• 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"?

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!

I do not have to. We have already established that the idea of resurrection predates the NT. Everything else only matters to those who subscribe to a religion believing their take on this story is accurate.
 
Now, one thing I haven't seen addressed by the people who claim the resurrection is the physical raising of Jesus. What is the difference between the resurrection and Lazarus being brought back from the dead. How about the more modern day resuscitation of someone whose heart has stopped?
 
I do not have to. We have already established that the idea of resurrection predates the NT. Everything else only matters to those who subscribe to a religion believing their take on this story is accurate.

The resurrection is talked about in the Old Testament too in various ways, so you really have nothing in the form of a good argument against the resurrection of Christ.
 
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.

Do you have any idea how bizarre your claims are? Wouldn't it be better for you to actually do some serious due diligence on these issues before you sound off with these half-baked arguments that you can't possibly prove?
 
The resurrection is talked about in the Old Testament too in various ways, so you really have nothing in the form of a good argument against the resurrection of Christ.

"Against?"... the idea of resurrection appearing in the OT speaks more to my point than yours. Sadly, you'll never see why.
 
"Against?"... the idea of resurrection appearing in the OT speaks more to my point than yours. Sadly, you'll never see why.

Why don't you tell us and make a case for yourself for a change? Because a great many of the events in the life of Christ were foretold. That's the signature of God.
 
Why don't you tell us and make a case for yourself for a change? Because a great many of the events in the life of Christ were foretold. That's the signature of God.

No, that is the signature of self-fulfilling prophecy... that hallmark to any system of belief.

My opinion does need changing, the history of religions tells us of all the bronze age myths that ended up in all sorts of systems of belief. In philosophical terms you have yet to prove that Christianity owns the idea of resurrection, or now added the idea of something foretold.
 
No, that is the signature of self-fulfilling prophecy... that hallmark to any system of belief.

My opinion does need changing, the history of religions tells us of all the bronze age myths that ended up in all sorts of systems of belief. In philosophical terms you have yet to prove that Christianity owns the idea of resurrection, or now added the idea of something foretold.

Well, the historical record from multiple sources shows Christ has risen, and all you have in your favor are unfounded denials.

Jesus is Lord!
 
Well, the historical record from multiple sources shows Christ has risen, and all you have in your favor are unfounded denials.

Jesus is Lord!

You are speaking from a system of belief, and using "multiple sources" all rooted in that belief. All of which you are more than welcome to have, but none of which means evidence of your thread claims.

Call it denials, even make it personal if it makes you feel better about it, but you have not proven anything here.
 
You are speaking from a system of belief, and using "multiple sources" all rooted in that belief. All of which you are more than welcome to have, but none of which means evidence of your thread claims.

Call it denials, even make it personal if it makes you feel better about it, but you have not proven anything here.

Nope, I'm speaking from the evidence we have. You're speaking from probably an a priori, anti-supernatural bias.
 
Now, one thing I haven't seen addressed by the people who claim the resurrection is the physical raising of Jesus. What is the difference between the resurrection and Lazarus being brought back from the dead. How about the more modern day resuscitation of someone whose heart has stopped?

Contemporary resuscitation situations are basically the result of our failure to measure and define death precisely. Although the stopping of the heart is a good indicator that death is near and practically inevitable, it doesn't mean someone has actually already died; it's possible for the heart to be restarted. So I don't think there are any parallels between actual resurrections and resuscitations.

As for the actual resurrection cases we hear about in the bible, at least some of these are genuine resurrections (if we assume they actually occurred). Lazarus had been dead for four days and his body already smelled. Thus this is clearly different from resuscitation.

How is Jesus' resurrection different from those of Lazarus, the children Elijah and Elisha raised from the dead, etc? For one, there are the causes. Those people were raised from the dead because G-d decreed it. Jesus arose from the dead because death had no legitimate claim over him.

The second, and more significant difference between Jesus' return and the return of Lazarus and other people is the results. Others who were raised from the dead simply continued their ordinary physical existence and died again some time in the future. That wasn't the effect that Jesus' resurrection had. Jesus' resurrection resulted in his body transforming into what many call the "resurrection body". Jesus after his resurrection appears to have been able to travel effortlessly, locked doors no longer being an obstacle. He also seems able to alter his appearance. Most importantly, he is now able to enter heaven and the spiritual realms directly. Jesus' resurrection is different from Lazarus' in that Jesus was resurrected into eternal life and his body transformed into its final, eternal form; Lazarus just got his old body back which eventually died again.

The most important difference between Jesus and other people who were resurrected is what it meant. Lazarus' resurrection, as with those of the young boys resurrected by Elijah and Elisha, and other people resurrected throughout scripture point to the greatness of G-d and the legitimacy of the prophets through whom the resurrection was accomplished. The resurrection of Jesus, on the other hand, heralds the defeat of death and the arrival of eternal life.
 
Last edited:
The resurrection of Jesus, on the other hand, heralds the defeat of death and the arrival of eternal life.

Only if it really happened. There is no real evidence.
 
Only if it really happened. There is no real evidence.

The question this was a response to asked what the claims are. Whether the claims are true or not is an entirely different topic.
 
Only if it really happened. There is no real evidence.


For this question, that is besides the point. I specifically what people meant by it, and I asked how is what happened to Jesus different than the other claims. for sake of definition, if it is provable or not is not really an issue, and that would be a subject for a different thread.
 
Now, one thing I haven't seen addressed by the people who claim the resurrection is the physical raising of Jesus. What is the difference between the resurrection and Lazarus being brought back from the dead. How about the more modern day resuscitation of someone whose heart has stopped?

Lazarus' was not the final resurrection. His spirit returned to the same aging mortal body and he would at the final end of his mortal life die and his body return to the dust of the earth and spirit return to God. At Lazarus' final resurrection, his spirit, if he attained Celestial glory, will unite eternally with a new Celestial body formed from the dust of the earth. It will be like the phoenix rising from the dust in much greater glory than his telestial, mortal spirit and body. The D&C states there will be four type of resurrections for mankind depending on the glory they have obtained based on the laws they have embraced. One of Celestial glory, one of Terrestial glory, one of Telestial glory, and the sons of Perdition without glory. Jesus broke the bonds of death for the human family and made it possible for all to one day be resurrected. He was the first fruit of God, the first of the family of Adam to be Resurrected.
 
And this discussion is taking place in the Philosophy Discussions section of this forum????
 
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?

It's a metaphor for life after death.
 
Contemporary resuscitation situations are basically the result of our failure to measure and define death precisely. Although the stopping of the heart is a good indicator that death is near and practically inevitable, it doesn't mean someone has actually already died; it's possible for the heart to be restarted. So I don't think there are any parallels between actual resurrections and resuscitations.

As for the actual resurrection cases we hear about in the bible, at least some of these are genuine resurrections (if we assume they actually occurred). Lazarus had been dead for four days and his body already smelled. Thus this is clearly different from resuscitation.

How is Jesus' resurrection different from those of Lazarus, the children Elijah and Elisha raised from the dead, etc? For one, there are the causes. Those people were raised from the dead because G-d decreed it. Jesus arose from the dead because death had no legitimate claim over him.

The second, and more significant difference between Jesus' return and the return of Lazarus and other people is the results. Others who were raised from the dead simply continued their ordinary physical existence and died again some time in the future. That wasn't the effect that Jesus' resurrection had. Jesus' resurrection resulted in his body transforming into what many call the "resurrection body". Jesus after his resurrection appears to have been able to travel effortlessly, locked doors no longer being an obstacle. He also seems able to alter his appearance. Most importantly, he is now able to enter heaven and the spiritual realms directly. Jesus' resurrection is different from Lazarus' in that Jesus was resurrected into eternal life and his body transformed into its final, eternal form; Lazarus just got his old body back which eventually died again.

The most important difference between Jesus and other people who were resurrected is what it meant. Lazarus' resurrection, as with those of the young boys resurrected by Elijah and Elisha, and other people resurrected throughout scripture point to the greatness of G-d and the legitimacy of the prophets through whom the resurrection was accomplished. The resurrection of Jesus, on the other hand, heralds the defeat of death and the arrival of eternal life.

If we can't measure death accurately now, how could they have done it then?

By ancient standards, waking someone up from a coma would probably be considered not too far off a resurrection. Even as recently as Victorian times, people were often buried with strings in their coffins attached to bells above their grave for fear of being mistaken as dead and being buried alive.

The idea that Jesus simply woke up and took 3 days to move the boulder away (or Lazarus woke up after 4) is far more medically and physically feasible than either actually coming back from the dead.
 
If we can't measure death accurately now, how could they have done it then?

By ancient standards, waking someone up from a coma would probably be considered not too far off a resurrection. Even as recently as Victorian times, people were often buried with strings in their coffins attached to bells above their grave for fear of being mistaken as dead and being buried alive.

The idea that Jesus simply woke up and took 3 days to move the boulder away (or Lazarus woke up after 4) is far more medically and physically feasible than either actually coming back from the dead.

The question this was a response to asked what the claims are. Whether the claims are true or not is an entirely different topic.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom