Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?

paultrr · April 4, 2005

Your healing anecdote is interesting and you may have been convinced that prayer was a factor at the time you witnessed it but that is absolutely impossible. If god answered prayers, there would be statistical evidence but there is none. There are cases where people have been cured from a misdiagnosis and cases where suggestion has been used to cause and treat symptoms but there have been no corroborated cases where any cure has resulted only from prayer. An acquaintance went to Lourdes for the holy water so his ailing mother would be cured, but she died. That's my anecdote.

There was no misdiagnosis in that case at all. In fact, they had already confirmed the presence of cancer via a biopse as well as having shown the mass on her shoulder at the time via X-ray. It was the growing mass that had gotten her to seek a Doctor in the first place. One cannot in this life avoid death. Such an idea is not taught by any religion that I know of on this planet.

I also might add that not everything in this life boils down to one being able to apply statistical science to the case. While the general popular gossip line tends to talk about our Military and so-called esp experiments I've yet to come across many who actually know that such tests were conducted by them at one time or another. Personally got to witness a bit of that while with the DoD. Generally, with most test subjects things fit the 50/50 or worse situation. But I've also seen a few cases that do not. We're also not talking about card reading tests either in those cases. They involved transfer of whole sentences across a distance of no less than 1 mile, not once, but no less than several times straight in a row over different days and times. Yet, by statistical averages on most run tests that would not be the case at all. Yes, I think there is an answer to such out of science. But statistical methods simply do not always supply one.

Before you ask these test subject where not related or knew each other either. In one of the receptors cases by using the card test the subject rather did poor as far as statistics go. Also, the military has never once published any of their findings on any of that either which is rather normal given their mindset to begin with. I do not think in either case that such requires a spirit or soul for an explination. But there are things about the human equation that do not always fit the nice pictures of black and white we'd all tend to expect them to.

I also rather agree that this post has gone far astream, so to speak.

paultrr · April 4, 2005

Take a closer look. Some people are so bent on trying to get the Bible to fit into the evolutionary scenario (so they will have credibility with those who "profess themselves to be wise..."); you know the rest of that verse.

The only way both can be true is a rationalization found in your mind.

Or the Bible is as some of us think just another religious book and subject to error in which case there is no literal seven days of creation and, while there may or may not be some ID, irrespective science could well be correct on how life evolved and if there is some ID that started it all one still does not require any need of rationalizing the two. But, in the above case you mention where one holds to a literal interpretation of the scriptures then rationalization would seem to be the case.

BEAKER · April 4, 2005

But, in the above case you mention where one holds to a literal interpretation of the scriptures then rationalization would seem to be the case.

Well put Paul. Although there are obvious instances where alegory and other linguistic artistry are used to convey a message; I do believe in the literal interpreation. The only reason anyone would choose not to, is a greater faith in evolution as the "gospel truth".

C1ay · April 4, 2005

I do believe in the literal interpreation. The only reason anyone would choose not to, is a greater faith in evolution as the "gospel truth".

Perhaps there are some in the ID camp that choose not to believe a literal interpretation.

Biochemist · April 4, 2005

The only way both can be true is a rationalization found in your mind.

I really don't agree with this, but I don't think this is a good forum to discuss the topic. This is a discussion of Biblical hermeneutics, and it does not fit well under philosophy, humanities or social science.

I am a pretty conservative interpreter of things Biblical, and there is a large dispersion of conservative opinion on the best way to interpret all of the stuff in the first 11 chapter of Genesis. Since this discussion would really only be of interest to conservative Christian sorts, I don't think this is the correct forum.

Biochemist · April 4, 2005

...Although there are obvious instances where alegory and other linguistic artistry are used to convey a message; I do believe in the literal interpreation. The only reason anyone would choose not to, is a greater faith in evolution as the "gospel truth".

As I have said a couple of times in a couple of places, conservative Christian scholars (even those that believe in inerrancy) still allow for hyperbole, metaphor, allegory, phenomenal language, idiom, poetry, sarcasm, cultural standards and any other element of normal usage the we would experience in normal speech today. This is not a dodge. It just makes interpretation even more difficult.

Application of these literary techniques (even from a conservative point of view) to the first 11 chapters of Genesis is particularly difficult.

Biochemist · April 4, 2005

Perhaps there are some in the ID camp that choose not to believe a literal interpretation.

There may be some, but I don't know anyone anyplace that believes in a literal-only interpretation of the Bible. And I know dozens of conservative folks well.

Did you really mean "literal"?

lindagarrette · April 5, 2005

There was no misdiagnosis in that case at all. In fact, they had already confirmed the presence of cancer via a biopse as well as having shown the mass on her shoulder at the time via X-ray. It was the growing mass that had gotten her to seek a Doctor in the first place. One cannot in this life avoid death. Such an idea is not taught by any religion that I know of on this planet.

I also might add that not everything in this life boils down to one being able to apply statistical science to the case. While the general popular gossip line tends to talk about our Military and so-called esp experiments I've yet to come across many who actually know that such tests were conducted by them at one time or another. Personally got to witness a bit of that while with the DoD. Generally, with most test subjects things fit the 50/50 or worse situation. But I've also seen a few cases that do not. We're also not talking about card reading tests either in those cases. They involved transfer of whole sentences across a distance of no less than 1 mile, not once, but no less than several times straight in a row over different days and times. Yet, by statistical averages on most run tests that would not be the case at all. Yes, I think there is an answer to such out of science. But statistical methods simply do not always supply one.

Before you ask these test subject where not related or knew each other either. In one of the receptors cases by using the card test the subject rather did poor as far as statistics go. Also, the military has never once published any of their findings on any of that either which is rather normal given their mindset to begin with. I do not think in either case that such requires a spirit or soul for an explination. But there are things about the human equation that do not always fit the nice pictures of black and white we'd all tend to expect them to.

I also rather agree that this post has gone far astream, so to speak.

Definitely off track but in response to your claim that prayer or some other form of supernatural intervention can be realized, I am sure if it were documented and witnessed by medical scientists or other well recognized scientists, then something would be published and maybe someone would win a nobel prize. So far, there has been no evidence of miracles other than anecdotal or fantasy.

C1ay · April 5, 2005

There may be some, but I don't know anyone anyplace that believes in a literal-only interpretation of the Bible. And I know dozens of conservative folks well.

Did you really mean "literal"?

Don't ask me, ask Beaker. He's the one that said that he believed in a literal interpretation. I personally can't say that there's any part of any bible that I believe in. IMO, they are all creations of man.

paultrr · April 5, 2005

I am sure if it were documented and witnessed by medical scientists or other well recognized scientists, then something would be published and maybe someone would win a nobel prize. So far, there has been no evidence of miracles other than anecdotal or fantasy.

You make a lot of assumtions. One hears Doctor's, even on some of the occasional talk shows make the statements that they've witnessed the power of prayer and belief. Yet, I've yet to see any of them do a published paper on such. For one, knowing a bit myself of just what one goes through to get something published I can tell you that trying to publish such a paper would generally not get it through the system we have in place at the current time. Doctors, like the few scientists out there, who do tend to believe rather keep their beliefs and their knowledge of such to themselves.

As for the Miltary, results of any experiments run by them tend to stay within the Military for their own purposes. In fact, I think anyone who has ever been in the Military can testify to the old statement about military property. Its also true that some things over time become declassified. But even with declassification one has to know what and where to look for information to get it. The period of time of which I was speaking of was during the cold war era. I have no earthly idea if such research is still an active persuit. I also know of no one in the military who thought any of that was proof of God either. The general accepted thought was it was just some latent power of the mind itself. However, one interesting thing with those subjects who displayed such tallent is they all believed it was some gift from God. So some sort of correlation seems to exist between belief and certain acts. I personally do not think that requires the further step of it being evidence of a personal God either. To go that further step rather involves speculation.

paultrr · April 5, 2005

Fundamentalists Christians like those who follow say Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, etc would be the one's that mostly hold to the literal interpretation of the scriptures. A denominational example would be say the Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, the Bible Church movement, Dallas Seminary, etc. Each of these has as a doctrinal position that all scripture is inspired of God, is innerant, etc.

Biochemist · April 5, 2005

Fundamentalists Christians like those who follow say Billy Graham

This might be trivial, but Billy Graham is certainly not a Fundamentalist. Many Southern Baptists are.

...would be the one's that mostly hold to the literal interpretation of the scriptures...inspired of God, is innerant, etc.

Inerrancy is not the same as literal interpretation. Many denominations believe that the scriptures are inerrant in their original texts (note that they accept there might be errors in the existing translations/texts), but I don't know any mainline Christian denominations that believe they are literally true. All allow for use of literary technique as part of normal usage, as I described in post 74 above.

Dallas Theological Seminary professors CERTAINLY do not believe in a literal-only interpretation of the Bible. They do believe it is inspired and inerrant in its original texts.