Given the definition of death, if Jesus rose from the “dead”, then he couldn’t have really died in the first place. If his body rose from the dead, but he really had died, then it was the beginning of a new life in the body in which Jesus previously resided. In that case, the Jesus who was crucified still died. Can anyone reconcile this?
death [deth] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Compare brain death.
The real question you should be asking is, was Jesus around to die to begin with?. Because if he wasn’t then (beyond metaphysical conceptualization) the question you pose is pointless.
The issue is one of defining death as “permanent”. Many people have been declared technically “dead”, yet got revived or “came back to life”. English isn’t so exact that one can make a logic argument based on technical details of the language.
Beyond that concern is the more real meaning of scriptural death, which means that a person has lost all ability to maintain himself whether physically dead in the more scientific sense or not. The “walking dead” refers to people who “have no life” in a social, personal, or spiritual sense, yet refuse to just go ahead and terminate.
In the case of Jesus, it wasn’t proposed that Jesus himself raised himself from being dead, such would in fact violate the meaning intended. The point to the story was that Jesus was more than merely a good philosopher in that “God” (or Reality itself) wouldn’t allow his permanent death.
I so absolutely agree. Jesus never died in spirit, he only died in the flesh, in the human way, as a way to wash away our sins and give us everlasting life.
Jesus’ flesh expired, but his soul has always lived and will continue to live in God, who is eternal. The holy spirit binds Jesus and His father together, and this can never be undone, especially not by death. Death is a human thing, we have it because of Adam’s original sin. How can CHRIST be bound my something so temporal and human and death! NO WAY. He rose from the dead simply to show doubtful humans of His power.
— Given the definition of death, if Jesus rose from the “dead”, then he couldn’t have really died in the first place.
O- All things are possible to God. Putting life in a mound of clay/dust, seems as fantastic as giving life to a corpse.
— If his body rose from the dead, but he really had died, then it was the beginning of a new life in the body in which Jesus previously resided.
O- The “you” does not die. Your soul is eternal. Ask the hindus, Plato, Descartes…The body that was sown perishable was raised imperishable, what was imperfect was raised perfect, so it was not Jesus “old” body, or the exact same body which his soul animated, but a body to match his soul.
— In that case, the Jesus who was crucified still died. Can anyone reconcile this?
O- The body still died. The soul is not what was nailed.
— the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Compare brain death.
O- Again, what God giveth, God taketh away and at His leisure, giveth yet again. Brain states do not matter since God is omnipotent.
This is why it is considered a miracle. That it was an exception. Using a definition of death against a claim of a miracle is not really getting what the religious assertion is.
Not that any of this demonstrates it happened, but your approach seems to show a basic confusion about what is being claimed.
I think you missed the point of what I was saying entirely… I was pointing out in a subtle manner that Historically Jesus did not exist. Even literally (Lititure) wise, he did not exist as Jesus’s real name was Yeshua, (Or Joshua). Jesus became Jesus when the greeks tried to define the “Son of God” while writeing their version of the scriptures, Jesus is from Je-zues or “Son of Zues”.
So again the real question you should be asking is… Did Jesus even exist either metaphysically or Physically? because if he didn’t then any other questions relating to him… are pointless.
You are right, I didn’t understand what you said and I just wanted to talk about my own beliefs. In any case, I don’t think the name of the Christ figure matters very much in regards to the resurrection; I’m not sure why you pointed it out. What matters is if he was here, died, and rose, or not. I believe in the resurrection and I don’t argue about it because it makes me too angry I don’t know much about it, I just believe!
Why is this topic still continuing? It’s been exhausted. This is probably the best example of classically bad analytic philosophy I’ve seen in a while- trying to pull statements about reality out of stipulated definitions of words.
If ‘death’ entails permanence, then Jesus didn’t die.
if ‘death’ does not entail permanence, than Jesus did die.
In either case, either side is free to come up with a new word for whichever definition of death is not considered ‘mainstream’, and carry on believing whatever they believed before the conversation took place.
The topic is continuing because you’re posting here. Why you get worked up over it is beyond me.
Death is permanent in this realm of reality. Tho sometimes if medical treatment arrives soon enough some can be brought back from death.
But death is not permanent in the realm of mythology. Death and resurrection is a common motif in mythology … tho I don’t think I’m telling you something you don’t already know, Mr. Curmudgeon …
The two realms have different dictionaries, or words have different meanings in whichever context.
My American Dictionary says :
Death:
(n.) The act or fact of dying:
· annihilation
· decease
· demise
· destruction
· dissolution
· end
· expiration
· extinction
· loss
· passing
· quietus
I agree with Moreno and V. It seems to me that if death is not permanent, resurrection is an aberration, an exception to what usually occurs, but not a miracle.
The claim is that as humans we are bound by the laws of nature, but as a God Jesus is not bound by the laws of nature.
What makes the God idea interesting is that it proposes something above and outside of natural law.
As example, this forum has rules. As mere posters, we are bound by these rules.
But the forum owner, the Creator Of The Forum, is not so bound. As God of this forum, the forum owner can change the rules at any time. As God of this forum, the forum owner can choose to follow the rules or not. The forum owner is in a fundamentally different situation than we posters are. The forum owner is above and outside the rules.
An atheist might come to this forum, see a long list of people being banned for doing XYZ, and then declare that these are predictable natural laws which are binding on the forum, and thus the rules are a reliable guide to understanding the forum.
A theist would propose the existence of The Forum Creator, who as the creator, is above the rules and can change them at any time. If such a Forum Creator exists, then we can’t fully rely on any system of rules to predict what might happen in the future on the forum. Anything could happen, thus no system of analysis can be fully trusted.
The interesting bit might be…
What if one comes to believe that no system of analysis can be trusted, but one is still very interested in the question?
Any time you can summarize the thesis of a post with, “Well, technically…” it’s probably a pretty shallow post. “Well technically Jesus didn’t really die.” Who cares? Go read a dictionary you pedantic monkey, that’s clearly the kinda literature that interests you.
Water is less dense than a homo sapien.
Jesus was a homo sapien.
Therefore if Jesus had tried to walk on water, he would have sunk.[/i]
As if the exceptional nature of the act was not the entire point. Like some Christians are going to say wait, I thought jesus had a lower specific weight than water. You mean it was a miracle. I am shocked. I feel mislead by my religion. I thought this was a parable about density.
Or God can go against what are actually not laws but tendencies, or patterns that have exceptions. Einstein and Qm discovered things that go against newton’s laws. This doesn’t mean supernatural rules were found, just a deeper context. I think the whole supernatural vs. natural tension is an unnecessary mess. Why can’t a god be a natural phenomenon?
a system of analysis is useful or not. We still use Newton’s laws, even though we do not believe in Newton’s metaphysics. They work for most of what we want to do.
Death is an empirical matter. If the known facts about death change, then the definition of death requires changing. So if death is defined as permanent, any exception to permanence would be a logical contradiction. But if someone resurrects from the dead, then the definition is wrong and simply must be changed. It’s an instance where language must follow fact, not the other way around. The present status of the resurrection is that some people accept it as fact and others don’t. Controversy over fact not over logic is the crux of the matter. Maybe you think Christians are evasive because of lack of empathy with their point of view.
If one dies and then comes to life, have they died? Were they really dead? I’m willing to accept that the definition is wrong. But if it is, then it should be changed.
But we still need to define objectively if one dies and then ceases to be dead, were they really dead in the first place?
I don’t know why Christians are evasive. My theory is they are evasive because when confronted with the type of questions I tend to ask, it forces them to accept the worst possible thing - the possibility that their belief may be wrong.
You’ve gotten solid answers to this question, repeatedly. I don’t know if Christians have answered solidly, I am not checking religious affiliation for the posts.
The Bible is asserting that he entered a state that is death and would be permanent but through the miracle of God’s power he was resurrected. A miracle changed a state that in all other circumstances, except for Lazarus, was permanent death, to life again. That is the miracle. So the state Jesus was in was death. In his case he was brought or brought himself back to life from death.
If I burn a log down to ashes, I have no way of returning those ashes to the original log.
You can think of Jesus’ death as being turned into ashes, but in this case, he was able to turn himself back into a log.
But he was charcoal ash, just like any other dead person, for the time he was dead.
I don’t know much about it, I just believe!](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Who cares? Go read a dictionary you pedantic monkey, that’s clearly the kinda literature that interests you.