• 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.

Running from the Resurrection [W: 646]

Logicman

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
23,086
Reaction score
2,375
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux of Christianity. If Christ is not risen from the dead, Christianity dies an immediate death.

Countless times skeptics of Christianity in this forum have been challenged to 'bust' (falsify) the resurrection as it is presented in the New Testament, etc. Every time they've been challenged they run from it, or come up with some shallow argument which they never fully defend. At no time that I can recall has anyone ever busted the resurrection, although the skeptics love to present wall-to-wall THEORIES on what might have occurred. They LOVE their theories. But so far they have no credible evidence to substantiate those theories.

If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

This thread is about the resurrection of Christ as seen in the Bible / Gospels / New Testament and early extra-biblical writings. Skeptics are invited to try to falsify it, using scriptural and/or historical arguments, etc. And if they can't bust the resurrection, they should strongly reconsider their contrary opinions on the matter.

Skeptics, let's see your bad-boy arguments, and do please endeavor to come up with some evidence to back up your arguments, and not just pontificate one theory after another!
 
Its a cool story.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Its a cool story.
Click to expand...

Yes, all supernatural miracle fables are cool.

But, in absence of proof, or the ability to recreate it in a controlled environment, etc...

It's bunk
 
Logicman said:
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux of Christianity. If Christ is not risen from the dead, Christianity dies an immediate death.

Countless times skeptics of Christianity in this forum have been challenged to 'bust' (falsify) the resurrection as it is presented in the New Testament, etc. Every time they've been challenged they run from it, or come up with some shallow argument which they never fully defend. At no time that I can recall has anyone ever busted the resurrection, although the skeptics love to present wall-to-wall THEORIES on what might have occurred. They LOVE their theories. But so far they have no credible evidence to substantiate those theories.

If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

This thread is about the resurrection of Christ as seen in the Bible / Gospels / New Testament and early extra-biblical writings. Skeptics are invited to try to falsify it, using scriptural and/or historical arguments, etc. And if they can't bust the resurrection, they should strongly reconsider their contrary opinions on the matter.

Skeptics, let's see your bad-boy arguments, and do please endeavor to come up with some evidence to back up your arguments, and not just pontificate one theory after another!
Click to expand...

Christ never died. Jesus did though.

Watch.



Cool little video I saw in theology.

In essence, the Christ has been here forever, it is Jesus who becomes one with the Christ, not Jesus and Christ is just his last name. Jesus ultimately dies but the Christ never died and will never die.

EDIT

Skip to around 2 minutes. That's where action begins, you can end at around 6-7 minutes.
 
Completely useless exercise within the confines suggested by the OP.

Right off, the biggest problem with the OP assertions is the Bible is not a book of science, or medicine, or history. Nor should it be considered any of. It is not a witness account either. We cannot attest that any line of the NT was written during the time Jesus was alive, nor can we be sure that anyone who wrote any line of the NT actually met Jesus in the first place. There is no supporting evidence (or even text excluded from the Bible) that suggest someone stood there and watched his death and subsequent resurrection as a first hand account recorded it on the spot. And you would think that level of importance and miracle would have convinced someone to do so. But no, we have nothing other than the account written long after Jesus died. Because of this we have no direct evidence that Jesus existed as the Bible suggests, or that the Resurrection (or any other miracle) ever took place. All we have is belief in text written after his death, by those that never met him and were not alive during his life, gathered even later by others, then edited and combined even later than that by others.

On the other hand all science, all known medicine, and all sound reasoning known to date tells us there is no way for someone to die and then days later come back to life. You can go review millions of death records across the world and not a one of them will suggest death then magically return to life days after the fact.

All Christianity has then is text presented in story, a fantastic story, but with the ultimate irony being telling others they have to "prove" that a story (that was not even original from the Bronze Age, others used the same Resurrection theme) did not happen. Classic.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Christ never died. Jesus did though.

Watch.



Cool little video I saw in theology.

In essence, the Christ has been here forever, it is Jesus who becomes one with the Christ, not Jesus and Christ is just his last name. Jesus ultimately dies but the Christ never died and will never die.

EDIT

Skip to around 2 minutes. That's where action begins, you can end at around 6-7 minutes.
Click to expand...


Please speak to the resurrection.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Completely useless exercise within the confines suggested by the OP.

Right off, the biggest problem with the OP assertions is the Bible is not a book of science, or medicine, or history. Nor should it be considered any of. It is not a witness account either. We cannot attest that any line of the NT was written during the time Jesus was alive, nor can we be sure that anyone who wrote any line of the NT actually met Jesus in the first place.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the historical Gospels and various epistles, and the writings of the early church fathers, note otherwise.

OrphanSlug said:
There is no supporting evidence (or even text excluded from the Bible) that suggest someone stood there and watched his death and subsequent resurrection as a first hand account recorded it on the spot. And you would think that level of importance and miracle would have convinced someone to do so. But no, we have nothing other than the account written long after Jesus died. Because of this we have no direct evidence that Jesus existed as the Bible suggests, or that the Resurrection (or any other miracle) ever took place. All we have is belief in text written after his death, by those that never met him and were not alive during his life, gathered even later by others, then edited and combined even later than that by others.

On the other hand all science, all known medicine, and all sound reasoning known to date tells us there is no way for someone to die and then days later come back to life. You can go review millions of death records across the world and not a one of them will suggest death then magically return to life days after the fact.

All Christianity has then is text presented in story, a fantastic story, but with the ultimate irony being telling others they have to "prove" that a story (that was not even original from the Bronze Age, others used the same Resurrection theme) did not happen. Classic.
Click to expand...

1. Where's your replicated and peer-approved scientific studies that demonstrate that God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist? Per the OP you have to provide that to substantiate your claim.

2. Where's your evidence the historical Gospel stories (quote) "did not happen"?

This is a prime example of what I referenced in the OP. Unfounded arguments with no back-up evidence.
 
Logicman said:
Sorry, but the historical Gospels and various epistles, and the writings of the early church fathers, note otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, they do not. It is another nice story, but even what you call "The Gospel of Mark" was not written until about 70 AD. In turn, a good bit of Matthew and Luke is reproduced from Mark and written after 70 AD.

Logicman said:
1. Where's your replicated and peer-approved scientific studies that demonstrate that God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist? Per the OP you have to provide that to substantiate your claim.

2. Where's your evidence the historical Gospel stories (quote) "did not happen"?

This is a prime example of what I referenced in the OP. Unfounded arguments with no back-up evidence.
Click to expand...

Why do I need to provide what you cannot? More to the point why are you trying to bridge the gap between storied scripture and "peer-approved" scientific studies when the two are obviously incompatible? It is this sort of fundamentalism and literalism that gives Christianity a bad name.

What you references in the OP is a falsehood. There is no evidence the Resurrection happened, but others have to disprove it. That is shockingly naive to assume that the Bible qualifies as a "replicated and peer-approved scientific study."
 
Logicman said:
This is a prime example of what I referenced in the OP. Unfounded arguments with no back-up evidence.
Click to expand...

Where's the evidence for your claims? It's dishonest to hold others to a standard you cannot meet.
 
Are there actual forms of evidence (other than the Bible, for example) that Jesus is LORD? Even if hundreds of witnesses did exist, how could we know that based on writings that are two thousand years old? If so, these witnesses were not likely men of learning and could not therefore accurately transcribe their experiences using a written language. We know that many of Jesus's followers were unlearned men- fishermen, for example. . .with the exception of Luke and Paul who lived and died many years after the death and supposed resurrection of Christ. Several books of the bible were indeed written after the life and death of Jesus.

Please provide solid evidence to support your argument. Thank you.
 
OrphanSlug said:
No, they do not. It is another nice story, but even what you call "The Gospel of Mark" was not written until about 70 AD.
Click to expand...

Various scholars have it earlier.

OrphanSlug said:
In turn, a good bit of Matthew and Luke is reproduced from Mark and written after 70 AD.
Click to expand...

That's the old "Q Theory" which has been roundly discredited.

OrphanSlug said:
What you references in the OP is a falsehood. There is no evidence the Resurrection happened, but others have to disprove it. That is shockingly naive to assume that the Bible qualifies as a "replicated and peer-approved scientific study."
Click to expand...

Listen, I'm not going to listen to you casually throw out the Gospels, Acts, and 1st Corinthians just because you don't like them. They stand today as legitimate books of the historical New Testament.
 
spud_meister said:
Where's the evidence for your claims? It's dishonest to hold others to a standard you cannot meet.
Click to expand...

You guys are the skeptics who think you've got a handle that the resurrection accounts are bogus. Back it up.
 
Rhiannon said:
Are there actual forms of evidence (other than the Bible, for example) that Jesus is LORD? Even if hundreds of witnesses did exist, how could we know that based on writings that are two thousand years old? If so, these witnesses were not likely men of learning and could not therefore accurately transcribe their experiences using a written language. We know that many of Jesus's followers were unlearned men- fishermen, for example. . .with the exception of Luke and Paul who lived and died many years after the death and supposed resurrection of Christ. Several books of the bible were indeed written after the life and death of Jesus.

Please provide solid evidence to support your argument. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Matthew was a tax collector, so he probably knew quite well how to write, as did Luke the physician. Mark was Peter's scribe, and who knows about John? You can't say for sure he couldn't read or write.

And here's something for the skeptics here to think about:

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ « The Righter Report
 
Logicman said:
You guys are the skeptics who think you've got a handle that the resurrection accounts are bogus. Back it up.
Click to expand...

We're still waiting for the "accounts" to be backed up. Please provide evidence. If you can I will convert on the spot and praise Jesus.

Logicman said:
Sorry, but the historical Gospels and various epistles, and the writings of the early church fathers, note otherwise.



1. Where's your replicated and peer-approved scientific studies that demonstrate that God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist? Per the OP you have to provide that to substantiate your claim.

2. Where's your evidence the historical Gospel stories (quote) "did not happen"?

This is a prime example of what I referenced in the OP. Unfounded arguments with no back-up evidence.
Click to expand...

Please do not pretend like you have any idea whatsoever what a burden of proof is. Hint: It's on the one making the positive claim (you).

You sure do have a lot of unfounded arguments with no back-up evidence though.
 
Logicman said:
If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.
Click to expand...
Not quite. If you wish to present your theory on a scientific basis, you need to establish the hypothesis and support it with evidence. Only then can it be formally challenged (or indeed supported) on a scientific basis.

Your hypothesis is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus died, his spirit/soul separated from his body, was transferred to heaven and continues to exist as a conscious entity. Unless you can support all of those steps having occurred, your hypothesis remains unproven.
 
Logicman said:
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux of Christianity. If Christ is not risen from the dead, Christianity dies an immediate death.

Countless times skeptics of Christianity in this forum have been challenged to 'bust' (falsify) the resurrection as it is presented in the New Testament, etc. Every time they've been challenged they run from it, or come up with some shallow argument which they never fully defend. At no time that I can recall has anyone ever busted the resurrection, although the skeptics love to present wall-to-wall THEORIES on what might have occurred. They LOVE their theories. But so far they have no credible evidence to substantiate those theories.

If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

This thread is about the resurrection of Christ as seen in the Bible / Gospels / New Testament and early extra-biblical writings. Skeptics are invited to try to falsify it, using scriptural and/or historical arguments, etc. And if they can't bust the resurrection, they should strongly reconsider their contrary opinions on the matter.

Skeptics, let's see your bad-boy arguments, and do please endeavor to come up with some evidence to back up your arguments, and not just pontificate one theory after another!
Click to expand...

First, I am not atheist and do believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

That said, when looking at it from a rationalist/scientific point of view, there is no evidence for it. So the burden of proof lies with us believers to first prove it, not with the sceptics to disprove it. All we have on our side are the claims in the Bible, there is no proof beyond that.

That's why it is called "belief" and not "knowledge". If it was proven that Jesus was indeed resurrected, it wouldn't be a matter of belief anymore. It would be obvious. It would be irrational to deny it. So what point would there still be in believing?

Whenever God sent a prophet/manifestation/divine messenger, He left enough doubt about his message for that many people would fail to acknowledge the prophet/messenger. If God revealed His full power with a revelation, all of the created world would crumble and be worth nothing anymore. But limiting a revelation opening the door for doubt allows to separate the believer from the Pharisee, and elevating the enlightened.
 
Logicman said:
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux of Christianity. If Christ is not risen from the dead, Christianity dies an immediate death.

Countless times skeptics of Christianity in this forum have been challenged to 'bust' (falsify) the resurrection as it is presented in the New Testament, etc. Every time they've been challenged they run from it, or come up with some shallow argument which they never fully defend. At no time that I can recall has anyone ever busted the resurrection, although the skeptics love to present wall-to-wall THEORIES on what might have occurred. They LOVE their theories. But so far they have no credible evidence to substantiate those theories.

If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

This thread is about the resurrection of Christ as seen in the Bible / Gospels / New Testament and early extra-biblical writings. Skeptics are invited to try to falsify it, using scriptural and/or historical arguments, etc. And if they can't bust the resurrection, they should strongly reconsider their contrary opinions on the matter.

Skeptics, let's see your bad-boy arguments, and do please endeavor to come up with some evidence to back up your arguments, and not just pontificate one theory after another!
Click to expand...

actually all you need is sufficiently powerful god backing your religion doesn't matter if it fixed a meat puppet or not so long as it rewards you for doing what its wants with a pleasant and endless existence
 
blarg said:
actually all you need is sufficiently powerful god backing your religion doesn't matter if it fixed a meat puppet or not so long as it rewards you for doing what its wants with a pleasant and endless existence
Click to expand...

When I was at school they used to make us sing a hymn in which it was stated that in heaven all new arrivals would stand around god's throne singing his praises for a thousand years. How boring would that be, feeding the ego of an insecure sky daddy? I'd rather go to hell.
 
German guy said:
First, I am not atheist and do believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

That said, when looking at it from a rationalist/scientific point of view, there is no evidence for it. So the burden of proof lies with us believers to first prove it, not with the sceptics to disprove it. All we have on our side are the claims in the Bible, there is no proof beyond that.

That's why it is called "belief" and not "knowledge". If it was proven that Jesus was indeed resurrected, it wouldn't be a matter of belief anymore. It would be obvious. It would be irrational to deny it. So what point would there still be in believing?

Whenever God sent a prophet/manifestation/divine messenger, He left enough doubt about his message for that many people would fail to acknowledge the prophet/messenger. If God revealed His full power with a revelation, all of the created world would crumble and be worth nothing anymore. But limiting a revelation opening the door for doubt allows to separate the believer from the Pharisee, and elevating the enlightened.
Click to expand...

There is also no proof of the existence of the god of whom you speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom