• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What do you mean by 'The Ressurrection"?

Logicman said:
I'm probably more aware of that than you.

And look - even if there were previous resurrections, it still doesn't mean Christ didn't rise from the dead.

So you've got nothing but the usual conjecture.
Click to expand...

Oh, the irony!
 
Logicman said:
I'm probably more aware of that than you.

And look - even if there were previous resurrections, it still doesn't mean Christ didn't rise from the dead.

So you've got nothing but the usual conjecture.
Click to expand...

And look - even if there were previous resurrections, it still doesn't mean Christ didn't rise from the dead.
Click to expand...

There is no proof he did.....Well if you count the "Sun" it does rise "Sun" "Son of God" He most likely was no more than a solar deity.
 
RAMOSS said:
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?
Click to expand...

Can you not google it Ramoss ?
 
Doc Doom said:
There is no proof he did.....Well if you count the "Sun" it does rise "Sun" "Son of God" He most likely was no more than a solar deity.
Click to expand...

You still haven't done your homework. You think you're a credible source of knowledge on these matters but your posts show otherwise.
 
_Sal said:
well if a whole bunch of them did, what does it mean?
Click to expand...

They didn't resurrect. Unlike the resurrection of Jesus, there's no credible, contemporary eyewitnesses for the supposed pagan resurrections. In addition, they're mythological individuals. Jesus was a real, historical person.
 
Logicman said:
Wish I could have said the same for yours.
Click to expand...

But it was accurate, it is a series of quotes and references to the bible. Using the bible to prove "fact" about resurrection or original use of the idea is absurd.
 
Logicman said:
Do you ever have anything other than a hypothesis?
Click to expand...

Just countering hypotheses with hypotheses....And hypocrisy with hypocrisy....And circular argument with circular argument...And trying to prove a book of myths with itself......Having quite the fun actually......Love debating nonsense with no point to it all.
 
OrphanSlug said:
But it was accurate, it is a series of quotes and references to the bible. Using the bible to prove "fact" about resurrection or original use of the idea is absurd.
Click to expand...

You've got a bad argument there. The New Testament was originally over two dozen separate manuscripts.

So can you say "Using over two dozen source works to confirm the resurrection is absurd?" If you say that then your argument is absurd.
 
Doc Doom said:
Just countering hypotheses with hypotheses....And hypocrisy with hypocrisy....And circular argument with circular argument...And trying to prove a book of myths with itself......Having quite the fun actually......Love debating nonsense with no point to it all.
Click to expand...

I have historical documents. You have nothing but your unresearched bias.
 
Logicman said:
You've got a bad argument there. The New Testament was originally over two dozen separate manuscripts.

So can you say "Using over two dozen source works to confirm the resurrection is absurd?" If you say that then your argument is absurd.
Click to expand...

Written... when? (It is okay, the rest of us already know.)
 
OrphanSlug said:
Written... when? (It is okay, the rest of us already know.)
Click to expand...

You apparently don't know what you think you do.

Scholars Date Matthew:

Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. Likely after AD 70
W.D. Davies, D.D. AD 80 to 100
M. G. Easton M. A., D. D. Probably between AD 60 or 65
James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80
Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 50 to 55, yet 40 to 60 is possible.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80 Professor of New Testament at The Catholic University of America, Past President of the Society of Biblical Literature Chair of the Synoptic Studies Division of SBL. Author of the 2 Volume Commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible Series. A well-known and leading Critical Scholar in New Testament Origins
Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable.
President, formerly Vice-Principal and Lecturer in New Testament,
The London Bible College
Donald A. Hagner, Ph.D. pre AD 70
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 63-66
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85
Professor of New Testament at Drew University
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D. AD 70's , although this date is not certain.
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. AD 80 to 100
Late Professor of New Testament at Marburg, Germany
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D AD 75 to 85
Professor of New Testament at Princeton University
Chair of the Editorial Board for the UBS and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Senior Editor for the New Testament of the NRSV Translation Team. (Considered THE Dean of Textual-Critical studies today [since Aland's death])
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by AD 62
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80
Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Duke University
(Neither Mark, Matthew, or Luke show ANY sign of knowing of ANY of the events following 90 AD, hence they were written before 90.)
Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Prior to the mid 60s Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Retired Professor of Greek and New Testament, Cambridge University
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. AD 80
Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Southern Methodist University (Dr. Tyson is one of THE leading scholars in Luke-Acts, and is Chair of the Luke-Acts Division of the Society of Biblical Literature)
J. Wenham, Ph.D. AD 40
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Professor of New Testament at The Episcopal Theological Seminary
G. A. Wells (Hyper-skeptic), sometime after Mark which is dated the MIDDLE of AD 70 to 135
in Did Jesus Exist?, 1986
G. A. Wells, after AD 90 in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11
G. A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. AD 90," in The Jesus Legend 1996, p. 71
Source: Errantskeptics (site undergoing additional construction)

Now where's your list of scholars and dates to back up your position?
 
Logicman said:
You apparently don't know what you think you do.

Scholars Date Matthew:

Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. Likely after AD 70
W.D. Davies, D.D. AD 80 to 100
M. G. Easton M. A., D. D. Probably between AD 60 or 65
James M. Efird, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80
Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University
David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. AD 50 to 55, yet 40 to 60 is possible.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. AD 75 to 80 Professor of New Testament at The Catholic University of America, Past President of the Society of Biblical Literature Chair of the Synoptic Studies Division of SBL. Author of the 2 Volume Commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible Series. A well-known and leading Critical Scholar in New Testament Origins
Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. prior to AD 63, yet 50 to 64 is reasonable.
President, formerly Vice-Principal and Lecturer in New Testament,
The London Bible College
Donald A. Hagner, Ph.D. pre AD 70
William Hendriksen, Ph.D. AD 63-66
Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. AD 75 to 85
Professor of New Testament at Drew University
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D. AD 70's , although this date is not certain.
Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. AD 80 to 100
Late Professor of New Testament at Marburg, Germany
Bruce Metzger, Ph.D AD 75 to 85
Professor of New Testament at Princeton University
Chair of the Editorial Board for the UBS and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Senior Editor for the New Testament of the NRSV Translation Team. (Considered THE Dean of Textual-Critical studies today [since Aland's death])
J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by AD 62
Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80
Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Duke University
(Neither Mark, Matthew, or Luke show ANY sign of knowing of ANY of the events following 90 AD, hence they were written before 90.)
Carsten Peter Thiede, Ph.D. Prior to the mid 60s Director of the Institute for Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany
Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Retired Professor of Greek and New Testament, Cambridge University
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. AD 80
Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Southern Methodist University (Dr. Tyson is one of THE leading scholars in Luke-Acts, and is Chair of the Luke-Acts Division of the Society of Biblical Literature)
J. Wenham, Ph.D. AD 40
Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. AD 70 to 80 Professor of New Testament at The Episcopal Theological Seminary
G. A. Wells (Hyper-skeptic), sometime after Mark which is dated the MIDDLE of AD 70 to 135
in Did Jesus Exist?, 1986
G. A. Wells, after AD 90 in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11
G. A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. AD 90," in The Jesus Legend 1996, p. 71
Source: Errantskeptics (site undergoing additional construction)

Now where's your list of scholars and dates to back up your position?
Click to expand...

Ja, all AD... so now you are saying all the bronze age myths magically showed up after the NT was written?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Ja, all AD... so now you are saying all the bronze age myths magically showed up after the NT was written?
Click to expand...

No, that's your spin. But any that 'looked like' Christ (i.e. the skeptic's fav's - Virgin Birth, Dec. 25th birthday [which isn't biblical anyway], 12 apostles, etc.) most probably arose after the life, death, and PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus.

And if you think there's one before, then let's see that bad boy and the earliest documentation for it. And make sure it was a PHYSICALLY RESURRECTED SAVIOR.

Cowboy up, OrphanSlug!
 
Logicman said:
I have historical documents. You have nothing but your unresearched bias.
Click to expand...

Biased! Now if that is not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is! You have historical fiction documents is what you have.
 
Really surprised nobody has brought the historical documentation featured in the books about "resurrection" by Stephanie Meyers into this conversation. They have as much probative value as any of the other works mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom