Do You Believe In Literal Resurrection?

[juvenissun]

In observing the online chatter in various Christian forums over time, I have come to see that many claim the body of Jesus Christ did literally die and then ressurect back to life.

If this is literally a true or accurate claim, then do you think resurrection is a faith based conversation or a science based conversation?

It seems to me, if the claim is accurate, the conversation should shift from faith to science.

I am interested what people here might have to say...

I expect the scientific types will deny ressurection is possible, and the religious types will deny any scientific discussion about resurrection is possible...

I wonder why this is the case...

Resurrection has nothing to do with science. We can not do experiment on it.
Do you like to be a sample to see if it is scientifically possible?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Good luck getting a scientific discussion, science is focused on natural phenomenon.

Is being alive or dead a natural phenomenon? I think so. That said, we have no scientific evidence to work from (in relation to this particular reported case) so there's very little to say.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is being alive or dead a natural phenomenon? I think so. That said, we have no scientific evidence to work from (in relation to this particular reported case) so there's very little to say.

It depends on what you mean by science but something not being scientific does not nessacarily mean untrue. It need not be empirical to be well substantiated evidencially. We have such an exalted veneration for natural science that we forget the scope I'd deliberately limited to the direct observation of specific phenomenon. For an historical event the criteria for evidence isn't scientific testing, that's absurd. Occasionally you might get carbon 14 tests or something but history invariably is preserved by historic narrative.

 

[Radagast]

In observing the online chatter in various Christian forums over time, I have come to see that many claim the body of Jesus Christ did literally die and then ressurect back to life.

That is perhaps the core Christian belief.

I expect the scientific types will deny ressurection is possible

Speaking as a "scientific type" myself, not at all.

 

[GUANO]

It's an interesting subject and there is no reason that it can't be looked at from a 'scientific' standpoint.

The main premise is that all of these 'miracles' are caused by "faith/belief" itself and have to do with the fundamental nature of reality in regards to the impact that the observer's perception has on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The main premise is that all of these 'miracles' are caused by "faith/belief" itself ...

Either that, or these miracles were caused by God.

Consider this:

The universe started out at: mass/energy = zero.

Then the level of mass/energy was raised to what it is today by a series of miracles performed over a period of six days.

ETA: Oops! Sorry! I'm in the wrong thread! Error on my part!

Kindly disregard please.

 

[AirPo]

I did not know there was a fake Resurrection,

This thread makes no sense.

I didn't see the word "fake" in the OP.

 

[AirPo]

In observing the online chatter in various Christian forums over time, I have come to see that many claim the body of Jesus Christ did literally die and then ressurect back to life.

If this is literally a true or accurate claim, then do you think resurrection is a faith based conversation or a science based conversation?

It seems to me, if the claim is accurate, the conversation should shift from faith to science.

I am interested what people here might have to say...

I expect the scientific types will deny ressurection is possible, and the religious types will deny any scientific discussion about resurrection is possible...

I wonder why this is the case...

Completely faith based.

 

[Danielwright2311]

I didn't see the word "fake" in the OP.

Duuuu,

lol, no offence but yea

Literal Resurrection? is stating there is a fake Resurrection

 

[AirPo]

Maybe if you have disdain for the pursuit of knowledge, which seems pretty typical for both religious and science types alike.

This thread, to this point, has had nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[AirPo]

Duuuu,

lol, no offence but yea

Literal Resurrection? is stating there is a fake Resurrection

No it's not. There are other options. It was allegorical for example.

 

[Danielwright2311]

This thread, to this point, has had nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge.

lol, right?

 

[Danielwright2311]

No it's not. There are other options. It was allegorical for example.

No, there is only one resurrection of Jesus, his real resurrection.

 

[AirPo]

No, there is only one resurrection of Jesus, his real resurrection.

That doesn't support the argument that it was "fake" otherwise.

 

[Danielwright2311]

That doesn't support the argument that it was "fake" otherwise.

Your right, so why ask Literal Resurrection? as there is just one real resurrection.

 

[AirPo]

Your right, so why ask Literal Resurrection? as there is just one real resurrection.

Only if you believe a Literal Resurrection. As I said earlier, it could be an allegorical story.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, for starters, how about this link to an article about how The Prince of Tides star, Barbara Streisand, cloned her beloved dead dog.

Copycat culture: is it wrong to clone a beloved dead pet?

Looks like this example requires the cloning sample (skin or muscle tissue containing DNA) to be inserted into an egg, and then that egg raised through natural processes, by impregnating another dog with it.

Not quite as impressive as the claim of Jesus Christ's exact body being resurrected in 3 days, but seems at least to be a similar process.

It maybe similar in the sense that a new body can be re-created from the preexisting DNA of an old body, similar to Eve being formed from Adam.

If God used the DNA from the dead body of Jesus to re-create the new living body of Jesus, then the resurrection would be similar to cloning in some way.

 

[MisterBlackEye]

This thread, to this point, has had nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge.

No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.
That's an Isaac Newton quote.

The guess in this instance is that resurrection is an advanced form of cloning.

 

[MisterBlackEye]

It maybe similar in the sense that a new body was re-created from the preexisting DNA of an old body, similar to Eve being formed from Adam.

If God used the DNA from the dead body of Jesus to re-create the new living body of Jesus, then the resurrection would be similar to cloning in some way.

Wow. Did someone in a Christian forum actually agree with me?

I'm shocked!

Hey speaking of being shocked I read that's how you bring the DNA to life once its inside the egg, by passing an electric current through it...

 

[Doveaman]

So if someone cloned a person they would be a physical copy of the person they were cloned from. But what would their minds be like? Would they have the memories of the experiences of the one they were cloned from? What about their character and beliefs, would they be the same? Would they even speak the same language?

Jesus was exactly the same. with the same memories, the same language, etc. So at least in the case of the only authentic resurrection that I sure of, they are not the same thing.

Jesus could have been a physically cloned copy of who he was and then imparted with the same mind he had.

Remember, the body is formed first, and then the mind is imparted:

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground [body] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [mind], and the man became a living being [soul]." - (Gen 2:7).