Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

[Dawnofhope]

If Baha'i believes that statement, they should renounce Baha'i and accept Jesus as the Lord and Savior. That would mane them Christians. Does Baha'i teach that Jesus was God, and that His death aid for the sins of the whole world?

Dear Omega, Please refer to posts number #226 and #241 on this thread in regards to the Divinity of Christ. We had this conversation about a week ago.

 

[omega2xx]

The Tanach says absolutely nothing about Jesus. I am the one who says that the Tanach is the gospel
of Jesus because Jesus was a Jew and, the Tanach is the gospel of every Jew. Can you refute that?

The Tanach if full of reference to Jesus if you know how to understand it. That depends on if you actually know what the gospel is. Although Jesus was a Jew, Established and non-Jewish religion.

didn't think so. Besides, not a single Jew wrote a single page of the NT.<<

That is just plain silly. Matthew, John, Paul, David, James were all Jews.

I think you don't know what is a Jew by definition.

I do, but it doesn't matter. I am sure you don't know God's definition of a Jew from the NT. His definition is the only on that counts.

A Jew would not write against his own Faith.

The would if they found the true one.

The NT leads the reader to Paul, not to Jesus. Paul was the one who founded Christianity in the city of Antioch if you read Acts 11:26. If you show me any thing in the Tanach which points to Jesus and that is not the product of your own Christian preconceived notions, I'll make a deal with you to become a Christian as you are.

Not one word in that paragraph is true. You need a much better source for you information on Christianity.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The Tanach if full of reference to Jesus if you know how to understand it. That depends on if you actually know what the gospel is. Although Jesus was a Jew, Established and non-Jewish religion.

You say so because you do not understand the Tanach. I have tried to make a deal with you about a text referring to
Jesus in the Tanach but you don't take it because you don't have it.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think you may be assuming too much. Just because Christianity has prospered I would not assume the truth of the physical resurrection has contributed. What is apparent is the power of the words of Christ to influence hearts of men and bring them from the death of unbelief to spiritual life. That is the reality of Christ for me.

What "words" of Jesus? You refer to them again in post 344. But I've seen the "red-letter" edition of the NT. There's not that many words that Jesus actually said. A lot of the NT is about how He proved He had the power and authority to say the things He did because of the attesting miracles, the greatest being that God raised Him from the dead.

Now you Baha'is say "let deeds not words be your adorning", so why the words of Jesus and not His deeds? You say that a physical resurrection goes against the Baha'i principle of using science and reason. But what actions of Jesus didn't include supernatural miracles? And these include bringing a couple of people back to life. So do you allegorize these too? Did Lazarus fall into a deep depression to where he was as if dead? Then after three days Jesus came to visit and he got all happy again?

He walked on water, stopped a storm and fed five thousand with a few fish and a few pieces of bread. Am I crazy to doubt that? It doesn't make sense. It is physically impossible. Yet, that's how the story goes. Were the writers telling the truth of what happened? Or was all this allegory? Like the feeding of the people was really the words He spoke was the true food from heaven and they all left satisfied? If you keep your eyes on God you will not sink into the swirling water of doubt and confusion?

So if you make the resurrection an allegory, then you have to make the whole thing one big allegory. None of it is historically accurate. Why the writers would do that, I don't know? You can say that Jesus spoke in parables sometimes, but why the gospel writers? You can say prophetic language is symbolic. But what about when they say that Jesus did this and then said that and then went other there... and then was killed... and then came back to life? That is reporting things they believed really happened. So if those things didn't really happen, then what is so great about Jesus? And that makes the Bible basically a myth. What can we really believe about the Bible? If it doesn't mean what it says? Can we even trust the writers really quoted Jesus correctly?

The gospel writers can't even tell between historical facts of His actions and something symbolic. But with His words, which one of the writers was even there when He spoke the words? Even John, he wasn't there when Nicodemus came to Jesus, yet John tells us what was said? Did they take notes and years later compiled the gospel story? Even if they did, when they wrote the gospel did they add a few things? Can we really trust these guys to tell us the truth? After all, they can't even tell a symbolic happening from a real physical thing.

 

[omega2xx]

You say so because you do not understand the Tanach. I have tried to make a deal with you about a text referring to
Jesus in the Tanach but you don't take it because you don't have it.

I will give you some which you will not understand: Gen 3:15---Ex 12:6---Ex 25:8-9---Lev 1:3, 2:1---3:1---4:4---5:6 & all of the Messianic prophecies.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I will give you some which you will not understand: Gen 3:15---Ex 12:6---Ex 25:8-9---Lev 1:3, 2:1---3:1---4:4---5:6 & all of the Messianic prophecies.

Gen. 3:15 - I will put enmity between you (Genitiles) and the woman (Israel) and between your offspring (Gentiles) and hers (the Jews). How is the woman Israel? The answer is in Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22; and 8:8. Now, if you read Amos 5:2, "The virgin Israel is fallen". That's when Samaria fell to Assyria, and Judah remained alone as a Lamp in Jerusalem until the turn of Judah came to leave for Babylon in an exile of 70 years.

Now, with regards to the other passages in Exodus and Leviticus, all those Messianic prophecies, you need to tell me what in those texts you assume to point to Jesus because I didn't see any. They all point to Israel as a people. One needs to be a Christian to think of Jesus in those texts in terms of Christian preconceived notions based in faith, not in logical knowledge.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What "words" of Jesus? You refer to them again in post 344. But I've seen the "red-letter" edition of the NT. There's not that many words that Jesus actually said. A lot of the NT is about how He proved He had the power and authority to say the things He did because of the attesting miracles, the greatest being that God raised Him from the dead.

What words? All of them. Man needs every word of God after all. Matthew 4:4

The 'Word' is a symbol for the Manifestation of God or in the context of the NT Christ. I would argue that the need to acknowledge every 'Word' of God or every Manifestation of God in this day is as important as recognising Christ when He came.

The Christian narrative emphasises belief in miracles as central to faith. Therefore as a Christian you have to believe the miracles as being literally true as they are the proof of Christ's Divinity. The greatest miracle of course was the resurrection.

What did Christ say about miracles.

So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” John 4:48

He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:20

But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."
Matthew 12:39

The Baha'i Faith discourages its believers from using the stories of the Baha'u'llah's miracles as a proof of His Divinity.

These brief excepts from Abdu'l-Baha's table talks with Western Believers may be helpful for you.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 100-102

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 103-105

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 97-99

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 89-90

Now you Baha'is say "let deeds not words be your adorning", so why the words of Jesus and not His deeds? You say that a physical resurrection goes against the Baha'i principle of using science and reason. But what actions of Jesus didn't include supernatural miracles? And these include bringing a couple of people back to life. So do you allegorize these too? Did Lazarus fall into a deep depression to where he was as if dead? Then after three days Jesus came to visit and he got all happy again?

He walked on water, stopped a storm and fed five thousand with a few fish and a few pieces of bread. Am I crazy to doubt that? It doesn't make sense. It is physically impossible. Yet, that's how the story goes. Were the writers telling the truth of what happened? Or was all this allegory? Like the feeding of the people was really the words He spoke was the true food from heaven and they all left satisfied? If you keep your eyes on God you will not sink into the swirling water of doubt and confusion?

There is nothing preventing Baha'is in believing in all the other miracles apart from the resurrection of Christ. Taking this story literally means Christ ascending into the sky where heaven clearly isn't.

What really matters to me is the power of God's words and 'Words' to utterly transform hearts and minds.

So if you make the resurrection an allegory, then you have to make the whole thing one big allegory. None of it is historically accurate. Why the writers would do that, I don't know? You can say that Jesus spoke in parables sometimes, but why the gospel writers? You can say prophetic language is symbolic. But what about when they say that Jesus did this and then said that and then went other there... and then was killed... and then came back to life? That is reporting things they believed really happened. So if those things didn't really happen, then what is so great about Jesus? And that makes the Bible basically a myth. What can we really believe about the Bible? If it doesn't mean what it says? Can we even trust the writers really quoted Jesus correctly?

The gospel writers can't even tell between historical facts of His actions and something symbolic. But with His words, which one of the writers was even there when He spoke the words? Even John, he wasn't there when Nicodemus came to Jesus, yet John tells us what was said? Did they take notes and years later compiled the gospel story? Even if they did, when they wrote the gospel did they add a few things? Can we really trust these guys to tell us the truth? After all, they can't even tell a symbolic happening from a real physical thing.

I've explained this previously. It took me a while to extricate myself from a 'Christian mind set' about the apostles and appreciate why they would tell stories that may not have any literal truth.

 

[omega2xx]

Gen. 3:15 - I will put enmity between you (Genitiles) and the woman (Israel) and between your offspring (Gentiles) and hers (the Jews). How is the woman Israel? The answer is in Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22; and 8:8. Now, if you read Amos 5:2, "The virgin Israel is fallen". That's when Samaria fell to Assyria, and Judah remained alone as a Lamp in Jerusalem until the turn of Judah came to leave for Babylon in an exile of 70 years.<<

Perfect example of not understanding the ole, without understanding the New. The Jews do no have a seed from which Gentiles germinate. Gal 3:16 ---Now the promises were not spoke to Abraham and to hi seed, He doe snot say to seeds, as referring to many but rather to one, and that is your seed, that is Christ. The woman is the Christian church. That is Christ's seed, which were multiplied by Abrfaham the father of all who beleive and which God promises to make a multitde of.

Now, with regards to the other passages in Exodus and Leviticus, all those Messianic prophecies, you need to tell me what in those texts you assume to point to Jesus because I didn't see any.

You don't see any because you refuse to accept h NT. All of the Levitical sacrifices are an allegory of the substitute atonement of Jesus, the Lamb of "God who takes away the sin of the world. He is also the Passover Lamb that keeps the death angel out of the house, marked with His blood, applied in the form of a cross.

They all point to Israel as a people. One needs to be a Christian to think of Jesus in those texts in terms of Christian preconceived notions based in faith, not in logical knowledge.

Israel cant be the servant of Isa 53--Sinful man can't be the one who pays for sin. Your own Scriptures requite the sacrifice to be without spot or blemish and Israel was sinful many time in the OT. Do you not read the prophets?


You are right one needs to be a Christians to put Jesus in those allegories. Jesus said all of th OT spoke of Him(Lk 24:27& 44). Until you accept that, you will never understand the OT.

The new is in the old containend, the old is in the new explained.

 

[Ben Avraham]

They all point to Israel as a people. One needs to be a Christian to think of Jesus in those texts in terms of Christian preconceived notions based in faith, not in logical knowledge.

 

[CG Didymus]

...It took me a while to extricate myself from a 'Christian mind set' about the apostles and appreciate why they would tell stories that may not have any literal truth.

Let's go through the gospel story. Jesus is born of a virgin. True event or some symbolic thing? The family flees to Egypt or do they go back to Nazareth? One gospel says one thing, another says another. Jesus gets his disciples and starts wondering through the countryside. He preaches and heals people and casts out demons. Hmmm, demons? are they for real? Or something symbolic?

Oh, I forgot, Jesus wanders off with no food and gets tested by Satan. Did that really happen? The gospel writer wasn't there, how'd he know what happened? Did Jesus tell him? If so, did Jesus make up the story and tell him something that wasn't true? Anyway, fast forward to the end... did Jesus get crucified and buried? Were the accounts telling us what really happened? Were they accurate in their telling of the story? Or, did God pull a switcharoo and put a look-a-like in place of the real Jesus?

So how are we doing? Is the story about Jesus talking about actual events so far? Even if they embellished the story, are they presenting it as things that really happened? If not, then who cares, the book is fantasy and Christians are stupid for believing it. But, they do believe it true and accurate... maybe too literal? That could be, but what so far what would be "too" literal to believe? For me a lot, the virgin birth and walking on water, casting demons into swine and a few other things.

But now what? What do we do with the story? Dead men don't come back to life? There has already been stories about resuscitating the dead. Were they lies? Yes? No? Some symbolic thing told as a true event? That still sounds like a lie to me. But anyway, Jesus comes back to life. But in a strange and mysterious body though, and still presented as if these things were true events.

It appears and disappears. It is recognized and disguised. It eats and is touched and has flesh and bone... and then ascends into the sky? Is that your only problem? A body can't ascend into space? It can be virgin born and walk on water, but it can't float off into the stratosphere? A dove came down from heaven and landed on His shoulder, but Jesus couldn't have rose from the dead? People came out of their graves when He was crucified and Him ascending into heaven is what you have a problem with? God spoke from heaven and said that Jesus was His beloved Son? And you don't believe in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus? Great, it's crazy. It's all idiotic and beyond belief.

But the whole Bible is filled with such stories. If these things didn't happen, then the Bible is a myth. And everything Jesus did is a myth. And the only reason Christianity is great, is because Christians believe it to be true... poor saps, believing a lie like that. Don't they realize the symbolism of it all?

 

[omega2xx]

They all point to Israel as a people.

They do not and even if they did, no Jew or nation can fulfill the requirements of Isa 53. You keep ignoring the Lamb had to be without spot or blemish. Also Judaism was born long before Bethlehem as a city.

One needs to be a Christian to think of Jesus in those texts in terms of Christian preconceived notions based in faith, not in logical knowledge.

One needs to be Jew not to think of Jesus in those terms, of preconceived from non-BiblicaL theology. The OT does not say the Messiah can't die. In fact Zech 12:10, indicates He will die. Also Israel did not and cannot ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and fulfill the prophecy of Zech 9:9.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Let's go through the gospel story. Jesus is born of a virgin. True event or some symbolic thing?

Shoghi Effendi refers to it as a 'Divine mystery' but that doesn't answer the question. Abdu'l-Baha says that if it were true that isn't what makes Christ great as Adam in Genesis if taken literally has neither a mother or father. What makes Christ great is His divine perfections.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 89-90

This passage is about the futility of the argument around the virgin birth.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 87-88

Jesus gets his disciples and starts wondering through the countryside. He preaches and heals people and casts out demons. Hmmm, demons? are they for real? Or something symbolic?

We could consider whether epilepsy or mental illness is a result of demonic possession or perhaps that was a language for describing these conditions that would have been severe in a time when there was no effective medical treatment. Should we utilise medical treatments today or revert to exorcisms if this is literally true?

Oh, I forgot, Jesus wanders off with no food and gets tested by Satan. Did that really happen?

40 days is symbolic of a time of testing. Jesus is preparing for His ministry. He is achieving final mastery over His lower nature (Satan) so He can confound us all for the 2,000 years trying to work out what He really said and did.

Anyway, fast forward to the end... did Jesus get crucified and buried?

The Baha'i writings indicate He was crucified.

If not, then who cares, the book is fantasy and Christians are stupid for believing it. But, they do believe it true and accurate... maybe too literal? That could be, but what so far what would be "too" literal to believe? For me a lot, the virgin birth and walking on water, casting demons into swine and a few other things.

But now what? What do we do with the story? Dead men don't come back to life? There has already been stories about resuscitating the dead. Were they lies? Yes? No? Some symbolic thing told as a true event? That still sounds like a lie to me.

Does it really matter? The important thing is we can attain new spiritual life through His teachings. We can be born again, or born into a new spiritual life....or resurrected!

It appears and disappears. It is recognized and disguised. It eats and is touched and has flesh and bone... and then ascends into the sky? Is that your only problem? A body can't ascend into space?

The problem isn't just that He ascends into the sky, but the purpose of this journey is to be with His Father in heaven, but we know that there's just a lot of space.

It can be virgin born and walk on water, but it can't float off into the stratosphere?

A dove came down from heaven and landed on His shoulder, but Jesus couldn't have rose from the dead? People came out of their graves when He was crucified and Him ascending into heaven is what you have a problem with? God spoke from heaven and said that Jesus was His beloved Son? And you don't believe in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus? Great, it's crazy. It's all idiotic and beyond belief.

But the whole Bible is filled with such stories. If these things didn't happen, then the Bible is a myth. And everything Jesus did is a myth. And the only reason Christianity is great, is because Christians believe it to be true... poor saps, believing a lie like that. Don't they realize the symbolism of it all?

I was thinking that one of the ironies is that Christians may be the last to recognise the returned Christ!

He who is first will later be last.
Matthew 20:16

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1 Thessalonians 4:15-18

Christians are so entwined in a web of man made dogmas and doctrines they can't see the wood for the trees. Poor saps indeed

I wish I could be more insightful today. It sounds like you are having a great time sorting it all out.

 

[Ben Avraham]

They do not and even if they did, no Jew or nation can fulfill the requirements of Isa 53. You keep ignoring the Lamb had to be without spot or blemish. Also Judaism was born long before Bethlehem as a city. One needs to be Jew not to think of Jesus in those terms, of preconceived from non-BiblicaL theology. The OT does not say the Messiah can't die. In fact Zech 12:10, indicates He will die. Also Israel did not and cannot ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and fulfill the prophecy of Zech 9:9.

And what was the requirement of Isaiah 53, do you happen to know? Tell me and I'll tell you if Israel fulfilled it or not. And who was the lamb you claim to be without spot or blemish? Jesus, of course, right! Was Jesus without spot or blemish? I am ready to prove to you that he was not. Let's start with Ecclesiastes 7:20. "There has never been a man upon earth who has done only good and never sinned." Tell me, was Jesus a man upon earth? For 33 years. Good! So, he was not without spot and blemish. Now, let's prove it. Have you ever heard about the Golden Rule? It covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. It says not to do unto others what you would not like they did unto yourself. Would you like to be addressed as a hypocrite and brood of vipers? I don't think so. That's what Jesus did to the Jewish authorities if we are to believe Matthew 23:13-33. For 15 times, Jesus broke the Golden Rule by calling them hypocrites and brood of vipers. Never mind if they were or not. They did not like to be treated that way and Jesus did not respect their will. Then, there is the case of the money changers doing their work by permission of the High Priest to change the foreign money of the Jews from Diaspora for the Temple shekel. Jesus armed himself with a whip and started causing them financial and physical damages. Well, was Jesus still without spot or blemish? Hardly!

Last but not least, Israel did ride into Jerusalem on many donkeys when they returned from Babylon.

 

[omega2xx]

And what was the requirement of Isaiah 53, do you happen to know?

The language is so simple even a cave man with a low 2 digit I can understand it. WE have been through this before and i don't care to do it again. Is any Jew without sin? What is GOD'S requirement for an acceptable sacrifice?

Tell me and I'll tell you if Israel fulfilled it or not. And who was the lamb you claim to be without spot or blemish? Jesus, of course, right! Was Jesus without spot or blemish? I am ready to prove to you that he was not. Let's start with Ecclesiastes 7:20.

You don't even understand your own Scriptures. That verse is not Messianic. That vers also proves Israel could not qualify as an acceptable sacrifice.

"There has never been a man upon earth who has done only good and never sinned." Tell me, was Jesus a man upon earth? For 33 years. Good! So, he was not without spot and blemish.

The NT says Jesus was without sin. He was more than a man. He was God in the flesh. If you don't accept that, it is you problem, not mine.

Now, let's prove it. Have you ever heard about the Golden Rule? It covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. It says not to do unto others what you would not like they did unto yourself. Would you like to be addressed as a hypocrite and brood of vipers? I don't think so. That's what Jesus did to the Jewish authorities if we are to believe Matthew 23:13-33. For 15 times, Jesus broke the Golden Rule by calling them hypocrites and brood of vipers. Never mind if they were or not.

Of course it matters if it is true or not. They were suppose to be tending God's flock, but they were leading the people astray. God did basically the same thing in Ezk 34:1-10. Did God break the golden rule?

They did not like to be treated that way and Jesus did not respect their will.

Jesus did not respect them taking advantage of God sheep. They had abandoned their God-give ministry because of their greed. It would have been wrong for Jesus not to tell them what He did. If He didn't they would never know their sin. Read about the wonderful priest in Malachi. God did not pull any punches with them either,. In chapter 2 God rebukes them and say He will rub poop in their face. He accuses them of leading the people astray.

Maybe you need to look at what God says to the priest and scribes before you criticize what Jesus did.

Then, there is the case of the money changers doing their work by permission of the High Priest to change the foreign money of the Jews from Diaspora for the Temple shekel. Jesus armed himself with a whip and started causing them financial and physical damages. Well, was Jesus still without spot or blemish? Hardly!

If you don't accept the NT as true, don't try and use it to try and make you point, which wrong any way.

Last but not least, Israel did ride into Jerusalem on many donkeys when they returned from Babylon.

Irrelevant but amusing. Do you really not understand that is a Messianic prophecy? How sad.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The language is so simple even a cave man with a low 2 digit I can understand it. WE have been through this before and i don't care to do it again. Is any Jew without sin? What is GOD'S requirement for an acceptable sacrifice? You don't even understand your own Scriptures. That verse is not Messianic. That vers also proves Israel could not qualify as an acceptable sacrifice.

No, there has never been a Jew without sin. Now, try to remind yourself that Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian. Therefore, he was not without sin. So, he could not have been used as a sacrifice besides the fact that no one can be sacrificed for the sins of another if you read Ezekiel 18:4,20; God's requirement for an acceptable sacrifice is that it be of an animal and not of a person, especially if that person is a Jew. And you don't even understand your own NT. I did not give you that verse in Ecclesiastes as messianic but as proof that Jesus could not have been the Messiah because he was a sinner. (Ecclesiastes 7:20) Of course, Israel could not qualify as a sacrifice at all. Israel is not an animal. As well as Jesus could not classify as a sacrifice but you don't care that he was not an animal as long as he broke the prophetic law that no man can sacrifice himself for another. (Ezekiel 18:4,20)

 

[omega2xx]

No, there has never been a Jew without sin. Now, try to remind yourself that Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian. Therefore, he was not without sin. So, he could not have been used as a sacrifice besides the fact that no one can be sacrificed for the sins of another if you read Ezekiel 18:4,20; God's requirement for an acceptable sacrifice is that it be of an animal and not of a person, especially if that person is a Jew. And you don't even understand your own NT. I did not give you that verse in Ecclesiastes as messianic but as proof that Jesus could not have been the Messiah because he was a sinner. (Ecclesiastes 7:20) Of course, Israel could not qualify as a sacrifice at all. Israel is not an animal. As well as Jesus could not classify as a sacrifice but you don't care that he was not an animal as long as he broke the prophetic law that no man can sacrifice himself for another. (Ezekiel 18:4,20)

The NT says Jesus did not sin. I will stick with it instead of with one who does not even understand the OT.

 

[CG Didymus]

...Christians are so entwined in a web of man made dogmas and doctrines they can't see the wood for the trees...

Sure they have some strange interpretations of things, like if He did all these these, and said such and such then He must be God. So now what? Well, let's make God a three in one entity.

However, the gospel are not talking in symbolic language. They're in plain language and speaking of how things happened. But, what would have been so hard, if it is the truth, for them to say:

"Hey, Jesus is dead. He was a great guy. Let's quit moping around and go spread His message of love." And behold, the apostles went forth and talked about God's love, thus resuscitating the Word that lie dormant... Bringing to life the spirit of Christ that had been buried in the darkness of a cave. "Here Mr. Roman, here's a flower. Did you know God loves you? We forgive you for crucifying our Master, but His spirit lives in us and you can't kill that."

But no, they make up a story a seeing Jesus alive, touching him, talking to him and then saying to disappeared into space. No, that not symbolic. It's either somehow true, or total fantasy... Because they wrote it and told it as if it really happened.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The NT says Jesus did not sin. I will stick with it instead of with one who does not even understand the OT.

Oh! Because the NT says that Jesus did not sin! What does it mean if Jesus was not a Christian? Jesus was never liable to what the NT says. His gospel was the Tanach, the Scriptures he always referred to as the Word of God. The NT was the gospel of Paul, not of Jesus. Why is it so hard for Christians to understand it? Stick to the gospel of Jesus and not the one of Paul and you will be safe.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Hey, Jesus is dead. He was a great guy. Let's quit moping around and go spread His message of love." And behold, the apostles went forth and talked about God's love, thus resuscitating the Word that lie dormant... Bringing to life the spirit of Christ that had been buried in the darkness of a cave. "Here Mr. Roman, here's a flower. Did you know God loves you? We forgive you for crucifying our Master, but His spirit lives in us and you can't kill that."

The gospel story definitely sounds more compelling.

But no, they make up a story a seeing Jesus alive, touching him, talking to him and then saying to disappeared into space. No, that not symbolic. It's either somehow true, or total fantasy... Because they wrote it and told it as if it really happened.

If it was written down 2,000 years ago it must be true.

 

[omega2xx]

Oh! Because the NT says that Jesus did not sin! What does it mean if Jesus was not a Christian? Jesus was never liable to what the NT says. His gospel was the Tanach, the Scriptures he always referred to as the Word of God. The NT was the gospel of Paul, not of Jesus. Why is it so hard for Christians to understand it? Stick to the gospel of Jesus and not the one of Paul and you will be safe.

Yo udon't even understand the OT, so there is no way you can understadn the NT. Continuing to discuss your unbiblical theology is a complete waste of time. Have a nice day.