Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[DesertBerean]

In some cases re-enactments have proved valuable. A few years ago there was a show on PBS which revealed how a re-enactment demonstrated that the widely accepted route that a military advance took during an American Civil War battle is highly unlikely. Alternate routes were then examined and one contained numerous artifacts consistent with such a maneuver was found.

oh, that kind of reenactment. Yeah those are pretty cool. They're used for crime and accident scenes too.


EDITED TO ADD: my apologies to Chrawnus for the misunderstanding.

[DesertBerean]

I would guess the biggest obstacle would be preservation of the area in question. Someone said the Civil War was the first time such extensive records could be found for because of photography and preservation of diaries etc, and people took pains to preserve such.

[DesertBerean]

Has anyone tried this kind of reenactment with Bible events?

[Kbertsche]

So I hope that everyone now agrees: There are just too many supernatural claims to thoroughly investigate them all.

Agreed.

Therefore, we are justified in ignoring ALL supernatural claims until sufficient evidence accumulates to suggest any one claim's veracity. I would suggest that we lay persons/non-experts ignore all supernatural claims involving alleged historical events until such a claim is listed as a probable historical fact in the majority of public university world history textbooks by professional historians.

No, this does not logically follow and is nonsensical.

The world of science is huge and complex. There are just too many scientific claims to thoroughly investigate them all. Therefore, non-scientists should ignore ALL scientific claims until they are printed in a science textbook?!? This is where your argumentation would lead.

[Gary]

Agreed.

No, this does not logically follow and is nonsensical.

The world of science is huge and complex. There are just too many scientific claims to thoroughly investigate them all. Therefore, non-scientists should ignore ALL scientific claims until they are printed in a science textbook?!? This is where your argumentation would lead.

Silly rabbit.

The very foundation of western civilization is the scientific method and the wisdom of placing our trust in the consensus of experts in each field of human endeavor. Imagine the chaos in society if each person believed that he or she personally needed to thoroughly investigate every issue in his or her life, from how the electricity in their homes functions to national security and nuclear weapons!

How absurd.

If there were such entities as "supernatural experts", whose theories and studies had been repeatedly subjected to peer-reviewed analysis as in other professional fields, then we could all accept the consensus expert opinion of the supernaturalists, just as we accept the consensus expert opinion of geologists, meteorologists, physicists, biologists, etc..

But no such beast exists. The supernatural is a step off the cliff into the unknown. There are no rules or methodology for investigating it. Should we write it off as "non-existent"? No. But let's simply ignore it until better evidence is provided by its proponents to substantiate their claim of its existence.

The supernatural is not impossible, just very improbable.

[Gary]

Has anyone tried this kind of reenactment with Bible events?

I'd like to see the reenactment of all the (at least 2,000,000) species of animals on the face of the earth crowding into one wooden ship.

That would be a hoot.

[DesertBerean]

I'd like to see the reenactment of all the (at least 2,000,000) species of animals on the face of the earth crowding into one wooden ship.

That would be a hoot.

Not bad, not bad....I think somebody is trying that with some replica of the ark...in the Midwest somewhere?

[KingsGambit]

Not bad, not bad....I think somebody is trying that with some replica of the ark...in the Midwest somewhere?

Answer in Genesis is doing it in Kentucky.

https://arkencounter.com/

[Gary]

Answer in Genesis is doing it in Kentucky.

https://arkencounter.com/

They may be building a wooden boat, but it will never be big enough to house 2,000,000 species of animals.

This is another ancient tall tale.

[DesertBerean]

They may be building a wooden boat, but it will never be big enough to house 2,000,000 species of animals.

This is another ancient tall tale.

um....I'm not up on my pre flood stats, but I don't recall that number being reported in Genesis.

[rogue06]

Answer in Genesis is doing it in Kentucky.

https://arkencounter.com/

Not actually a replica if by that you mean an exact copy or model of something (including at a smaller scale).

[Abigail]

You were trying to use Romans 8:1-17 as a reference to a physical bodily resurrection. It's not or at least I've produced another plausible interpretation which shows he's speaking of people that are still living. The "redemption of our bodies" makes sense when you read 1 Cor 15:35-54 and 2 Cor 5:1-4. We "redeem" our natural earthly body that's put in the ground (like a seed) and receive a "spiritual body" in heaven.

Sorry but your interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 are also lacking and make much more sense if understood from the plain reading of physical bodily resurrection.

Oh really? I'm missing the part where it says "physical corpses will be raised from the dead." I think you're the one trying to read that in.

The whole thrust of 1 Corinthians 15 is physical resurrection. Even Bart Ehrman agrees with the tradional interpretation on this one. I think Adrift has posted an extract from Bart in this thread, though you do not seem to interact with anything which nagates you case.

Paul says "He appeared (ophthe) to them and he appeared (ophthe) to me, too." The appearance to Paul was a vision and he does not indicate that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a physical way. He doesn't even say the Risen Jesus was on earth. Therefore, you have no grounds for claiming these were physical appearances that involved touching a resurrected corpse like the later embellished gospels tell us.

The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians is the aorist passive of the verb 'to see' όράω So basically Jesus 'was seen' by etc etc. You have assumed what Paul saw was some kind of a vision and therefore made the leap that the others must be the same. However in Acts 26 when Paul describes the events on the Damascus road he uses the exact same verb (Acts 26:16). It is only a few verses later (Acts 26:19) when he is explaining to Agrippa why it is that he seems to cause public disorder wherever he goes does he use the word you are so fixated on όπτασίά which is translated 'vision' And here it is my contention that he uses it in the wider sense of the word ie in this case a mental image of what the future was to be. Christ had appeared to him and told him He would show him more things and that Paul from that point on was going to go about witnessing to these things, a complete change of future plans for Paul

Thanks for admitting the appearance to Paul was some sort of visionary experience. Since no distinction is made by Paul and he gives no evidence of anything remotely "physical", you can't claim the other "appearances" were more physical than what happened to Paul.

Nope, what I said was that it was the context that informs how we interpret this word. In fact it pretty much seems to be translatable to our understanding of the word 'vision'. From the oxford dictionary:

vision n. 1. the faculty or state of being able to see. 2. the ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom. > a mental image of what the future will or could be like.. 3. an experience of seeing something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition > a person or sight of unusual beauty.

So right there we can see this word has wider interpretations than you wish it to have. It is the context which informs our understanding.
Again my argument is that Paul in Acts 26:19 is using the word in the sense of definition 2. Jesus had appeared to Paul and told him that he was to be a witness and a minister of what he had seen and of further things He would show Paul. Years later, Paul on trial is explaining to Agrippa how he came to be in his present predicament with the Jews. He, being obedient to the mission Christ had given him had been going about preaching and in fact being a Pharisee he could assure Agrippa that he was teaching nothing other than what Moses and the prophets had taught (26:22) and that he was on trial "for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. and for this hope , O king, I am being accused by the Jews. Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead" (26:6-8)

[Gary]

um....I'm not up on my pre flood stats, but I don't recall that number being reported in Genesis.

Well, it all depends which chapter of Genesis you read:

Genesis chapter 6:

"

Genesis chapter 7:



Scientists aren't sure exactly how many species of animals there are today, but they estimate that at a minimum, there are two million species, possibly as many as fifty million in existence today. We know that some species have gone extinct. Therefore, if there are two million to fifty million species of animals today, there were more than that number in Noah's day, as the animals on the boat are the ancestors of all the animals on the planet today.

But even if we stick to the two million number, that means that if only one male and one female of each species was on the boat, that would be four million animals. If we start talking about seven of each "clean" species, then we are getting into some pretty big numbers.

Do you still believe that all these animals fit onto one wooden boat?

[DesertBerean]

Ok. And you assume what, that every species you see in the world, other than fish, was assumed to be preserved in the ark?

[DesertBerean]

Not actually a replica if by that you mean an exact copy or model of something (including at a smaller scale).

I stand corrected.