Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

[doubtingmerle]

God knows how to raise the dead, it's called resurrection and it's a promise of the Gospel. You want me to explain how God does what only God can do, that will sink into circular arguments early.

Do you understand the question isn't whether Paul thought God could raise people from the dead? So why do you keep pretending this is the question? Do you care to actually address what I say, rather than respond to things that have nothing to do with what I write?

Here is the problem. Paul is dead. His body is gone. The molecules that were once part of Paul's body are now scattered around the earth. You think Paul is still alive and will live in his body. The problem is that Paul's body is gone. Yes, you can say God can make Pauls' body again, and you can even claim it is the same body, but that is merely a game with words. The body would only be a copy. It could not possibly be a continuation of his body.

Let me illustrate. Suppose Carl dies and 2000 years later, God makes a new body for him that is a copy of his body. Suppose Mike dies, and 2000 years later God makes a "same body" for Mike. Now Mike is walking around in the "same body", but Carl is walking around in a new body that is a copy of the body he had on earth. Ok, what is the difference? Both have died, both have had a complete decay of their body. There is nothing left of the body. And Mike arises in what you call the same body, but Carl arises in a copy of his body. Physically, it is the exact same thing. The only difference is whether you call this new body the "same body" or a different body. But somehow you insist on calling it the "same body", even though what you are describing seems to me to be the same thing as rising in a copy of his body.

So I cannot see why you want to quibble over words. The fact is you must surely agree that Paul died, that his body is gone, that he cannot possibly live in a continuation of his earthly body since his body has not been continuously existing, and you apparently believe that God will put together "Paul's body", even though everything you describe when you describe this event seems to be the same as saying Paul arises in a copy of his body.

Regardless, Paul dies and you apparently think he lives again in his body that is put together later. Then the question still remains. Could God make "Paul's body" even when some original bone fragments remained, without using those fragments? Can your God do that, or is he unable to make "Paul's body" unless he gathers every scrap of bone he can find? Could God make Paul's body even if Paul's liver had been transplanted in another person who was still alive? Could God make "Paul's body" while the decaying remnant is still there, making Paul's body from scratch in the resurrection?

I see no reason why you would say Paul could be dead and gone for thousands of years, and God would make "Paul's body" while all that decay exists, but also say that God could not make "Paul's body" while leaving his corpse lying on the ground. Can you explain to me why your God is incompetent to do that?

I think Paul thought his body would die and he would arise in "Paul's body", one that would be different from the body that died. He seems to say specifically that in 2 Corinthians.

And if Paul thought he would rise in a new body that was not a continuation of his old body, while his corpse was still in the ground, why could he not have thought that Jesus arose in Jesus's body while the corpse was still in the ground?

Even if Paul was saying the body was missing and was now moving around as the resurrected Jesus, he still hardly qualifies as a witness. He never saw the empty tomb, never talked to this Jesus on earth, had never even met him before so he would not recognize him if he saw him, and never says that he did.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Without reading the rest of your post, the obvious answer is that there is probably not a single atom in your body which was there ten years ago. So you can say that you now have a duplicate of your original body if you want, but I doubt if you think in those terms in your normal everyday life.

Understood, the whole question of "same body" can get murky when one gets into the philosophy of what that means.

Generally what is meant by the "same body" is that the body was continuously existing as the same body. So since my body was continuously existing since birth, then it can be said that I have the same body as I was born in, even though, gradually, everything has changed.

But if we were to make a machine that could scan my body, and then make an exact duplicate of that body somewhere else (beam me up, Scotty!) that new body would be a copy. If there was no continuous body from the original to the copy, then we seem to be talking about two different bodies.

If a person were to die, and somehow 1 month later God would make a new body, and transmit that person's soul into that new body, would that new body be the same body or a different body? I say it is a different body.

If a person were to die, and 2000 years later God would make a new body, and transmit that person's soul into that new body, would that new body be the same body or a different body? I say it is a different body.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No the issue is that your not comparing Apple's to Apple's.

Uh, no, the issue is that your claim that 25,000 copies form the Middle Ages proves the gospels reliable is bogus. There are 25,000 copies of the National Enquirer. If making all those copies prove it is reliable, then it is also reliable. But your argument from quantity of copies is bogus.

You have worked tirelessly to avoid any mention of Christ being raised again and when called to defend your thesis you turned your slight of hand into a multi-thread shell game.

Anybody can see this is wrong. Look at the title of this thread. It asks about the resurrection. Look at the title of the thread this one comes from. It asks about the resurrection. The entire threads are about the resurrection!

Read these threads. They are all about the question of the resurrection.

 

[Chriliman]

Uh, no, the issue is that your claim that 25,000 copies form the Middle Ages proves the gospels reliable is bogus. There are 25,000 copies of the National Enquirer. If making all those copies prove it is reliable, then it is also reliable. But your argument from quantity of copies is bogus.




Anybody can see this is wrong. Look at the title of this thread. It asks about the resurrection. Look at the title of the thread this one comes from. It asks about the resurrection. The entire threads are about the resurrection!

Read these threads. They are all about the question of the resurrection.

If Christ is not raised, what example should we follow and why?

Should we not love one another and forgive one another and strive to live in peace with one another, but to what end? What's the point if Christ doesn't live forever with God? There would end up being no point and there's no reason to not accept that fact now, if eternal life is a lie, as you're trying to show it is.

You may be convinced that the resurrection didn't happen, but you're left with accepting there can't be a lasting reason to love others and strive for peace on earth, for any generation, even future ones because eventually all will forever cease to exist, eternal life is a lie according to you.

Sorry, but you're on the side that's passing away, repent and be reconciled to God through Christ Jesus.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wait, questions for me? Isn't that an interesting twist. Usually I ask the questions.

If Christ is not raised, what example should we follow and why?

There are many fine examples. Pick one. Having good examples helps us to make something of our lives.

Should we not love one another and forgive one another and strive to live in peace with one another,

We should love, forgive, and strive for peace.

So it would seem to me.

but to what end?

For the good of everyone.

What's the point if Christ doesn't live forever with God?

Because we make life better for ourselves and others.

What is your point in loving? Love because it makes life better for God?

There would end up being no point.

I make my own point. I enjoy living life and sharing that life to help others. So I make that the point of my life.

You may be convinced that the resurrection didn't happen, but you're left with accepting there can't be a lasting reason to love others and strive for peace on earth, for any generation, even future ones because eventually all will forever cease to exist.

In the meantime, before the earth fades into thermodynamic equilibrium, we can still enjoy our own purpose, loving and giving, and together finding happiness here and now.

 

[Chriliman]

Wait, questions for me? Isn't that an interesting twist. Usually I ask the questions.


There are many fine examples. Pick one. Having good examples helps us to make something of our lives.

We should love, forgive, and strive for peace.

So it would seem to me.

For the good of everyone.

Because we make life better for ourselves and others.

What is your point in loving? Love because it makes life better for God?

I make my own point. I enjoy living life and sharing that life to help others. So I make that the point of my life.

In the meantime, before the earth fades into thermodynamic equilibrium, we can still enjoy our own purpose, loving and giving, and together finding happiness here and now.

Sure, for now, but in your Godless paradigm, it's all an illusion that's fading into nothingness, forever. No lasting reason to strive to be good and avoid being evil, not least since both concepts are fading illusions anyway.

 

[StTruth]

Sure, for now, but in your Godless paradigm, it's all an illusion that's fading into nothingness, forever. No lasting reason to strive to be good and avoid being evil, not least since both concepts are fading illusions anyway.

That is a very rude thing to say to an atheist. I'm appalled that I seldom see Christian love among Christians in CF. It's high time we learnt to walk the talk. It's totally wrong to say that an atheist won't strive to be good because there is no God. That is a fallacy that comes from the unthinking segment of society. If you think about it, it's a sorry person who is good only because he's fearful of an angry God. That's puerile, unthinking and wrong. We are good not because of the carrot and stick. A person who is honest only because he fears God is watching isn't a good person. What you have written speaks a lot about your own true nature.

But whatever you are, I urge you to think of your testimony when you write on these pages claiming to be a Christian. We can bring glory to God by our words or we can ruin the impression people have of Christians.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[doubtingmerle]

Sure, for now, but in your Godless paradigm, it's all an illusion that's fading into nothingness, forever. No lasting reason to strive to be good and avoid being evil, not least since both concepts are fading illusions anyway.

I am not sure how my concept is a fading illusion. After all, it is based on what I know.

However, your writings seem to say we should accept your gospel as true because you want it to be true, for it can give you meaning. Choosing to follow something as true because one wants it to be true would be the very definition of following a fading illusion.

 

[StTruth]

I am not sure how my concept is a fading illusion. After all, it is based on what I know.

However, your writings seem to say we should accept your gospel as true because you want it to be true, for it can give you meaning. Choosing to follow something as true because one wants it to be true would be the very definition of following a fading illusion.

That's very wise. A lot of people are not able to distinguish between what is true and what they want to be true. Of course there are no credible witness to the resurrection. I have read a book by a great scholar who explains that the empty tomb is a later invention of the church. To begin with, the whole idea that there was a tomb defies Roman history which tells us that crucified criminals were not allowed a tomb and their bodies were thrown into an unmarked grave pit. But many Christians don't like this truth because it's nicer to have a story of the empty tomb and so on.

But like you have so correctly pointed out, what's true and what we want to be true may very well be extremely different.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Chriliman]

That is a very rude thing to say to an atheist. I'm appalled that I seldom see Christian love among Christians in CF. It's high time we learnt to walk the talk. It's totally wrong to say that an atheist won't strive to be good because there is no God. That is a fallacy that comes from the unthinking segment of society.

I didn't say he wouldn't strive to be good. I think we should all strive to be good, but I am questioning the point of striving to be good in light of the 'truth' that all will forever cease to exist anyway.

If you think about it, it's a sorry person who is good only because he's fearful of an angry God.

I didn't say God is angry and why would you think he is angry?

That's puerile, unthinking and wrong. We are good not because of the carrot and stick. A person who is honest only because he fears God is watching isn't a good person. What you have written speaks a lot about your own true nature.

You seem to have misunderstood me, I'd be glad to clear things up, seriously

But whatever you are, I urge you to think of your testimony when you write on these pages claiming to be a Christian. We can bring glory to God by our words or we can ruin the impression people have of Christians.

I was merely thinking through his worldview and coming to correct conclusions. What's wrong with that?

 

[Chriliman]

I am not sure how my concept is a fading illusion. After all, it is based on what I know.

Eventually, what everyone knows will fade away into nothingness if there is no immortal God. Maybe illusion is the wrong term.

However, your writings seem to say we should accept your gospel as true because you want it to be true, for it can give you meaning. Choosing to follow something as true because one wants it to be true would be the very definition of following a fading illusion.

I think we should believe things that can be known.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Eventually, what everyone knows will fade away into nothingness if there is no immortal God. Maybe illusion is the wrong term.

One can enjoy the ski slope, knowing that before long he will reach the bottom of the hill.

One can enjoy life, knowing that years later all we ever did will be over.

I think we should believe things that can be known.

I'll drink to that!

I disagree with the dismal view of life you think exists if we are without the resurrection, but even if it was dismal, how would that in any way change what is true?

I am here to talk about what is true, not what some wish is true.

 

[Chriliman]

One can enjoy the ski slope, knowing that before long he will reach the bottom of the hill.

One can enjoy life, knowing that years later all we ever did will be over.

I'll drink to that!

I disagree with the dismal view of life you think exists if we are without the resurrection, but even if it was dismal, how would that in any way change what is true?

I am here to talk about what is true, not what some wish is true.

Except you can't possibly know that all will cease to exist forever because knowledge requires existence. You can assume it's true, but can't know.

If you disagree, explain how one could know that all (including himself) will cease to exist forever?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Except you can't possibly know that all will cease to exist forever because knowledge requires existence. You can assume it's true, but can't know.

If you disagree, explain how one could know that all (including himself) will cease to exist forever?

All we know about brain function says that, if the brain is destroyed, we can no longer think. And not long after I die, my brain will be mush. Hence, I don't expect to have any awareness after death.

 

[Chriliman]

All we know about brain function says that, if the brain is destroyed, we can no longer think. And not long after I die, my brain will be mush. Hence, I don't expect to have any awareness after death.

You know this from the perspective of your body. If you ignore all the NDE testimonies, no one has any idea what actually happens after death, if it is indeed nothingness, then we still can't know it's true.

If we do have some kind of experience after death, then we could know it, which is why it's reasonable to believe. Remember we should believe things that can be known, nothingness after death can't be known, period.

 

[StTruth]

I didn't say he wouldn't strive to be good. I think we should all strive to be good, but I am questioning the point of striving to be good in light of the 'truth' that all will forever cease to exist anyway.

What I'm saying is this is a typical remark made by the myriads of unthinking Christians. It's something you must avoid if you don't want to offend atheists and intelligent Christians. When you speak that way, it shows what kind of person you really are. You are saying there is no point to be good because "all will forever cease to exist". It's clear that for you, there is no point in being good if there is no heaven and no reward.

People with a noble mind do not think the way you do. They want to do good even if "all will cease to exist anyway". You are too used to the base idea of doing good because you are getting riches in heaven. Thankfully, not all Christians think that way.

I was merely thinking through his worldview and coming to correct conclusions. What's wrong with that?

What is wrong is you don't even understand his thoughts. You have this idea that a man only does good if there is something at the end of the day for him and you allow this idea to inform your thoughts about atheism. This is one reason why some atheists despise us Christians and say we are intellectually crippled. But I want them to know that not all Christians are like that. We Christians occupy the entire length and breadth of the IQ range.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If we do have some kind of experience after death, then we could know it, which is why it's reasonable to believe.

Wait, what? If something might later be shown to be true, then we could know it. Therefore it must be true? Sorry, that certainly does not follow.

But we are getting off topic here. Can we get back on topic, please? I have presented my case that there are no credible witnesses to the resurrection. Do you care to respond to what I wrote?

 

[Chriliman]

What I'm saying is this is a typical remark made by the myriads of unthinking Christians. It's something you must avoid if you don't want to offend atheists and intelligent Christians. When you speak that way, it shows what kind of person you really are. You are saying there is no point to be good because "all will forever cease to exist". It's clear that for you, there is no point in being good if there is no heaven and no reward.

People with a noble mind do not think the way you do. They want to do good even if "all will cease to exist anyway". You are too used to the base idea of doing good because you are getting riches in heaven. Thankfully, not all Christians think that way.




What is wrong is you don't even understand his thoughts. You have this idea that a man only does good if there is something at the end of the day for him and you allow this idea to inform your thoughts about atheism. This is one reason why some atheists despise us Christians and say we are intellectually crippled. But I want them to know that not all Christians are like that. We Christians occupy the entire length and breadth of the IQ range.

I do agree the idea of doing good in order to receive something has been used a lot before as an argument for Christianity, however, that doesn't mean it isn't based in truth.

The idea of doing good for no reason at all does seem a little foreign to me, however, maybe you mean doing good for the sake of goodness, which I can totally agree with.

 

[StTruth]

Wait, what? If something might later be shown to be true, then we could know it. Therefore it must be true? Sorry, that certainly does not follow.

But we are getting off topic here. Can we get back on topic, please? I have presented my case that there are no credible witnesses to the resurrection. Do you care to respond to what I wrote?

You are absolutely right. I can't fault a single thing you say even though you're an atheist and I'm a Christian. That's the thing about truth. Every honest person should be able to see it. If I refuse to see it and I doggedly insist that you are wrong because you are an atheist and I'm a Christian, that would make me a liar and Jesus doesn't want Christians to be liars although from my experience, MANY Christians lie without the slightest qualm. But the truth is the truth. There are no credible witnesses to the resurrection. It would be wonderful for us if there were credible witnesses but the fact is there were none. And I'm not one of the Christians who will tell lies just to win an argument against an atheist. I wish all Christians would force themselves to be honest even when they have a strong urge to gloss over the truth. It's a horrible sinful habit we Christians must rid ourselves of.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Chriliman]

Wait, what? If something might later be shown to be true, then we could know it. Therefore it must be true? Sorry, that certainly does not follow.

But we are getting off topic here. Can we get back on topic, please? I have presented my case that there are no credible witnesses to the resurrection. Do you care to respond to what I wrote?

When I said we should believe things that can be known, I didn't mean anything that can be known should be believed. What I mean is, if it can be known then that's a valid reason to assume it might be true, but that doesn't mean it must be true.

Sorry, I can see why you interpreted it that way, hopefully this clears things up