Changes

<br/>[< Med.L (from Medieval Latin) < L ''super''- above + ''natura'' nature]

<br/>[< Med.L (from Medieval Latin) < L ''super''- above + ''natura'' nature]

:Philosophical naturalists understand the meaning of "supernatural" as "not natural", as "not existing", "not part of Existence".

:Philosophical naturalists understand the meaning of "supernatural" as "not natural", as "not existing", "not part of Existence".

:Christians understand the meaning of "supernatural" as "superior to created physical nature", "above physical nature", and as "not subject to the natural laws of the physical spaciotemporal Universe" created by God; the ''laws of Existence'' understood as including the natural laws of the (''inferior, subject'') order of physical existence as subsumed by (included within) the supernatural laws of the (''superior, governing'') order of spiritual existence<ref>Just as by way of analogy the laws of [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian mechanics]] are subsumed by the laws of [[Quantum mechanics]].</ref>; God being understood as the One Origin of all Existence, self-caused, self-contained, self-consistent, who "''cannot contradict himself''".<ref>See 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 1:2-3 and 7:7; and James 1:17. Compare John 1:1-2.</ref>

:Christians understand the meaning of "supernatural" as "superior to created physical nature", "above physical nature", and as "not subject to the natural laws of the physical spaciotemporal Universe" created by God; the ''laws of Existence'' understood as including the natural laws of the (''inferior, subject'') order of physical existence as subsumed by (included within) the supernatural laws of the (''superior, governing'') order of spiritual existence<ref>Just as by way of analogy the laws of [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian mechanics]] are subsumed by the laws of [[Quantum mechanics]].</ref>; God being understood as the One Origin of all Existence, self-caused, self-contained, self-consistent, whose Word is the one truth and law of Existence, and who "''cannot contradict himself''".<ref>See 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 1:2-3 and 7:7; and James 1:17. Compare John 1:1-2.</ref>

'''cause''': The agent or force producing an effect; a person, occasion, condition, etc. giving rise to a result or action; contrasted to ''effect''.

'''cause''': The agent or force producing an effect; a person, occasion, condition, etc. giving rise to a result or action; contrasted to ''effect''.

Plantinga argues that together, naturalism and evolution provide an insurmountable "defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable", i.e., a skeptical argument along the lines of [[Rene Descartes]]' ''Evil demon'' or ''Brain in a vat''.

Plantinga argues that together, naturalism and evolution provide an insurmountable "defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable", i.e., a skeptical argument along the lines of [[Rene Descartes]]' ''Evil demon'' or ''Brain in a vat''.

<ref name=J.K.B>Beilby, J.K. (2002). "Introduction by Alvin Plantinga". Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp. 1–2, 10. ISBN 978-0-8014-8763-7. LCCN 2001006111.</ref>

<ref name=J.K.B>Beilby, J.K. (2002). "Introduction by Alvin Plantinga". Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp. 1–2, 10. ISBN 978-0-8014-8763-7. LCCN 2001006111.</ref>

<blockquote>Take philosophical naturalism to be the belief that there aren't any supernatural entities - no such person as God, for example, but also no other supernatural entities, and nothing at all like God. My claim was that naturalism and contemporary evolutionary theory are at serious odds with one another - and this despite the fact that the latter is ordinarily thought to be one of the main pillars supporting the edifice of the former. (Of course I am not attacking the theory of evolution, or anything in that neighborhood; I am instead attacking the conjunction of naturalism with the view that human beings have evolved in that way. I see no similar problems with the conjunction of theism and the idea that human beings have evolved in the way contemporary evolutionary science suggests.) More particularly, I argued that the conjunction of naturalism with the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine... is in a certain interesting way self-defeating or self-referentially incoherent.<br/>

<blockquote>Take philosophical naturalism to be the belief that there aren't any supernatural entities—no such person as God, for example, but also no other supernatural entities, and nothing at all like God. My claim was that naturalism and contemporary evolutionary theory are at serious odds with one another—and this despite the fact that the latter is ordinarily thought to be one of the main pillars supporting the edifice of the former. (Of course I am not attacking the theory of evolution, or anything in that neighborhood; I am instead attacking the conjunction of naturalism with the view that human beings have evolved in that way. I see no similar problems with the conjunction of theism and the idea that human beings have evolved in the way contemporary evolutionary science suggests.) More particularly, I argued that the conjunction of naturalism with the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine... is in a certain interesting way self-defeating or self-referentially incoherent.<br/>

— Alvin Plantinga, Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, "Introduction"</blockquote>

— Alvin Plantinga, Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, "Introduction"</blockquote>

=== In the 18th and 19th centuries===

=== In the 18th and 19th centuries===

:Early proponents of this theory include German [[Karl Friedrich Bahrdt]], who suggested in around 1780, that Jesus deliberately feigned his death, using drugs provided by the physician [[Luke the Evangelist|Luke]] to appear as a spiritual [[messiah]] and get Israel to abandon the idea of a political messiah. In this interpretation of the events described in the Gospels, Jesus was resuscitated by [[Joseph of Arimathea]], with whom he shared a connection through a secret order of the [[Essenes]] — a group that appear in many of the "swoon" theories.

:Early proponents of this theory include German [[Karl Friedrich Bahrdt]], who suggested in around 1780, that Jesus deliberately feigned his death, using drugs provided by the physician [[Luke the Evangelist|Luke]] to appear as a spiritual [[messiah]] and get Israel to abandon the idea of a political messiah. In this interpretation of the events described in the Gospels, Jesus was resuscitated by [[Joseph of Arimathea]], with whom he shared a connection through a secret order of the [[Essenes]]—a group that appear in many of the "swoon" theories.

:Around 1800, [[Karl Venturini]] proposed that a group of supporters dressed in white — who were, with Jesus, members of a "secret society" — had not expected him to survive the crucifixion, but heard groaning from inside the tomb, where Jesus had regained consciousness in the cool, damp air. They then frightened away the guards and rescued him.

:Around 1800, [[Karl Venturini]] proposed that a group of supporters dressed in white—who were, with Jesus, members of a "secret society"—had not expected him to survive the crucifixion, but heard groaning from inside the tomb, where Jesus had regained consciousness in the cool, damp air. They then frightened away the guards and rescued him.

:A third rationalist theologian, [[Heinrich Paulus]], wrote in works from 1802 onwards that he believed that Jesus had fallen into a temporary coma and somehow revived without help in the tomb. He was critical of the ''[[vision hypothesis]]'', arguing that the disciples must have believed that God had resurrected Jesus. [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]] endorsed a form of Paulus' theory in the early 1830s.

:A third rationalist theologian, [[Heinrich Paulus]], wrote in works from 1802 onwards that he believed that Jesus had fallen into a temporary coma and somehow revived without help in the tomb. He was critical of the ''[[vision hypothesis]]'', arguing that the disciples must have believed that God had resurrected Jesus. [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]] endorsed a form of Paulus' theory in the early 1830s.

:[[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]], the founder of the [[Ahmadiyya]] Muslim Movement, proposed a theory in his 1899 book ''Jesus in India''<ref>[http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/index.html Jesus in India] by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.</ref> that Jesus traveled to India after surviving the [[crucifixion]].

:[[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]], the founder of the [[Ahmadiyya]] Muslim Movement, proposed a theory in his 1899 book ''Jesus in India''<ref>[http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/index.html Jesus in India] by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.</ref> that Jesus traveled to India after surviving the [[crucifixion]].

==== Ahmed Deedat====

==== Ahmed Deedat====

:Perhaps the biggest proponent of the swoon hypothesis over the past 20 years has been Muslim preacher [[Ahmed Deedat]] of South Africa in his book ''Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction''.<ref>[http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Crucifixion_Or_Cruci-fiction.pdf Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction] by Ahmed Deedat. Publisher: Islamic Book Service (September 1, 2011) Language: English ISBN-10: 8172310226 ISBN-13: 978-8172310226</ref> He takes a critical look at the events in the four Gospels and theorizes a scenario of events similar to the swoon hypothesis. The Islamic position on the subject of crucifixion - which is a form of [[Docetism]] - is highlighted in the [[Koran|Qur'an]]: "and for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them".  Sura 4:157 Pickthall

:Perhaps the biggest proponent of the swoon hypothesis over the past 20 years has been Muslim preacher [[Ahmed Deedat]] of South Africa in his book ''Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction''.<ref>[http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Crucifixion_Or_Cruci-fiction.pdf Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction] by Ahmed Deedat. Publisher: Islamic Book Service (September 1, 2011) Language: English ISBN-10: 8172310226 ISBN-13: 978-8172310226</ref> He takes a critical look at the events in the four Gospels and theorizes a scenario of events similar to the swoon hypothesis. The Islamic position on the subject of crucifixion—which is a form of [[Docetism]]—is highlighted in the [[Koran|Qur'an]]: "and for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God'—yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them".  Sura 4:157 Pickthall

==== Ahmadiyya Islam perspective====

==== Ahmadiyya Islam perspective====