Reincarnation-from Philosophy

[Mojoforyeshua]

Hello there everyone!

I have seen quite a few threads about the question if the Bible teaches reincarnation or not, which is most easily disputed with the verse from Hebrews 9:27 among others. It is quite clear that the Bible does not teach reincarnation and therefor it is quite unreasonable and irreconcilable with the faith for a Christian to believe in any such doctrine. But what I am am looking for isn’t a Biblical defense against it but rather a philosophical one that can be presented to someone who doesn’t take the Bible as authority.

I am also completely aware that there are a number of divergent beliefs regarding reincarnation and that pinning down every single one of them would be like trying to cut every blade of grass in a yard with a pair of scissors. I’m also not usually satisfied with a straw-man case against any belief system and I like to start from a relatively neutral view point. However since I am quite thoroughly and completely convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church that God Himself founded, I am obligated by logical consistency to agree with the Church and Scripture that reincarnation is false.

Would any of you happen to know a book on the issue of reincarnation that gives a fair explanation and overview of the popular beliefs reincarnation which also gives a refutation,philosophically, of that view? I would like to know more about it and see what people who are much more intelligent than I, with much more experience and education have to say about the issue so that I may better understand and explain the faith. Again, I am not looking for a scriptural argument but one that is historical, scientific and philosophical.

Shalom-
John

 

[DavidFilmer]

The biggest logical problem with the idea of reincarnation, to me, is the fact that the population is growing. Everyone agrees that there was a time that we had a small number of humans, but that number has gotten much larger over time.

So where do these new souls come from? I assume we don’t want to bring God into the discussion.

For sake of discussion, let’s suppose new souls come from the Karma Well (I just made that up). Then the next question is: why don’t ALL people get a new soul from the Karma Well? Why do some people get new souls, and others get used souls? And, who decides?

Does the Karma Well already contain every soul that will ever be, or does it create new souls when necessary? How does that work? (if the Karma Well creates souls on-demand, it is getting pretty similar to the idea of God)

But, then, how does the soul get from the Karma Well (or the previous “host”) into a new body? Remember, we can’t have recourse to God, so the soul would presumably do this under its own power. How does that work? Do souls wander around looking for some recently-impregnated woman to pounce on? And, if the Karma Well contains every soul that would ever be, competition must be pretty fierce for these women.

And, what happens when the population declines (as it has during time of plague, etc)? Do souls just hang out somewhere until a new body is available? Where is that place? And why can’t all souls just go there and stay after their body dies? (kinda like Heaven)

It just seems the more questions you ask, the less logical it sounds.

 

[Pieman333272]

I’m not sure if this is only against Christian Reincarnation or other or more forms, but I’veheard of Norman Giesler’s The Reincarnation Sensation.

 

[GEddie]

The big problem with Reincarnation is that, since “you” are the mind (actually the thinking body), and your mind/soul is the mind/soul of your body, then given that the.
“new person” gets his or her own “new mind”, there is no YOU that can reincarnate!

Whatever is “recycled” into the new being (assuming it is human), for YOU, the mind/body, reincarnation would be effectively the same as a total loss of being.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[rossum]

The biggest logical problem with the idea of reincarnation, to me, is the fact that the population is growing. Everyone agrees that there was a time that we had a small number of humans, but that number has gotten much larger over time.

As the OP pointed out, there a number of different forms of belief in reincarnation. Your argument here is weak against most of them. Indian religions generally allow that one can be reborn on other planets in the universe, one can be reborn as an animal and that sojourns in hells and heavens are temporary. There are a great many places where one can be reborn while not being a human on Earth.

And, what happens when the population declines (as it has during time of plague, etc)? Do souls just hang out somewhere until a new body is available? Where is that place? And why can’t all souls just go there and stay after their body dies? (kinda like Heaven)

Souls hang out as animals, on other planets, in one of the hells or in one of the heavens. From time to time the entire material universe is destroyed and remade so for that time all souls are in non-material bodies in one or other of the heavens or hells.

The basic point to remember is that souls are not specifically human souls. They are souls and may be reborn in a hell, as an animal, as an angel, as a god, as an alien or as a human. There is no great divide between humans and the rest of life; we have been them and they have been us.

rossum

 

[dmar198]

Hello there everyone!

I have seen quite a few threads about the question if the Bible teaches reincarnation or not, which is most easily disputed with the verse from Hebrews 9:27 among others. It is quite clear that the Bible does not teach reincarnation and therefor it is quite unreasonable and irreconcilable with the faith for a Christian to believe in any such doctrine. But what I am am looking for isn’t a Biblical defense against it but rather a philosophical one that can be presented to someone who doesn’t take the Bible as authority.

I am also completely aware that there are a number of divergent beliefs regarding reincarnation and that pinning down every single one of them would be like trying to cut every blade of grass in a yard with a pair of scissors. I’m also not usually satisfied with a straw-man case against any belief system and I like to start from a relatively neutral view point. However since I am quite thoroughly and completely convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church that God Himself founded, I am obligated by logical consistency to agree with the Church and Scripture that reincarnation is false.

Would any of you happen to know a book on the issue of reincarnation that gives a fair explanation and overview of the popular beliefs reincarnation which also gives a refutation,philosophically, of that view? I would like to know more about it and see what people who are much more intelligent than I, with much more experience and education have to say about the issue so that I may better understand and explain the faith. Again, I am not looking for a scriptural argument but one that is historical, scientific and philosophical.

Shalom-
John

Reincarnation supporters often say that your species in the next life is a reward or a punishment for your conduct in this life: if you’re bad, you become a slug, if you’re good, you become perhaps an angel, or a very rich man with lots of wives.

Now here’s 3 arguments against Reincarnationism:

1. Since we cannot remember our previous lives, there is no way we can be mindful of the reward or punishment. Punishment is not punishment if we do not realize we are being punished, and a reward is not a reward if we do not realize it is a reward.
2. Suppose you become a slug in the next life. A slug cannot sin or do good works; it has no moral character. So how do you get out of that state? Leave a perfectly slimy trail? It takes a mind to choose the right, so reincarnation does not account for the lower life forms. There are two alternatives: the Christian doctrine is that the soul (rational or non-rational) is directly created by God, a rational soul for a man and an irrational soul for an animal. The Reincarnationist idea is that the soul is not created by God but always existed and continually returns in a different species. But the Reincarnationist idea cannot account for the lower life forms, therefore there is only one alternative: the Christian one. That proves the Christian doctrine true: the soul is directly created by God in the lower life forms, and if in them, then reincarnation is unnecessary in the higher life forms too, since there is already a proven method for getting a soul: direct creation by God.
3. Reincarnation posits that all souls have always existed and are just returning, continually, in various bodies; but there are more and more bodies being born all the time. At some point, the number of bodies must exceed the number of souls who have ever existed. Then what? Do the bodies just get no souls, because nobody has died yet to come back re-incarnate? Or do the bodies get souls directly created by some Being above us all?

Reincarnation always falls apart, in a number of ways it actually proves itself unable to account for the creation of people, body and soul. Only the Christian understanding can account for the way the world works, the way people come into existence, and, ultimately, only Christianity can account for the existence of anything at all.

 

[rossum]

Now here’s 3 arguments against Reincarnationism:

1. Since we cannot remember our previous lives, there is no way we can be mindful of the reward or punishment. Punishment is not punishment if we do not realize we are being punished, and a reward is not a reward if we do not realize it is a reward.

Can you remember being born? Does that mean it didn’t happen. It takes work to learn how to remember that far back. The Visuddhimagga, Chapter Thirteen contains the instructions if you really want to remember your past lives.

1. Suppose you become a slug in the next life. A slug cannot sin or do good works; it has no moral character.

Since you cannot remember being a slug you are not speaking from experience. Some dogs attack humans, other dogs help humans. Anything that is conscious can act morally. I am not sure how much consciousness a slug has however.

1. Reincarnation posits that all souls have always existed and are just returning, continually, in various bodies; but there are more and more bodies being born all the time.

I have already dealt with this, see my post #5 in this thread.

rossum

 

[dmar198]

Can you remember being born?

No.

Does that mean it didn’t happen.

It does not mean that, nor did I say it does. I said that to punish someone requires that they be aware of the punishment. Imagine punishing somebody by taking something they’ve never heard of, hiding it where they will never find it, and never telling them about it. This is what reincarnation does: it punishes you by banishing you into a new body where you never have any clue that you are being punished, or whether you did anything wrong. Imagine someone repenting for sins of past lives after they find themselves a beggar: how do they make amends? Precisely what should they repent of? They don’t know what they did wrong nor what compensates for their transgression. Better to improve a state you have no fault for being in, than to believe in reincarnation and pity yourself since you cannot amend the wrong you’ve forgotten.

The Visuddhimagga, Chapter Thirteen contains the instructions if you really want to remember your past lives.

First, remembering implies memories. Some creatures don’t have memories, for lack of brains. So it is beyond the pale of possibility to “remember” what such a life was like. Second, if you want to remember what something is like, there has to be something analogous in your own life to compare it to. Remembering what something is like is, normally, possible. For something totally unfamiliar to you or your experiences, remembering it as it truly is, is impossible – and some of these states into which we pass must be totally unfamiliar to us and our experiences, beyond the pale both of analogy and of “knowing it as it is.” So there’s another argument against reincarnation.

Since you cannot remember being a slug you are not speaking from experience. Some dogs attack humans, other dogs help humans. Anything that is conscious can act morally. I am not sure how much consciousness a slug has however.

That is precisely the problem with your doctrine: slugs have no consciousness, nor worms, nor bacteria – they have no moral character so you could never escape from that state.

I have already dealt with this, see my post #5 in this thread.

You did deal with the “increasing population = increasing amount of souls” argument, by answering that reincarnation allows populations to be decreasing in other parts of the universe and thus, dying bodies elsewhere give their souls to new bodies here. You import absurdities to explain an absurdity: the reincarnation idea can be dealt with simply enough by denying reincarnation; the alternative “decreasing populations in other parts of the universe” complicates things, brings in more baggage to the reincarnation theory, and doesn’t deal with the essential problem: there is no evidence for reincarnation, no data that it is necessary to explain. Bring in a single difficulty, such as the fact that reincarnation makes alien-life necessary, and reincarnation, which is not necessary, should simply be thrown out, rather than adding in more unnecessary ideas to fix the theory’s problems. In fact – positing more people on more planets just gives more evidence for one God. Grant Him, and reincarnation becomes superfluous, and in fact, falls apart.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Hey Rossum

Thanks again for your reply on my thread.

On this issue, when I was involved with an eastern practice I could never get around the fact of the miracles of Christ when he preformed resurrections and Resurrected Himself, or when St. Peter preformed a resurrection, or when St. Vincent (14th century saint) resurrected 30 people during his time.

How do you approach this with the theory of reincarnation? In Buddhism: Upon death, the soul enters into Samsara and is reincarnated into a new life, what that life is depends on how you lived your last. But then we have Christianity full of the miracle of resurrection.

Looking forward to your reponse.

 

[rossum]

I said that to punish someone requires that they be aware of the punishment. Imagine punishing somebody by taking something they’ve never heard of, hiding it where they will never find it, and never telling them about it.

Have you ever been to the Christian hell? If I want to remember my previous lives then the instructions are available. If I chose not to remember then I still have the advice passed down in scriptures about how I should conduct myself in order to avoid the hells. I am in precisely the same position as any Christian.

First, remembering implies memories. Some creatures don’t have memories, for lack of brains.

Don’t you believe in a soul? Do souls have physical brains? When in heaven or hell will souls be able to remember things that happened when they still had a body with a brain in it?

Buddhism sees all material living things as having both material and immaterial components. Memory is one of the immaterial components. Does Christianity say that memory is a purely material component?

That is precisely the problem with your doctrine: slugs have no consciousness, nor worms, nor bacteria – they have no moral character so you could never escape from that state.

Again, you are looking at solely at the material component. You also need to consider the immaterial component. Consciousness is one of the immaterial components of a living thing.

You did deal with the “increasing population = increasing amount of souls” argument, by answering that reincarnation allows populations to be decreasing in other parts of the universe and thus, dying bodies elsewhere give their souls to new bodies here. You import absurdities to explain an absurdity

Is the idea of heaven an absurdity? Is the idea of hell an absurdity?

The Buddhist heavens are all temporary; after a sojourn in a heaven you die there and are reborn elsewhere. Similarly the hells; once you have served your time you die in hell and are reborn elsewhere. Again, you seem to be forgetting the immaterial aspect of things and concentrating solely on the material aspect. Even there your position is weak; astronomers have discovered many extra-solar planets.

rossum

 

[rossum]

On this issue, when I was involved with an eastern practice I could never get around the fact of the miracles of Christ when he preformed resurrections and Resurrected Himself, or when St. Peter preformed a resurrection, or when St. Vincent (14th century saint) resurrected 30 people during his time.

All religions have their miracles. Vimalakirti fed 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice. The Buddha performed the Miracle of the Pairs.

How do you approach this with the theory of reincarnation? In Buddhism: Upon death, the soul enters into Samsara and is reincarnated into a new life, what that life is depends on how you lived your last.

I suspect that some ancient reports of resurrections were actually people recovering from a death-like coma. Others are just the kind of stories that get attached to famous people. Recovery from a real death is not possible, though an avatar of a god could easily fake their death very convincingly. Recovery from a death-like coma is possible for humans, but rare.

rossum

 

[dmar198]

Have you ever been to the Christian hell?

First, no, I haven’t; and second, that has nothing to do with the topic. In hell you are aware of your punishment and of what you did to get there.

If I want to remember my previous lives then the instructions are available. If I chose not to remember then I still have the advice passed down in scriptures about how I should conduct myself in order to avoid the hells. I am in precisely the same position as any Christian.

Wrong. A Christian knows that it is possible to make an eternal decision. You live this life building a wall or tearing one down between you and God; when you die, that wall is either there forever, or gone forever. You are absolutely not in the same position as Christianity, where after death comes judgment, and then, eternal beatitude for the just, or eternal torment for the wicked.

Don’t you believe in a soul?

Yes.

Do souls have physical brains?

No.

When in heaven or hell will souls be able to remember things that happened when they still had a body with a brain in it?

What souls will be able to do is not the same thing as “remembering”. All previously acquired knowledge is present to the soul, without the struggles that come from trying to manage it through a sluggish and often-forgetful brain. Think of the brain as the instrument of the mind. The mind is much greater than its instrument, but it can be hampered by its instrument’s weaknesses, just as a great musician can be hampered by a broken piano. Well, it is the same with the brain. In paradise, our brains worked great, and in the Resurrection, they will work perfectly; but right now, they are often slow to find information we do know, and they lose information very often, and our minds cannot access that information – due to the broken instrument – until we are either disencumbered of our body by death, or our body is glorified and perfected in the Resurrection.

But back to the point – the soul will have perfect knowledge of its prior and present actions, due to its mind. The soul of a slug or a worm, due to its lack of brain, cannot store memories here in this body-constrained condition, and it could not have any knowledge of previous actions in the next life (if it even went there), due to its lack of mind. And even if it gained a mind, that mind did not produce its prior actions, so it could not know them except by revelation from Another.

Buddhism sees all material living things as having both material and immaterial components. Memory is one of the immaterial components.

Memory lapses happen when the brain is jogged. That proves that knowledge is stored in matter, and this storage is called memory.

Does Christianity say that memory is a purely material component?

Knowledge is not purely material, and memory is a kind of knowledge. It is knowledge stored in matter, so it is not purely immaterial either; and the storage is sometimes corrupted, resulting in lost knowledge, for now. After the death of the body, we will know all our actions, perfectly and immediately, whether they were present or previous. Worms or slugs cannot possibly do this, for lack of mind, and in this life they cannot store knowledge, due to lack of brain.

Again, you are looking at solely at the material component. You also need to consider the immaterial component. Consciousness is one of the immaterial components of a living thing.

Our consciousness is expressed in our bodily actions. We know each other to be conscious because we speak to one another, act with self-control, etc. Slugs and worms and jellyfish and starfish and sponges and bacteria, not so much. If they did have consciousness, they would all be immoral, because they all act as if they did not, which would be immoral; but the fact is that they do not have consciousness at all.

Is the idea of heaven an absurdity? Is the idea of hell an absurdity?

It depends on whether they are temporary or eternal. The fact of eternal destinations makes sense because humans can make eternal decisions; and the possibility to make eternal decisions makes sense because the soul, which makes decisions, is immortal. I do not think Buddhism allows any of this, since any state of being, in Buddhism, is temporary. But any denial of reality is absurd. So Buddhism is absurd.

Again, you seem to be forgetting the immaterial aspect of things and concentrating solely on the material aspect. Even there your position is weak; astronomers have discovered many extra-solar planets.

Extra-solar life is different from extra-solar planets. And extra-solar intelligent life is different from extra-solar life. And even if we discover all three, we will have discovered more of creation, which is more proof of the Creator, and more proof against Buddhism.

 

[dmar198]

All religions have their miracles. Vimalakirti fed 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice. The Buddha performed the Miracle of the Pairs.

Let’s suppose for a moment that they performed miracles. Where did all the rice come from? Was it created ex nihilo? Does Buddhism allow the special creation of matter? If of matter, why not of the soul? All miracles, if true, are proof of God. And if the miracles are false, they are proof that the performer was not supernatural.

I suspect that some ancient reports of resurrections were actually people recovering from a death-like coma.

First, the Resurrection of Jesus was not a recovery from a death-like coma. The Romans perfected the art of execution by crucifixion, and no one could survive. Jesus, therefore, truly died. And He truly rose again. Even his enemies (Saul of Tarsus) witnessed Him alive after His death.

Second, isn’t it interesting that Buddhists will allow the soul to migrate from body to body, but not to the same body it came from? They will allow a man to come from a mule, but not John Henry to come from John Henry! If the soul migrates from matter to matter, then it is, in fact, much more likely that it will return to the matter from whence it came, than to go into matter it has never known at all.

 

[rossum]

First, no, I haven’t

I will have been in a Buddhist hell, and if I wanted to take the time I could remember having been there. Your complaint of the lack of knowledge in Buddhism is false.

In hell you are aware of your punishment and of what you did to get there.

How do you know? You have just admitted that you have never been there.

A Christian knows that it is possible to make an eternal decision.

Very few things are eternal. One of the points on which Christianity and Buddhism differ is the eternality, or not, of the heavens, the hells and the gods. If you are arguing with a Buddhist you cannot merely assert Christian doctrine and not expect it to be challenged.

You are absolutely not in the same position as Christianity, where after death comes judgment,

On this part we are in agreement. After every death I will incur the results of my actions.

What souls will be able to do is not the same thing as “remembering”. All previously acquired knowledge is present to the soul, without the struggles that come from trying to manage it through a sluggish and often-forgetful brain. Think of the brain as the instrument of the mind. The mind is much greater than its instrument, but it can be hampered by its instrument’s weaknesses, just as a great musician can be hampered by a broken piano. Well, it is the same with the brain. In paradise, our brains worked great, and in the Resurrection, they will work perfectly; but right now, they are often slow to find information we do know, and they lose information very often, and our minds cannot access that information – due to the broken instrument – until we are either disencumbered of our body by death, or our body is glorified and perfected in the Resurrection.

Source please.

Memory lapses happen when the brain is jogged. That proves that knowledge is stored in matter, and this storage is called memory.

The storage is perfect and immaterial. It is the transmission from the immaterial storage through the material brain that is faulty in the case of brain injuries.

Our consciousness is expressed in our bodily actions.

But someone who is paralysed will still have consciousness, even if they cannot perform bodily actions. Consciousness is separate from bodily actions. The lack of action does not indicate a lack of consciousness.

It depends on whether they are temporary or eternal. The fact of eternal destinations makes sense because humans can make eternal decisions; and the possibility to make eternal decisions makes sense because the soul, which makes decisions, is immortal. I do not think Buddhism allows any of this, since any state of being, in Buddhism, is temporary. But any denial of reality is absurd. So Buddhism is absurd.

To a Buddhist, Christianity is equally absurd in its insistence on the eternality of what are obviously impermanent things.
“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:5

Extra-solar life is different from extra-solar planets.

Agreed, which is why I only claimed the existence of extra-solar planets had been demonstrated. The evidence we have now was not present when the Buddhist scriptures were first composed. Science is just beginning to catch up.

The OP asked for arguments against reincarnation. We both agree that Christianity and Buddhism disagree on the topic. So far the arguments you have presented against reincarnation rely on assuming the truth of Christianity. Hence those arguments will not be effective against a Buddhist, Hindu, Jain or other non-Christian.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Let’s suppose for a moment that they performed miracles. Where did all the rice come from? Was it created ex nihilo?

No, the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti fetched the single bowl of rice from the Buddha-land on the Buddha Sugandhakuta. Read Chapter Ten of the Vimalakirti nirdesa sutra if you want the details.

Does Buddhism allow the special creation of matter?

The question is not relevant to Buddhism. Various gods have various powers; neither gods nor powers are of any particular interest.

If of matter, why not of the soul?

Souls do not exist, and it is an error to think that they do.
“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

All miracles, if true, are proof of God.

To a Christian they are. To a Muslim they are proof of Allah. To a Hindu they are proof of Krishna. In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna explicitly says that he answers prayers offered to other gods. How do you know that it is not Krishna answering your prayers rather than a different god?

First, the Resurrection of Jesus was not a recovery from a death-like coma. The Romans perfected the art of execution by crucifixion, and no one could survive.

Josephus tells us that once he persuaded the Romans to take down three of his former friends from their crosses, and one of the three lived. Hence we know that it is possible to survive crucifixion if you are taken down early. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was taken down early because of the Passover. You cannot assume that Jesus was dead when he was taken down.

Second, isn’t it interesting that Buddhists will allow the soul to migrate from body to body, but not to the same body it came from?

A dead body is dead for a reason. Going back would just mean another instant death. Only viable bodies are useful.

rossum

 

[dmar198]

The OP asked for arguments against reincarnation. We both agree that Christianity and Buddhism disagree on the topic. So far the arguments you have presented against reincarnation rely on assuming the truth of Christianity. Hence those arguments will not be effective against a Buddhist, Hindu, Jain or other non-Christian.

If it were true that my arguments rely on the truth of Christianity, they wouldn’t be effective against a non-Christian until Christianity were proved true. However, my arguments do not rely on the truth of Christianity. They can be believed on the basis of reason alone.

I will have been in a Buddhist hell, and if I wanted to take the time I could remember having been there. Your complaint of the lack of knowledge in Buddhism is false.

It is not false. Reincarnation asserts an impossibility in regard to the lack of knowledge of previous lives, which is this: it asserts the possibility of knowledge of certain previous lives, which would be impossible, in many circumstances, due to the nature of the creatures involved.

In hell you are aware of your punishment and of what you did to get there.

How do you know?

I know that awareness of one’s own actions and state is natural to the uninhibited soul because reason tells me so when I consider what the soul must be like. For the proof of this, you ought to read St. Thomas Aquinas, here: newadvent.org/summa/1087.htm

Other good stuff on the nature of the soul are here: newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm
and here: newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm

Very few things are eternal. One of the points on which Christianity and Buddhism differ is the eternality, or not, of the heavens, the hells and the gods.

We do not disagree on the immortality of the soul; and the soul is the maker of decisions. Therefore, it is possible for it to make an everlasting decision, and that begets an eternal heaven or hell as well.

To a Buddhist, Christianity is equally absurd in its insistence on the eternality of what are obviously impermanent things.
“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:5

The soul is not compound, it is simple; therefore also, it can never die, because it has no parts. The soul is permanent, and can make decisions, therefore it can make permanent decisions, and a permanent hell or heaven result from that ability.

 

[FCCopleston]

Josephus tells us that once he persuaded the Romans to take down three of his former friends from their crosses, and one of the three lived. Hence we know that it is possible to survive crucifixion if you are taken down early. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was taken down early because of the Passover. You cannot assume that Jesus was dead when he was taken down.

A dead body is dead for a reason. Going back would just mean another instant death. Only viable bodies are useful.
rossum

You apparently are not as well acquainted with Christian theology as you esteem yourself to be.

The resurrection of Christ was not a resuscitation. Christ’s resurrection from the dead is not like that of Lazarus’. Christ’s resurrection is an eternal resurrection, in which Christ passed into a new mode of existence and being. Therefore, Christ’s dead body was, indeed, dead for a reason: to be risen again by the Father for the justification of the world.

As to your contention that Christ “could have” still been alive when taken down from the cross, I will agree with you that it is “possible.” It is also possible that I alone exist, and that you, along with everyone and everything else in the universe, are an unfortunate by-product of my mind (solipsism). If we agree to entertain every possibility that comes wandering in our direction, we will undoubtedly be entertaining madness on many occasions. Rather, what we ought to doing is utilizing abductive reasoning, i.e., inference to the best explanation.

The Gospels, along with the best historical and medical evidence currently available on the Roman practice of crucifixion, tell us that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried. It is then asserted that Christ rose again from the dead, and that He appeared to His disciples. The disciples, who were cowering in fear an upper room, when confronted with the risen Christ, suddenly became bold messengers of that very resurrection they proclaimed to be witnesses to. What theory best explains these events?

1.) Jesus did not really die. The Roman soldiers took him down from the cross before He was dead (of course, the beating Christ received prior to being nailed to the cross would have probably killed Him anyways in time). Jesus then crawled to the upper room where the disciples were hiding, scratched on the door, and proclaimed: “I am risen!” At this, the disciples, who were assailed by doubt and fear, overcame these things, knowing that only the true Messiah could have managed to crawl all the way to their door. Hallelujah! Christ has risen!

2.) Jesus did really die (A). The Roman soldiers did what they did best: they executed a criminal; and not just any criminal, but a rather high profile one at that. The disciples then fled to the upper room and had a collective hallucination, or spiritual experience, whereby they believed that Jesus had “risen” (even though His body was still in the tomb). They then began to proclaim that Jesus had physically risen from the dead to a Jewish audience that believed in a physical resurrection, but they really meant that Jesus rose spiritually.

3.) Jesus did really die (B). The Roman soldiers did what they did best: they executed a criminal; and not just any criminal, but a rather high profile one at that. However, the disciples, who were hiding in fear in the upper room, experienced the truly risen Christ, Who stood in their midst, ate and drank with them, and bid one of them to place his fingers in His wounded flesh. This is why the disciples were so dramatically changed, and began to proclaim the physically risen Christ to the world. Even St. Paul, who saw the risen Christ in a vision, confessed boldly that, if Christ was not truly risen from the dead, then our faith is futile, and we are still dead in our sins.

It is rather clear that neither 1 or 2 can properly be said to be the best explanation for the events that are claimed to have occurred regarding the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. Only the third can account for the dramatic change in the lives of the disciples. Only the third can account for the message they then proclaimed.

Speculation is fun, rossum, don’t get me wrong. But reality–to the chagrin of some–does tend to get in the way of our more fanciful speculations; does it not?

 

[Pieman333272]

Josephus tells us that once he persuaded the Romans to take down three of his former friends from their crosses, and one of the three lived. Hence we know that it is possible to survive crucifixion if you are taken down early. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was taken down early because of the Passover. You cannot assume that Jesus was dead when he was taken down.
rossum

Yes, we can. He was speared, remember? And blood AND water came out? A sure sign of death! And why was he so active if he just narrowly survived crucifixion? And why did he rise in the tomb but didn’t “wake up” when anything else happened before, like having the nails taken out, or being carried, or prepared, or wrapped?

 

[dmar198]

The question [of special creation] is not relevant to Buddhism. Various gods have various powers; neither gods nor powers are of any particular interest.

If special creation exists, other gods are superfluous fables. Either grant the power to create is present in Buddhism, or I will prove it to you by reason alone; but after that, Buddhism is completely unnecessary, and false, because Monotheism explains everything, and nothing is left unexplained for Buddhism to fill.

Souls do not exist, and it is an error to think that they do.
“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

What have you meant by “soul” this entire time? What animates the body? What is the subject of knowledge, understanding, will, etc? The soul does exist, this can be proved from reason alone, both in animals, where the soul is non-intellectual, and in men, where it has both intelligence and free will.

To a Christian they are. To a Muslim they are proof of Allah. To a Hindu they are proof of Krishna. In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna explicitly says that he answers prayers offered to other gods. How do you know that it is not Krishna answering your prayers rather than a different god?

I do not admit all the distinctions you do about a variety of gods. Monotheism is true, and if any prayers are answered anywhere, and are good, they are answered by the One God. He has revealed Himself in Christianity and has proved Christianity true both by intellectual means and by supernatural signs.

Josephus tells us that once he persuaded the Romans to take down three of his former friends from their crosses, and one of the three lived. Hence we know that it is possible to survive crucifixion if you are taken down early. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was taken down early because of the Passover. You cannot assume that Jesus was dead when he was taken down.

Jesus was not taken down before the guards ensured that He was dead. If Josephus’ friend survived, it was because the guards shirked their duty; with Jesus, we have eyewitness testimony that He died, and appeared alive afterwards. More than that, He Himself said that He died and rose again, and predicted it beforehand, and it was predicted by many before Him that it would happen.

A dead body is dead for a reason. Going back would just mean another instant death. Only viable bodies are useful.

You are assuming the truth of Buddhism here. And in fact what you are saying is not supported by reason, since the animation of a body by a soul is not a question of justice (as in Reincarnation) but simply of whether it happened or not; and this can be proved by documentary evidence, by visual evidence (if it happens in front of you, which it probably won’t), or by divine revelation – and all of these ways have occurred, proving resurrections, and disproving Reincarnation.

 

[GEddie]

Souls do not exist, and it is an error to think that they do.

I won’t argue this one, except: if there is no human soul, no memory retrieval from any prior existence is possible. What would carry the memory? Your head will be completely mindless five minutes after your breathing fails, and smelly goo twelve hours after that. No memory will be recoverable from it.

The same would be true of any previous human mind you had. And it goes without saying that no mind at all could recover from any animal or vegetative existence you were involved in.

If there is no human soul, your claim of mind retrieval from earlier lives is just a lot of hypnotic deception.

Josephus tells us that once he persuaded the Romans to take down three of his former friends from their crosses, and one of the three lived. Hence we know that it is possible to survive crucifixion if you are taken down early. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was taken down early because of the Passover. You cannot assume that Jesus was dead when he was taken down.

Human bodies have been known to survive almost anything, short of decapitation. This doesn’t mean that Romans did not recognize death when they saw it.

The Josephus incident is not an instance of mistaken diagnosis of death. Josephus, a Romano-Jew, had interceded to rescue these men. Unfotunately, it was too late for 2 of them. But they were not believed to be dead when lowered.

Remember blood and water emerging from our LORD’s body. This only happens when the body has been dead for some time. The phases of blood only separate when heart action has ceased for some time.

A dead body is dead for a reason. Going back would just mean another instant death. Only viable bodies are useful.

rossum

Of course it’s dead for a reason. In our LORD’s case, loss of blood. But the whole issue of Resurrection is that the body is “no longer dead.”

God bless and ICXC NIKA