8 ms·
Robert Boyle's Experimental Proof of the Possibility of the Resurrection
- srean 9y agoIs it possible that when Jesus was taken down from the cross he wasn't clinically dead ? He might have stopped breathing, perhaps he had no discernible pulse either (severe loss of blood, vertical position), but not clinically dead. Subsequent revival after being taken down would certainly be possible.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThis isn't about that Resurrection, but the one it (in Christian theology) prefigures and promises.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- themodelplumber 9y agoThe named experiment and comparison to resurrection would also apply to Christ's resurrection.
- dragonwriter 9y agoSure, but it was primarily addressing the other one, which does not admit of “maybe there was no clinical death” alternative explanations.
- jfk13 9y agoSuggested reading: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/299961.Who_Moved_the_Stone_ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/299961.Who_Moved_the_Sto...
- neaden 9y agoThe Roman's crucified a lot of people, I would think they had the system pretty well down. In general what you are talking about is Euhemerism, trying to figure out the "real story" behind myths/religious stories and my understanding is it is pretty poorly regarded these days.
- srean 9y agoI see, thanks for teaching me a new word. > pretty poorly regarded these days. Why is that ? Because it is a touchy subject ? That I can certainly understand
- throwawayxbdi8 9y agoBecause it ignores the fact that sometimes people make up bullshit for power or control and other people believe it because they were illiterate commoners from thousands of years ago.
- ZeroClickOk 9y agoThe gospel of John 19:31-34 says: "Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." Breaking the person leg, the the person cruxcified will die asphyxiated (without the legs to sustain, the body will be sustained by the arms, turning hard/impossible breathe). But the soldier saw Jesus dead, and dont break the legs, (its harder break bones), just piercing with the spear is easier and it will die via bleeding anyway. So, here we got a testimony from a Roman Soldier (in theory a neutral watcher) about the dead of Jesus.
- danjc 9y agoWhat you're describing is called Swoon Theory [1]. Romans knew how to kill people. Really. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis
- CamperBob2 9y agoSo do we, but look at how many death-penalty executions get horribly botched.
- yequalsx 9y agoHow many of these botched death-penalty executions you speak of resulted in the person living and living in such a way that the authorities did not know the person was alive?
- combatentropy 9y agoArguments against the Swoon Theory: 1. If a Roman soldier let a capital prisoner escape, including by bungling a crucifixion, that soldier would be killed. 2. The Roman soldier didn't break Jesus's legs. So he was sure he was dead. 3. The eyewitness account says that blood and water flowed from Jesus's pierced heart, which means collapse of the lungs and death by suffocation. 4. The body was wound in sheets. 5. The turnabout in behavior by his disciples. Before, they were in hiding. Afterward, they died for saying that Jesus rose from the dead. 6. There were Roman guards at the tomb, again who would be put to death if they let the body be stolen. 7. How would a half-dead person move the boulder of the tomb? --- The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli The Swoon Theory eventually dovetails into a theory of conspiracy, by the disciples and authors of the texts in the Bible. This theory also is addressed by that book and others. For the sake of not getting too far off topic, I leave it to anyone to read in their own time. Besides, as others have pointed out, the resurrection that this article is about is the resurrection of all dead at the end of the age.
- snow_mac 9y agoThe trouble is see John 19:34
- olavk 9y agoIt is possible, and of course impossible to prove it didn't happen like this. But it is much more likely he just died, just like anybody else who got publicly executed would. If you think this might explain the account of the resurrection, note that the account emphasizes that the apostles doesn't recognize the resurrected Jesus. If it was actually Jesus who had survived, surely they would recognize him. Furthermore the resurrected Jesus does not seem to have an ordinary physical body - he is able to walk through walls for example. Given this I don't think a "not clinically dead"-theory explains anything.
- kpatrick 9y agoI don't think the ability to appear in a closed room is necessarily walking through walls, and I don't think it was a function of the resurrection, rather that it was a miracle. Similar miracles of transport are recorded for angels, Philip, and Enoch.
- olavk 9y agoOK, I guess that explains it.
- anti-shill 9y agoJesus was dead, all right. But after death he did not decay, thus allowing him to be resurrected. The Church of the Better Resurrection website has posted considerable evidence showing that the only ones to be resurrected at the second coming will be the cryonicists, who will stave off post-death decay via liquid nitrogen, which also allows preservation of the word of god inside the brain. See here: Berean Literal Bible Corinthians 15 50 Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God, nor does decay inherit immortality. Acts 2 27 (World English Bible) “because you will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will you allow your Holy One to see decay.” Acts 2 31 (World English Bible) explains how Jesus fought against decay and thus was able to be resurrected: “he foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay.” Acts 13 35 (World English Bible): “Therefore he says also in another psalm, ‘You will not allow your Holy One to see decay.’”
- balance_factor 9y agoOf the four gospels, it is generally said that Mark was written first, and John was written last. The earliest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark do not mention the resurrection at all. Later manuscripts have verses tacked on, in what is nowadays called Mark 16. You can read about this online, there is several centuries worth of discussion about it.
- tannhauser23 9y ago> The earliest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark do not mention the resurrection at all. Are you sure about that? My understanding is that the earliest manuscripts end at Mark 16:8, which ends with the women finding the empty tomb and being told by a young man in a white robe that Jesus has risen. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Significance_of_ending_at_verse_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Significance_of_ending... and https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=NLT https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version... EDIT: the undisputed ending of Mark, which is up to verse 8 (Catholic version): 5 On entering the tomb they saw a young man in a white robe seated on the right-hand side, and they were struck with amazement. 6 But he said to them, 'There is no need to be so amazed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified: he has risen, he is not here. See, here is the place where they laid him. 7 But you must go and tell his disciples and Peter, "He is going ahead of you to Galilee; that is where you will see him, just as he told you." ' 8 And the women came out and ran away from the tomb because they were frightened out of their wits; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
- empath75 9y agoThat's one explanation. A simpler explanation is that the resurrection was purely invented.
- satori99 9y agoHe might have had a twin brother :P But an even simpler explanation is that Jesus himself was invented too.
- vanattab 9y agoAlthough I might be mistaken because I am sure there is a lot of misinformation out there on this topic, I was under the impression that there is pretty good evidence that there was at least a Jewish profit named Jesus who lived at the time. Maybe someone else elaborate.
- schtitt 9y agoYeah, to call the theory of an invented Jesus 'simpler' is quite a stretch, since you then would have to explain both the rise of Christianity, the gospel writings, and the records of Josephus the Jewish historian who did write about a prophet named Jesus. Simpler would in this case assuming there did indeed exist such a man.
- driverdan 9y agoThere is some evidence but not "pretty good" evidence. There isn't much evidence written in the time he was supposed to have been alive. Most of it was written long after the fact by 3rd parties.
- lawpoop 9y agoInsofar as human history, there is pretty good textual evidence that a guy running around Palestine called Jesus attracted followers and was executed by the Roman state. We have as much evidence for that guy as we do many other historical figures. I shouldn't have to mention this, but I feel compelled: the claim of historical Jesus is not any kind of theological, religious, or supernatural claim (i.e. that any miracles occured). The problem is that intelligent autodidacts confuse the disciplines of science (developing theories and performing experiments to provide potentially disprovable evidence of universal, timeless laws of nature) and history (the study of written texts about events that occurred in the past) and the types of evidence acceptable to both fields. Hint: they're completely different. The problem is that, if you want to advance a historical theory claiming that there was no historical guy called Jesus who inspired the gospel, you have to come up with a compelling theory, based on historical (written records from the past) evidence describing who built the first churches, who wrote the first gospels, why they made up a story about a Palestinian Jew who was crucified 300 years ago, and why that story was so compelling it caught on with the masses and elites alike. Or you could just go with the idea that there was a guy running around the middle east 2,000 years ago, who pissed of the Jewish and Roman elite, so much to the point that he was executed. And about whom miracles were claimed to have been performed. The thing is, for all religions developing where we have iron-clad evidence (Mormonism, Scientology, etc), it always starts with a charismatic leader who attracts a following. Throw a rock in India, and you can find any number of gurus who are said to be capable of levitating, not eating for long periods of time, etc. etc. There is nothing really extraordinary about the story of Jesus, comparatively speaking. If you're going to make a historical theory that Jesus never existed, but instead was invented by someone else, you have to identify that someone else. In fleshing out your theory, you'll probably want to say why they invented it, and why it caught on, when many other small cults and gurus petered out. Christianity didn't arise out of nowhere in, say, England in 1500.
- cromwellian 9y agoI like my idea: A short story I wrote about Jesus being the first zombie/walking dead: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TOsLLQgExgnBArMBJNvCTHpHpROGO7lrRlrir_yQYtc/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TOsLLQgExgnBArMBJNvCTHpH... :)
- snow_mac 9y agoIf you follow the scriptures, it says BEFORE they took him down they pierced his heart, see John 19:34.
- QAPereo 9y agoDoubtful. Consider how condemned gladiators were treated: The body of a gladiator who had died well was placed on a couch of Libitina and removed with dignity to the arena morgue, where the corpse was stripped of armour, and probably had its throat cut to prove that dead was dead. The Christian author Tertullian, commenting on ludi meridiani in Roman Carthage during the peak era of the games, describes a more humiliating method of removal. One arena official, dressed as the "brother of Jove", Dis Pater (god of the underworld) strikes the corpse with a mallet. Another, dressed as Mercury, tests for life-signs with a heated "wand"; once confirmed as dead, the body is dragged from the arena.[108] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator#Death_and_disposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator#Death_and_disposal
- snorkel 9y agoThe Bible stories borrow heavily from Egyptian religious myths and beliefs regarding gods and pharaohs. Same stories, rebooted with new cast members that are more relatable. Any new diety had to demonstrate similar power supernatural abilities as a pharaoh to be legit, and the one big closing act of every pharoah is resurrection followed by deification. Same story, new cast members. Ancient story tellers also made reboots.
- dsp1234 9y agoone big closing act of every pharoah is resurrection followed by deification. Boyle wasn't speaking about Jesus' ressurection.
- danjc 9y agoNo one invents a story of how man is utterly depraved and incapable of making himself right before God.
- danielsju6 9y ago... isn't this a common theme in Eastern and Mesopotamian mythologies?
- danjc 9y agoDo you have an example?
- sofal 9y agoWhy not? People invent all kinds of stories. That type of story doesn't even take much imagination. Telling people that they are deficient in some intangible way and that you have the only cure is a very common way to con people.
- neaden 9y ago"Same stories, rebooted with new cast members that are more relatable." This isn't true at all and I'm curious at what gave you that idea? Specifically I mean of stories with the names changed between Egyptian religion and Christianity/Judaism.
- nabla9 9y agoWhen you think about the era Boyle lived 1627-1691, it was time of the Thirty Years War (1618 – 1648) and start for search for universally accepted religious truths or 'natural religious truths'. People (mostly highly educated upper class) started to rely more of their own thinking than dogma that lead to horrible religious wars, sectarian conflicts and widespread misery. Different forms of deism started to replace belief in bible interpreted by priests. Once you transfer from from Catholicism everywhere to different forms of protestant beliefs, next natural question to ask is if protestants hold the truth. This leads to abstract philosophical thinking and critical deism or atheism.