Seminary Professor vs. Earth Science Professor

[Zzyzx]

.
Mcarma, who introduces himself as "I am also a seminary professor and teach Hebrew, OT Studies, Ancient Languages and periodically different theology classes" has indicated a willingness to defend bible stories as literally true.

Zzyzx, who acknowledges being a long retired professor of Earth science disputes the claim that bible stories can be shown to be literally true.

Questions for debate:

1. Was the "Resurrection of Jesus" a literally true physical event that happened in the real world?

2. Is there evidence to indicate that Jesus "arose from the grave after three days"?

3. What constitutes evidence?

[Easyrider]

.
Mcarma, who introduces himself as "I am also a seminary professor and teach Hebrew, OT Studies, Ancient Languages and periodically different theology classes" has indicated a willingness to defend bible stories as literally true.

I think there's limits on what constitutes "literal." Obviously, the sky is not real bronze in Genesis; God is not a literal "Fortress" made out of stone, and so on and so forth.

[Zzyzx]

.

Mcarma, who introduces himself as "I am also a seminary professor and teach Hebrew, OT Studies, Ancient Languages and periodically different theology classes" has indicated a willingness to defend bible stories as literally true.

I think there's limits on what constitutes "literal." Obviously, the sky is not real bronze in Genesis; God is not a literal "Fortress" made out of stone, and so on and so forth.

I agree that much of the bible cannot be considered literally true. Dead bodies do not come back to life, stars do not "go ahead of them and stop", forty days of rain does not flood the Earth "to the tops of mountains", people do not survive three days inside "the belly of a fish", donkeys and snakes do not converse with humans, people do not walk on water, multitudes are not fed with a few loaves and fish, etc.

My question then becomes what parts of the bible, if any, ARE literally true?

[bernee51]

.
Mcarma, who introduces himself as "I am also a seminary professor and teach Hebrew, OT Studies, Ancient Languages and periodically different theology classes" has indicated a willingness to defend bible stories as literally true.

Zzyzx, who acknowledges being a long retired professor of Earth science disputes the claim that bible stories can be shown to be literally true.

Questions for debate:

1. Was the "Resurrection of Jesus" a literally true physical event that happened in the real world?

2. Is there evidence to indicate that Jesus "arose from the grave after three days"?

3. What constitutes evidence?

Mcarma also stated..."Sure. I don't mind doing that at all {providing credible evidence of the fact of the resurrection}; my question is just if that would be appropriate in this thread or should another be created; if so, who is going to create the thread, etc."

So I guess this is the thread. I'm all ears.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm curious to find out how folks get up out of a grave after three days and carry on like nothing ever happened. Is it like the kid who crashes his bike and hops up saying, "That didn't hurt"?

(edit cause I missed one little 'a')

[Ben Masada]

.
Mcarma, who introduces himself as "I am also a seminary professor and teach Hebrew, OT Studies, Ancient Languages and periodically different theology classes" has indicated a willingness to defend bible stories as literally true.

Zzyzx, who acknowledges being a long retired professor of Earth science disputes the claim that bible stories can be shown to be literally true.

Questions for debate:

1. Was the "Resurrection of Jesus" a literally true physical event that happened in the real world?

2. Is there evidence to indicate that Jesus "arose from the grave after three days"?

3. What constitutes evidence?

---------------

1. No, it was not. And evidence is based on the fact that it would be raising contradictions in the Hebrew Scriptures that are only too clear against bodily resurrection. (Job 7:9,10; 10:21; 14:12; II Sam. 12:24; Psalm 88:6; 146:4; Prov. 2:19; Ezek. 26:20; etc.)

2. No, there is not. No one at all was witness of the fact.

3. Of a fact that far back in time, only Logial events.

Ben:

[Mark75]

.
Mcarma, who introduces himself as "I am also a seminary professor and teach Hebrew, OT Studies, Ancient Languages and periodically different theology classes" has indicated a willingness to defend bible stories as literally true.

Zzyzx, who acknowledges being a long retired professor of Earth science disputes the claim that bible stories can be shown to be literally true.

Questions for debate:

1. Was the "Resurrection of Jesus" a literally true physical event that happened in the real world?

2. Is there evidence to indicate that Jesus "arose from the grave after three days"?

3. What constitutes evidence?

Just to settle any feelings that might exist that I am not or will not participate in this thread, I am preparing a response to the OP which I will post.

As stated previously in other threads, I do have a busy schedule. But I am working on my response as much as possible.

Also, I am going to state at the outset of the thread that appears to be directed to me personally, the author of this OP and myself have not corroborated at all on the details and format of the thread. The retired earth-science professor designed this debate on his own, according to his rules and definitions.

I will be glad to respond; however afteraward I believe that turn-about is fair play, so I will contruct a debate thread according to my rules and definitions. and address it to the retired earth-science professor and see if he would like to participate as well.

Also, I will be debating from a Christian perspective, but I am going to debate historically rather than theologically. I will refer to Jewish aspects occasionally, but I just want to state at the outset that my argument will be from a rational, reasoned Cristian perspective.

My post will be coming soon. Then, after you have seen my entire argument, which would be like my Opening Statement if this were a formal debate, we can rebutt the specifics.

My intention is that the post will be up before the end of the day.

[Zzyzx]

.

Mcarma, who introduces himself as "I am also a seminary professor and teach Hebrew, OT Studies, Ancient Languages and periodically different theology classes" has indicated a willingness to defend bible stories as literally true.

Zzyzx, who acknowledges being a long retired professor of Earth science disputes the claim that bible stories can be shown to be literally true.

Questions for debate:

1. Was the "Resurrection of Jesus" a literally true physical event that happened in the real world?

2. Is there evidence to indicate that Jesus "arose from the grave after three days"?

3. What constitutes evidence?

Just to settle any feelings that might exist that I am not or will not participate in this thread, I am preparing a response to the OP which I will post.

As stated previously in other threads, I do have a busy schedule. But I am working on my response as much as possible.

Take your time professor. There is no hurry.

Also, I am going to state at the outset of the thread that appears to be directed to me personally, the author of this OP and myself have not corroborated at all on the details and format of the thread. The retired earth-science professor designed this debate on his own, according to his rules and definitions.

That is correct, I posted the OP without assistance. However, I have set forth NO rules and definitions. Forum Rules and Guidelines apply to all debates. Ethics and Honor apply to those who can debate ethically and honorably.

I ASK for a definition of "evidence".

Are you uncomfortable with the topic?

I will be glad to respond; however afteraward I believe that turn-about is fair play, so I will contruct a debate thread according to my rules and definitions. and address it to the retired earth-science professor and see if he would like to participate as well.

I will be happy to consider any topic you raise and participate or decline as seems appropriate. I am not here trying to sell anything.

Also, I will be debating from a Christian perspective, but I am going to debate historically rather than theologically. I will refer to Jewish aspects occasionally, but I just want to state at the outset that my argument will be from a rational, reasoned Cristian perspective.

I will insist that you substantiate claims with evidence " other than religious promotional material. See "Guidelines for C&A subforum". Christian assumptions are not regarded as binding and the bible is not regarded as proof.

A level playing field may not be to your advantage, Professor.

[Mark75]

Take your time professor. There is no hurry.

mcarma wrote:
Also, I am going to state at the outset of the thread that appears to be directed to me personally, the author of this OP and myself have not corroborated at all on the details and format of the thread. The retired earth-science professor designed this debate on his own, according to his rules and definitions.

That is correct, I posted the OP without assistance. However, I have set forth NO rules and definitions. Forum Rules and Guidelines apply to all debates. Ethics and Honor apply to those who can debate ethically and honorably.

I ASK for a definition of "evidence".

Are you uncomfortable with the topic?

mcarma wrote:
I will be glad to respond; however afteraward I believe that turn-about is fair play, so I will contruct a debate thread according to my rules and definitions. and address it to the retired earth-science professor and see if he would like to participate as well.

I will be happy to consider any topic you raise and participate or decline as seems appropriate. I am not here trying to sell anything.

mcarma wrote:
Also, I will be debating from a Christian perspective, but I am going to debate historically rather than theologically. I will refer to Jewish aspects occasionally, but I just want to state at the outset that my argument will be from a rational, reasoned Cristian perspective.

I will insist that you substantiate claims with evidence " other than religious promotional material. See "Guidelines for C&A subforum". Christian assumptions are not regarded as binding and the bible is not regarded as proof.

A level playing field may not be to your advantage, Professor.

Well, Professor, I'm not displeased or dissatisfied with the OP in general, but I think that a few things need to be defined and established:

[Mark75]

Take your time professor. There is no hurry.

mcarma wrote:
Also, I am going to state at the outset of the thread that appears to be directed to me personally, the author of this OP and myself have not corroborated at all on the details and format of the thread. The retired earth-science professor designed this debate on his own, according to his rules and definitions.

That is correct, I posted the OP without assistance. However, I have set forth NO rules and definitions. Forum Rules and Guidelines apply to all debates. Ethics and Honor apply to those who can debate ethically and honorably.

I ASK for a definition of "evidence".

Are you uncomfortable with the topic?

mcarma wrote:
I will be glad to respond; however afteraward I believe that turn-about is fair play, so I will contruct a debate thread according to my rules and definitions. and address it to the retired earth-science professor and see if he would like to participate as well.

I will be happy to consider any topic you raise and participate or decline as seems appropriate. I am not here trying to sell anything.

mcarma wrote:
Also, I will be debating from a Christian perspective, but I am going to debate historically rather than theologically. I will refer to Jewish aspects occasionally, but I just want to state at the outset that my argument will be from a rational, reasoned Cristian perspective.

I will insist that you substantiate claims with evidence " other than religious promotional material. See "Guidelines for C&A subforum". Christian assumptions are not regarded as binding and the bible is not regarded as proof.

A level playing field may not be to your advantage, Professor.

Well, Professor, I'm not displeased or dissatisfied with the OP in general, but I think that a few things need to be defined and established:

- I don't think we'll have a problem debating ethically and honorably, at least not from my perspective

- I will define evidence as "That which lends credibility or removes credibility regarding the issue at hand.

- I will use the NT accounts historically rather than theologically; unless someone can make a case for showing that the NT narratives are unhistorical, then I see no reason to rule them out as historical sources.

- It would have been better if we had been able to eliminate question 3 by coming to an agreement about how we both will define evidence. If my definition above is not satisfactory to you, then we need to settle it, because I don't have time to spend putting material together that you are just going to disregard because it doesn't fit your definition of evidence.

- I don't need to be the only one working, here. The OP of this debate is: "Was Jesus literally and historically raised from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion?" I am stating a case for the affirmtive; you have just as much a need to state a case for your negative position regarding the question. I think it only fair that if I have to establish a case for the affirmative, then you need to do the same for your opposing position. And that's typically how a debate runs. Then we can rebutt the cases.

I don't mind a challenge to debate an issue, but if I'm going to debate with someone, then we should prepare the debate properly. No one side should be having to do all the work in writing posts to explain my case only, and then have the "debate" focus on criticising my position, while the opposition just sits and throws comments about the other participant but never bothers to spend the same effort to post a case for the opposite side which is also open to critique by others.

I'll be posting soon.