johnT wrote:Response: I didn’t say he did. He said that Quantum Teleportation and Neural Engineering by space aliens is entirely possible. That the Heaven’s Gate Cult really made sense, in that there really could have been a flying saucer flying by and those aliens could have scanned a brain and reproduce it into a new body. See the 29:30 mark of his lecture. http://youtu.be/79UAYyMYk7I
John T, You keep tripping over yourself in your vendetta against Carrier. Carrier compares what he clearly considers 2 ridiculous claims. He only says that the Heaven's Gate resurrection belief makes more sense than Christianity, not that it "really made sense."
He says "If the Heaven's Gate Cult is absurd, Christianity is absurd."
You have a problem with taking everything Carrier says absolutely literally ignoring context and nuance (much like your claim that Carrier promised to destroy Christianity). You are a constant source of misinformation related to Carrier.
Obviously, you didn't bother to watch the video even after I went so far at to tell you exactly were you could find Carrier making his bizarre statments. Carrier gave his scientific opinion that it really makes sense that space aliens are going around resurrecting the dead. Carrier went so far as to give say that science within 50-100 years will be able to do the same thing, that is: Quantum Teleportation and Neural Engineering.
So, it is not that I have a vendetta against Carrier but perhaps you are are in deep denial of just how bizarre is the logic of Carrier.
Just a thought.
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Diogenes the Cynic: Being an atheist does not necessitate a belief that there was no empty tomb, Ehrman still assumebed the historicity of the tomb for years after he lost his faith and it has only been recently - specifically in his latest book, How Jesus became God - that he said he has changed his mind on that… Diogenes the Cynic
John T response: A couple of weeks ago I read Ehrman’s book: “How Jesus became God” and I don’t recall Ehrman expressing your interpretation. Perhaps you could provide a quote and page number? I sense you don’t understand what Ehrman meant by the historicity of the empty tomb. What he meant was; it is considered a historical fact that the first Christians believed in the empty tomb (Romans 10:9). However, that doesn’t mean Ehrman still believes what they believed. If you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 10:9) which explains why the tomb was found empty by Peter, I don’t see how you can still be classified as an atheist.
Diogenes the Cynic: Nothing about the belief [that there really could have been a flying saucer flying by and those aliens could have scanned a brain and reproduce it into a new body.] was categorically or physically impossible. Nothing about it was supernatural. He wasn't saying that they had any likelihood of being true, though. Not categorically impossible does not mean likely to be true…. Diogenes the Cynic
John T response: Of course if you allow for the supernatural then nothing is categorically or physically impossible. However, Carrier as an atheist does not believe in the supernatural. Yet, Carrier believes that mind snatching space aliens really makes sense to him. Also he believes in 50-100 years, scientists will also be conducting Quantum Teleportation and Neural Engineering. Carrier believes that supernatural space aliens really make sense but a supernatural being called God does not?!? Fallacy of exception in full display.
Diogenes the Cynic: You [John T] have provided no examples of any writings [proving Paul preached a physical resurrection] …and my own source is Paul. Specifically in 1 Corinthians 15:35ff, where Paul says physical resurrections are impossible… Diogenes the Cynic
John T response: I think you got the wrong scripture, perhaps you meant: “…flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God…1Cor 15:50. Either way, Paul did not state physical resurrections were impossible. Instead he explained in detail that upon the physical resurrection the body must be transformed/changed both physical and spiritually. “For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality”…1Cor15:53
Diogenes the Cynic: [Paul] frequently mischaracterized or misquoted scripture to serve his agenda, especially as it pertained to the law. Probably the worst example is his twisting of the meaning of the veil of Moses in 2 Corinthians 3:13… Diogenes the Cynic
John T response: People mischaracterize and misquote scripture all the time. What you just did regarding the impossibility of a physical resurrection is a good example of that. However, that doesn’t make you a narcissistic liar nor does it for Paul, just misguided and perhaps a wee bit arrogant.
In conclusion: The Bible clearly teaches the first Christians believed in an empty tomb due to God raising Jesus from the dead. That is not to say you have to believe in the miracle but only that you can't deny the first Christians believed it.
That is what is meant by the historicity of the empty tomb.
Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Matt. 28:1-6 says that the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week. "Suddenly" there was an earthquake as the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled back the stone and sat on it. The guards fell down as dead men. The angel then told the women that Jesus was not in the tomb because he had been raised.
The above gives the impression that Jesus is supposed to have passed through the walls of the tomb. That sounds like a spiritual, not a bodily, resurrection.
ficino wrote:Matt. 28:1-6 says that the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week. "Suddenly" there was an earthquake as the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled back the stone and sat on it. The guards fell down as dead men. The angel then told the women that Jesus was not in the tomb because he had been raised.
The above gives the impression that Jesus is supposed to have passed through the walls of the tomb. That sounds like a spiritual, not a bodily, resurrection.
ficino wrote:Matt. 28:1-6 says that the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week. "Suddenly" there was an earthquake as the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled back the stone and sat on it. The guards fell down as dead men. The angel then told the women that Jesus was not in the tomb because he had been raised.
The above gives the impression that Jesus is supposed to have passed through the walls of the tomb. That sounds like a spiritual, not a bodily, resurrection.
I can't help but think this obfuscates the real issue, which is, whatever the Christians thought about the nature of the resurrected form, it was still identical with the corpse. Meaning, there was no resurrection if there was a decaying body left behind. So it's not as if they would have believed a corpse of Jesus could have been left behind while a resurrection transpired, hence the emphasis on the corpse not being in the tomb in all the accounts.
ficino wrote:Matt. 28:1-6 says that the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week. "Suddenly" there was an earthquake as the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled back the stone and sat on it. The guards fell down as dead men. The angel then told the women that Jesus was not in the tomb because he had been raised.
The above gives the impression that Jesus is supposed to have passed through the walls of the tomb. That sounds like a spiritual, not a bodily, resurrection.
I can't help but think this obfuscates the real issue, which is, whatever the Christians thought about the nature of the resurrected form, it was still identical with the corpse. Meaning, there was no resurrection if there was a decaying body left behind. So it's not as if they would have believed a corpse of Jesus could have been left behind while a resurrection transpired, hence the emphasis on the corpse not being in the tomb in all the accounts.
Or am I missing the point?
Paul uses the analogy of seeds decaying and turning into plants to say that physical bodies rot and are replaced by spiritual bodies.
I don't think it matters, though, because there is no reason to believe that anyone knew where Jesus had been buried. The typical disposition would have been in a common, unmarked criminals' grave. A body with an unknown location poses no problems to any claimed ascension. The location of the body of Moses, in Jewish tradition, was unknown and eventually in some traditions Moses was thought to have ascended to Heaven as well.
John T wrote:In conclusion: The Bible clearly teaches the first Christians believed in an empty tomb due to God raising Jesus from the dead.
The NT Bible is a Greek story book. Aside from its use as a "Sacred Codex" or "Holy Writ" for the last 1.680 years, we don't know it's genre.
That is not to say you have to believe in the miracle but only that you can't deny the first Christians believed it.
The first Christians could have been deluded by their own visions and/or table talk. The NT Bible may be a complete fiction, or the resurrection sub-story within it may be a compete fiction. It is far more reasonable to believe the historical life of the post resurrection Jesus was fabricated for the edification of its gentile (Greek) audience. But then again everyone is entitled to their opinion.
It is a pleasant surprise to find common ground (even if it may be for different reasons) between the "historicists" and the "mythicists" on the estimation of the historicity of the post resurrection Jesus.
LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
John T wrote:
In conclusion: The Bible clearly teaches the first Christians believed in an empty tomb due to God raising Jesus from the dead. That is not to say you have to believe in the miracle but only that you can't deny the first Christians believed it.
Which 'first Christians'? early 2nd century? late 2nd Century?
ficino wrote:Matt. 28:1-6 says that the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week. "Suddenly" there was an earthquake as the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled back the stone and sat on it. The guards fell down as dead men. The angel then told the women that Jesus was not in the tomb because he had been raised.
The above gives the impression that Jesus is supposed to have passed through the walls of the tomb. That sounds like a spiritual, not a bodily, resurrection.
I can't help but think this obfuscates the real issue, which is, whatever the Christians thought about the nature of the resurrected form, it was still identical with the corpse. Meaning, there was no resurrection if there was a decaying body left behind. So it's not as if they would have believed a corpse of Jesus could have been left behind while a resurrection transpired, hence the emphasis on the corpse not being in the tomb in all the accounts.
Or am I missing the point?
No. You are not missing the point, which is; the mythicists are trying to make you miss the point. They are too clever by half.
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
