Who cares what Paul said? Paul is dead, and nobody will ever know for sure what he said or what he meant. He may not have been clear about what he meant himself, who knows?

There are some words by somebody on some page. If we can use them, then use them — Hippyhead

The point is that the discussion between me and the OP started with the fact that in his original publication, he defended the thesis that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a historic moment, something that I completely disagree with. And to discuss this subject, the biggest reference that can be used is Saint Paul and his scriptures, and as I have already said, he makes two statements that contradict each other. Either Saint Paul had been too naive - which I doubt very much - or he knew why he was using two contradictory arguments - doublethnk -.

The question of whether Christianity is good or not, useful or not, does not come into question, as it is not the issue being discussed.

Thank you... I didn't imagine that such description of Christianity could be said in the far past — KerimF

I can assure you that 90% of people know nothing about history, let alone about the history of the Church. Therefore, it is not surprising that you were also unaware of these facts.

I think your point about St Paul's talk of the spiritual body is something that a lot of Christians do not take on board fully. Many seem to exaggerate the importance of a physical resurrection.

The only thing I would say is that I am not sure that there is a complete difference between the physical and spiritual bodies, but more a gradation of density. There is recognition of this in quantum physics with a recognition of physical matter being energy.

This would give a potential for understanding of a resurrection body and similar matters. In particular, the transfiguration in the Bible may indicate the blurry edges of reality.

Perhaps the whole for and against the resurrection of Jesus could be transcended if we acknowledge the limitations of classical understandings of reality, opening up to a vision of multidimensional reality.

I think your point about St Paul's talk of the spiritual body is something that a lot of Christians do not take on board fully. Many seem to exaggerate the importance of a physical resurrection. — Jack Cummins

There are very few true Christians. Ha! Claiming to believe in God is very easy, so that's what most of the faithful do. Often, they don't even know the basics of their beliefs.

The only thing I would say is that I am not sure that there is a complete difference between the physical and spiritual bodies, but more a gradation of density. There is recognition of this in quantum physics with a recognition of physical matter being energy.

This would give a potential for understanding of a resurrection body and similar matters. In particular, the transfiguration in the Bible may indicate the blurry edges of reality.

Perhaps the whole for and against the resurrection of Jesus could be transcended if we acknowledge the limitations of classical understandings of reality, opening up to a vision of multidimensional reality. — Jack Cummins

In my view, mixing theology, metaphysics and quantum physics does not go well. Even more, there is no evidence to prove these hypotheses - of other dimensions and worlds -. Until proven otherwise, the only existence that Is, is this.

I can assure you that 90% of people know nothing about history, let alone about the history of the Church. Therefore, it is not surprising that you were also unaware of these facts. — Gus Lamarch

Should someone be aware of all what happened in history?

No one can deny that the best tool by which the powerful rich families (the world's Elite) around the world can divide ordinary people (local and/or abroad) to better controlling them... is teaching them history (which is certainly presented differently in different regions/countries).
And even for an international event which may happen in our days, one likely hear many different, if not opposite, stories of it. So I may imagine the case about events that happened many years, decades, centuries or millennia ago.

Therefore, in my precious post, saying that I wasn't aware of how Christianity was described by early Romans was just a sort of a soft introductory to describe my 'actual' Christianity that no Christian Church or Denomination in the world approves. On your side, you were interested in my introduction and said nothing about what came next :)

Therefore, in my precious post, saying that I wasn't aware of how Christianity was described by early Romans was just a sort of a soft introductory to describe my 'actual' Christianity that no Christian Church or Denomination in the world approves. On your side, you were interested in my introduction and said nothing about what came next :) — KerimF

Don't get me wrong. In no way was my goal with my last comment to attack you or exacerbate my ego. I just commented the beginning of your answer, because it was what most interested me and the points mentioned about Christianity, I decided not to comment because they are points about your personal interpretation of Christianity, something that has nothing to do with the initial proposal of the OP. :grin:

decided not to comment because they are points about your personal interpretation of Christianity, something that has nothing to do with the initial proposal of the OP. :grin: — Gus Lamarch

You are right in this :)

By the way, do you think I am exaggerating or imagining things in:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/461664

Thank you.

The miracles of Jesus, including the resurrection of his body, were very important for the early apostles and disciples only.

Jesus knew in advance that he couldn't come as a rich powerful man to get the attention of the multitudes as it is the norm throughout history (including these days). Otherwise he would be also the rich man of {Matthew 19:24}.

Now, believing or not the resurrection of Jesus body (and his other miracles) is no more important.

The today's living miracle that no one can deny is that... the message of Jesus was resurrected and could be accessed by almost anyone in the world, now till the end of times.

Why it is a living miracle?

while all formal systems (religious or political) around the world don't allow preaching OPENLY (via satellites for example) many Jesus teachings 'as clear as he did', no one of them dares considering the printing of the Gospel (as hard copies or eBooks) as a crime that deserves punishment. — KerimF

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/461664)

Kerim

Christ's life, death, passion and resurrection is a fact. His resurrection alone had more witnesses than Caesar's murder. Of course, for those who have no faith, not all the miracles in the world will convince.

1. If the apostles were willing to be martyred for the sake of Christ, then they must have had intense belief.
2. Intense belief must be backed by equally sufficient evidence.
3. The apostles were willing to be martyred for the sake of Christ.
4. Therefore, the apostles must have had sufficient evidence for their intense belief. (MP 1,3) — Josh Vasquez

Comon now, even just a passing whiff of this argument reveals its stink:

"Intense belief must be backed by equally sufficient evidence"...

Setting aside the fact that people can hold intense beliefs without "sufficient" evidence whatsoever, our individual assessments of what constitutes sufficiency are often in disagreement.

For example, if someone thinks they see Jesus in a piece of toast, they might label the toast as sufficient evidence, whereas another person might think they're simply mistaken or dumb.

And what of the Judas exception? Judas clearly was not willing to be martyred for Jesus, and presumably he had access to the same evidence as the other apostles, yet lacked the same conviction?

And for that matter, why didn't they show their sufficient evidence to the Roman authority? Upon confronting Jesus and his sufficient evidence, should Pontius Pilate not have been willing to be martyred for him?

Why could that be?

To me in the least, the resurrection of Jesus' body is not as miraculous as the resurrection of Jesus message that contradicts the human instincts of survival, hence the man-made law of any ruling system around the world.

Please note that any reader here, deist or atheist, is not familiar with what I will say.

The day Jesus was condemned to death there was not even ONE person in the world who dared saying he believes him or in him. In fact, Jesus knew how to let even Peter "his Rock" deny him 'three' times on that day (it wasn't a mere coincidence that Peter only used his sword, soon after Judas kissed Jesus). And, by Peter clear reaction (3 times, not just once or twice), Jesus made very clear that, on that day, both his body and teachings (message) died on the cross (not his body only).

But this wasn't enough. — KerimF

It is to be expected - from the people of the period - that they feared the might of Rome. Less than 40 years earlier, the Romans had completely destroyed Jerusalem for their rebellion, and Christians could expect a punishment as severe for Jesus' actions - after arguing with bankers and fighting with them -. Therefore, the betrayal of all his followers - being that, the twelve apostles, after a long study, it was concluded that they were not people of a great intellectual level and that they were easily carried away, in this case, by Jesus of Nazareth preachings - is not something that impresses because Jesus himself - taking him as a historical figure - warned them of the dangers he would face.

Then, even after 2000 years (thru too many generations), I hear Jesus saying:

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Isn't it a miracle? But, perhaps it is not, and someone here knows one ruling system in the least (in the past or now) that asks its subjects to love their enemies and not applying its justice on the evil and on the unjust.

Yes, while all formal systems (religious or political) around the world don't allow preaching OPENLY (via satellites for example) many Jesus teachings 'as clear as he did', no one of them dares considering the printing of the Gospel (as hard copies or eBooks) as a crime that deserves punishment.
Yes, this is a 'fact' that the world lives while it is beyond human logic... In other words, it is a living miracle that no one, even atheists, can deny — KerimF

I cannot understand how you can see the existence of Christianity as a miracle. Religions are built with the aim of being a political tool, obviously if useful, there would be no reason why Europe would abandon this system. In addition, Christianity continues to exist because it had 2000 years of history to establish itself. It looks like you just ignored the entire Middle Ages for the sake of your argument.

Christ's life, death, passion and resurrection is a fact. His resurrection alone had more witnesses than Caesar's murder. Of course, for those who have no faith, not all the miracles in the world will convince. — hithere

This is the type of "argument" that is not worth discussing, as the writer is based entirely on faith and biblical scriptures, which are already essentially dogmatic.

Christ's life, death, passion and resurrection is a fact. His resurrection alone had more witnesses than Caesar's murder. Of course, for those who have no faith, not all the miracles in the world will convince. — hithere

I am afraid that if someone 'now' believes what Jesus says because of his miracles (which happened) then he is ready to believe 'at the same level' whatever one said and many people have witnessed his miracles too.

By the way, in your opinion, what could someone learn from Jesus?
Thank you.
I understood from many that they learnt a sort of magic from him.
In other words, if they believe really in Jesus as being their Saviour, admit they are sinner and repent before God, they are saved in the afterlife.
But such question may need the start of its own thread.

Kerim

It is to be expected — Gus Lamarch

But the period of time for which they hid is 40 days, not 30 or 50 :)
These 40 days have their particular meaning anywhere on earth.

I cannot understand how you can see the existence of Christianity as a miracle. — Gus Lamarch

Did I say the existence of today's Christianity is a miracle?
I said just the opposite :)
But sorry for not being clearer :(

while all formal systems (religious or political) around the world don't allow preaching OPENLY (via satellites for example) many Jesus teachings 'as clear as he did' — KerimF

The formal religious systems, I am referring to, are also all well-known Christian Churches and Denominations in the world.
By the way, I was ignored (if not worse) in all Christian forums I heard of and joined, anytime I referred to what Jesus says (on their own Gospel!) about a certain subject, instead of what their doctrine says.

But, I also understand that my point here could not be clear to you. Perhaps, you didn't have the time or interest to notice the few but crucial contradictions between Jesus sayings and the teachings of any Christian Church. After all and truth be said, if they preach openly Jesus sayings exactly as Jesus does on the Gospel, a formal Church won't have the chance to survive for long (due to lack of serious donations). So they used reviving Judaism to hide what they like ignoring in Jesus sayings.

Kerim

But the period of time for which they hid is 40 days, not 30 or 50 :)
These 40 days have their particular meaning anywhere on earth. — KerimF

And? Just because Sumerian mythology also has the flood tale as the Christian religion, does that make it true? Obviously not. And why not? There is not enough evidence to prove that something like what we are told has occurred; same thing with the 40 Christian days, and the 40 Babylonian days, there is no proof of it happening. Now, its up to you to have faith and believe in it, in this case, it's a whole other story.

The formal religious systems, I am referring to, are also all well-known Christian Churches and Denominations in the world.
By the way, I was ignored (if not worse) in all Christian forums I heard of and joined, anytime I referred to what Jesus says (on their own Gospel!) about a certain subject, instead of what their doctrine says.

But, I also understand that my point here could not be clear to you. Perhaps, you didn't have the time or interest to notice the few but crucial contradictions between Jesus sayings and the teachings of any Christian Church. After all and truth be said, if they preach openly Jesus sayings exactly as Jesus does on the Gospel, a formal Church won't have the chance to survive for long (due to lack of serious donations). So they used reviving Judaism to hide what they like ignoring in Jesus sayings. — KerimF

The fact - that I had already told you - is that Christian theology, at the time of the death of Jesus of Nazareth, practically did not exist, and to transform it into a strong and stable religious movement, it was necessary to encode its message, Saint Paul noticed this, and worked on it. In the Catholic Church's own words:

"The Catholic Church teaches that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission, that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles, and that the pope is the successor to Saint Peter, upon whom primacy was conferred by Jesus Christ. It keeps that it practices the original Christian faith, reserving infallibility, passed down by sacred tradition. "

The Christian faith - for the most part - is based on the canonized interpretation by the institution of the Church. When you start to have individual interpretations of the message of Christ, it is no longer Christianity, but Gnosticism. It is what the Romans saw between the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries and what we currently see in the church.

How could I not notice the contradictions in the Bible, since I was the one who stated in the discussion with the OP that the use of "sôma pneumatikos" contradicts the message of Saint Paul?

But such question may need the start of its own thread. — KerimF

The neo-atheist mods would ban the thread. Not worth discussing here.

The neo-atheist mods would ban the thread. Not worth discussing here. — hithere

Probably not if well written and with a good premise.

Uh... no. They don't care about knowledge that it is against their preconceived beliefs, and also don't mind censoring. The lack of interest in getting to know miracles, on the part of people who nevertheless express their opinions about Christianity, reveals that these people prefer to know only the edges of the subject of which they speak, for fear of getting too close to the center and being singed. The fact that the forum has philosophy in its name is a comic pretension and inversion.

Science is working on resurrecting the dead. This google page might be of interest?

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Annex-E-FY-2019-Contributions-to-IOs-All-Sources-Totals-003810-508.pdf

However, in the case of Jesus, if he was actually crucified, his apparent death could have been staged. I have read drugs that make people appear dead were known and that he was given such a drug. The timing of the crusification would have been crucial to saving his life because the bodies had to be taken down before the Sabbath.

Many, before having examined just one of these miracle facts, already cling to the idea that one day they will all have a “scientific explanation” — it is understood: materialistic — and it will be proven that they were not miracles at all. Although this expectation has never been fulfilled in relation to any miracle confirmed by the Church, and although the promise of the devastating explanation has repeatedly postponed its fulfillment again and again in each specific case (recently it failed again to “explain” the Holy Shroud of Turin), the fact is that these people continue to trust the promise as if it were a test already carried out, complete and unanswerable. There can be nothing more irrational than this act of faith that takes as a proof a promise of proof and is renewed with every new failed attempt to carry it out. However, the people who practice it believe that, in doing this, they are tremeeendously scientific.

If I had any money, I would pay the luminaries of materialism to study, for as long as they wanted, the miracles of Father Pio, who knew in advance of the sins of others and events in distant lands, (for example he knew whether the son of an anguished mother had been killed in the war) and who healed a blind girl who had no pupils, or those reported by dr. Ricardo Castañon in his videos, who reports the event of a bleeding wafer and who, after taking it for examination by one of the best doctors in the United States, (who is an atheist, and does not know the origin of the sample) he strongly states that it belonged to a patient who died in pain and agony, that in his last moments of life he had difficulty breathing, and that this blood came from the heart, and then give us a “scientific explanation” of each one.

Uh... no. They don't care about knowledge that it is against their preconceived beliefs, and also don't mind censoring. The lack of interest in getting to know miracles, on the part of people who nevertheless express their opinions about Christianity, reveals that these people prefer to know only the edges of the subject of which they speak, for fear of getting too close to the center and being singed. The fact that the forum has philosophy in its name is a comic pretension and inversion. — hithere

People with a strong faith cannot be argued because their truths are absolute. Good day / Good night :smile:

There are many religions that have many different beliefs so to argue over who is right is kinda pointless because nobody can know that answer belief in something strengthens your will and actions towards life

When it comes to choosing a belief system, I will put my faith in science and have absolutely no desire to go back in time before there was sceince. It is mind blowing to me how anyone could know history and put religion above science. Not all science is exactly materialistic. Quantum physics is more about energy and uncertainity. For sure it is better to have doubt than to be too sure of what one believes and science is always open to be proven wrong, whereas religion has to be God's truth. Like human beings are capable of knowing God's trurth? How? By reading a book written by people long before science? That truth did nothing to extend our lives and bring us to a reality where it is very unusual for a child to die before the parent dies. We invest a lot in our children believing they will out live us but that was not always so. Too much necessary information got left out of the Bible.

There is no way to understand anything about Christianity without paying attention to miracles, on which the whole meaning of doctrine depends. You have no way of confirming or denying the truth of evangelical miracles, but Jesus promised that He would continue to work miracles through the centuries, and, strictly speaking, there are no facts of any other kind in the world that exist in such large numbers and that is so well documented, especially today.

When you start to have individual interpretations of the message of Christ, it is no longer Christianity, but Gnosticism — Gus Lamarch

You are right in this. I am not Christian, but nor Gnostic as well. Being a man of reason, I don't have faith in the first place. It happens that the 'Science of Life Reality' I know (that defines/explores some important natural rules of one's existence and the world as it is) was already revealed by Jesus. So thanks to Jesus, I know that I am not imagining things.

I bet you didn't like hearing me say: "the science I know...". Well, even about scientific knowledge, I had the chance to discover things that the world (at the universities in the least) is not aware of. But, at the same time, many other persons in the world had also the chance to know things that, in my turn, I am not aware of.
So while in speeches we talk about absolute 'science', actually and speaking practically, many people, as individuals or groups, have their 'own' knowledge of science from which they, unlike others, can take advantage of it in their own projects.

By the way, ANY new discovery starts from ONE person only who knew it. Then, how it will be seen by others as useful, harmful or even non-sense is another question :)

I bet you didn't like hearing me say: "the science I know...". Well, even about scientific knowledge, I had the chance to discover things that the world (at the universities in the least) is not aware of. But, at the same time, many other persons in the world had also the chance to know things that, in my turn, I am not aware of.
So while in speeches we talk about absolute 'science', actually and speaking practically, many people, as individuals or groups, have their 'own' knowledge of science from which they, unlike others, can take advantage of it in their own projects.

By the way, ANY new discovery starts from ONE person only who knew it. Then, how it will be seen by others as useful, harmful or even non-sense is another question — KerimF

If you eventually develop and structure your thoughts in a way that doesn't look like religious dogmatic fanaticism, I ask that you post it as a discussion proposal here on the forum, at least I'm always looking for thoughts that will revolutionize, and disturb the intellect of the "Inteligencia" and the masses. But of course, there is a difference between new, strange and dificult thought to bizarre, mad and conspiratory.

Being a man of reason, I don't have faith in the first place. — KerimF

Then you're lost, because even science is dependent on faith.

The neo-atheist mods would ban the thread. Not worth discussing here. — hithere

You are totally right.
Even some atheists have faith to defend at any cost exactly as some believers of a doctrine do.

This is life, we like it or not. Whoever possesses the strongest gun in a room has the legitimate right to impose his truth on all ones in his room :D

Whoever possesses the strongest gun in a room has the legitimate right to impose his truth on all ones in his room — KerimF

lmao only you, muslims and WWII fascists think so. I have no problem discussing with an atheist and I even read hindu scriptures with Shânkara's commentary, sufi poems, etc.

The superiority of a civilization is not measured by its material or even spiritual achievements, however admirable they may be, but by its capacity to absorb and integrate the worldviews and “points of view” of other civilizations without losing its unity and identity, strengthening them. The superiority of the Christian West, in this respect, is not only evident, but overwhelming. The same holds true for the individual. I can study atheism in depth and with complete freedom, but you cannot study any religion or even miracle facts without filter and censorship, because if you do, most likely you would be very afraid in starting to think that exists someone who judges us for what we done in life.

The question of whether Christianity is good or not, useful or not, does not come into question, as it is not the issue being discussed. — Gus Lamarch

Sorry, I got confused and thought the thread had something to do with what is reasonable.

Then you're lost, because even science is dependent on faith. — Gus Lamarch

You are right, because having faith is the 'prerequisite' to discover (or arrive to) something. So while I was at school, I had faith in math (besides physics, chemistry... etc.) that it is the right path, for me in the least, on which I can discover or understand many things which I may need in my life later.
Since many decades, this faith did its supposed role and I became (since 1975) the boss of a small private business (producing whatever the local consumers may need) as a designer in electronics.

This could be applied too on how I knew Jesus and his teachings that describe what I was looking for about the reality of my being and the world I was brought into it. If I am not wrong, faith is usually related to hope. Therefore, after getting all the knoweldge I need, faith/hope had no role/importance in my life :)