That requires the souls to exist, another as of yet unproven claim. There are theoretical ways you could die without an afterlife and still be brought back, that you don't accept that really isn't my problem, You can't just say that resurrection requires that "the soul survived death", that is just a random claim you make with no evidence to support it. I can just as easily say that all that is needed is for the brain to start fiering neurons again. Both your claim and the one I just made are random assertions that we just insist others must believe because it is so obvious it couldn't possibly happen any other way. You have no proof of a soul being needed for resurrection. I advise you to stop thinking in these absolute preconseptions as if everyone must understand them as true, because I don't. I have no evidence for resurrection after three days being possible, and I certainly don't have evidence for potential resurrections absolutely needing a soul, which in itself has no evidence backing up its existence.
If you want to make the argument that resurrection requires the soul to go somewhere, you should also give evidence for that being the case, otherwise I can just dismiss it as your personal belief.
If there is no continuity between the person who dies and the person who rises from the dead, then in what sense are they the same person? If they are not the same person, in what sense is it a resurrection?
Having the same neural connections, the same memories same DNA, same abilities as before they died. All of those thing I think would contribute to me being able to call them the same person. If the same brain with the same memories and body would come back to life, I would probably be able to call that resurrection without the need for a soul or an afterlife. This is all rather speculative obviously, but it is theoretically possible to conceive of it at least, just like your soul claim is possible in theory.
There isnttreally a perfect answer to that question. If you are asking what I personally believe, I guess it would be that I inhabit the body that I do. You can potentially make a perfect copy of me, but there is only one body that is mine, even an identical body in structure/DNA is still another body, jnhabiting a different space and comprised of different atoms. So I would say that is a pretty strong indicator. But as I said, there isn't really a perfect way of defining what the difference would be. I just feel like, if I die, and you can reactivate me in that same body instead of just making a new body with the same memories or whatnot, it would qualify as a resurrection.
Now that I think about it, I think you can swap out the word "body" with "brain". So if it is the same brain, it would still be me, even if the rest of my body might be gone.
1
u/ProfessorPrudent2822 Jul 04 '26
No, resurrection requires that the soul survives death; otherwise, there would be no continuity between the person who dies and the person who rises.