Rise of the dead

[InChrist]

I am not so sure about those articles. The second one definitely distorted what Bart Ehrman believes. He clearly believes that the resurrection is mythical. There are some quotes out of context that even I recognize as being lies when used in that fashion.

It can be difficult to find scholars on the internet since apologists, who are not scholars, tend to flood the webs with less than honest stories. When I see a site outright lying by quote mining I put them in the worthless category.

They are not lying by using actual quotes. Everyone knows Bart Ehrman has rejected the Christian faith, rejects all supernatural accounts in the scriptures and considers the resurrection a myth. The point of his quote is that he acknowledged the disciples of Jesus believed the resurrection of Christ to be real.

 

[InChrist]

I said that the article distorted what Ehrman said. They quoted out of context. Quote mining is a form of lying if someone uses it to push a false agenda. The article tried to make it look as if Ehrman accepted the resurrection. He does not.

No, the article did not try to make it seem like Ehrman accepted the resurrection. It showed the Ehrman thought the disciples of Jesus accepted the resurrection to be a true event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are not lying by using actual quotes. Everyone knows Bart Ehrman has rejected the Christian faith, rejects all supernatural accounts in the scriptures and considers the resurrection a myth. The point of his quote is that he acknowledged the disciples of Jesus believed the resurrection of Christ to be real.

A person can always lie by using actual quotes. If one uses a quote to mislead someone else that is a lie. And no, everyone does not know that about Ehrman and as quoted it looks as if he was supporting the resurrection. To understand how he was not doing that one would often need more context.

Here is an example of a quote mine. If a person was trying to refute God using the Bible he could make this claim, the quote I use will be used dishonestly, it is not my argument"

"The Bible itself refutes God, the Bible says 'there is no God'."

Now that person is gone. Yet his claim is still there. How would you refute it? And let's say just for fun that I am a good friend of his and will answer almost any question about him honestly, except for one which you will probably find out. How would you refute that claim with me there to help you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the article did not try to make it seem like Ehrman accepted the resurrection. It showed the Ehrman thought the disciples of Jesus accepted the resurrection to be a true event.

Correct, and many would interpret that as Bart supporting the resurrection. I have seen this happen far too often and more context is always needed to set them straight. If that was all that you knew about Ehrman you might be thinking that he supported it when in reality he opposes the claim.

 

[InChrist]

A person can always lie by using actual quotes. If one uses a quote to mislead someone else that is a lie. And no, everyone does not know that about Ehrman and as quoted it looks as if he was supporting the resurrection. To understand how he was not doing that one would often need more context.

Here is an example of a quote mine. If a person was trying to refute God using the Bible he could make this claim, the quote I use will be used dishonestly, it is not my argument"

"The Bible itself refutes God, the Bible says 'there is no God'."

Now that person is gone. Yet his claim is still there. How would you refute it? And let's say just for fun that I am a good friend of his and will answer almost any question about him honestly, except for one which you will probably find out. How would you refute that claim with me there to help you?

I would look at the entire verse and passage and see that it says... “there is no God, besides Me”. The same can be done with Bart Ehrman quotes. The quotes used in the article do not say or try to indicate Ehrman believes the resurrection. Anyone who has read material by Bart Ehrman or knows who he is, knows he rejects the resurrection. Again, the quote shows he does think the disciples thought the resurrection of Christ actually took place.

 

[Brian2]

A number of considerations.

In the Bible rebirth or to be born again means spiritually.

Mount Tabor where the disciples saw the transfiguration of Jesus and saw the Heavenly Father Elias and Moses. Then Jesus told them not to tell anyone of this ‘vision’. They witnessed this in waking life. Fast forward to the resurrection and it can be explained also as a spiritual vision.

Death. - One of Christ’s disciples wanted to bury a relative and Christ said ‘let dead bury the dead’. New translations say ‘let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead”.

The term dead does not mean ceases to exist with regards to the soul.

Baha’u’llah explains some conditions of the soul as the ‘death of unbelief and the life of faith’.

So the Day of Resurrection could mean that in that day people will be raised out of their graves of unbelief to the life of faith.

Since the Bible and Quran are largely about our relationship with God and belief in Him and are mostly spiritual Books, it is well within reason that these explanations make perfect sense.

Another one. It is said that one of the signs of Christs return is that the ‘stars would fall from heaven’. Baha’u’llah likened spiritual leaders of religion to stars and said that the time would come that they would cease to shine spiritually and not give spiritual light anymore and so the ‘stars fall from the spirituality heaven to earthly materialism. And we have witnessed that occur in this day when religious leaders have promoted terrorism and committed child sexual abuse.

And there are so many intelligent ways of understanding these concepts than just the current traditions.

In the Bible the story is that Jesus body was restored to life. Romans 8 tells us that the resurrection is of our bodies. (Romans 8:11, 23).
Being born again is both spiritual and physical. Our spirit is born again in this life and our body is born again at the resurrection.
Your explanations are based on your Baha'i faith and not believing what the Bible tells us.

 

[Brian2]

Correct, and many would interpret that as Bart supporting the resurrection. I have seen this happen far too often and more context is always needed to set them straight. If that was all that you knew about Ehrman you might be thinking that he supported it when in reality he opposes the claim.

If a person read the quotes they would know that Bart Ehrman said he did not know why the apostles thought Jesus had risen from the dead.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Except, His body was created, not made from the same stuff.

Transformed, not created new.

After transformation is considered as new.

The recycling process can explain it the same way.

The good will be recycled, the bad will be left on fire until extinguishes.

In a recycling process, the material can be manipulated to become a different compound with different characteristics.

Somehow same Yeshu (Jesus) explains as an analogy that if the hand of the individual has been the tool of a wrongdoing, then is better to cut it off and enter to the kingdom of heaven without that hand.

Resurrection for a new transformed body will require to cut off the evil inside the souls. The physical bodies won't be judged but the souls, this is to say, the personality of the individual.

The soul will return to his own body, but the transformed one.

The new body won't need of sexual organs, its existence will last forever and reproduction won't be needed anymore.

 

[Luchito Prays]

It seems to me that you have described processes that can and do occur. From the soil, food is grown. From the food, living bodies are formed and maintained. This is the process by which Einstein's brain was formed in the first place. Moreover, each day, Einstein consumed more food and his brain changed each day. Yesterday's brain is no more, today's brain shall pass, and tomorrow's brain is yet to be.

But if by ressurection, you do not mean that the body shall be renewed, but rather mean that the body shall be returned to a past state... then the answer is that living bodies are never returned to a past state, they are only ever moved to new future states.

Hope for Einstein to be resurrected with an adult mind, because he declared himself to be a retarded person with a child's mind.

Quote by Albert Einstein: “I sometimes ask myself how it came about that I...”

"I sometimes ask myself, how did I come that I was the one to develop the theory of relativity. The reason, I think, is that a normal adult never stops to think about problems of space and time. These are things which he has thought of as a child. But my intellectual development was retarded, as a result of which I began to wonder about space and time only when I had already grown up. Naturally, I could go deeper into the problem than a child with normal abilities". (Albert Einstein).

He was such a child mind person, that he still was believing that children in his times, were thinking of space time in their imaginations.

No idea how it came that scientists of his time never payed attention that they were dealing with a retarded person. He showed lots of symptoms of his mental delay, like laughing loud like an idiot before answering questions, (see movie Amadeus, when Mozart also had a silly loud laugh in several occasions. Such is part of his biographical records as well)

Point is, that no matter how important or stupid the person is in our current world, what it will count for resurrection will be the personality without evil thoughts and actions.

Einstein's stupidity might help him to be resurrected... who knows...

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a person read the quotes they would know that Bart Ehrman said he did not know why the apostles thought Jesus had risen from the dead.

Then why was that article, which had others making the same sort of comments, used by someone to support that the resurrection was accepted by scholars as a fact when it clearly is not? The use of that article by a believer clearly refutes your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hope for Einstein to be resurrected with an adult mind, because he declared himself to be a retarded person with a child's mind.

Quote by Albert Einstein: “I sometimes ask myself how it came about that I...”

"I sometimes ask myself, how did I come that I was the one to develop the theory of relativity. The reason, I think, is that a normal adult never stops to think about problems of space and time. These are things which he has thought of as a child. But my intellectual development was retarded, as a result of which I began to wonder about space and time only when I had already grown up. Naturally, I could go deeper into the problem than a child with normal abilities". (Albert Einstein).

He was such a child mind person, that he still was believing that children in his times, were thinking of space time in their imaginations.

No idea how it came that scientists of his time never payed attention that they were dealing with a retarded person. He showed lots of symptoms of his mental delay, like laughing loud like an idiot before answering questions, (see movie Amadeus, when Mozart also had a silly loud laugh in several occasions. Such is part of his biographical records as well)

Point is, that no matter how important or stupid the person is in our current world, what it will count for resurrection will be the personality without evil thoughts and actions.

Einstein's stupidity might help him to be resurrected... who knows...

Too bad that time dilation has been constantly tested and confirmed to the point that to deny it would be akin to denying gravity.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Too bad that time dilation has been constantly tested and confirmed to the point that to deny it would be akin to denying gravity.

While resurrection has been explained very well by the Bible, on the other hand time dilation has never been explained in detail.

Then, with no solid explanation about how the speed of a body or, how gravity affects time, the solid answer for the different time data from clocks located in different places (like one clock on ground zero on earth and the other one traveling in space) is that the clocks in outer space suffer of malfunction.

There are lots of cases where malfunction of those atomic clocks have been reported. I think UK sent a few spacecrafts and from those, some of the atomic clocks malfunctioned. It was in the news long ago.

Atomic clocks are not perfect, and will malfunction when exposed to a different environment.

The new resurrected bodies are to be close to perfection, but never perfect as the God himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While resurrection has been explained very well by the Bible, on the other hand time dilation has never been explained in detail.

Then, with no solid explanation about how the speed of a body or, how gravity affects time, the solid answer for the different time data from clocks located in different places (like one clock on ground zero on earth and the other one traveling in space) is that the clocks in outer space suffer of malfunction.

There are lots of cases where malfunction of those atomic clocks have been reported. I think UK sent a few spacecrafts and from those, some of the atomic clocks malfunctioned. It was in the news long ago.

Atomic clocks are not perfect, and will malfunction when exposed to a different environment.

The new resurrected bodies are to be close to perfection, but never perfect as the God himself.

Sorry, no, it was not explained at all. You need to learn the difference between a claim and an explanation. How would you accomplish resurrection? How would you observe it?

Meanwhile we can do that with time dilation. There are clear tests for it, and we do observe it quite often. And it has nothing to do with atomic clocks.

I can support my claims with proper sources and explanations. You do not seem to be able to do so at all.

For example are you aware that there are many subatomic particles besides just protons, neutrons, and electrons?

 

[Brian2]

Then why was that article, which had others making the same sort of comments, used by someone to support that the resurrection was accepted by scholars as a fact when it clearly is not? The use of that article by a believer clearly refutes your claim.

The article is called "25 Scholars and 42 quotes on the evidence for Jesus Christ's resurrection".
The quotes by Bart Ehrman are:

• “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”
  

• “Paul’s tradition that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time has led some people to suggest that Jesus’ followers suffered mass hysteria. But mass hysteria does not explain the other traditions.”
  

• “Finally we know that after his death his followers experienced what they described as the ‘resurrection’: the appearance of a living but transformed person who had actually died. They believed this, they lived it, and they died for it.”
  

The title gives no illusion that the scholars agree on whether Jesus rose or not.
It appears some do think He rose and some do not.
I don't see your problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article is called "25 Scholars and 42 quotes on the evidence for Jesus Christ's resurrection".
The quotes by Bart Ehrman are:

• “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”

• “Paul’s tradition that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time has led some people to suggest that Jesus’ followers suffered mass hysteria. But mass hysteria does not explain the other traditions.”

• “Finally we know that after his death his followers experienced what they described as the ‘resurrection’: the appearance of a living but transformed person who had actually died. They believed this, they lived it, and they died for it.”

The title gives no illusion that the scholars agree on whether Jesus rose or not.
It appears some do think He rose and some do not.
I don't see your problem.

And once again its use refutes your claim.

 

[Kenny]

Transformed, not created new.

After transformation is considered as new.

The recycling process can explain it the same way.

The good will be recycled, the bad will be left on fire until extinguishes.

In a recycling process, the material can be manipulated to become a different compound with different characteristics.

Somehow same Yeshu (Jesus) explains as an analogy that if the hand of the individual has been the tool of a wrongdoing, then is better to cut it off and enter to the kingdom of heaven without that hand.

Resurrection for a new transformed body will require to cut off the evil inside the souls. The physical bodies won't be judged but the souls, this is to say, the personality of the individual.

The soul will return to his own body, but the transformed one.

The new body won't need of sexual organs, its existence will last forever and reproduction won't be needed anymore.

No way to determine that. IMO

I believe new because the earth is cursed.

Ultimately, doesn't matter, it will be eternal.

 

[Astrophile]

Since his body was created through the Word (as was all that we see) - He was created like unto Adam before Adam sinned.

Interesting. Did Jesus have a navel?

 

[Kenny]

Interesting. Did Jesus have a navel?

LOL... that is a good question. I wonder if Adam had one too. Apparently it wasn't important enough to mention. I'll ask him when I see Him.

 

[dybmh]

The body is corruptible because the ground, from which it is made from, was cursed in Genesis 3.

The curse from Genesis 3:17 was lifted in Genesis 8:21?

From 3:17 "cursed is the ground for thy sake"
From 8:21 "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake"

 

[Kenny]

The curse from Genesis 3:17 was lifted in Genesis 8:21?

From 3:17 "cursed is the ground for thy sake"
From 8:21 "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake"

Not really although understandable to wonder if it was. That was specifically about the flood and the promise of not doing that again in that method. Sin had not stopped.

As a matter of fact, God said later:
Lev 8:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

So sin still curses the land, so to speak. It had not and has not been redeemed.

Great question!!