The Resurrection

[Angrboda]

So empiricism is confirmed using the methods of empiricism which demonstrates that empiricism is sound if empiricism is sound.

Only in that we'd need empiricism to determine if a result is valid or not. It's pretty easy to see that certain methods consistently provide results while others don't. Unless there's been a faith-based rocket launch that I missed?

It's not hard to provide results. Determining their validity is. And what you're describing is more of a pragmatist epistemology, not an empiricist one.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You seem to be hung up on the resurrection of jesus.

Why don’t you talk about the saints that resurrected?

Well, yeah. The resurrection of Jesus was neither the first nor the only resurrection in the Bible. Hence why I'm more interested in the concept of resurrections as such than any particular event.

[The Grand Nudger]

The concept of naturally possible resurrections, or divinely possible ones?

[Belacqua]

Only in that we'd need empiricism to determine if a result is valid or not. It's pretty easy to see that certain methods consistently provide results while others don't. Unless there's been a faith-based rocket launch that I missed?

It's not hard to provide results.  Determining their validity is.  And what you're describing is more of a pragmatist epistemology, not an empiricist one.

If they see anything other than empiricism as "faith-based," then it makes sense to go with empiricism. 

Those are not the only two choices, of course. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ratio...mpiricism/

[The Grand Nudger]

A person may accept all sorts of basis other-than-empirical, and still refer to some specific basis in a set larger than 2, in consideration of the paucity of it's effects or utility, in comparison to any number of the other members of the set.

Rocket launches are achieved through rational processes. Rocket launches are achieved through empirical processes. No one has yet lifted a mass into orbit by faith.

More fundamentally, it is the careless philosophizer themselves attempting to foist some false dichotomy on the reader. Implicit in the suggestion that rationalism and empiricism are distinct choices in competition with each other. This is not so. The problem for god effects and god faith is precisely that it is sideways with both of these other two members of the set. We could expand the set further, invoking a moral aspect..and see that the god effects and god beliefs are also at odds with a fourth. So on and so forth, ad infinitum, until the heat death of the universe.

[John 6IX Breezy]

What part does Jesus' divinity play in this?  If I take the atoms that made up Jesus while alive and reassemble them in the same form, does the reassembled Jesus resume being divine?

Those questions are debated both within my church and across denominations. Almost nobody questions that he became 100% human, but whether he retained or gave up divine nature is debated, whether he was begotten or created is debated, and whether he took mankind's fallen or unfallen nature is debated. So that depends on your theological interpretation.

[Sheldon]

You seem to be hung up on the resurrection of jesus.

Why don’t you talk about the saints that resurrected?

Well, yeah. The resurrection of Jesus was neither the first nor the only resurrection in the Bible. Hence why I'm more interested in the concept of resurrections as such than any particular event.

Then your title should have been Resurrections, not The resurrection.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Then your title should have been Resurrections, not The resurrection.

You would have said false dichotomy no matter what the title was lol.

[Paleophyte]

Those questions are debated both within my church and across denominations. Almost nobody questions that he became 100% human, but whether he retained or gave up divine nature is debated, whether he was begotten or created is debated, and whether he took mankind's fallen or unfallen nature is debated. So that depends on your theological interpretation.

I read this and wonder if you know what "100%" means.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I read this and wonder if you know what "100%" means.

You can be 100% a man and 100% European because not every category excludes another. This is especially true in those interpretations that view Jesus' divinity as something like a role or title, such as king.