I noticed one thing that seems to cause a lot of disagreement is when people do not use the same meaning for a term or event, and argue and misunderstand each other when discussing something.
Just to clarify, what do you mean when you talk about 'The Ressurrection'?? What exactly , in explicit terms do you mean?
I noticed one thing that seems to cause a lot of disagreement is when people do not use the same meaning for a term or event, and argue and misunderstand each other when discussing something.
Just to clarify, what do you mean when you talk about 'The Ressurrection'?? What exactly , in explicit terms do you mean?
"The Resurrection" phrased like that is a story about Jesus. The word resurrection in explicit terms is a concept of something living, then dying, and then coming back to life after death by some means.
In modern religious context it ends up mostly associated with the story of Jesus in biblical Christian terms. However, as a bronze age myth there are plenty of stories of resurrection happening for whatever reason that predate Jesus even being written about by about 1500+ years.
There are some people who claim the resurrection was physical , and others that claim it was spiritual. Do you subscribe to one or the other, or do you discount the entire thing?
And, is it something that just Jesus has gone through, rather than other people who were 'raised from the dead', such as Lazarus?
There are some people who claim the resurrection was physical , and others that claim it was spiritual.
Have you never read the Bible? The physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead is recorded in the Gospels.
After the resurrection, Jesus was able to eat (Luke 24:42-43). He showed people His hands and feet with the nail prints in them (Luke 24:39, John 20:27), and people even grabbed His feet and worshipped Him (Matt. 28:9).
"And Jesus said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:38-39).
There are some people who claim the resurrection was physical , and others that claim it was spiritual. Do you subscribe to one or the other, or do you discount the entire thing?
And, is it something that just Jesus has gone through, rather than other people who were 'raised from the dead', such as Lazarus?
I have heard a number of different claims from different Christians. I want to know what any specific person interprets the New Testament.
To be perfectly honest I've never heard someone state that they believe the resurrection was a spiritual as opposed to physical miracle. The physical resurrection of Christ lies at the core of Christianity.
Well ask yourself a question, Ramoss - if it was just spiritual how would the people have known Christ was risen? And did you notice the tomb was empty?
And why did the women and disciples get all excited if it was just a spiritual resurrection, since everyone would supposedly have one when they die?
Well ask yourself a question, Ramoss - if it was just spiritual how would the people have known Christ was risen? And did you notice the tomb was empty?
And why did the women and disciples get all excited if it was just a spiritual resurrection, since everyone would supposedly have one when they die?
Well, I really don't know.. however, Marcus Borg addressed that subject. I suspect you will find lots wrong with his interpretation....
The Resurrection of Jesus: ?Physical/Bodily? or ?Spiritual/Mystical?? » Marcus J. Borg official website
I personally do not take the stories about the resurrection at 'face value'. They were written by people decades later, by people hears stories from 'those who came before. I do not accept the 'very early' writing that you push for any of the gospels, so they are not eye witness, and it there was time for stories to develop.
Nonsense.
Well. you have your opinion, which of course, it does not appear you can defend with clarity and reason.
I'm not the one linking to the loony Jesus Seminar guy (Marcus Borg), you are. The Jesus Seminar has been roundly criticized for it biased anti-supernaturalism.
"According to the Jesus Seminar, the historical Jesus, by definition, must be a non-supernatural figure." No miracles, no resurrection, nothing. You people gut the historical Jesus and make him into nothing more than some itinerate preacher.
Shameful.
Apologetics Training - Advice to Christian Apologists | Reasonable Faith
So when you want to do one of these resurrection threads, at least go on record in the OP by identifying your blatant, anti-supernatural bias. Don't bother trying to pose as one who is open-minded or scholarly about it.
If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.
Nonsense.
You really should see about adding another box to that Fundamentalists soapbox your standing on. The key word here is "supernatural" and not just concerning this jesus either. I believe the point they are trying to get across to you is that the resurrection story in the Bible is not new! And even as supernatural as these resurrection stories are they pale in comparison to a bunny rabbit that passes out colored eggs to kids once a year! Is that rabbit supernatural?
The Resurrection Stories
https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/leipolt.html
Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=0
Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior
Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior
Actually, not "nonsense."
We can show that a short story...a sentence actually...can be passed from person to person in a single room...all within just minutes...
...and find that the story changes significantly.
To suppose that stories passed from person to person over years...centuries in some cases...were not grossly distorted, is being disingenuous.
The references you give to the Biblical stories should be taken with more than just a grain of salt.
Show me the direct linkage where Christianity borrowed anything from your pagan MYTHS? Who copied what, when, where, etc.?
23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions
https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.c...-know-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-religions/
You're busted. Again.
I'm not the one linking to the loony Jesus Seminar guy (Marcus Borg), you are. The Jesus Seminar has been roundly criticized for it biased anti-supernaturalism.
"According to the Jesus Seminar, the historical Jesus, by definition, must be a non-supernatural figure." No miracles, no resurrection, nothing. You people gut the historical Jesus and make him into nothing more than some itinerate preacher.
Shameful.
Apologetics Training - Advice to Christian Apologists | Reasonable Faith
So when you want to do one of these resurrection threads, at least go on record in the OP by identifying your blatant, anti-supernatural bias. Don't bother trying to pose as one who is open-minded or scholarly about it.
No not really because your unaware of the ancient civilizations that long predated christianity and their "Sun" god dig back further.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?