Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?

[nick777]

i personally believe that he was comatose. i was too, AND i have been given sufficient reason to believe this. i do not believe in miracles, but believe that they were stories the disciples thought up as 'propoganda'. if you'd like to know more about my OWN experiences(very much like those of perseus) then check out my 'new religion' at isgodreligious.com-browse to 'sun worship'.

[cotner]

Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?

 

The guys who wrote the books making up the New Testament accepted by Christians, whether old school like Catholics and Orthodox or new school like Protestants, those guys grappled with the resurrection and everything else they taught would-be converts to Christ and the Father, God the Father, that is, and you know what? they came up with a formula that solves all questions of history and speculation, namely, if you would accept the gift of faith, then everything will follow logically.

 

 

In the last analysis, faith is the decisive factor in accepting not only the plausibility of Jesus' resurrection, but even the certainty.

 

Now, we can talk about certainty and certainty; but some smart guys will tell us all that there is no such thing as certainty, but only conviction.

 

 

At the end of the day, the gift of faith gives Christians the conviction, but not the certainty which is everything said very illusive even for the most sharp-minded searcher of certainty.

 

 

This is the way it goes with believers in Jeuss: First, Christians of the born-again variety accept Christ on faith, taking the gift that is of faith; then they have an experience or they claim to have an experience which no one except themselves can belie; and that experience is their conviction which for them amounts to certainty.

 

 

And who is wiser?

 

 

No, I don't have any experience that born-again Christians talk about; but I accept the gift of faith, with the provision that I can put it on the shelf any time I prefer for my own good reasons.

 

 

What will that get me beyond the grave? That I will find out and if not agreeable to me then, at least I have acted according to my best intelligence; and Jesus, God Father, Holy Spirit, all the whole deistic Triumvirate can take it or leave it.

 

Just the same, I have the certainty, as these chaps are sensible, I don't think I will fare badly with them.

 

 

 

Laugh.

 

 

 

cotner

[ughaibu]

they came up with a formula that solves all questions of history and speculation, namely, if you would accept the gift of faith, then everything will follow logically

In other words, 'if a person agrees to uncritically accept what the guru tells them, they'll believe everything the guru tells them'. No very deep, is it? Cult leaders were exploiting this one line con well over 2000 years ago, and they still are today. There's nothing special about which ideology you allow yourself to be a victim of.

[cotner]

 

Originally Posted by cotner

they came up with a formula that solves all questions of history and speculation, namely, if you would accept the gift of faith, then everything will follow logically

 

In other words, 'if a person agrees to uncritically accept what the guru tells them, they'll believe everything the guru tells them'. No very deep, is it? Cult leaders were exploiting this one line con well over 2000 years ago, and they still are today. There's nothing special about which ideology you allow yourself to be a victim of.

 

That is a most challenging rebuttal. Congratulations!

 

 

But I will just point out that if you would be also critical there are all strains of Christianity; for my own religious needs which are very modest, the strain of Christianity that I subscribe to is in my observation not of the cult kind as commonly seen in the streets; it is my own shall we say, concoction?

 

All religions are cults in the last analysis; that said, my kind of Christianity is one where I am my own cult leader and cult follower.

 

 

This is a strain of Christianity which for my own needs I call DIY Christianity of the thinking and judging believer, which is self-customized by I, myself, and me.

 

And this is one Christianity where faith is subsumed under reason, whose reason? my own reason.

 

 

You see, my kind of religion is a designer religion, I myself and me are the designers.

 

 

Why even bother with having a religion at all? There are plenty of advantages notwithstanding the disadvantages. It is more gratifying to have a religious marriage together of course with the civil transaction than a purely civil transaction. Then also I prefer that my kids study in schools run by Christian societies, like Catholic religious orders or Protestant denominations with a history of at least 500 years plus. Likewise I would rather witness a religious funeral than one without any kind of religious trimmings.

 

What kind of a faith is this? It can be called a cultural one, but in my case I cultivate it myself for my own comfort and emotional aesthetics.

 

 

If I were born Buddhist and grew up in a Buddhist society, or a Muslim, I would also fashion my own kind of Buddhism, Islam, or Judaism if born a Jew.

 

 

Laugh.

 

 

 

cotner

[nick777]

i don't think enough is really truly understood about jesus' resurrection. personally i believe that he was a resurrection from birth, and anointed at 18. i do have a very good understanding of messiahs-i am the current one!check out the site isgodreligious dotcom and browse to sun worship. maybe then you'll understand more about the messiahs.

basically i believe that jesus had a similar 'mind' to perseus, to jason, to abel, to a case in 'a laymans guide to psychiatry and psychoalalysis' by Eric Berne.its in the chapter called "what is insanity?", this was my predecessor, the last 'king of the world'-i am the current!

[HydrogenBond]

In physics, one of the theories that is given credibility is connected to other dimensions and alternative universes. Many even go as far as claiming that there is energy-matter exchange between all these. Those who don't like the Big Bang theory use this parallel universe theory to get the original mass-energy into our universe. This theory follows the protocol of science, using math, and is considered acceptable science. That being said, all that needs to happen, for a resurrection is a hook-up to one of the other dimensions or parallel universes. Again, physics says this is conceptually possible, based on their theory, so science suggest that resurrection is not impossible. The odds or the probability may be very slight, but it only had to happen once in about 15B years. It does not require a complete transformation, since the story goes that Christ appeared in the flesh. We only need a partial energy exchange with one of the postulated parallel universes.

 

If resurrection is still considered impossible, then we need to purge that physics theory since it conceptually says this happens. We can not have a science theory with special exemptions anytime they suit us. The physics is suppose to work to make our entire universe, yet something that would take much lower energetics than an entire universe is impossible???? A resurrection should not have required very much energy exchange. An energy transfer could explain the stone being moved, i.e., energy blast. Christ was still glowing in the energy flux, causing the guards to scatter. This is all based on physics that is considered possible via math. If this application is impossible, than the physics needs to be purged. If one wants it both ways they are not being very rational.