There Will Be Saved Parasites in Heaven!
The Biblical text is clear in that neither Enoch (Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. Genesis 5:24), Elijah (As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. 2 Kings 2:11), Jesus and maybe even Moses {(Transfiguration (Matt 17:3 and parallels), in the Jewish work, The Assumption of Moses and its likely New Testament preservations in Acts 7:36 and Jude 8 - 9)} died, but were taken up into Heaven clothes, parasites and all!
While the parasites in the guts of Enoch and Elijah never died, but were translated to Heaven with them, the E. coli parasitic bacterium in the gut of Jesus died and were resurrected back to life by God along with the body of Jesus. Theologically not only are we talking about a single bodily resurrection, but millions of parasitic bacterium E. coli who were also bodily resurrected too…Glory! Praise God!
[Since some the resurrection narratives of Jesus are not coherent or expressed whether Jesus arose bodily or in spirit form only, some Gospels (such as Luke 24 below) went out of their way to prove a physical resurrection (To also counter the spiritual only view which later would be considered heretical), Jesus is not only handled by the apostles, but even eats food:
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. (Codex Bezae reads: “they thought they saw a ghost”). 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; (the Textus Receptus better know as the King James adds: and of an honeycomb.) 43 and He took it and ate it before them.]
So, according to Luke 24, Jesus’ E. coli parasites were also alive and still active in Jesus’ holy gut to help break down the fish (and, maybe even the honeycomb) Jesus ate telling us not only did God resurrect Jesus, but God resurrected the holy parasites that dwelled in the promised land of Jesus’ holy gut.
Thus, like the E. coli in the guts of the living Enoch, Elijah; Jesus’ resurrected E. coli were taken up to Heaven with Jesus too and now dwell up yonder only to return again to earth along with Jesus in the Second Coming!
While the parasites in the guts of Enoch and Elijah never died, but were translated to Heaven with them, the E. coli parasitic bacterium in the gut of Jesus died and were resurrected back to life by God along with the body of Jesus. Theologically not only are we talking about a single bodily resurrection, but millions of parasitic bacterium E. coli who were also bodily resurrected too…Glory! Praise God!
[Since some the resurrection narratives of Jesus are not coherent or expressed whether Jesus arose bodily or in spirit form only, some Gospels (such as Luke 24 below) went out of their way to prove a physical resurrection (To also counter the spiritual only view which later would be considered heretical), Jesus is not only handled by the apostles, but even eats food:
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. (Codex Bezae reads: “they thought they saw a ghost”). 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; (the Textus Receptus better know as the King James adds: and of an honeycomb.) 43 and He took it and ate it before them.]
So, according to Luke 24, Jesus’ E. coli parasites were also alive and still active in Jesus’ holy gut to help break down the fish (and, maybe even the honeycomb) Jesus ate telling us not only did God resurrect Jesus, but God resurrected the holy parasites that dwelled in the promised land of Jesus’ holy gut.
Thus, like the E. coli in the guts of the living Enoch, Elijah; Jesus’ resurrected E. coli were taken up to Heaven with Jesus too and now dwell up yonder only to return again to earth along with Jesus in the Second Coming!
36 comments:
This question is on the same theological level as any Biblical hermeneutics. Fact is, there is more Biblical proof that there are parasites in Heaven than any so-called Biblical proofs that we know our loved ones up there!
Harry, great point, one I have never really considered before.
The facts as I understand them are that there are about 10 trillion cells in or on a human body, and about 1/10 of them are actually human cells. The other 90% are either bacterial or are the cells of skin mites or fungi etc.
I would take issue with the idea that e. coli is a parasite though. The standard definition would be that it is a symbiont.
Are there any theological opinions as to whether the bacteria in Jesus's gut were 100% bacterial and 100% divine?
Does the Nicene creed talk about whether Jesus's skin mites partook of his divine nature? Was his fungus without sin?
Paging Dr. Craig!
What's the difference between a spirit and a ghost? Just saying...
Remember that three angels were fed by Abraham in Genesis and Lot gave two of them a place to spend the night.
Doesn't seem to be much difference between earthly and heavenly, does it.
I think the more important question is: How are we humans supposed to survive in heaven with all that bacteria? If there is no death, that means that the bacteria will live forever. And they can multiply pretty rapidly...So does God shut off their replication mechanisms or will heaven get overrun with bacteria? Such deep theological questions need answers!
Evan: I would take issue with the idea that e. coli is a parasite though. The standard definition would be that it is a symbiotic.
Re: The reference I used is here. I’m not in science that deep so I had to go by the web.
As to your other two questions, Dr. Craig out of the office!
Corky: What's the difference between a spirit and a ghost?
Re: Spirit good. Ghost bad…Boo!
Jeff: I think the more important question is: How are we humans supposed to survive in heaven with all that bacteria?
Re: And Christians think Hell is bad?!
Word has it around Heaven that after God created Adam (Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2: 7) God contracted Pin Worms in the process of putting his mouth on the soil mold of Adam.
Thus, we find God with an eternal rectum itch and the attitude: Damn it! Now someone got to pay!
Who pays? Why of course Adam and all his descendants being the entire human race are cursed with the eternal Original Sin and eternal Hell (for those who don't (pardon the pun) Kiss Ass.).
"So, according to Luke 24, Jesus’ E. coli parasites were also alive and still active in Jesus’ holy gut to help break down the fish (and, maybe even the honeycomb) Jesus ate telling us not only did God resurrect Jesus, but God resurrected the holy parasites that dwelled in the promised land of Jesus’ holy gut."
Harry, you present me with a singular problem here at DC: I'm never sure if you mean to be taken seriously, or if you're attempting to exemplify the applicability of Poe's Law to certain expressions of atheism.
So, can we also conclude that since Odin had a body, and since he had one eye, that he was susceptible to glaucoma? Can we conclude that since Hephaestus had a body, and was lame, that he was susceptible to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? Could Zeus get a urinary tract infection?
Look, whether you believe the texts or not, you have to take the whole text into account. It would be ridiculous to conclude that since the ghost of Hamlet's father spoke, he could've gotten a sore throat; if you did, you'd be ignoring the all important fact that Hamlet's father is a ghost. Similarly, Jesus' resurrection body is not portrayed as a normal body in the gospel accounts: it appears and disappears, it's unrecognizable at times, etc. So, why conclude *on the basis of the text* that it included bacteria? Did Hermes get shinsplints? Did his sandals ever give him Athlete's foot?
Nobody has brought up the implications for the Eucharist and transubstantiation yet. "This is my E. coli"?
Harry you forgot that the human population in heaven is composed mostly of dead fetus's. 30-40% of all fertilized human eggs don't implant in the uterus and are auto-aborted. Out of the remaining viable eggs that do implant 25% are miscarried. So out of 100 fertilized eggs nearly half never make it out of the womb. And we know that jebus died for their little sins and it's pretty hard to sin whist in the womb. But not all adults go to heaven.
So the main human population of heaven are fetus souls since everyone knows that the soul is implanted at conception.
This is of course if god doesn't send all those squalling little buggers to hell first.
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 5/3/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Eric: Harry, you present me with a singular problem here at DC: I'm never sure if you mean to be taken seriously, or if you're attempting to exemplify the applicability of Poe's Law to certain expressions of atheism..
Re: Do you think the Biblical text should be put on the same level as a modern book on surgery?
(If you did in a court of law here in the U.S.; you’d be guaranteed to lose your case!)
Simply put, and as you referenced to in your comment, we are dealing with common myths encased in mythological texts.
This is well illustrated in the book Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations by the great Semitic scholar Cyrus H. Gordon base on his studies from the 1940’s Homer and the Bible.
Eric my point is were you seem to claim mythological stories are unique, and that yet the normality of human life should be forced to adhere to the mentality and physics of the impossible.
As David Hume so clearly pointed out; one can not apologetically defend one myth (the Bible) while attacking the other myths (Homer) as untrue!
My point on Luke 24 is where all this starts to break down as the Christian believer / believers who wrote or edited this gospel try and infuse fact with fiction and call it reality!
So in Duet. 29:5 we read: “I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandal has not worn out on your foot.”
This is pure myth placed on the mouth of a mythological figure, Moses.
Reality proves that Wal-Mart would be out of business if they factored myths into their operating budgets!
We at DC want adults is wake up and understand that the days of Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Bible are over as reality.
Even the churches are not stupid enough to drop all their insurance and Biblically (or mythological) depend on God for protection as the Bible so clearly exhorts believer to do!
"As David Hume so clearly pointed out; one can not apologetically defend one myth (the Bible) while attacking the other myths (Homer) as untrue!"
Of course one can't. That's hardly profound -- in fact, it follows from the very definition of the word 'myth' as you are using it, i.e. a fictitious story. However, two obvious issues must be raised: first, those who defend one account and reject another obviously don't take the former to be mythical in your sense; and as contemporary scholars like Borg point out, myths can be true even if they're not literally-factually true.
"My point on Luke 24 is where all this starts to break down as the Christian believer / believers who wrote or edited this gospel try and infuse fact with fiction and call it reality!"
As I said, let's suppose that's the case. Well, then we must take the entire account into consideration. Was Jesus' resurrection body portrayed as a 'normal' body -- you know, the sort that would contain bacteria, etc. -- in the texts, or was it portrayed as possessing peculiar characteristics that would preclude us from inferring that it was (in the context of the story, mind you) in any sense normal? The answer is obvious, isn't it -- as obvious as the absurdity of claiming that Odin could've suffered from a urinary tract infection because he too had a body of sorts?
"We at DC want adults is wake up and understand that the days of Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Bible are over as reality."
Well, no adult I've ever heard of was a realist about Santa and the Easter Bunny, so you're wasting your time there. And, with respect to the Bible, if you're talking about the naive, uninformed and relatively modern hyper-literalistic approaches to it, then you and I are on the same side. However, if you want to claim that the nuanced and sophisticated approach of, say, a Borg or an Eagleton to the Bible is to be identified with the silliness of 'the Easter Bunny' and 'Santa,' then again, I fail to see how you're not attempting to exemplify the applicability of Poe's law to your brand of atheism.
However, two obvious issues must be raised: first, those who defend one account and reject another obviously don't take the former to be mythical in your sense; and as contemporary scholars like Borg point out, myths can be true even if they're not literally-factually true.So did George Washington cut down his father Cherry Tree and took his punishment in order not to tell a lie? Did Washington throw a silver dollar across the Potomac Rive?
In relation to your use of myth, there was a George Washington, Cherry Tree, ax, silver dollar and Potomac River, but these facts are simply incorporated in to a false story to create myth and point to a truism, that is our first president was truthful and strong.
My problem with Borg stems back to my time as an associate member of the Jesus Seminar and, more particularly, Robert Funk. In the 4R Quarterly the Seminar published (or Funk edited) only Funk’s inter-circle, which included Borg were allowed to contribute. Funk's attitude on this issue remained the same as when he rapidly jumped ship as editor for the Society of Biblical Literature and headed up to Montana to start Polebridge Press. I expressed such to him in a personal letter shortly before his death in 2005.
As I said, let's suppose that's the case. Well, then we must take the entire account into consideration. Was Jesus' resurrection body portrayed as a 'normal' body -- you know, the sort that would contain bacteria, etc. -- in the texts, or was it portrayed as possessing peculiar characteristics that would preclude us from inferring that it was (in the context of the story, mind you) in any sense normal? The answer is obvious, isn't it -- as obvious as the absurdity of claiming that Odin could've suffered from a urinary tract infection because he too had a body of sorts?Eric, Norse Myths as well as Homer are not a problem in the formulation of conservative laws in the U.S. as we have seen in the last eight years under the Bush administration.
Our goal at DC is to engage the average Christian or atheist in a dialogue, and as I understand it, to advance Secular Humanism in a declining post conservative Christian world. My goal is to engage the average religious mind and cause them to think apart from dogmatic theology.
Well, no adult I've ever heard of was a realist about Santa and the Easter Bunny, so you're wasting your time there… However, if you want to claim that the nuanced and sophisticated approach of, say, a Borg or an Eagleton to the Bible is to be identified with the silliness of 'the Easter Bunny' and 'Santa,' then again, I fail to see how you're not attempting to exemplify the applicability of Poe's law to your brand of atheism.You and I probably have more in common than you realize. But as to the above assertion, have you ever been to a Christian Science testimony meeting? Have you ever read in the news where a Jehovah Witness died from a medical situation that a basic blood transfusion could have cured?
While we can argue what is or is not a myth, the fact of the matter is that people are still dying today because, just as you pointed out in your definition of myth, the average Christian does not know where reality stops and the lies begin which can be lethal!Finally, just how comfortable would you be if I had ten bottles of Limon-Lime Gatorade on a table before you and I told you that 2 (20%) were spiked with antifreeze (ethylene glycol) and that I only asked you to separated the non-toxic bottles from the toxic bottles before you drank just one, or, better yet encouraged the public to trust your prayerful decision?
For the religious mind, the issue of perceived love and truth exceeds logical reality and this is just the reason we post here at DC!
"42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; (the Textus Receptus better know as the King James adds: and of an honeycomb.) 43 and He took it and ate it before them.]"
Well now ole JC has got to deposit that fish and honey somewhere, do they have portajons in heaven?
Or is it raining down bacterial manna on us all right now?
Steven Bently, all I can say to that piece of information is: Holy Shit!
"Well now ole JC has got to deposit that fish and honey somewhere, do they have portajons in heaven?"Philippians 1:8 "For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels (σπλάγχνον) of Jesus Christ."
For the Greek meaning quibblers, Acts 1:18 uses the same word in its version of Judas' death (or suicide?).
"Holy Shit" that's hilarious!
The only problem with all that is, I think they ate Jesus' body as he instructed them to do so (John ch.6 Vs:53-58) after he was taken down from the cross, evidence of no body found.
I think they were afraid not to eat of his body because it was their only guarantee into heaven, especially after having found out that they killed an innocent man.
Christianity - the cannibalistic cult, formed from barbaric ignorance.
Eric,
I think the point here is twofold: Biblical narratives often present a naive view of reality and often apply it in ways that cast significant doubt on the claims of those who present them. Clearly, this is one of those examples.
So, can we also conclude that since Odin had a body, and since he had one eye, that he was susceptible to glaucoma? Can we conclude that since Hephaestus had a body, and was lame, that he was susceptible to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? Could Zeus get a urinary tract infection?We're talking about healthily bacteria here, not harmful.
Science tells us that human beings have evolved through a partnership with specific strains of bacteria. Their role in digestion is not the same as a urinary track infection or athlete's foot - it's symbiotic. In fact, when given anti-biotics, the of level healthy bacteria can fall to the point where people have problems digesting food and their population needs to be replenished. We do not function correctly without them.
Was Jesus' resurrection body portrayed as a 'normal' body -- you know, the sort that would contain bacteria, etc. -- in the texts, or was it portrayed as possessing peculiar characteristics that would preclude us from inferring that it was (in the context of the story, mind you) in any sense normal? The answer is obvious, isn't it -- as obvious as the absurdity of claiming that Odin could've suffered from a urinary tract infection because he too had a body of sorts?Was Jesus' body portrayed as eating food? Yes. Of course, at the time, we had no idea that bacteria even existed, let alone that we had a symbiotic relationship with specific strains.
If the very same people who claim Jesus was raised from the dead claimed he ate fish, what should we make of this? What then was the purpose of depicting Jesus as eating food?
In addition, compared to our current view, death was perceived quite differently. One remained dead because the soul departed the body and moved on to some form of afterlife. Should your soul manage to find it's way back to your body, (there are many elaborate stories that "explain" how this can happen) you would come back to life. Jesus' physical ascension into the clouds seems to represent such a transition. Otherwise, why would the gateway to a non-material realm just happen to be the earths atmosphere?
Again, these naive depictions of reality cast significant doubt on the credibility of those who make claims about God and the resurrection of Jesus.
"I think the point here is twofold: Biblical narratives often present a naive view of reality and often apply it in ways that cast significant doubt on the claims of those who present them."
This is the very point I was countering. When the gospels speak about Jesus' resurrection body, they're clearly not speaking about a 'normal' body; hence the charge that the view they present in this case is 'naive' is as without merit as the charge that Hamlet is naive because it includes a talking ghost (the parallel being our understanding of digestion and Jesus eating and our understanding of sound and a ghost speaking). In neither case are we asked to consider a normal situation.
"Science tells us that human beings have evolved through a partnership..."
I'm well aware of the symbiotic relationship between human beings and bacteria. The point here, as I see it, could be considered in this way: imagine a possible world in which human beings evolved in such a way that they exist healthfully without this relationship. Is anything 'essential' to their nature lost, or is this better described as an 'accidental' difference? It seems to me that such a difference is accidental. But if this is the case, the notion that a resurrected body must contain bacteria is absurd. Or, to approach the same issue from a different angle, let's suppose that the bacteria in my body and yours were exchanged in such a way that we both remained in out current state of health. Would you or I now be different in any essential way, or would the difference be accidental? Again, the difference, it seems to me, would be accidental. The point is this: I remain 'me' whether I have your bacteria in my body, or whether I evolved in such a way as not to require any whatsoever. Similarly, Jesus' identity wouldn't be affected by the absence of bacteria in his body after the resurrection. The question now is, do we have any reason to think that it did contain bacteria?
"Was Jesus' body portrayed as eating food? Yes. Of course, at the time, we had no idea that bacteria even existed, let alone that we had a symbiotic relationship with specific strains."
But the all important point is that it wasn't portrayed as a 'normal' body. In the stories, it appeared and disappeared, was not always recognizable, etc. Why suppose that a body with these capacities could be identified with a normal human body? I want to emphasize that I'm speaking from a literary point of view here alone (i.e. I'm only concerned with the content of the texts themselves, not with whether they're factual): It seems to me that if you were to write an essay on Jesus' resurrection body and argue that if he ate, his body must've contained bacteria, and that therefore bacteria must be resurrected, your paper would be returned with quite a bit of red ink on it.
"Again, these naive depictions of reality cast significant doubt on the credibility of those who make claims about God and the resurrection of Jesus."
Rather, I think it's a naive reading of these depictions that casts doubt on their credibility, but a naive reading of just about anything will do that. In such cases, the doubt is unwarranted.
Scott wrote:
”Again, these naive depictions of reality cast significant doubt on the credibility of those who make claims about God and the resurrection of Jesus.”
I agree. To argue against Craig’s historicity of the resurrection is a waste of time. Let us allow it to have happened for the sake of the debate and then show the absurdity of its consequences.
Eric eplied:
”It seems to me that if you were to write an essay on Jesus' resurrection body and argue that if he ate, his body must've contained bacteria, and that therefore bacteria must be resurrected, your paper would be returned with quite a bit of red ink on it. “Red ink applied by who? Theologians or biologists? You seem to miss the point that it is not that bacteria have a symbiotic relationship with the human body but that the human body cannot survive without certain bacteria in its gut to enable digestion. The point of the fish-eating episode was to demonstrate that Jesus arose with a normal body, i.e. a normal, working body requiring food to survive notwithstanding one badly wounded and with crushed ankle bones.
Even St Paul seemed to recognize that this was a ridiculous view of the resurrection.
Eric, Samphire makes some great points.
I would assume you have an invested interest in religion in that one day you hope of make a living with the Christian religion.
The Gospels are not a philosophical rhetoric, but were written as John 20:31 states: But these have been recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and so that through believing you may have life in his name.If you are simply a non-believer with a major in Comparative Literature, then I might understand your objections and questions.
But, on the other hand, if you are a liberal Christian seeking to justify the life of Jesus with other mythological literature (as your reference to Borg seems to suggest), then I would strongly disagree with your proposals.
Finally, I discussed this view with James M. Robinson (School of Theology at Claremont, retired) some 15 years ago and he agreed with my conclusions about these miracle stories.
The relationship you proposed of a general harmonization of the Jesus miracle tells with other general myths is one the early Church would find highly offensive.
Why would I, as a Christian, even care whether or not there are bacteria in Heaven? Or toilets, or food, or animals, or anything else?
Did somebody make the claim that there are only ever people in Heaven, and I missed it?
Christians believe that God created mankind within the context of the material world, bacteria and all. Why could He not include some similar context for us in Heaven? Of course, He wouldn't have to--He could certainly design a body for me to inhabit that has no need for food or bacteria, and He may very well do that. But He might not.
Harry, you're making a claim that does not contradict any of the doctrines that I hold. Your argument seems to be directed at 4-year-olds with a Sunday school felt board picture in their head of heaven with robes and harps and sandals and clouds.
(And I have to point out to Mark that Paul used the word 'bowels' the way we use the word 'heart'. Yes, it's funny, ha ha, koine greek has different figures of speech from English.)
Eric it's not clear to me what point you are making.
Here is a list of characters you have referenced to compare to Jesus:
1. Odin
2. Hephaestus
3. Zeus
4. Hamlet's father's ghost
5. Hermes
See if you can figure out what those figures have in common.
I'll help you.
They are all imaginary.
If your argument is that you don't need to worry about the physical realities that effect imaginary beings, I think you have made a wonderful point.
If, however, for some reason you believe all these beings are real, you have a great deal of gullibility, but at least you're consistent.
The one position that would make no sense at all is to suggest that all those beings are imaginary but your Palestinian God-man was a real, walk-through-the-walls non-ghost, spiritual flesh-and-blood but no bacteria-having historical figure. That would be nutty.
That, as far as I can tell, is Harry's point.
Argue against the existence of Odin, Hermes and ghosts all you want. I'll applaud.
Eric,
If you watch the show 24, you know the lead character (Jack Bauer) is never shown eating (or using the rest room) despite the show supposedly being a minute by minute depiction of a 24 hour day. Clearly, this is intentional as there is nothing unusual about a living person eating, etc.
However, Jesus is depicted as eating fish which was given to him. What should we make of such a depiction?
Eating, along with appearing as an animated, solid being to those who are alive, is usually something that only living people did. Should someone who was supposedly dead start doing these things, they would be interpreted as being alive.
So here we find Jesus, who supposedly isn't normal, depicted as doing something normal for living beings. The question becomes, what's really going on here?
Is the Bible merely depicting Jesus as eating food because that's something dead people did not do (and they wanted to depict Jesus as someone who was alive), or was it because Jesus actually ate fish he was given?
While it may have seem like a good idea at the time, depicting Jesus as eating food seems like a poor choice given what we now know about digestion. In other words, this is the kind of thing we'd expect from an ancient people who was intentionally depicting Jesus as performing specific actions that living people do.
Is anything 'essential' to their nature lost, or is this better described as an 'accidental' difference? It seems to me that such a difference is accidental. But if this is the case, the notion that a resurrected body must contain bacteria is absurd.What seems absurd is the idea that the mere depiction of Jesus doing things that living people did means it was factual that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
Unless there is some kind of connection between what is implied and what we know is factual, such as human beings who are alive utilize bacterial to digest food, you might as well say Jesus was resurrected simply because he is Biblically defined as a being that was "resurrected." Whether he ate food, appeared solid when touched by disciples, etc., is essentially meaningless as they seem to have no correlation to reality.
Luke-Acts features something new not found in Paul or the earlier two Gospels, Mark and Matthew.
Luke-Acts features a risen Jesus saying he is "not a spirit" at all, but "flesh and bone," and he eats some fish, and then "led them out [from Jerusalem] to Bethany" where he rises up into the sky (Luke-Acts).
So the fish in Jesus' stomach ascended into heaven with him, and became immortal "fish in Jesus' stomach."
Contra Paul's story which is earlier and speaks about Jesus being at least part "spirit," having a "spiritual body," instead of "not a spirit at all." In fact Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 6:13 & 15:50, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," and, "Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them."
See also my discussion of N.T. Wright's and J.P. Holding's interpretations of such passages in this Debunking Christianity article:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/05/no-stomach-for-nt-wright-but-what-about.html
"You seem to miss the point that it is not that bacteria have a symbiotic relationship with the human body but that the human body cannot survive without certain bacteria in its gut to enable digestion. The point of the fish-eating episode was to demonstrate that Jesus arose with a normal body, i.e. a normal, working body requiring food to survive notwithstanding one badly wounded and with crushed ankle bones."
Samphire, I haven't missed the point, I'm questioning its premise. Again, I'm well aware of the fact that a normal human body cannot survive without bacteria (indeed, that it's composed largely of such bacteria). My point is that it's obvious, *given the data Harry is using* (i.e. the Gospel accounts), that Jesus' body wasn't 'normal.' The claim isn't that Jesus was resuscitated, but that he was resurrected. Jesus ate, yes, and this is normal; but he also disappeared, which is decidedly not normal. In this context, it's patently silly to suggest that since he ate, he *needed* to eat to survive. He also walked, but again, in the context of the story, he apparently didn't *need* to walk to move from place to place. I would say that the point of mentioning Jesus eating isn't to make it clear that he had *a normal body*, but to make it clear that he had *a body*. Harry is, I'm sure, well aware of the theological reasons for this increasingly emphasized element of the post resurrection narratives, and it had nothing to do with 'normal' bodies. (This makes your complimenting of Samphire's ignorance of this fact in making his/her point baffling, Harry.)
"I would assume you have an invested interest in religion in that one day you hope of make a living with the Christian religion."
None whatsoever.
"The Gospels are not a philosophical rhetoric...If you are simply a non-believer with a major in Comparative Literature, then I might understand your objections and questions."
Your arguments have been based entirely on what the texts say, and what we know about the human body from modern science. Given this, my point wouldn't be affected at all by the evangelists' intentions. The issue isn't what they intended, but what we're justified in inferring from what they produced.
"The relationship you proposed of a general harmonization of the Jesus miracle tells with other general myths is one the early Church would find highly offensive."
But that wasn't my point. My point concerned the reasonable reading of texts.
"Here is a list of characters you have referenced to compare to Jesus...See if you can figure out what those figures have in common.
I'll help you.
They are all imaginary."
Um, I didn't compare them to Jesus. I was bringing up stories about *embodied* figures who didn't possess *normal* bodies.
That aside, they're all also male. See? It's quite simple to point out irrelevant dis-analogies, isn't it?
"If your argument is that you don't need to worry about the physical realities that effect imaginary beings, I think you have made a wonderful point."
Nope. Rather, we don't have any reason to ascribe normal 'physical realities' to beings in a story who are not portrayed as normal. Note, Harry was going along with the story -- he's granting, for the sake of argument, that Jesus was resurrected. The issue is, do we have any grounds for thinking that his resurrected body contained resurrected bacteria? You can't argue that since normal bodies do, his did; his body wasn't normal.
"If, however, for some reason you believe all these beings are real, you have a great deal of gullibility, but at least you're consistent."
You have an odd conception of consistency. I would love to hear what would make an acceptance of all these beings consistent!
"The one position that would make no sense at all is to suggest that all those beings are imaginary but your Palestinian God-man was a real, walk-through-the-walls non-ghost, spiritual flesh-and-blood but no bacteria-having historical figure. That would be nutty."
The issue I've been addressing isn't whether any of these beings is real or imaginary, but what we can reasonably infer about them from the data the texts provide. That aside, do you honestly think that the reasons for believing that Odin, Zeus, Hephaestus, Hermes and the ghost of Hamlet's father existed are in any sense comparable to the reasons one can marshall for believing that Jesus existed, or even for believing that he was resurrected?
Logismous Kathairountes might a Quote you the refrain of a popular Christian hymn that might describe your logic?
Only believe; only believe. All things are possible. Only believe!
Evan, super points on Eric’s comments!
Scott, you make a great point about the show 24.
In the Gospels Jesus NEVER used his bodily functions to relieve himself. Just might Jesus not had any E. Coli in his gut to digest food?
Come to think of it, nobody in the entire four Gospels EVER uses their bodily function to relieve themselves.
Maybe holy men, under the blessing of God, can just hold it! (Or maybe everyone in the Gospel narratives (with their wild miracle tells) are simply full of shit!)
 Eric said...
”Samphire, I haven't missed the point, I'm questioning its premise. Again, I'm well aware of the fact that a normal human body cannot survive without bacteria (indeed, that it's composed largely of such bacteria). My point is that it's obvious, *given the data Harry is using* (i.e. the Gospel accounts), that Jesus' body wasn't 'normal.' The claim isn't that Jesus was resuscitated, but that he was resurrected.”
Are you able to define the difference between the two states? Over at the link given by Ed above, Supt Harvey claimed that the difference is between a body of flesh and bone and one of flesh, bone and blood. According to Harvey, Christ’s blood was not revived,restored, resuscitated or resurrected. Why? Because Paul wrote that flesh and blood cannot inherit eternal life - whereas, it seems, flesh and bone can. No mention of skin, teeth, cartilage, hair or finger/toenails (no mention of the sense of smell either. What use would that be in heaven?). What happened to the blood he doesn’t say. I think we can infer from the gospels that it wasn’t found in the tomb and it certainly wasn’t all soaked up by the Shroud of Turin. Which is a shame because we might have been able to carry out some DNA tests to see whether or not Jesus had an earthly father.
So, according to Harvey, Jesus was able to converse with his disciples without any blood in his brain or his tongue muscle. Well done, Jesus. And Harvey.
Eric, I accept that you are putting the case forward from the perspective of the gospel writer. My point is that from a naturalistic position it is an invented perspective as, irrespective of what was in the mind of the evangelist, the logical consequences falsify the literal truth of the resurrection. My contention is that it is a waste of time trying to prove or disprove the historicity of the resurrection event because it does not rely on “factuality” but, as you rightly point out, theological perspective. As a factual event, it didn’t happen because, had it done so, the resultant absurdities overrule its possibility. Like going back in time to kill your grandfather. Groundhog day all over again.
”it's patently silly to suggest that since he ate, he *needed* to eat to survive.”
Not silly - just not logically proven. It is a reasonable presumption to make in the light of the claim that Christ triumphed over death. If he did so then he was alive. If he was alive then he needed to eat. That is what live people do or else they die.
”Harry is, I'm sure, well aware of the theological reasons for this increasingly emphasized element of the post resurrection narratives, and it had nothing to do with 'normal' bodies.”
Take up the point with Craig. He may disagree with you.
”(This makes your complimenting of Samphire's ignorance of this fact in making his/her point baffling, Harry.)”
Err…. I am actually well aware of these issues. My comments relate to the absurdity and disconnection of the resurrection stories within, firstly, Paul’s epistles and then the gospels and, lastly, Acts.
Eric,
The issue I've been addressing isn't whether any of these beings is real or imaginary, but what we can reasonably infer about them from the data the texts provide. That aside, do you honestly think that the reasons for believing that Odin, Zeus, Hephaestus, Hermes and the ghost of Hamlet's father existed are in any sense comparable to the reasons one can marshall for believing that Jesus existed, or even for believing that he was resurrected?Yes.
All we have as data for any of them are stories.
None are written about by contemporaries or eyewitnesses (not that that would make the story believable, but it would suggest more historicity to some core story).
The stories include incredible things like a baby being born out of someone's forehead (Zeus), or a baby being born to a virgin (Jesus).
The stories suggest an understanding of the world that no longer makes sense. Gods live on the tops of mountains or in deep caves (Zeus, Hephaestus), or you can rise up into the sky and find gods (Jesus, Hermes).
With the exception of Hamlet's father's ghost, who is a fictional character in an obviously fictional work, they were widely believed by ancient superstitious people on the basis of no physical evidence at all.
So yes, I put them all in the same category. The question is why you don't.
Eric: " do you honestly think that the reasons for believing that Odin, Zeus, Hephaestus, Hermes and the ghost of Hamlet's father existed are in any sense comparable to the reasons one can marshall for believing that Jesus existed, or even for believing that he was resurrected?"
Evan: "Yes... So yes, I put them all in the same category. The question is why you don't."
Let's approach this obliquely, and lets begin with the first half of the disjunction I presented you with.
I can name dozens of historians who specialize in the first century, who are atheists, and who believe that Jesus existed. Indeed, it's safe to say that the vast majority of such scholars believe that Jesus existed.
Can you name a single historian who specializes in, say, the Archaic period of ancient Greece, who is an atheist, and who believes Zeus existed? And if you can't, don't we have a prima facie case that, with respect to the existence of these figures, they're not in the same category?
Eric,
I agree that Jesus eating fish in no way "proves" he had bacteria in his stomach.
The point I think we're trying to make is that when Jesus is depicted as doing anything, including supposedly visiting someone after being crucified, these specific actions had specific implications at the time. The question becomes, what are the implications of these depictions in our present reality?
Apparently, the implications of eating food are only conditionally factual. When we were ignorant about digestion, Jesus' eating fish was proof that he a bodily resurrected being. But when we learn that flesh and blood living beings have evolved to form a symbiotic relationship with bacteria, scriptural depictions of Jesus eating fish only imply that he was something other than "dead" (whatever that means). Any potential connections we might make with reality based on these depictions are "absurd."
How do we know that Jesus wasn't simply depicted as doing things that dead people did not do with the intent of making Jesus appear to have been resurrected, when in reality he was not? Why should the same sources that depict Jesus as eating fish be trusteed when they say Jesus physically appeared to his disciples?
If we cannot make connections between what Jesus is depicted as doing in the Bible and reality, then you might as well say Jesus was resurrected (whatever that means) because that's how he is defined in the Bible. His actions mean whatever you decide they mean, which need not correlate to anything we know about anything.
If this is the case, then why should we assume that anything depicted in the Bible is actually relevant or has implications to anything in our present or future reality?
Guys, consider the evidence that Jesus of Galilee just might be the legend of Judas of Galilee full grown.
What evidence? Judas and Jesus both physically entered the temple grounds and caused a big row.
Jesus and Judas both had thousands of followers.
Jesus and Judas both were accused of teaching the people to not pay the Roman tribute.
Jesus and Judas both had disciples named James and Simon.
Jesus and Judas both claimed to be the Messiah.
We could say the same thing about Jesus ascending into the clouds.
If the authors of Bible wanted to give the impression that a post-resurrected Jesus took his "rightful place" at the right hand of God, by what means would they do so? Given that people thought God was seated above the firmament, they would likely depict Jesus as actually ascending into the clouds on the way to meet God.
But we've been to the edge of space and beyond - we didn't find God or Jesus sitting there. Again, this is the sort of thing we'd expect an ancient culture to depict Jesus doing if they wanted to intentionally imply Jesus "returned" to be with God.
So how do we differentiate between people reporting Jesus ascending into the clouds and Jesus appearing to his disciples after being crucified? When should we think something depicted in the Bible implies a corresponding fact that actually exist in reality?
Were we unable to falsify the belief that God was seated just above the earth's atmosphere, it appears that the claim that Jesus ascended into the clouds would be perceived just as factual as the claim that Jesus was resurrected from the dead or was reunited with God after physically appearing to his disciples.
It seems that, unless it can be falsified, we're expected to accept Biblical claims as factual (or interpreted in a quasi-favorable way, as with Jesus' depiction of eating fish.)
Eric: I can name dozens of historians who specialize in the first century, who are atheists, and who believe that Jesus existed. Indeed, it's safe to say that the vast majority of such scholars believe that Jesus existed.Re: Is this your understanding of us as atheist?
Josephus mentions 21 Jesus figures in his works, so who and whatever this New Testament Jesus figure is he existed.
But why stop with the Canonical texts and not the apocryphal childhood Gospel of Thomas? Is it because in your view of Jesus he could not hurt other children and adults?
Aren’t we now addressing Eric’s exclusive view of who and what Jesus was just as we could be addressing who and what Jesus was according to Mary Baker Eddy?
That is, when does historical Christology stop and Eric’s personal apologetics begin? I say this in that we a at DC are using established human physiology and not some exclusive view.
In Matt. 27:51-53 we read: And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.So was the resurrection of these saints the same as Jesus' resurrected body? And if not why not? If so, how was their resurrected body the same as Jesus' in that just why could they not move though walls too. In short, how is Jesus’ resurrected body not any different from these Jewish saints?
Secondly, how does the Son of God, Jesus, get confused in Matt. 27:9 by thinking a passage from Zechariah is found in Jeremiah? Could this confusion also be equated to the fact that one can eat food with no E. coli in their gut?
I can name dozens of historians who specialize in the first century, who are atheists, and who believe that Jesus existed. Indeed, it's safe to say that the vast majority of such scholars believe that Jesus existed.First, please name a dozen atheist scholars of the New Testament. I'd love to see a list. Atheist scholars of the first century who haven't specialized in the NT are probably not qualified to discuss the issue to any degree greater than atheist Old Testament scholars (another group I'd like to see a list of 12 of).
Thanks in advance.
Second, how many of those 12 atheist scholars agree that Jesus was resurrected and ate fish?
Thanks in advance.
Finally, do you believe that because there was a man named John Henry? If you do, does that require you to believe that all stories about John Henry are likely to be true?
Post a Comment