Resurrection

Was Resurrection common in the days of Jesus Christ?
Or
The story-telling of people being resurrected

A teacher of mine noted that ‘scholars’ tend to agree on this.

What do you think?

I think the story telling of people being resurrected was quite common. As strange as this may sound, but the famous magician Harry Houdini delved deeply into religious studies amongst other things. One of his findings was that there is no prediction or fortune telling quality in the Bible, all one need do is study the history of that time and realize that the Bible is meant to be taken quite literally for the time and era it was created in. It is specific in its teachings, its only us in the future who try to hold on to such things for the sake of belief, that make analogies and even make ourselves believe that the Bible has actually predicted happening now. Argh, the misconstruing power of words. What I’m trying to say is, that resurrection isn’t some kind of a magical thing that no one had spoken of or thought of back then. It shouldn’t be surprising at all that there should be a resurrection in the Bible, since it was written by people of a time that were quite taken by the mystical concept of resurrection.

What’s your take?

I suggest reading Peter Kreeft’s The Journey as it goes into Jesus Chris, Christianity, and His ressurection near the end. It would be much more efficient than me typing it all out here. Very very good points it.

First of all. HI !
This is my first post here at I love philosophy.
I used to frequent a lot of forums but I have been
out of forum hopping for a while now. I really like
what I see here. I hope I can learn a lot, and perhaps
help others as well.

The question you have asked is a good one.

First of all, it should be noted that during the time of Christ belief in “resurrection” was common place. As even the Bible makes refference through out the gospels to the idea of resurrection. Most commonly the Bible speaks of the resurrection on the day of judgement, at which time
all mankind will be raised to life and brought before God to be judged. However, there are other ‘resurrections’ in the Bible, the most famous being the resurrection of Christ who was resurrected, appeard to men, and ascended to heaven.

The idea of the resurrection and judgement of mankind is
taught through Scripture and was a common part of Jewish and
early Christian theology (it still is).

The idea of the resurrection of the Messiah was also spoken of
through out scirpture, both prophetically and through types, shadows,
and other literary technique.

However, the claim (that few scholors make) that the Jewish and Christian faiths borrowed this idea from other worldviews is patently false. There is no evidence that the teaching presented in the Bible borrowed ideas from other religions or social constructs. The fact is MOST of the BIble is written in direct oppositions to the believes of the sorrounding societies. However, the BIble does state that, because at one time mankind was closer to God in their understanding, mankind tends to borrow from the ancient traditions that still held on to the earliest teachings of God to mankind. [size=75]For example, sacrifice was tought to Adam and Eve and was passed down as an important aspect of understanding our sin, its punishment of death, and God’s grace by taking another life (an animal) rather then the life of the sinner – this of course pointing foward to the sacrifice of Christ. This was passed down to tribes through out the world but was perverted as people lost the true importance of it due to a purposeful neglect.[/size]

In my opinion, believes regarding resurrection actually spawn from the fact that all ancient peoples recieved from their ancestors this teaching, however abscure. It was perverted, but never-the-less it survived and has been accepted by that vast majority of people through out the world (in one form or another).

In summation. Belief in resurrection is borrowed from the biblical worldview.

Resurrection was a common teaching in Jewish orthodoxy at the time
of Christ, although there was some debate about the details.

The resurrection of the comming messiah was tought in the O.T.
and was not borrowed from other faiths, considereing it was the
teaching of the Bible long before it was held by gentile nations during the
time of Christ.

(PS Jesus was a JEW ministering to JEWS, and was not at all subject to
theological or philosophical views outside jewish orthodoxy, in his teachings, as a matter of fact, a close study of Christs words reveals that he tought nothing new, but rather he tought was the Jews of His day were faililng to see in the O.T.)

Here are some related articles that are VERY GOOD and helpfull.
were the New Testament authors influenced by pagan legends?
was Jesus Christ just a CopyCat Savior Myth? (Part A)
was Jesus Christ just a CopyCat Savior Myth? (Part A1)
was Jesus Christ just a CopyCat Savior Myth? (Part A2)
JESUS CHRIST—UNIQUE SAVIOR OR AVERAGE FRAUD? (PART I)
JESUS CHRIST—UNIQUE SAVIOR OR AVERAGE FRAUD? (PART II)
The Salvation Myths of Ancient Cults – The differences between myths and gospels
The Identity of Jesus Christ by Hans W. Frei (Part 3: Distortions of Christ’s Identity)

There are of course dozens of scholarly works on the Historical validity of the resurrection accounts in Scripture, the life and identity of Christ, and the reliability of the Bible (in general or specific)…Many are yet un-equally challenged by skeptics – Including this debate
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You might want to back this up. It is just not true and if you are basing your conclusions on the Old Testament, then you are flat out lying. If you want to convince anyone, at least defend yourself with a scripture or two. The word ressurection nor the phrase raise from the dead is ever seen in the O.T. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I will even go further to say that Jesus never prophesied himself to be ressurected; it was a fabrication that took place after his death. Furthermore, Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophesies.

Even in his own days people did not believe that he was the messiah, but he said that he would give a sign. Just one. Matthew 12:38-40; “There shall no sign be given than the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Here he clearly says that the only sign he will give is his being in the grave for three days and three nights.

He was crucified on Friday afternoon, the day before the Sabbath. Mark 15:42

He was supposedly resurrected on Sunday morning. Mark 16:9.

Can you fit in between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning three days and three nights?

From this we must conclude that he did not live up to the only sign he promised.

Want more?

HAha, brilliant! I’ll have to remember this one for the next time someone tells me Jesus died for my sins!

Imagine if Jesus didn’t believe in Resurrection and had given up faith in God. Deciding to do something more practical with his own views and decided to die on the cross, because he knew how superstitious people were and how it might add more wait to his teachings. Then just as he was about to die tell everybody that he doesn’t know why God left us alone. It’s just a thought.

PV

I never thought I would ever write what I am about to write.

What is factually and historically accurate in the Old and New Testaments is often a weak substitute for the truths people interpret from these ‘holy books’. Even if the tales and fables which spawned Christian morality were not necessarily true, the great gulp that many have to take, is that a belief in a particular code of morality is ultimately a matter of FAITH. Now, I must admit that this is not my territory and something I can only analyse from the surface, as I personally aim to confront the universe head-on.

Adam.naranjo, you have as much time as you need to reply to Skeptic’s cutting Skepticism. However, we are all on the edge of our seats. We are an ear.

To Skeptic:

Notions of resurrection and the like was common in Jesus’ day…but can we really believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead simply because the only “record” that he did is in the Gospels?

I suppose the only “proof” that Jesus did not rise from the dead would be a body and DNA evidence that the body was one of Jesus of Nazareth.

But avoiding the “no body” defense…the world is a strange place, and we cannot rule out the logical and metaphysical possibility of “one-time” miracles in the world…no matter how statistically impossible they may seem to be. Can we rule out the possibility that one resurrection from the dead took place nearly 2000 years ago simply by the dictates of natural law?

Even Victor Stenger balked at this (in his own inadvertant way, as Stenger is a physicist and an atheist and his views are common sway in th online atheistic forum infidels.org)

“There is nothing in known physical law that prevents the old from becoming young again, from air rushing from a room whose door has been opened, killing everyone inside, or the dead rising from the grave. It is just that the odds are so astronomically great that these events are best reserved for fantasies. All that it takes for these “miracles” to occur is for the right molecules to be moving in the right direction at the right time.”

(paraphrased, Victor J. Stenger: “Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics” Stenger’s arguments AGAINST Judeo-Christian doctrine in cosmology)

By this same train of logic, if a God exists there is nothing to prevent this God from effecting “one-time” historical “violations” of physical law (as Stenger also notes that the miracles themselves do not violate the second law of thermodynamics: there are simply more microstates voting against such events, but such events are not “per impossible”) As before, if God does not exist, there is nothing to prevent a “one-time” resurrection of Jesus from the grave (again by reason of molecules by chance moving in the right directions at the right time) within a conceivable world where Jesus of Nazareth existed but God did not exist.

For all we know from any evidence, Jesus could have risen from the grave or he could not have, as nothing about our world prevents such an event from occurring…and records of such an event or efforts to destroy or hide such records is a “conversation of possibility” in itself.
One could even argue that Jesus’s parable of being in the grave for “three days and three nights” was itself a fabrication of those not willing to believe that Jesus had resurrected after the fact in order to ruin credability (if indeed the time between Jesus’ death and resurrection was less than the stated three days) of such a possible “one-time” event for a future audience (us).

But this is only my view,

Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com

My strongest worry about christianty is one of jesus’s last words

“father why have you forsaken me”

It’s not that big, the line is: Jesus had to die like all men, not knowing if God would be there, that’s why God leaves Jesus, he has to die alone. At least that was the line we got in seminary.

I think it’s a dangerous view to be presenting. For example it is perfectly possible for a statue to wave at me (from Dawkins), but the odds are so astronomically high for all the atoms in the statue to all move in one direction at once and then back again the universe would have to run almost an infinite amount of times over and over again beforeit ever happened. You should be careful to distinguish between logical possibility and practical impossibility.

You paraphrased a physicist, they’re often quite sloppy with the use of possible, most things are possible, for example me being able to levitate at my own whim (this would just be a series of incredibly bizarre coincidences which made me think I was levitating myself). But these things are all practically impossible within the universe, the probability of a man being resurrected as a freak natural occurance in the entire lifetime of the universe is still so small that even the most enthusiastic person would still call it zero. Even if you reran the universe billions and billions of times over it would still be zero. Add in all the factors like it happening to a man who was as famous as Jesus, who had suffered such trauma to the body, and on and on, it’s logical possibility is meaningless in real terms.

The sliver of logical possibility is no defence in this case because the possibility is so incredibly small. Thus the dictates of natural law do say that it can be ruled out. Add to this all the other miracles happening to one man…

To: Matt

Would it necessarily take the universe running over and over again billions of times to effect the motion of so little molecules?

This would seem to espouse a sort of what I call: “a priori determinism”, or the view that the physical universe can flow only one causal path by some inscrutable constraint.

Once again, we simply cannot know that the odds of resurrection are so astronomical, and one must only believe that such astronomical odds exist. Even so, it remains that “one-time-only-events” such as this are still possible within the universe, and we cannot rule it out overall.

But arguments like this can be circular: “The odds are too great!” and: “Despite the odds, it can have happened even once for all we know!”
Ultimately, it comes down to logical possibility-aside from an invocation of some inscrutable causal constraint-it seems hard to say that such an event is “practically” impossible.

The conceivable twist is that it is not something that is “demanded” to happen a lot in nature, only once.

But that is only my view,
Jay Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com

To: Matt

Also, don’t confuse “impossible” with “it hasn’t happened yet, so that must mean it can’t”

Most physicist’s and philosopher’s use of the word: “possible” simply means: “just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it can’t” or,
“it hasn’t happened yet but it can at any time since the laws of physics do not prevent it.”

In cases like these, our notions of “astronomically high against” is simply our psychological estimate of the likelihood of a physical event occurring, and it has no bearing on the ontological likelihood of such an event from occurring.

It isn’t that resurrection “can’t” occur…it may be (for all we know) that it simply hasn’t yet but no physical law prevents it from occurring at any given second(and thus the universe doesn’t necessarily have to “re-run” itself at all to get up the dynamic nerve)…or it may be that it has at least one but never before and never since…we simply can’t know that it has…and we simply can’t know that it hasn’t.

Nature has always ran amok behind the mind of man, and epistology has only the slenderest of threads to attach it to ontological truths.

But that’s just my view,
Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffit@yahoo.com

Sure, whose to say that the sun won’t come up tomorrow. It could happen, right? But what do we base our beliefs on? The unlikely or the most likely. We don’t make bets when the odds are low. Would you be willing to make a bet with me on whether the sun will come up tomorrow? I’ll say ‘yes’ and you say ‘no’. The stakes are everything that you own along with one year of slave labor. You in? No? Well, how about $10? Still, no? I don’t blame you. I’ll stick with the odds.

Our beliefs should be based on odds, not emotional attachments to certain conceptions of a benevolent being or strange nonsensical miracles like the ressurection of some guy to save the world from their sins!?! It just isn’t supported by the odds, but sure it does sound appealling to the poor kid that just lost his grandmother to cancer and can’t understand why. or the young lady that just got out of an abusive relationship and can’t understand why she had to go through so much pain. Sure, it makes sense, emotional sense!

We don’t always think with our minds, we tend to think with our emotions. We seek happiness, and the bible promises good things to come. Just have faith in Jesus and your life will spin around and turn upside down, it says. What that didn’t work? You just need to have more faith. Still not working? God is just testing you then, but if you continue to have faith, despite what every strain of rational thought tells you, eternal bliss awaits. Yay, for me!

It’s a tough truth but what are we to do? Do we waste our life believing in nonsensical miracles that truly have no positive effect on us? Of course there is somewhat of a placebo effect. That granted, I don’t mind giving someone a sugar pill that will keep them happy for their entire life but is that the only consequence? Not a chance. Maybe the old grandmas won’t give you much trouble but you put religious nonsense in the hands of young, ready for action, personalities and you have chaos. (Allusion to 9/11, as well as the fact that Religion is basically the reason for just about every major conflict from as far back as we can historically recall.) I think it was Marx that said, “Religion is the opium of the masses. . .” Just keep them too stupified to understand that they are being manipulated and brainwashed. It’s worked in the past, but I thinks it’s about time to learn from our past. Progress is incredibly hindered by religion. This is why I am a fan of Marx; he recognized this problem early on.

Be rational, not emotional! It is the only ethical way to live your life. Religion is not ethical! Just because Jesus may have said, “Love your neighbor!” doesn’t mean that he is the eternal guru of ethical paradigms. I can say the same thing and I sure as hell don’t need a Jesus to tell me that. Religion only promotes conflict, interreligiously and between seperate religions. The key to happiness is not lies! it’s in understanding.

So to sum up, when you begin to base your beliefs on the non-probable, chaos reigns. Quit puffin’ on the opium and take a look at the real world, people!

Would you agree, Jay? It’s like the Humean concept of Mitigated Skepticism. This is a pragmatic perspective suggesting that, although we may not be able to prove that the sun will come up tomorrow or that A follows B, our assumption is justified in probability. Nothing in life is absolute, but there are most definitely probabilities to help us get by.

Peace,
Skep

To: Skeptic

Bravo! Good post! And instinctually I agree with you, I wouldn’t want to place a bet on the sun NOT coming up tomorrow and risk a year’s pay plus slave labor!

And it is true that relgiousity is pure emotion in some instances, particularly when someone INSISTS that something exists when there is no evidence to show that it exists.

But in general, “faith” in probability over emotionality works when it comes to a little thing called REGULARITY. Regular natural events, because they are so (shall we say) predictable and reliable works well in problem of probability. The sun is so predictable and reliable in how it rises and sets that one would be foolish to bet that it doesn’t in order to somehow MAKE the universe adhere to an alternate(yet possible) set of events. The laws of gravity, and electromagnetism, and Pauli’s exclusion princple, and so on are also natural regularities that it wouldn’t make sense to bet against…because they are just so predictable and reliable.

But when it comes to conceptual IRREGULARITIES, or one-time events, the problem of probability comes into play. In general, irregularities in nature can be observed events (not saying that there are any that I know of)…but in general irregularities are ultimately past events, or events believed to have taken place in the past, only once, and they general depend on people believing that they have taken place or that they CAN or DID for all we know.

Examples of irregularities:

(1) The big bang

(2) The first grouping of molecules in the primordial soup to form the first cells of life

(3)All of the miracles in the Bible, including the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

These are all events entailed to have occurred in the past, there were no humans around to observe and record these events, and they are all “one-time-only” events, rather than natural regularities (although some theorists hold that the big bang is one long drawn out regularity, waiting for our universe to collapse for the next show). Of course, the first two events are conceptual extrapolations of the physical behavior of the universe that we live in today-and one must admit they are the most LIKELY things to have occurred given the behavior of matter and energy from a posteriori knowledge.

But…

The third, particularly the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an irregularity that on further rational reflection does not violate natural law, and indeed is ultimately only a “very sped up” version of the same processes that brought about the first cell of life out of the primordial soup. We have quarks and leptons, we have atoms from the combination of those quarks and leptons, and we have enough atoms laying around with only one electron in the outermost shell to get together with other atoms sharing the same quality to form the first cell…and conceivably and possibly to reform the physical form of Christ (if only for a little while). Following Stenger, an atheist who wrote: “Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics”, there is nothing in known natural law that prohibits or prevents the dead from rising, it is just that the odds are so astronomically high that the idea is best reserved for fantasies.

My argument is that it is “best reserved for fantasies” precisely because one might conceptually hinge the notion of resurrection on regularity in nature rather than on irregularity.

In general, one time events are ultimately claimed to be “improbable” (given their causal freedom in known natural law) because of a psychological notion of the odds against, rather than an everyday empirical notion based on common observation. Know one (that I know of even in religion) claims that resurrection is a regular event. In most accounts it is a one time event or something that has occurred to only a few individuals (although this is not my claim). These eventual irregularities in nature (if true) are just like the first bumping of molecules to form the first cells, or the big bang itself.

But that is only my view, Skep
Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal graffiti

p.s I tried to register, and I think I did so more or less successfully, but it is taking them an awful long time to send me an email to start my account in ilovephilosophy.com. Any suggestions?

Tis late, not had a chance to read all the above, but on a quick side note, I read yesterday that over 50% of people in Britain believe the resurrection actually did happen. How depressing. Well it is for me anyway.

As a (very) brief reply to P.Graffiti, there’s no way of knowing what the odds are of a big bang event. Some scientists have suggested that the potential of nothing is such that it immediatly forms a big bang to compensate. I don’t know much about this thery but I remember it being linked to what Einstein thought was his biggest mistake, but turns out it may not be.

Also the probability of life forming is not especially hard a thing to imagine, all you need is a self replicating molecule. There are so many different ways suggested it’s hard to keep up with. Emulating the result in a lab is near impossible though.

1. The Earth had several billion years of trying to start it up.

2. It had whatever the surface area of the world is to use as an experimental area.

We have a few labs with x amounts of test tubes doing it, for 20 years tops, and that’s being generous. So it’s really no surprise we haven’t managed to create the right conditions yuet, and it’s all wild speculation on how it happened anyway, all the scientist could be looking along the wrong line for all we know.

So it may seem unlikely but the probability of life starting out on a planet in the universe could actually be so high that there are many with it on. We don’t know. All we know is that it’s fairly certain it’s got to be fairly hard to develop intelligent lifeor we’;d have picked up some electromagnetic waves from another nearby civilization by now.

Hmm, that wasn’t a quick reply was it. Oh well, I promise I’ll read the rest of your and skeptic’s post tomorow. G’night.

As for the application, I think it’s automated, so maybe you entered something wrong by accident? If it’s not, I saw Ben on today.

Hmm, just checked the member list and you are registered. However, your email is listed as phenomenal_graffit@yahoo.com, you may have missed the i off your email addy or is that how it’s supposed to be? I don’t know if someone can sort that or if you’ll have to reregister, you’ll have to ask a moderator or admin guy.

To: Matt

Thanks for your reply.

I suppose time is a factor in the development of life, but I think also that time and correct conditions is also one of those “unknowns”, since as you say the origin of life is still a mystery.(Most theorists hold that we don’t know yet how ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor and lightning could get from an amino acid to the organization of cellular structure and function we have today.)

In my view, the problem of resurrection is also the same problem of how life started on earth. They are ultimately both examples of abiogenesis, or the formation of living organisms from nonliving matter. One can invoke time and condition, but ultimately (if my biology book is right) living matter ultimately depends on the appropriate number and proximity of chemical elements that possess VALIENCE…or atoms with unpaired (single) electrons in the outermost shell.

It would seem that if the appropriate number of valient atoms in one place could form a single cell, and by chance and environmental luckiness survive it’s environment long enough to divide and reproduce-the time it would take to do this is ultimately up to proximity of valience and the good ole’ law of electric charge.

The first cell could have taken minutes or days to develop or it could have taken millions of years…we can’t know. All we know is the conceivable process given our knowledge of electric charge and interactions of electric charge and the atom.

Ultimately, resurrection is surely a fantastic idea-I admit that-but the world is ultimately an indeterminate and strange place and resurrection and the origin of the first cell depends upon the same process: abiogenesis by the chance collection and attraction of chemical elements with valience.

But (again) that is only my view,
Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffit@yahoo.com

Matt,
I’m still interested in reading the paper you were working on regarding Parfit’s ‘Theory of Identity’. Did you ever finish it? If so, post it in the essays and thesis section.

Jay,
This is why ressurection is impossible. Forget about physics and the perfect alignment of the stars. When a person dies there is no reversing the process.

○ 1 hour after death the muscles relax totally.

○ 3 hours after death rigor mortis sets in. [Interesting if they died in an unusual position]

○ After 1 day the body has fully returned to room temperature. [I presume the skin cools much more rapidly but internal…]

○ After 1 day the skin shrinks/contracts. This makes it appear that the hair and nails have, or are still, growing.

○ Within 1 to 2 days, if flies are around, they will begin laying maggots in available areas of the body such as between the lips and eyelids.

○ After 2 days rigor mortis relaxes.

○ After 2 days the internal tissue begins the process of decay; starting to turn into gasses and liquids.

○ Within 1 week the flesh has become `liquid like’ under the skin; and the skin can fall off if touched.

○ In 2 weeks the stomach distends due to accumulation of gasses and this can lead to the discharge of a dark, bloody liquid from the nose and mouth of the corpse.

○ After 3 to 4 weeks the body is extremely decayed:- hair and nails can be easily pulled out; the trunk has swollen to twice its size; while the face has gone a purple green and the tongue protrudes.

○ Finally; if a body is buried in the ground then after a time of 10 years all tissue has turned to liquid and gas and been absorbed by the surrounding ground leaving only the bones.

Here’s a little more detailed account from www.enter.net

There’s no going back, no matter what. It’s just not physically possible. I am aware of your argument for possibility, but will it ever be possible that 2+2=5? Same kind of thing. Dead = Dead.

I’ll admit that the understanding of exactly how life came to be is still a mystery, but that doesn’t mean that we will never deduce the scenario. We just can’t know everything immediately. Research has only just begun in these areas. Ressurection is, however, not in the same category. We know that once the body dies, life as we define it escapes and is unrevivable. It’s the same as if you held a lit match to a floppy disk; there will still be something left, but you will never be able to put it back in your computer and retrieve data again. There’s no reversing the process unless you can figure out how to reverse time (and if you understand time the same as I do, that would be nonsense.) Would you agree?

From: Phenomenal_graffit

To: Skeptic

Thanks for your response.

First allow me to say that physical processes, such as your entailment of what happens to the body after death, are themselves entailed by what is known as the thermodynamic “arrow of time”, or a causal flow of physical material in time. In general, (following Stenger: “Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics”) there is nothing in known natural or physical law that prohibits resurrection or the backwards flow of matter to reform a dead body into a living one from occurring. It is just that the odds of such a thing happening (with regularity) are so astronomical that the notion of resurrection (according to Stenger) is best left to fantasies.

There is no need to “reverse time” to resurrect the dead; all it would take is the same atoms flowing and connecting FORWARD in time to rebuild all of the relevant living material. It is not as if one is forced to halt and then reverse the evolution of the entire universe: life itself is ultimately nothing more than the coherent dynamics and interconnectivities of the microphysical entities within a localized and finite amount of spacetime. The formation of the first cell from atoms with valence held down by our gravity did not require a drastic pull on the entire universe, and if resurrection operates on the same abiogenetic principle (stuff that was far apart coming together by electric attraction) we do not expect resurrection (as a conceptual event) to necessity a drastic change in the universe overall).

There is a process of decomposition when one dies, and this is a natural regularity-but ultimately there is no physical constraint that somehow PREVENTS a reverse process. We can say that people who die stay dead simply by the matter of the fact of physical chance; indeed we can say that people who die stay dead simply for no other reason that by chance the surroundings of the dead body by the position and energy states of the electrons of the atoms in the body and the environment are altogether distinct from the position and energy state that allowed abiogenesis of the first cell. We cannot invoke a natural constraint that makes this abiogenetic incompatibility a lawful necessity in every case. Which is why Stenger was forced to concede the physical, logical, and metaphysical possibility of resurrection(and this despite his atheism).

So I must disagree with the notion of resurrection being “physically impossible”, as it seems that resurrection is only “per impossible” by physical chance and natural contrivance. (In every case the required electron energy state and atomic position is not available, or nearby but preoccupied in other chemical reactions).

But I suppose one can argue forever about the notion of “accidental resurrection from the dead”(which is what me and Matt started off about) being either “impossible” or “posssible”. What it comes down to is the position and interconnectivities of the atoms in space and time making up the dead body and the environment: there is an undeniable causal flow in one direction, but following Stephen Gould there is too much chaos and indeterminanacy in nature to say that some constraint disallows an appropriate alternate atomic interconnection and position from occurring.

But that is only my view,
Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com

So I must disagree with the notion of “physical impossibility”, as it is surely physically possible, but extremely(and that’s putting it mildly) unlikely. As before, all we are dealing with is the motion and position of microphysical entities in space and time, as well as the law of electric charge. We don’t have the dead rising simply because each and every time (by chance) the surrounding conditions and electrical interactivity of the relevant matter do not interact in such a way as to allow regeneration.

As a matter of abiogenesis, resurrection and the formation of life are surely intimately related. As before, it’s all about the position, proximity, and electric connection between atoms with valence. Think of Penrose’s estimations of the odds of life forming in a universe where there are microphysical entities constitutively capable of life in the first place-and yet life occurred. Indeed, aside from the regularities of nature such as gravity and so on life itself is indeed a “special” event in itself because (JUST AS STENGER ALLOWED FOR RESURRECTION) the odds against life forming were so astronomically high.

From: Jay
To: Skeptic

sorry about that elongated post. I would suggest a view of Max More’s “The Terminus of the Self” about what involves the dying of the individual in terms of the decay and destruction of the neocortex and the notions of “deanimate” based on what More says is only lack of “informational continuity”. But this is ultimately about “technological resurrection” from the dead, in the sense that we could recreate people who have died if only we had the information about their precise brain patterns, etc…it says nothing about “accidental resurrection” but it goes a long way to imply that resurrection qua resurrection is not a physical impossibility and that nothing in known natural or physical law prohibits it.

In this final sense, resurrection is ultimately not about reversing time or reversing the flow of the universe, but about going out and getting the spare parts and putting a dead person back together again…or as implied from religious accounts(or that could be implied from such accounts) extraneous matter by chance electrical combinations repairing neurons, muscles, and the like.(Unfortunately, religious accounts of Jesus resurrecting invoke the supernatural or some “magic” involved in resurrection. This is not my view and I find it a little disturbing. I ultimately invoke a sort of “naturalistic theism” whereby God operates in line with the laws of psychology and physics rather than by some “extranatural” properties and powers. But enough about that)

Ultimately(and I have yet to tell Matt this)…I do not subscribe to "accidental resurrection"as the case in the (conceivable) resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it is certainly not what I am proposing.
It is just that I hope to have at least shown that it is not necessarily a physical possibility.

Jay

P.S. I agree that there is probably no such thing as time travel into the future or the past, as this would necessitate pulling everything in the universe along to form the exact structure of the past/future. The notion of resurrection is about getting materials already present and reforming it into the physical/functional replica of the person that has died.(Or such materials “filling in the gaps”, so to speak and repairing damage to the old system and returning it to function) According to More, this is not recreating a “new” person, as long as the functional organization of the brain persists in the new system.