Yuyutsu,

<< I disagree that a body, any body, can last forever, but yes, it is possible to obtain a subtle body that lasts a very long time…. PERHAPS this is what the verses refer to?>>

The verses do not mean that. Please read 1 Corinthians 15 in context. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+15&version=NIVUK.

Part of this Scripture states:

“42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. “If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body…. 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”.

First Corinthians 15 does NOT teach that a physical body lasts forever because ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God'.

I do wish you’d take the time to read the biblical texts so that you don’t come up with your contorted interpretation

<< There is no contradiction between being a Yogi and the Son of God: a Yogi is someone who controls their mind, whose thoughts do not waver, thus is able to concentrate and affect energy, thus matter, like the wonders that Jesus performed.>>

There is a radical difference between the two.

The Bible doesn’t use those exact words from Jesus, ‘I am God’. See the example of Jesus’ words from John 10:30, ‘I and the Father are one’. Notice the reaction of the Jews who heard his statement:

They wanted to stone him to death but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?’ (vv31-32) “‘We are not stoning you for any good work,’ they replied, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God’” (v33).

Jesus was no Yogi; he was God Himself.

.

To all and sundry,

.

I must say I am deeply impressed by all those on this forum whose imagination is so rich and whose willingness to believe is so extensive when evoking possible scientific explanations of the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

It elicits my curiosity as to how this may be justified, given the following :

1. For an explanation to qualify as scientific, it seems that an independent researcher should be able to replicate the experiment, under the same conditions, and achieve the same results. How could this apply in the case of the claimed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth ?

2. It seems that the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among historians are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus). Therefore, is not the claimed resurrection of Jesus simply a question of faith (until further evidence comes to light) ?

3. In 1 Corinthians 15:14 (NIV), Saul of Tarsus declares : “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the basis of Christian hope and faith. But his resurrection has never been historically established. It, too, is purely a question of faith.

In other words, Christian hope and faith relies on a hypothetical event whose occurrence also requires hope and faith in order to be believed.

I can understand that some Christians feel the need to exercise their imagination in order to find a more solid base for their faith than simply piling up successive layers of faith, one on top of the other. There must be a limit to where you can go with that - even for the most gullible of individuals.

Hence the unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific theories expounded here.

.

Who offered a "scientific explnation" of anything on this thread?

Banjo,

<< I must say I am deeply impressed by all those on this forum whose imagination is so rich and whose willingness to believe is so extensive when evoking possible scientific explanations of the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.>>

Do you know what historical science is? Or are you confusing it with empirical experimentation of repeatability? Seems so.

Your presuppositions are thundering, ‘I have my own anti-Christian axe to grind and I’ll use this forum to my advantage’.

+ ‘all those on this forum whose imagination is so rich’;
+ ‘willingness to believe’;
+ ‘evoking possible scientific explanations’;
+ ‘Christian hope and faith relies on a hypothetical event’.
+ ‘some Christians feel the need to exercise their imagination’;
+ ‘Hence the unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific theories expounded here.’

Each presupposition has UNPROVEN written over it.

<< For an explanation to qualify as scientific, it seems that an independent researcher should be able to replicate the experiment, under the same conditions, and achieve the same results. How could this apply in the case of the claimed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth ? >>

Could you replicate Captain James Cook’s voyage up the East Coast of Australia in 1770 using your definition of science? Again, you don’t know how to investigate history using the historical method.

Christian hope and faith don't rest on a hypothetical event (your view) but on an historical happening. It is faith founded on the fact of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. The research has already been done for you to disprove your ‘hypothetical event’ by Prof Dr N T Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (SPCK 2003 – 817pp). But you go to Wikipedia for your ‘reliable and comprehensive’ information about Jesus’ resurrection.

Come on, mate! Do you want me to continue reading your historical furphies?

It’s time to tune your historical banjo so you know the discipline of historical research and treat an investigation into Captain James Cook and the Endeavour, using the same historical criteria as you use in examining biblical history.

.

Dear George,

.

You asked :

« Who offered a "scientific explanation" of anything on this thread? »
.

I had the impression that you, Yuyutsu and OzSpen had but, judging by your question, apparently, you consider that you did not when you wrote :

« Belief in Resurrection … does not make sense without belief in a Reality beyond the physical/material » - “Reality” in which I hope I am right in thinking you believe.

Considering that “reality is : “the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them (OED definition), I (perhaps mistakenly) thought you were offering a “possible scientific explanation” of resurrection.

As it seems that this is not the case, how do you qualify it ? Can the “Reality beyond the physical/material” to which you refer be purely philosophical (e.g., metaphysical) ?

If so, what is your definition of “reality”, as it is unknown to any of the dictionaries I have consulted ? Are you postulating a reality beyond reality and is that other reality metaphysical, i.e., “the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space” (OED definition) ?

No doubt it was your use of the word “reality”, even with a capital “R”, that led me astray. If you had simply written : « Belief in Resurrection … does not make sense without belief in the supernatural », I would not have mistakenly thought you were offering some sort of “scientific explanation” of resurrection.

The OED defines “the supernatural” as “manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts”. Don’t you think this would have been more appropriate ?

Rightly or wrongly, I must confess I tend to associate reality (with or without a capital “R”) with “physical/material”. Not so with “the supernatural”.

Please forgive me if you consider that I do so wrongly.

.

Banjo,

In writing to George, you stated:

<<No doubt it was your use of the word “reality”, even with a capital “R”, that led me astray. If you had simply written : « Belief in Resurrection … does not make sense without belief in the supernatural », I would not have mistakenly thought you were offering some sort of “scientific explanation” of resurrection.>>

You seem to be restricted to a definition of 'scientific explanation' that refers to empirical science that involves repeatable experimentation. That is important science to find new medications for my heart disease, vaccinations to immunise against various diseases.

That is not the kind of science for unrepeatable historical investigation. History can't be repeated, as the events happened.

We can't repeat the September 11, 2001 disaster in the twin towers of New York City or the tsunami of 2004 that plundered into Indonesia.

Anything from history, e.g. the bodily resurrection of Jesus, needs to be investigated using criteria of historical research. You don't seem to understand how to do historical investigation.

Please tell me how you will discover the facts around Ned Kelly. Will you use empirical science of repeatability?