Did Paul believe in a bodily resurrection?

5wize

Well-known member
You are coming off as a troll. You have not called anybody on anything and that gate swings both ways around here.
You may have missed Furion's trollish post #10 above.... and now you troll my desire to respond to that? Really? Besides, I fail to see your point in any of this. What are you thrashing on about?
 

Furion

Well-known member
You may have missed Furion's trollish...
Careful there friend, you've already proven what I stated to someone else (that means not you), we are now devolving into skeptic dirt.

If you cannot learn, then you will never understand what you are ignorant about.
 

Furion

Well-known member
But yet you don't take the opportunity to enlighten... this is where your ignorance of theology shows.
Do you think you can be enlightened? Would it not be God who would need to enlighten you?

I think so, experientially and theologically. Do you understand this?
 

5wize

Well-known member
Do you think you can be enlightened? Would it not be God who would need to enlighten you?

I think so, experientially and theologically. Do you understand this?
I understand the Christian theory of a "mental state" that you would mislabel as an experience of Jesus being the prerequisite of learning the truth, and then when the confusions and questions arise, as the always do, while experiencing the dogma that comes with that mental state you send them to the apologetics library. Experience first, then theology.

I think you see my point now. You have to go as a child, ignorant, full of faith, not pre-enlightened, full of knowledge. This innocent ignorance is the prerequisite of faith, which is the prerequisite of gaining the experience of Christ which leads to knowledge of him, which leads to obvious confusions between the world seen and the belief professed which leads to apologetics, which leads many to atheism as they find that mental state is not truth.
Careful there friend, you've already proven what I stated to someone else (that means not you), we are now devolving into skeptic dirt.

If you cannot learn, then you will never understand what you are ignorant about.
Oh I'm being careful... friend.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
No you do not. Abio has never been demonstrated and has been falsified several times.
Strawman argument. Abiogenesis is inferred from the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The irony in your statement is that when scientist eventually replicate RNA from chemicals in a laboratory then you will have no where else to hide. You cling to this pebble as if it is going to be the undoing of evolution when it is clearly the desperate attempt of those whose presumed foundation has slipped away from under them.
The evidence is contained in the writings and history. When you say no evidence you are factually incorrect. When corrected you ignore.
You are welcome to produce your evidence that a decomposing human reassembled himself and flew through the air. We all would like to see it. And the claim that it happened because an author decided to write it that way is no more believable than any other religious myth being written, for example, Zeus, Osiris, Atum-Rah, etc. It is much more likely that the author was using a literary technique involving fiction to drive home a point.
Not really in that the writers believed Jesus bodily resurrected from the dead.
And you know what the authors writing in the first century were thinking...how? Do you have mind reading abilities? Do you talk to dead people?

The writers were writing history. How critics reinterpret it all is incidental. It goes to state of mind of the writers and not hearsay evaluations after the fact.
Or the evangelists and literary AUTHORS were writing fiction to drive home a point to their intended audience, that is, that life comes from something that died or was dead.
What community? If late there was no Jewish community to influence since Israel ceased to exist post AD70. If Matthew was writing to Jewish community then his audience was obviously writing Pre 70 AD. If the audience was post 70AD then the writings were anachronistoc since they would not have understood what Matthew was writing.
The evangelists were first and foremost authors writing fiction in the literary genre of scriptural hist-iography to drive home a point to the gnostic community that Paul's teachings should be considered canon. (Dykstra, "Mark Canonizer of Paul"). Subsequently, along come the illiterates in the second century who force the world (in the fourth century) to take the stories literally... or else!
 
Last edited:

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
Strawman argument. Abiogenesis is inferred from the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
In the first place facts are not strawman arguments. There is no overwhelming evidence for common descent. The evidence is equivocal, not singular. Your statement is faith and simply wrong. There is nothing observed, no way to fact check any of the claims, no written history. It is conjecturing.
The irony in your statement is that when scientist eventually replicate RNA from chemicals in a laboratory then you will have no where else to hide.

You mean in state of the art labs? That only proves intelligent design. Besides they will never get there. Appeals to the future not compelling because nobody knows.
You cling to this pebble as if it is going to be the undoing of evolution when it is clearly the desperate attempt of those whose presumed foundation has slipped away from under them.
Yeah yeah.
You are welcome to produce your evidence that a decomposing human reassembled himself and flew through the air.
Can't be done naturally. It takes a supernatural act. Either way it is less of a miracle than abiogenesis or all life from exclusive nonlife via thermal vents in the ocean. Natural common descent has already been falsified. Blind to sight transformations naturally are impossible, no matter the time. Prove it wrong. Show us the overwhelming evidence for blind to sight transformations. It is your claim. Overwhelming evidence. All i am asking is for one postulate to be shown with overwhelming scientific evidence.
We all would like to see it.
Observation is not your standard since you believe in plenty of things not observed.
And the claim that it happened because an author decided to write it that way is no more believable than any other religious myth being written,
We are addressing one event in history here. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ which you dismiss as myth absent one shred of counter- evidence from that time period when resurrection is easy to falsify. Esp when they have a dead body.
for example, Zeus, Osiris, Atum-Rah, etc. It is much more likely that the author was using a literary technique involving fiction to drive home a point.
Opinion. You need to prove your postulate from the evidence. That would be the Gospels of the New Testament. Again, they wrote the account as history and your hearsay evals are without evidence.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Strawman argument. Abiogenesis is inferred from the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The irony in your statement is that when scientist eventually replicate RNA from chemicals in a laboratory then you will have no where else to hide. You cling to this pebble as if it is going to be the undoing of evolution when it is clearly the desperate attempt of those whose presumed foundation has slipped away from under them.
Thing is that it doesn't matter whether abiogenesis ever took place at all. That still does not refute evolution or bind us to any supernatural sentience. Life and matter can be separate and natural.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Thing is that it doesn't matter whether abiogenesis ever took place at all. That still does not refute evolution or bind us to any supernatural sentience. Life and matter can be separate and natural.
True but my point as a theist is that despite fundamentalism dying there remains a rational faith in God based on the Greek model of the divine and its corollary, gnostic Christianity, which does not preclude the facts of evolution. To me, science has strengthened my faith in God
 

docphin5

Well-known member
In the first place facts are not strawman arguments. There is no overwhelming evidence for common descent. The evidence is equivocal, not singular.
Right, and all the universities on the planet just happen to agree whereas the ONLY people who deny it are fundamentalists. You don’t even have the Catholics on your side anymore. Fundamentalists are in their death throes. It is only a matter of time before they suffer extinction.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I understand the Christian theory of a "mental state" that you would mislabel as an experience of Jesus being the prerequisite of learning the truth, and then when the confusions and questions arise, as the always do, while experiencing the dogma that comes with that mental state you send them to the apologetics library. Experience first, then theology.

I think you see my point now. You have to go as a child, ignorant, full of faith, not pre-enlightened, full of knowledge. This innocent ignorance is the prerequisite of faith, which is the prerequisite of gaining the experience of Christ which leads to knowledge of him, which leads to obvious confusions between the world seen and the belief professed which leads to apologetics, which leads many to atheism as they find that mental state is not truth.

Oh I'm being careful... friend.
Atheism and it's logical brother Nihilism are where skeptics go to rot under a meaningless existence. Which is the logical outcome of a godless mind. Here today, gone tomorrow, with nobody to care in a cold nothingness. Does even being remembered by those who won't be remembered even count? None of this is surprising

It is true God must help you overcome yourself. But since your perceptive, keen insight has led you to conclude you are truly just a bag of mostly water, animated for some non apparent reason. Or that is the reason, animated busy work amounting to nothing.

I don't mind others characterisations of their God, each man must condemn himself by his own mouth. God set it up that way because even the craftiest man can't beat himself.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Atheism and it's logical brother Nihilism are where skeptics go to rot under a meaningless existence. Which is the logical outcome of a godless mind. Here today, gone tomorrow, with nobody to care in a cold nothingness. Does even being remembered by those who won't be remembered even count? None of this is surprising
Humanism is the logical brother of Atheism. Nihilism is the result of depression. Depression is also the result of being taught that your nature is bad and bound to damnation. Humanists don't believe this, and do not resort to nihilism. Where did you get that anyway? A complete misunderstanding of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky maybe?
It is true God must help you overcome yourself. But since your perceptive, keen insight has led you to conclude you are truly just a bag of mostly water, animated for some non apparent reason. Or that is the reason, animated busy work amounting to nothing.
I never concluded that about myself. I have a wonderful dual nature: physical, functional, artistic, loving, joyful, positive, appreciative, nurturing.... none of which is supernatural or lends itself to an eternal mind sharing this experience with me. Where did that requirement come from just because of our dual nature?
I don't mind others characterisations of their God, each man must condemn himself by his own mouth. God set it up that way because even the craftiest man can't beat himself.
If God allows it, or does not feel the need to correct one's folly, it must be alright.... I shouldn't worry myself too much about it then.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Humanism is the logical brother of Atheism. Nihilism is the result of depression. Depression is also the result of being taught that your nature is bad and bound to damnation. Humanists don't believe this, and do not resort to nihilism. Where did you get that anyway? A complete misunderstanding of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky maybe?

I never concluded that about myself. I have a wonderful dual nature: physical, functional, artistic, loving, joyful, positive, appreciative, nurturing.... none of which is supernatural or lends itself to an eternal mind sharing this experience with me. Where did that requirement come from just because of our dual nature?

If God allows it, or does not feel the need to correct one's folly, it must be alright.... I shouldn't worry myself too much about it then.
It is indeed your choice, and there really is no reason to do otherwise. Life is only for the willing, the Lord won't twist you arm. You'll just have to figure out why you fight against God, and be satisfied and live with those reasons.

There is no reason why your isms should explain you. I've heard them all. The only ism you have evidence for is meaningless, meaningless, it's all meaningless, with a little bleating in-between.

Well, on the other hand pleasures feel good for a time, money helps, even eating, drinking and merriment can forestall the inevitable. Your world and beliefs are what they are, no reason to sugarcoat things, we all know what this world offers.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
It is indeed your choice, and there really is no reason to do otherwise. Life is only for the willing, the Lord won't twist you arm. You'll just have to figure out why you fight against God, and be satisfied and live with those reasons.

There is no reason why your isms should explain you. I've heard them all. The only ism you have evidence for is meaningless, meaningless, it's all meaningless, with a little bleating in-between.

Well, on the other hand pleasures feel good for a time, money helps, even eating, drinking and merriment can forestall the inevitable. Your world and beliefs are what they are, no reason to sugarcoat things, we all know what this world offers.
Not everyone finds reality so empty and dismal that they have to add a fantasy layer of imaginary meaning to get by. And we don't fight against God - we fight against the irrational beliefs propagated by his believers. Reality is far from perfect (and far from what one would expect if it were crafted for us by a loving and all-powerful creator), but it's sufficiently good to be worth working together to make it all that it can be, within the bounds of reason and evidence, instead of giving up on meaning in the here and now by putting our faith in some imagined future realm that may never come.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Not everyone finds reality so empty and dismal that they have to add a fantasy layer of imaginary meaning to get by. And we don't fight against God - we fight against the irrational beliefs propagated by his believers. Reality is far from perfect (and far from what one would expect if it were crafted for us by a loving and all-powerful creator), but it's sufficiently good to be worth working together to make it all that it can be, within the bounds of reason and evidence, instead of giving up on meaning in the here and now by putting our faith in some imagined future realm that may never come.
That sounds so lofty. You can't even plead your case without bringing God to your level, and making clear your displeasure. Not convincing.
 

5wize

Well-known member
It is indeed your choice, and there really is no reason to do otherwise. Life is only for the willing, the Lord won't twist you arm. You'll just have to figure out why you fight against God, and be satisfied and live with those reasons.
I already know why I fight against the concept of the Christian god. The concept is evil and diminishing and no longer deserves a place in human progress.
There is no reason why your isms should explain you. I've heard them all. The only ism you have evidence for is meaningless, meaningless, it's all meaningless, with a little bleating in-between.
You seem to think your meaning comes from some relationship to a father who never shows up and that you do not understand. That is a meaninglessness I am glad I do not know.
Well, on the other hand pleasures feel good for a time, money helps, even eating, drinking and merriment can forestall the inevitable. Your world and beliefs are what they are, no reason to sugarcoat things, we all know what this world offers.
You mean God's creation? tsk, tsk....
 

5wize

Well-known member
True but my point as a theist is that despite fundamentalism dying there remains a rational faith in God based on the Greek model of the divine and its corollary, gnostic Christianity, which does not preclude the facts of evolution. To me, science has strengthened my faith in God
But Gnosticism was not rational. It was merely a mythological explanation as to why the good thrive and the bad suffer as to offer some kind of mental relief in this world from that reality via the promise of another. The era of the prophets were always struggling with why god's chosen suffer so. Here is where you find a before unheard of philosophy in Judaism of an eternal life in a hereafter world where evil can't reach you and only the suffering go.

None of what we find in science supports this tradition that has seeped into our wishful lexicon so deeply that it has become trait.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
That sounds so lofty.
Thank you.

You can't even plead your case without bringing God to your level, and making clear your displeasure. Not convincing.
My level is existence, and I have not elevated God to that level. And recognizing reality to be imperfect is not displeasure - it's just realism.

What case do you imagine I need to plead? What do you need to be convinced of? And will you hold me to the same low standard of evidence you accept when it comes to your God's existence?
 
Top