We are looking to try and address some questions related to Easter and the Resurrection.
Please comment with questions you have always had regarding reconciling the resurrection with science, and/or fitting this piece of your faith into your scientific understanding of the world.
Please note that by commenting, your question may be selected for a response on the BioLogos website and a link to this thread may be included in the article.
NOTE: This thread is NOT for answering other people’s questions, so please refrain.
Thanks! Looking forward to hearing all of your questions, as you are some of the folks that are always thinking!
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
2
Surely the point of the Resurrection is that it cannot be reconciled with science?
That is a good point. Maybe I should reframe the question.
Do you HAVE any questions about the resurrection?
Or are you just satisfied with the explanation that it is a miracle?
As a science-minded person, what compels you to believe in it even though it’s a miracle?
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
6
I think your original question is fine 'aitch. It elicited responses. The stream moves on, which is fine too.
Do I have any questions about the Resurrection?
MANY! Not in doubt, which is a separate issue, but in mystery. I’ll edit them in later if I may.
[Later: I’m fascinated by what Jesus was when He awoke after three days of oblivion. And no, I don’t for one moment subscribe to the Harrowing of Hell (ask me!). For me He was not coterminous, when incarnate prior to death, with God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity. That is rationally impossible in infinite, eternal, many peopled worlds creation. He was the fullest possible expression, manifestation of the divine in, through a human. YMWV (ooooh, see the unintended, serendipitous allusion there?!). And neither was He after His resurrection. He was still coming out of the chrysalis, yet to flex His wings and fly, ascend to the Father. Too raw to be touched. A few hours later at most, He had.
That. What was all that and more about? More? What is He doing now? As shown in The Shack, manifesting in the transcendent; walking, playing with thieves and little girls? In our Terran corner of it?]
Am I just satisfied with the explanation that it is a miracle?
No, as in my previous answer and at the end of the day, yes, see below.
As a science-minded person, what compels me to believe in it even though it’s a miracle?
I want to. It is utterly orthogonal to material reality and testifies to transcendent reality. It could nonetheless be entirely fictitious yet done with the very best of forgivable, yearning, non-clinically deluded intent. But despite the lack of a modern, forensic chain of evidence, the utter impossibility of it as the capstone of the whole utterly outrageous, mysterious Incarnation in a time of pre-modern ignorance, it works.
Why should science matter when we are dealing with God and faith?
Isn’t God, by definition, above the laws of Physics and / or Biology (If He chooses to be)
Richard
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
9
Well, I don’t have questions for BioLogos. “Just satisfied that it is a miracle” seems woefully inadequate to explain my belief in this greatest of mysteries.
I believe that the bodily (physical) resurrection of Jesus was a historical event. I would like to share my very favoirte article on the resurrection: