Zone1 The Best Evidence For The Resurrection

[Hypatia415]

Fully God and then at conception, fully human. It's as mysterious as the Trinity. It's as mysterious as transubstantiation. These are not mysteries to be solved. They are relationships to be entered into.

Ah so you are must be Catholic?

So which parts of him were divine and which parts were human? Human toes and divine fingers?

What is real? As near as I can tell our existence is an alternate reality.

"...It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

You have some interesting opinions on the topic. But it really deserves its own thread.

You'll have to be more specific. If it was about dogmatic interpretations that occurred decades after the resurrection, they have no bearing on when and why the first Christians - who were Jews - began worshipping Jesus as God.

You keep stating this as if it is a historical fact. The followers of Jesus did not worship Jesus as God. Even Paul, who never knew the human being, never directly equates his Christ Jesus/Lord of Glory with the Almighty. Paul regarded his figure as divine but not God.

But given that you have failed to explain the when and why Jesus was first worshipped as God after being asked for that many times, do you really believe you should be throwing rocks now? Like I said before, you don't have an explanation for when and why Jesus was first worshipped as God. You only have criticism for my explanation.

I replied to you yesterday. On my computer my reply is showing as post #344.

 

[Hypatia415]

Later beliefs are irrelevant to the resurrection and the first Christians worshipping Jesus as God.

Really? Are you including the Triune deity in that dismissive reply?

Before the resurrection they had a hard time accepting his divinity. After the resurrection, they had a hard time accepting his humanity. Later they reconciled his humanity with his divinity.

All that is simply your opinion.

Jesus’ cry of “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” is understood as the ultimate expression of both his genuine humanity and his divine mission. Rather than indicating a failure of his mission, this moment serves to fulfill ancient prophecy, bear the weight of human sin, and validate the depths of human suffering. The latter of which cannot be understated.

Why was God lamenting?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

That means you may believe differently, although not necessarily. What is it you believe?

Apart from some foundational concepts, l focus more on actions and how you live than on having a strict set of required beliefs.

 

[Hypatia415]

So?

Hence all the rumours that circulated around early Christians. Why did they meet secretly and often at night? What were they doing? What was this love feast of which they partook? Was it an orgy? Were they cannibals?

The usual gossip and rumour that surrounds any group whose behaviours differ from what is regarded as the norm.

However, the authorities would also have regarded secret meetings in houses with suspicion. What was being fomented? Furthermore, only a magistrate had the authority to call a public meeting and those were conducted in daylight.

 

[Meriweather]

So which parts of him were divine and which parts were human? Human toes and divine fingers?

While analogies fail at some point, this is an analogy that does quite a good job of explaining.

Picture blowing a bubble, which is mostly air itself, floating in the air. What is air, what is bubble, when bubble is both?

 

[Hypatia415]

While analogies fail at some point, this is an analogy that does quite a good job of explaining.

Picture blowing a bubble, which is mostly air itself, floating in the air. What is air, what is bubble, when bubble is both?

Are you suggesting my somewhat facetious remark has some bearing in fact?

 

[Meriweather]

Apart from some foundational concepts, l focus more on actions and how you live than on having a strict set of required beliefs.

Thank you, and this I can understand. The next question it produces is how do you see yourself in the history of mankind and the grand scheme of things? Do you see yourself as part of something greater?

 

[Meriweather]

Are you suggesting my somewhat facetious remark has some bearing in fact?

Not at all. You asked a serious question, and I responded with an analogy (by someone of the Pentecostal faith) of a common picture that worked for me. Even at my age, I still enjoyed/enjoy blowing bubbles.

 

[alang1216]

Right. So how do you reconcile it? For me the only logical explanation is that they believed God was on their side. So all narratives of historical events will be colored in this way. All historical narratives will be slanted or embellished to show God was on their side which they used as lessons to teach about their covenant.

He is God the Father. As a father I drove my kids to soccer practice and gave them hugs and kisses. I also punished them when I had to because that was my role. I was kind and cruel, present and absent. Focus on the kind and I come off like a saint. Focus on the cruel and I come off like a devil. We are the sum of our parts just as God is.

The historical accuracy of OT accounts of historical events most certainly is in question. Exodus did not happen the way it was told. This is not in dispute. Something did happen historically but not the way it was told. There is no one other than evangelicals and orthodox Jews who read these accounts literally and accept them as historically accurate. These accounts of historical events were embellished to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience and justice.

You make a distinction between the OT and the NT, I don't.

Not entirely, no. This was how they passed down history and knowledge. They didn't have CNN, internet, newspapers or books. There are two parts to these accounts; the historical event and the embellishment of the historical event to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience and justice. It's no different than how George Washington chopping down a cherry tree to show his honesty was an embellishment but George Washington by all accounts was honest. The embellishment doesn't negate the history or knowledge being passed down.

Your bias is to define God as a perfect being, without flaws. To me he is very human (either we created him or he made us, warts and all.

You take the embellishments of the OT as supernatural acts of God and take the supernatural acts of Jesus as embellishments. You have it completely backwards. And I believe you do so because it is self serving for your beliefs.

Backwards? No, I do not accept ANY supernatural acts or actors. That includes the OT, NT, Koran, Vedas, etc.

 

[ding]

Ah so you are must be Catholic?

I'm a bad Catholic. I often choose to do wrong over right. What good is free will if you don't exercise it. But to my credit, I won't rationalize I am doing right when I am doing wrong. Unlike Adam and Eve, I own it.

So which parts of him were divine and which parts were human? Human toes and divine fingers?

Now you are being dumb. Be better.

You have some interesting opinions on the topic. But it really deserves its own thread.

You started it. But to be fair, they aren't my opinions. They are the opinions of world renowned scientists. The latest of which is John Wheeler whom I didn't mention. He coined the phrase "it from bit" and believes the material world may be a figment of our imagination. I tend to agree.

You keep stating this as if it is a historical fact. The followers of Jesus did not worship Jesus as God. Even Paul, who never knew the human being, never directly equates his Christ Jesus/Lord of Glory with the Almighty. Paul regarded his figure as divine but not God.

You keep pretending there's a credible alternative.

I replied to you yesterday. On my computer my reply is showing as post #344.

I'm not seeing how that explains when and why. It's a pretty simple question. Here's my explanation. When? Immediately after Jesus rose from the dead. Why? Because Jesus rose from the dead.

Your turn.

 

[ding]

Really? Are you including the Triune deity in that dismissive reply?

I dismiss it because it has no bearing on when and why. You do realize there was a beginning to when people began worshipping Jesus as God, right? And a reason for it, right?

All that is simply your opinion.

No. It's not.

Were people confused who Jesus was before the resurrection?

Yes, biblical accounts and historical consensus confirm that people were highly confused about who Jesus was before the resurrection. Even his closest followers frequently doubted, failed to grasp his identity, and struggled to understand his mission. [1, 2]

Was Jesus worshipped as God after the resurrection?

Yes, according to the New Testament, Jesus was actively worshipped by his followers after his resurrection. This worship affirmed his divine identity and set a foundational precedent for the development of early Christian theology. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

When was Jesus recognized as being fully human and fully God?

Jesus was officially recognized as being fully human and fully God in 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon. The church bishops crafted the Chalcedonian Creed, which established the doctrine of the hypostatic union—stating that Jesus is one person with two distinct natures, fully divine and fully human, united without confusion or division. [1, 2, 3, 4]
While the official ecumenical definition was finalized in 451 AD, early Christians wrestled with this understanding much earlier: [1, 2, 3]

• The New Testament (1st Century): While the term "fully God and fully man" was not yet formalized, New Testament writings record Jesus participating in earthly human experiences (like fatigue and hunger) while also explicitly recognizing His divinity (forgiving sins, divine titles). [1, 2, 3, 4]
• First Council of Nicaea (325 AD): The church affirmed that Jesus (the Son) was truly God, equal in essence to the Father, combating the view that he was a created being. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): This gathering was prompted by debates regarding how Jesus' two natures interacted. The resulting creed declared that Jesus possesses "two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation"

Why was God lamenting?

That's you putting a human emotion on God. Wasn't I clear when I wrote, "To validate the depths of human suffering and to serve as God paying his debt to mankind. So when you meet your maker and complain about the unfair existence he created, he will tell you he has already paid that debt."

Does that sound like lamenting to you? Because if I were to put a human emotion on that, it would be God has a sense of humor. The reality is most of life's unfairness is the product of mankind and not God. The rest of life's unfairness is a product of a material existence. And to that I say, the flesh is of no avail. We are spiritual beings experiencing a human existence. Not human beings experiencing a spiritual existence. God has nothing to lament. He gave you existence. You won the cosmic lottery and you are complaining that's not good enough. The problem rests with you, not God.

 

[Bad Bob]

That's healthy theory but difficult to put into practice.

It would be awful to go through life believing there was no meaning or purpose behind it.

True, but like most things, it takes practice.

True. It would kill the will to live. The phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" comes to mind.

 

[Bad Bob]

Ding, is the Resurrection the cornerstone of the Christian belief?

I believe so. Without it, it's unlikely Christianity would exist.

In modern Christianity, the Resurrection and divinity of Christ is fundamental to their beliefs, but it wasn't always so. The Resurrection and divinity believers killed off the non-believers over the following 1000 years.

Also, not all modern Christian denominations believe in the Trinity, a concept that wasn't formalized until 300 years after the crucifixion.

IMO, it's possible to be a Christian by following the words of Christ without accepting that Jesus is the son of God or that he rose from the dead. It's more likely he survived the crucifixion, at least for a time, which would have astounded his apostles as a "miracle".

Nontrinitarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The largest nontrinitarian Christian groups are the Oneness Pentecostal movement, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo, and Iglesia ni Cristo. Smaller groups include Christadelphians, Church of the Blessed Hope, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Assemblies of Yahweh, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Christians, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, the Philadelphia Church of God, The Church of God International, the United Church of God, Church of God General Conference, Restored Church of God, Christian Disciples Church, and Church of God of the Faith of Abraham.

 

[ding]

He is God the Father. As a father I drove my kids to soccer practice and gave them hugs and kisses. I also punished them when I had to because that was my role. I was kind and cruel, present and absent. Focus on the kind and I come off like a saint. Focus on the cruel and I come off like a devil.

Exactly.

We are the sum of our parts just as God is.

That I don't agree with. Yes, we are the sum of our CHOICES. No, God isn't the sum of his choices because I don't know for certain God had a choice in sharing his existence. I believe it is the nature of existence to share existence and God is literally existence.

When someone touched the robe of Jesus and was healed, Jesus recognized his power was being accessed but he had no control in keeping it from being accessed. That's how I see God.

You make a distinction between the OT and the NT, I don't.

I make a distinction on historical events and embellishments. You say you don't make a distinction between the OT and NT but you do. You see embellishments in the OT as supernatural acts of God because it makes God look bad. You see supernatural acts in the NT as embellishments because you don't want to see God look good.

Your bias is to define God as a perfect being, without flaws.

Incorrect. I logically believe every extant attribute of reality exists because God is the source of existence and is those extant attributes. God isn't a thing. God is an action.

To me he is very human (either we created him or he made us, warts and all.

That is illogical and anthropomorphic.

Backwards? No, I do not accept ANY supernatural acts or actors. That includes the OT, NT, Koran, Vedas, etc.

And yet you blame God for commanding violence and punishment in the OT. How would that be possible without supernatural acts.

 

[ding]

In modern Christianity, the Resurrection and divinity of Christ is fundamental to their beliefs, but it wasn't always so. The Resurrection and divinity believers killed off the non-believers over the following 1000 years.

How exactly does that negate when and why they first believed Jesus is God? And how much do you know about the Gnostic Christians? The Cathars were quite reprehensible and Darwinized themselves out of existence.

Also, not all modern Christian denominations believe in the Trinity, a concept that wasn't formalized until 300 years after the crucifixion.

How exactly does that negate when and why they first believed Jesus is God?

IMO, it's possible to be a Christian by following the words of Christ without accepting that Jesus is the son of God or that he rose from the dead. It's more likely he survived the crucifixion, at least for a time, which would have astounded his apostles as a "miracle".

Supposition. But putting that aside, I don't believe it is possible to follow Christ without having a relationship with Christ. There's a big difference between being a Christian and following Christ. The words of Christ can only be made manifest by having a relationship with Christ.

 

[Bad Bob]

How exactly does that negate when and why they first believed Jesus is God? And how much do you know about the Gnostic Christians? The Cathars were quite reprehensible and Darwinized themselves out of existence.

How exactly does that negate when and why they first believed Jesus is God?

Supposition. But putting that aside, I don't believe it is possible to follow Christ without having a relationship with Christ. There's a big difference between being a Christian and following Christ. The words of Christ can only be made manifest by having a relationship with Christ.

Besides you, who is claiming false perceptions negate beliefs?

Consider Jihadist suicide bombers. They believed.

Consider Jonestown. They believed.

Mass suicide at Jonestown | November 18, 1978 | HISTORY

Peoples Temple founder Jim Jones leads hundreds of his followers in a mass murder-suicide at Jonestown, their agricul...

www.history.com

On November 18, 1978, Peoples Temple founder Jim Jones leads hundreds of his followers in a mass murder-suicide at their agricultural commune in a remote part of the South American nation of Guyana. Many of Jones’ followers willingly ingested a poison-laced punch while others were forced to do so at gunpoint. The final death toll at Jonestown that day was 909; a third of those who perished were children.


Consider Heaven's Gate. They believed.

Heaven's Gate cult members found dead | March 26, 1997 | HISTORY

Following an anonymous tip, police enter a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, an exclusive suburb of San Diego, California, ...

www.history.com

Following an anonymous tip, police enter a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, an exclusive suburb of San Diego, California, and discover 39 victims of a mass suicide. The deceased—21 women and 18 men of varying ages—were all found lying peacefully in matching dark clothes and Nike sneakers and had no noticeable signs of blood or trauma. It was later revealed that the men and women were members of the “Heaven’s Gate” religious cult, whose leaders preached that suicide would allow them to leave their bodily “containers” and enter an alien spacecraft hidden behind the Hale-Bopp comet.

 

[ding]

Besides you, who is claiming false perceptions negate beliefs?

Consider Jihadist suicide bombers. They believed.

Consider Jonestown. They believed.

Mass suicide at Jonestown | November 18, 1978 | HISTORY

Peoples Temple founder Jim Jones leads hundreds of his followers in a mass murder-suicide at Jonestown, their agricul...

www.history.com

On November 18, 1978, Peoples Temple founder Jim Jones leads hundreds of his followers in a mass murder-suicide at their agricultural commune in a remote part of the South American nation of Guyana. Many of Jones’ followers willingly ingested a poison-laced punch while others were forced to do so at gunpoint. The final death toll at Jonestown that day was 909; a third of those who perished were children.


Consider Heaven's Gate. They believed.

Heaven's Gate cult members found dead | March 26, 1997 | HISTORY

Following an anonymous tip, police enter a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, an exclusive suburb of San Diego, California, ...

www.history.com

Following an anonymous tip, police enter a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, an exclusive suburb of San Diego, California, and discover 39 victims of a mass suicide. The deceased—21 women and 18 men of varying ages—were all found lying peacefully in matching dark clothes and Nike sneakers and had no noticeable signs of blood or trauma. It was later revealed that the men and women were members of the “Heaven’s Gate” religious cult, whose leaders preached that suicide would allow them to leave their bodily “containers” and enter an alien spacecraft hidden behind the Hale-Bopp comet.

In part, this is a conversation about perceptions. The first Christians perceived Jesus is God because they perceived he rose from the dead. By your logic, unless everyone perceived exactly the same thing, it can't be true. That's not how it works. It makes perfect sense that Jesus was worshipped as God because of what people observed and experienced. All of the evidence supports this. So unless you have evidence of a massive conspiracy, I'm not seeing any evidence that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead.

1. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats.
2. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed.
3. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy as described in the gospels.
4. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts.
5. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
6. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected.
7. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts.
8. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.
9. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic.
10. The empty tomb.
11. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty.
12. There are no accounts of his body being found.
13. But the most important evidence is the dramatic change in behavior of the apostles who were hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day. The change in their behavior cannot be overstated. They went from cowering in fear to boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord despite being persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it.
14. Then there is the physical description of the risen Christ which deviated significantly from the prevailing Jewish belief of the day. If this was a conspiracy why wouldn't they just describe the risen Christ in a way that was generally accepted by Jews?
15. Then there is Paul's dissertation on the gravity of believing Jesus is Lord which shows he had nothing to gain and everything to lose and he still chose to worship Jesus as Lord.
16. There is no credible explanation that explains why the Gospels were intentionally written to present the resurrection of Christ as an historical event if indeed they are lies.
17. There is no credible explanation that explains why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God if indeed the gospels are lies.
18. There is no credible evidence that the apostles weren't the first Christians to worship Jesus as God and were the founders of Christianity.
19. There is no credible evidence that Christianity didn't begin immediately after Jesus rose from the dead.
20. There is no credible evidence that the resurrection of Christ wasn't the catalyst for the start of Christianity.

 

[Hypatia415]

I'm a bad Catholic. I often choose to do wrong over right. What good is free will if you don't exercise it. But to my credit, I won't rationalize I am doing right when I am doing wrong. Unlike Adam and Eve, I own it.

Now you are being dumb. Be better.

I was being facetious.

You started it. But to be fair, they aren't my opinions. They are the opinions of world renowned scientists.

I agree that within science the topic of what is reality remains constantly under discussion. The British journal New Scientist has had various articles over the years on that topic as well as what is consciousness.

You keep pretending there's a credible alternative.

Why would observant Jews break the first two commandments and worship a human being?

I'm not seeing how that explains when and why. It's a pretty simple question. Here's my explanation. When? Immediately after Jesus rose from the dead. Why? Because Jesus rose from the dead.

Yet our earliest writer does not have Jesus walking through walls or cooking breakfast for his disciples on the beach. Paul tells us the risen Christ appeared to various individuals. And what happened to this figure after that appearance? Paul does not tell us. The story of the Ascension is written about only by the much later author of Luke and Acts.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Also, not all modern Christian denominations believe in the Trinity, a concept that wasn't formalized until 300 years after the crucifixion.

I did a study course some years ago on comparative religions, and came across the Unitarians, a Christian group which doesn’t believe in the Trinity.

I even spoke personally with one of them. She was very interesting and informative with my questions.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Thank you, and this I can understand. The next question it produces is how do you see yourself in the history of mankind and the grand scheme of things? Do you see yourself as part of something greater?

I don’t think about things like that.