Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!Keebler
From: Keebler@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Keebler)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: re: What is the meaning of Christ's  resurrection  after three days?
Message-ID: <234@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 03:11:58 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.234
Posted: Fri Apr 12 03:11:58 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Apr-85 06:23:40 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 66

___________________________________________________________________

> Why must the Bible be made to fit in with science?

It doesn't.

> If you believe in the Bible, which it appears you do, how can you
> ignore  the  literalness  of  the disciples seeing, touching, and
> talking with Jesus after He  was  raised  (physically)  from  the
> dead.   Paul in the epistles explains that if we believe in Jesus
> and He did not (materially) rise from the dead, then we are to be
> most pitied.
> 
> The significance of Jesus'  resurrection?   ALL  OF  CHRISTIANITY
> STANDS ON IT!!!!!

All the more reason you would want to ignore anything else which
might contradict your beliefs if you hold your beliefs dearly.

> It means we serve a living God!! JESUS!!!  That  sets  Him  apart
> from  Mohammed  and  any other "man".  It means we can know Jesus
> today because He LIVES!
>
> So what if the Bible "appears" to conflict with science?  I don't
> really  know  of  anything  that  does conflict as of yet.  (here
> comes the responses, I can see them now... :) ).

Well, here's one of many which you expect:  A good example is the
references to a flat earth.  Another, which is being debated in
net.origins, is the entire process of evolution.  If you consider
yourself to be in basically the same frame of mind as the theis-
tic evolutionists--that is, you take the book of Genesis and/or
the history written in the Bible as metaphorical/allegorical,
rather than literal--then the conflict eases considerably.  The
Bible necessarily conflicts with science on areas of supernatural
occurances, such as the Resurrection.  Even if Christ did come
back to life, science could not possibly explain it in terms of
spiritual revival/Divine interference/etc ...  That is forbidden
in science since a fundamental assumption in science is that na-
ture is consistent and independent, thus automatically excluding
supernatural explanations for events.  There are also the problems
with new discoveries.  Suppose one found a way to revive someone
after death through some drug.  What are the implications for the
resurrection of Jesus?  For one thing, straightforward proofs of
his revival will not serve as evidence of Divine interference (or
whatever), since it is proven to be possible through natural means.
(We currently consider it to be impossible, so we can consider a
proof of the resurrection of Jesus to be proof of Divine inter-
ference or whatever; outside of science, of course.)

> Make your choice, believe in ONENESS or whatever  you  want,  but
> don't include Jesus because He didn't, and doesn't teach that!
>
> He said, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO MAN COME TO THE
> FATHER BUT THROUGH ME.
>
> karen

I personally find it hard to believe that there is anything that is
strictly outside of nature.  But then again, perhaps Someone might
prove me wrong.
___________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.

Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }