C1ay Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 Biochemist said: There are a lot of reasons why this would not apply to Christ, however. Let me know if you are interested in that elaboration. What if he was entombed alive? In some kind of coma? Did they actually have the technology then to determine if someone was actually brain dead? It would seem impossible for me for anyone to elaborate on what actually took place unless they could travel in time. Quote
IrishEyes Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 Ok, stepping into this one a bit late, and sorry for that... While I am no expert on this (or anything, really, for that matter), I would like to say that there seem to be more than a few people in this thread that seem to have the facts pretty close to straight-on. Nice to see. Turtle, you seem to have come closest with the meaning of the Easter celebration. Not discounting wikipedia on this one, I just think that the definition posted by MotherEngine was not all that reliable. We spoke of Easter in another thread recently, and you guys know a bit of my struggle to merge my Christian beliefs into something that my kids will understand, without taking all of the fun out of hiolidays for them. Easter was, in fact, a very pagan celebration. There are many sites on the web that are dedicated to exposing just how pagan many of today's holidays really are. I posted a few on the other thread, but will happily post them again here, if anyone cares to check them out. Like Turtle mentioned, Christmas was also pagan, before the church hijacked it and incorporated it into Chritianity, to make the religion more pleasant to many of the pagans that were being conquered. Personally though, I am still trying to figure out how mucht he reality of the days matter, and whether there is not still some good on celebrating them when the rest of the world does. What Biochemist seems to have hit upon is the Christian based meaning for the celebration, and I feel certain that celebration would be the same, even if the day were not called Easter. Many churches now celbrate "Resurrection Sunday" instead of Easter, and I think that's fine as well. Though having them both on the same day is a little silly to me, as the original Resurrection was closer to Passover, as mentioned by ME/wikipedia, and had nothing to do with full moons, first Sundays after, or vernal equinoxes (that was all about SPRING, not Jesus. see the difference?) Orb- I think it's great that you ask your questions here, regardless of the fact that it is a science site. Like it or not, science and religion are together, if only to prove each other right, or wrong. They can co-exist, and quite often - that happens right here on Hypography. We're glad that you have enough faith in us to be able to answer even your tough questions. :) However, I think that what MotherEngine alluded to is a bit correct as well - there are MANY people on this site that believe in God, and even quite a few that believe that Jesus was a real man, that He was the son of God, that He lived, was crucified, and was resurrected, and that believing in Him will get you to Heaven. Nobody here is forcing you to believe or accept any of that, but you need to understand that there are people that feel very strongly that it is true. One important thing for all of us to remember is that Tormod has created a wonderful place to ask questions and share information, and to challenge each other and ourselves. While it is a science forum, it is inevitable that religion will also be discussed. When that happens, it is important to adhere to the FAQ, be prepared to back up your claims with facts, or be honest enough to admit that you have nothing to support your beliefs (much as pgrmdave did above). Also, another part of the FAQ deals with how we treat each other. A simple "Well, I don't agree with/believe/understand that" is enough to get your points across. Never should it go to "I can't believe you'd accept something so idiotic. Are you brain dead?!" Whether or not you can accept or agree with any point, especially a religious one, made by another member, that member still deserves respect as being a member of our forum. Thanks to all of you for sticking to this so far here, rotting corpse jokes aside. :) Quote
Queso Posted March 28, 2005 Author Report Posted March 28, 2005 mother engine said: as far as resurrection being possible, has anyone knowledge of a someone being brain dead (when the brain stem fails to function) and then resuscitated? all retarded jesus jokes aside, i believe this may be possible, as in a coma. i might actually have believed this a little bit if he wasn't physically nailed to a cross, and then stabbed with spears. i highly doubt anybody can survive that. great post irisheyes. i do acknowledge that people believe, i totally accept it. i really didn't mean for anything to come off like i didn't. *phewwww, this was a great thread. thanks to all of you who contributed. Quote
lindagarrette Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 Biochemist said: I was not trying to prove the resurrection. I was just defending the fact that a large number of atheists agree that the historical record supports the historicity of life of Jesus, and that the tomb was empty. I was referencing atheists becasue they are (presumably) not biased in favor of those positions. The evidence for the resurrection (out of the historical record) is, I think, weaker. Only about 500 people saw Jesus rise (according to the Biblical record), so the historical record from those witnessess is intrinsically more difficult to corroborate from external sources. You are confusing the biblical stories with historical record. I can't imagine an atheist believing for a moment that there is any evidence whatsoever for the resurection or, even in fact for the existance of Jesus. If such an event would have happened, then it should have been recorded by someone at the time. Instead, there are hearsay and forged accounts presented centuries afterward that have no other basis than religiosity. Quote
C1ay Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 lindagarrette said: I can't imagine an atheist believing for a moment that there is any evidence whatsoever for the resurection or, even in fact for the existance of Jesus. I believe a man named Jesus could have existed, just a man though, nothing more, nothing less. Quote
Queso Posted March 28, 2005 Author Report Posted March 28, 2005 i'm with c1ay, though i havn't really decided yet. i don't think it's something i will ever decide, really. if he did exist, he was just a man-exactly. maybe who claimed he was the son of god, or maybe just someone who helped people and people thought he was the son of god. who knows, there are tons of scenarios. Quote
Biochemist Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 lindagarrette said: I can't imagine an atheist believing for a moment that there is any evidence whatsoever for the resurection or, even in fact for the existance of Jesus.... LG- I can't account for your lack of exposure ot atheists thinking, but I am not making this up. I am not sure if I can cite a poll among atheists, but the historicity of Jesus is a commonly accepted view among the non-biased (using atheists as an example). And the contemporary records do reference Jesus. For non Christian contemporaries, Josephus is most often mentioned. I am trying to find a copy to pull out a reference. I can't figure out where you are coming from on this. The suggestion that Jesus never existed is fundamentally untenable. We have better evidence of historicity of Jesus than most of the caesers, persian kings or egyptian pharohs. There are over 20,000 first century texts referencing Jesus, although I admit that most were authored by Christians. On the other hand, we would certainly expect that wouldn't we? Further among historians (Christian or not), the new testament Biblical record (particularly Luke) is very highly regarded, since it has been corroborated by early text records, contemporaneous archaeology and internal consistency. I am not making this up either. Quote
motherengine Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 orbsycli said: i might actually have believed this a little bit if he wasn't physically nailed to a cross, and then stabbed with spears. i highly doubt anybody can survive that. sorry, i was not trying to suggest that jesus was in a coma or brain dead. i think you either accept the spiritual aspect of the resurrection or you don't. my post was a little misleading i guess, but what i was pointing out was that it may be possible for someone to come back from the dead. on second look though it appears that true brain death involves the shutting down of all parts (including the stem) resulting in the cessation of all blood flow to and electrical activity in the brain which is concidered final death and irreversible. if christ did return after brain death then it appears he would truly be a god amoung men. unfortunately i was not there and can only speculate on what his apostles have written. clearly a matter of faith and as such requires a non-scientific approach for belief. 'let the rabbits wear glasses' Quote
lindagarrette Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 mother engine said: sorry, i was not trying to suggest that jesus was in a coma or brain dead. i think you either accept the spiritual aspect of the resurrection or you don't. my post was a little misleading i guess, but what i was pointing out was that it may be possible for someone to come back from the dead. on second look though it appears that true brain death involves the shutting down of all parts (including the stem) resulting in the cessation of all blood flow to and electrical activity in the brain which is concidered final death and irreversible. if christ did return after brain death then it appears he would truly be a god amoung men. unfortunately i was not there and can only speculate on what his apostles have written. clearly a matter of faith and as such requires a non-scientific approach for belief. 'let the rabbits wear glasses' After the brain ceases to function, it deteriorates. Mental capacity and memory loss start immediately. It's possible to ressusitate someone if there isn't much damage. Doctors do it all the time. It isn't a miracle. Of course, in the OT times, there was no medical diagnosis of death so if someone revived, it might have been considered a miracle. I'm certainly not suggestion this is what occurred in the case of Jesus. That is clearly a fable. Quote
Biochemist Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 lindagarrette said: That is clearly a fable. You mentioned previously that you seldom express opinions. This seems like one. :) Quote
lindagarrette Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 Biochemist said: LG- I can't account for your lack of exposure ot atheists thinking, but I am not making this up. I am not sure if I can cite a poll among atheists, but the historicity of Jesus is a commonly accepted view among the non-biased (using atheists as an example). And the contemporary records do reference Jesus. For non Christian contemporaries, Josephus is most often mentioned. I am trying to find a copy to pull out a reference. I can't figure out where you are coming from on this. The suggestion that Jesus never existed is fundamentally untenable. We have better evidence of historicity of Jesus than most of the caesers, persian kings or egyptian pharohs. There are over 20,000 first century texts referencing Jesus, although I admit that most were authored by Christians. On the other hand, we would certainly expect that wouldn't we? Further among historians (Christian or not), the new testament Biblical record (particularly Luke) is very highly regarded, since it has been corroborated by early text records, contemporaneous archaeology and internal consistency. I am not making this up either.I'm sure you really believe what you are writing. Your examples are not facts, however, and you cannot cite any authenticated evidence. The support for historicity of Jesus comes entirely from Christians, which, as you said, is to be expected. The Josephus reference, which is the only non-Christian reference to the existance of Jesus, has long been considered a forgery, by most biblical scholars. You will find that every time you look it up (google), even in the Wikipedia. Of course, most people are not willing to relinquish their strongly held beliefs because of great fear instilled in them from early indoctrination. No doubt, even athiests don't completely reject the notion that Jesus existed. It isn't of much concern if you don't believe in the mystique. I was unaware of the complete lack of evidence until I began some research on my own. Quote
lindagarrette Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 Biochemist said: You mentioned previously that you seldom express opinions. This seems like one. :) Perhaps everything you disagree with is someone's opinion. Quote
Biochemist Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 lindagarrette said: ..has long been considered a forgery, by most biblical scholars. LG- I am sure you can find someone who thinks this, but it is not most scholars. It is not even most non-Christian scholars. I don't see your evidence for this statment. Quote
Biochemist Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 lindagarrette said: I'm sure you really believe what you are writing. Your examples are not facts, however, and you cannot cite any authenticated evidence. I am not sure whether I believe it, but I accept it. For example: Quote Who Was Josephus? Josephus ben Matthias is the best known ancient Jewish historian. He was born in 37 CE, only a few years after Jesus' execution. Josephus was well educated in biblical law and history. On his mother's side he was a descendent of the Hasmonean Kings. On his father's side he came from a priestly family. Josephus counted among his friends Agrippa II. His life took some dramatic turns in 66 CE, when the Jews in Palestine revolted against Roman rule. Although Josephus was only 29 at the time, he was given command of the Jewish forces in Galilee. His forces were no match for the Romans and were utterly defeated. Josephus survived, however, and became an advisor to the Roman general Vespasian by prophesying that the general would become the Roman Emperor. Not so amazingly, in 69 CE Vespasian did become Emperor. As a result, Josephus' stock went up and Vespasian returned to Rome to run the Empire. Vespasian's son, Titus, was given the responsibility of completing the war against the Jews. Titus used Josephus as an interpreter and spokesman to the Jewish forces in Jerusalem. Josephus was berated by the Jews of Jerusalem after he repeatedly called on them to surrender to the Roman forces. Eventually, in 70 CE, the Romans crushed the revolt and destroyed Jerusalem. Josephus returned with Titus to Rome, where he was awarded for his service with a house and a pension. With time and resources, Josephus turned to writing of history. In the 70s, he wrote Jewish Wars, which provided a chronicle of the wars of the Jewish people. He thereafter in the 90s wrote a much broader history of the Jewish people, Jewish Antiquities. Two References to Jesus Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear. First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF". Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest. But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned. Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1 The Testimonium Flavianum It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Emphasis added. I don't know whether the author quoted is a Christian or not, but he is an academic. Quote
Biochemist Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 lindagarrette said: Of course, most people are not willing to relinquish their strongly held beliefs because of great fear instilled in them from early indoctrination. Hmmm. I was never indoctrinated. My parents rarely attended church. I never really even looked at Christianity seriously until I was about 19 or 20. I don't base my regard for Christianity on fear. Although perhaps I ought to. I probably should think about that. Quote
Biochemist Posted March 28, 2005 Report Posted March 28, 2005 lindagarrette said: I'm sure you really believe what you are writing. Your examples are not facts, however, and you cannot cite any authenticated evidence....The support for historicity of Jesus comes entirely from Christians, which, as you said, is to be expected. One more excerpt: Quote Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249).Further: Quote You will find that every time you look it up (google), even in the Wikipedia. Hmmm. I googled "validity of Josephus" and I don't think there were any hits that suggested Josephus was not a valid reference. I didn't read them all, but it sure looked like the bulk of the hits were supportive. Quote
motherengine Posted April 8, 2005 Report Posted April 8, 2005 lindagarrette said: After the brain ceases to function, it deteriorates. Mental capacity and memory loss start immediately. It's possible to ressusitate someone if there isn't much damage. Doctors do it all the time. It isn't a miracle. Of course, in the OT times, there was no medical diagnosis of death so if someone revived, it might have been considered a miracle. I'm certainly not suggestion this is what occurred in the case of Jesus. That is clearly a fable. brain death seems a controversial subject (as far as definition/declaration is concerned) the deeper i look but i cannot find any evidence that anyone has ever been resuscitated from brain death involving the cessation of the brain stem functions. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.