which may explain why Jesus and The Buddha, for example, mostly spoke in riddles (and wrote nothing down themselves).

That technique would work exactly as well with gobbledegook, no?

 

[Audie]

Just because they don't ring true for you, that does not make them wrong.
Do you think these claims are substantiated?
Science has shown that God is not needed or that science has shown that naturalistic abiogenesis is true or that science has shown that naturalistic evolution is true.

It's not just because anything about me.
You made that up.

And your " god not needed...science has shown,..true"
is false, made up. Worse than merely unsubstantiated,
it's impossinle, as sscience is incapable of doing that.

If you don't want to be called in maki,g things up, dont do it.
If you don't want to be thought ignorant cease displaying it. Or better, learn more.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Consciousness, not the other hand, exists not only in space-time but also in separated space and separated time, where each variable can act independently of the other. For example, fiction is not real in terms of existing in space-time, even of we make it into play on stage. Therefore, since it does exist, fully in space-time, it partially exists where time and space are not connected.

Innovation initially exists only in the imagination. It is not tangible and subject to the laws of physics until it takes material form. When independent space and independent time merge into space-time, then its potential energy appears. Religions are less about space-time and more about independent space and independent time; creation processes.

Fiction, innovation, initially exist only in imagination, which are epiphenomena of brain. There is no evidence that 'consciousness' exists in a separate space, there is evidence to the contrary. The comatose or the dead to not have consciousness. Kindly take me to the place where space and time are independent of each other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fiction, innovation, initially exist only in imagination, which are epiphenomena of brain. There is no evidence that 'consciousness' exists in a separate space, there is evidence to the contrary. The comatose or the dead to not have consciousness. Kindly take me to the place where space and time are independent of each other.

The problem is that you assume that time and space is absolute and universal independent of your experience of it. You can't know that.

 

[Brian2]

1. Who went to the tomb?

Paul: –
Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome
Matthew: MM, MmJ
Luke: MM, MmJ, Joanna
John: MM
Acts: –

I don't expect Paul to be giving too many details of the life of Jesus. That was not what he was doing in his ministry.
Luke in Acts 1 gives a quick summary saying Jesus appeared to the 12 over 40 days, proving He had risen but has no details of who went to the tomb. No problem there.
From Mark, Matthew, Luke and John we find out that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome and Joanna went to the tomb.
That not all are mentioned by each person is no problem imo. Luke even says that there were others with the women that he mentions.

2. What did they see?

Paul: –
Mark: Open tomb
Matthew: An earthquake. An angel descending who rolled away the stone and sat on it.
He looked like lightning, his raiment white as snow
Luke: Open tomb
John: Open tomb
Acts: –

There may have been an earthquake and the stone may have been rolled away by angels in Matthew but it does say that the women saw this, even if they may have felt the earth quake. We don't know where Matthew learnt about the guards trembling. Maybe the guards were still there when the women came, maybe not.

3. Were any guards there?

Paul: -
Mark: No.
Matthew: The guards trembled.
Luke: No
John: No

as above

4. What did they do?

Paul: -
Mark: Went in.
Matthew: -
Luke: Went in
John: Ran to fetch Peter and the Beloved Disciple who ran to the tomb and saw the linen


5. Did they see anyone in or at the tomb?

Paul: -
Mark: Saw one young man in a white robe. Told Jesus had risen, and would meet the disciples at Galilee
Matthew: Addressed by an angel. Told Jesus had risen, and would meet the disciples at Galilee.
Luke: Saw two men in dazzling apparel. Told Jesus was risen.
John: No.

Details not mentioned by some and added by others.

6. What did they do next?

Paul: -
Mark: They fled in fear.
Matthew: They left.
Luke: They went and told the eleven but weren’t believed.
John: Peter and the Beloved Disciple went home.


7. To whom did Jesus first appear?

Paul: Peter
Mark: MM
Matthew: MM and MmJ
Luke: ‘Cleopas’ (= Cephas/Peter?) and Simon
John: MM

Lack of detail in some and more in others.
Paul does not speak of tomb visit and resurrection details, his 1Cor 15:5,6 does however show us that Jesus appeared to Peter before the other apostles, as Luke says also (Luke 24:34)

8. How?

Paul: -
Mark: As MM fled.
Matthew: As MM and MmJ were going home. He told them he’d meet the disciples at Galilee.
Luke: As Cleopas and Simon walked to Emmaus. They didn’t recognize him. That night at dinner he broke the bread and they realized who he was.
John: At the tomb. MM mistook him for the gardener. Then she recognized him. He said, ‘Inform my brethren’.


9. What did the guards do?

Paul: -
Mark: -
Matthew: Told the chief priests. Were paid to say, Disciples stole the body.
Luke: -
John: -


10. What did the others do?

Paul: -
Mark: -
Matthew: The eleven went to Galilee.
Luke: Went to Jerusalem, told the disciples &c.
John: MM told the disciples.


11. To whom did Jesus second appear?

Paul: The twelve [sic].
Mark: ‘two of them’.
Matthew: The eleven.
Luke: The eleven and others.
John: The disciples and others

Paul not giving details of order of appearance and does not mention the tomb and the women, but seems to be mentioning those who could be good witnesses for the resurrection. (women in those days were not seen as good witnesses it seems)

12. Where?

Paul: -
Mark: -
Matthew: At Galilee
Luke: While MM, MmJ and Joanna were reporting to the eleven.
John: At table, with doors shut

Matthew is not big on the details of Jesus appearances to people in Jerusalem before they went back to Galilee.
Luke has the appearance to 2 disciples on road to Emmaus (one being Simon it seems). Simon first and the 11 after that as Paul says.

13. With what result?

Paul: -
Mark: The two told the others but weren’t believed.
Matthew: They worshiped him but some doubted. He told them to preach to all nations.
Luke: They thought he was a ghost. He reassured them. He led them to Bethany. He was carried up to heaven.
John: They were glad. He gave them the Holy Spirit and power to forgive.


14. To whom did Jesus third appear?

Paul: The five hundred.
Mark: The eleven at table. He upbraided them for their disbelief. He told them signs - demons, tongues, serpents, poisons. He went up to heaven.
Matthew: *
Luke: *
John: At the same house as before, with the doors locked. He reassured Thomas.


15. To whom did Jesus fourth appear?

Paul: James
Mark: *
Matthew: *
Luke: *
John: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the BD and another disciple. They didn’t recognize him at first. They caught lots of fish. They recognized him at breakfast. They argued over the Beloved Disciple waiting till Jesus returned.

You seem to be treating the stories as if each story has to have all the details, but the truth is that what one misses out on another tells. In this way we can reconstruct the whole story and end up with a few details that appear to be contradictions on the surface, but not when examined in more detail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't expect Paul to be giving too many details of the life of Jesus. That was not what he was going in his ministry.
Luke in Acts 1 gives a quick summary saying Jesus appeared to the 12 over 40 days, proving He had risen but has no details of who went to the tomb. No problem there.
From Mark, Matthew, Luke and John we find out that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome and Joanna went to the tomb.
That not all are mentioned by each person is no problem imo. Luke even says that there were others with the women that he mentions.



There may have been an earthquake and the stone may have been rolled away by angels in Matthew but it does say that the women saw this, even if they may have felt the earth quake. We don't know where Matthew learnt about the guards trembling. Maybe the guards were still there when the women came, maybe not.



as above



Details not mentioned by some and added by others.



Lack of detail in some and more in others.
Paul does not speak of tomb visit and resurrection details, his 1Cor 15:5,6 does however show us that Jesus appeared to Peter before the other apostles, as Luke says also (Luke 24:34)



Paul not giving details of order of appearance and does not mention the tomb and the women, but seems to be mentioning those who could be good witnesses for the resurrection. (women in those days were not seen as good witnesses it seems)



Matthew is not big on the details of Jesus appearances to people in Jerusalem before they went back to Galilee.
Luke has the appearance to 2 disciples on road to Emmaus (one being Simon it seems). Simon first and the 11 after that as Paul says.



You seem to be treating the stories as if each story has to have all the details, but the truth is that what one misses out on another tells. In this way we can reconstruct the whole story and end up with a few details that appear to be contradictions on the surface, but not when examined in more detail.

None are so blind as those that will not see.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you know beauty, love and consciousness don't exist without physical energy?

Nothing does.

they are not physical things.

Sure they are. They're not material things, but matter is just one manifestation of the physical, the others being energy, force, form, space, and time.

Does a falling tree make a noise if someone is not there to hear it?

No. It makes sound waves, but they are not experienced as sound unless a hearing creature is impacted by them and converts the energy to sound.

Are time and space physical?

Yes.

but you cannot reduce qualities of the mind entirely to physiological processes, and still account for conscious awareness.

There is nothing about consciousness that makes it not physical. Don't confuse material with physical.

 

[blü 2]

Really? Which text is that?

Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus son of Ananais (Latin, Ananus) aka Jesus of Jerusalem, in The Jewish Wars, Bk 6 Ch. 5.3.

The gospel story was being spread orally from Pentecost on, by people who knew Jesus had died and who had seen Him alive after that.

First we need to demonstrate that there ever was an historical Jesus. I accept that it's possible, but I don't accept that it's clearly demonstrated. I separately accept that stories about him existed orally, and it's credible that Paul, as he says, persecuted their sect in some way. What I don't accept is that oral tradition is reliable ─ a problem I first considered when I was doing some history of the Gaels in Scotland and found written accounts of various shenachies. The question of oral history has been widely studied in many cultures. One thing they show about oral tradition is that the story is constantly "improved", made more tellable, adjusted to the audience, and tending to vary with its size, one or three or many. The very fact that there are four approved gospels and various other gospels as well, makes the point. One easy example will illustrate the point ─ the five distinct versions of Jesus in the NT. Paul's Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, created the material universe, and was a Jewish human descended from David ─ my best guess is that this implies the spirit of Jesus entered the zygote of an ordinary Jewish couple and became embodied that way. Mark's Jesus is the only version with credible elements ─ an ordinary Jew who is baptized by JtB, at which moment the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as his son on the model of David's adoption in Psalms 2:7. (And see Acts 13:33-4). He's expressly not descended from David. The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke were each foretold by angels, conceived by divine insemination of a virgin, absurdly said to be descended from David by invented and entirely incompatible genealogies, and which are for Joseph, expressly NOT Jesus' father. Then there's John, whose Jesus, like Paul's, pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe, and was descended from David. (But one of the things they do have in common is that, regarding the 4th century triune Jesus, each of those gospel versions expressly denies that he's God, and never claims to be God.)

Luke tells us that people had already written about Jesus when he wrote. We don't know when the first person wrote but can work out that Luke wrote before 70AD and so Mark also did because Luke got information from Mark it seems.

Yes, Paul and Mark had written about Jesus. Paul's letters were generally unknown till the 2nd century, when if I recall correctly Marcion produced them to support his gnostic view of Jesus, but Mark provides the template for the other three gospels, and is, as it were, quoted in Matthew and Luke, a big part of the 'synoptic' element.

What I meant is that the Church did not change the gospel accounts to make them all say exactly the same thing.

According to people who've studied the history of the texts, we can agree on that much.