Resurrection of Christ

[Muffled]

If Jesus is God, then why would he need to be resurrected?

First: Jesus prophesied that He would be resurrected. God always works hard to fulfill His prophecies.

Second: The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection. God wanted to prove them wrong.

Third: By resurrecting Jesus proved that death has no sting.

Fourth: By returning in the resurrection body (one that doesn't die) He presents the promise of eternal life.

 

[Popeyesays]

First: Jesus prophesied that He would be resurrected. God always works hard to fulfill His prophecies.

Second: The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection. God wanted to prove them wrong.

Third: By resurrecting Jesus proved that death has no sting.

Fourth: By returning in the resurrection body (one that doesn't die) He presents the promise of eternal life.

How does "God" die?

Regards,
Scott

 

[gnostic]

First: Jesus prophesied that He would be resurrected. God always works hard to fulfill His prophecies.

Second: The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection. God wanted to prove them wrong.

Third: By resurrecting Jesus proved that death has no sting.

Fourth: By returning in the resurrection body (one that doesn't die) He presents the promise of eternal life.

I understand where you are going with this, but.....

a) Do you see Jesus as THE God?

b) Or as a separate entity, thus a son of God?

If the latter (b), then I can understand his death and resurrection.

But if you think he is the former (a), then I don't understand why a god needs to die (popeyesays question) and be resurrected.

From what I have quoted from you, you seemed to see God and Son to be 2 different beings, so I am guessing you are in the b) category. (But do correct me if I am wrong.)

 

[logician]

"God always works hard to fulfill His prophecies."

Actually, the early literalists worked hard to write stories that supposedly fulfilled some usually
unrelated OT prophesy.

 

[Popeyesays]

"God always works hard to fulfill His prophecies"

Working is something people do.I would suggest you are anthropomorphizing God. God's will is done by the act of His will alone. No work is involved. Even Genesis does not imply that God was working hard in the Creation--He was just finished and admiring His handiwork.

Regards,
Scott

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How does "God" die?

Regards,
Scott

In Christianity, by submitting to death on a cross in the form of Jesus Christ.

Phil 2

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on himthe name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

 

[Popeyesays]

In Christianity, by submitting to death on a cross in the form of Jesus Christ.

Phil 2

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on himthe name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

Paul, of course.

He was talking through his hat.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How does "God" die?

Regards,
Scott

Only the flesh died.

 

[Popeyesays]

Only the flesh died.

I believe the flesh died and the spirit rose. But how is God contained in the flesh of a human being. God is infinite, no human being is. God omnipresent a human being is in one isolated place at a time. God is omnipotent, the flesh can die. God is omniscient, Jesus was limited to his five senses. The Human body is a teacup and it cannot contain the oceans of God's presence and spirit.

Surely you've heard of trying to contain ten pounds of material in a five pound bag. It's very rough on the bag.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

The Human body is a teacup and it cannot contain the oceans of God's presence and spirit.

And you can't fit a sun in an atom.

 

[Popeyesays]

And you can't fit a sun in an atom.

Absolutely.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Francine]

And you can't fit a sun in an atom.

But if you bang atoms together you get the power of the sun.

 

[Popeyesays]

But if you bang atoms together you get the power of the sun.

But it's not the power of the sun, and it's not a sun. You cannot bang any two atoms together. And you can't start deuterium fusion without expending a whole lot of energy to do it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

But it's not the power of the sun, and it's not a sun. You cannot bang any two atoms together. And you can't start deuterium fusion without expending a whole lot of energy to do it.

Regards,
Scott

It would seem that Baha'u'llah would argue that you can fit the ocean in a drop (much less than a tea cup) and find a sun in the atom's heart.

In the ocean he findeth a drop, in a drop he beholdeth the secrets of the sea.

Split the atom's heart, and lo!​

Within it thou wilt find a sun.​

[Persian Mystic Poem]​

 

[Popeyesays]

It would seem that Baha'u'llah would argue that you can fit the ocean in a drop (much less than a tea cup) and find a sun in the atom's heart.

He's speaking figuratively and quoting Rumi's poem. Consider it a Zen proposition.

"A drop of the billowing ocean of His endless mercy hath adorned all creation with the ornament of existence, and a breath wafted from His peerless Paradise hath invested all beings with the robe of His sanctity and glory."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 61)

The implication is that the universe cannot contain more than a drop of God's Essence. So, I'd have to say that supports the "can't contain an ocean in a teacup proposition."



Regards,
Scott

 

[logician]

At the point of the big bang, the singularity that held the whole universe was smaller than an atom.

 

[Popeyesays]

At the point of the big bang, the singularity that held the whole universe was smaller than an atom.

Yes, it was--as best we can tell. So dense that no atom could exist, just quarks packed so tight that they could not combine in that energy state. Smaller than an atom? Probably. Was it an atom? No. But its irrelevant because God is not contained within the multiverse or any of its universes.

I lean to the M Theory explanation about the collision of universes producing big bangs. Ceck out Wiki: M Theory, for a simplistic explanation. It came about when a Super Gravitational theorist wondered why String Theory was so fragmented.

Regards,
Scott

 

[crystalonyx]

Yes, it was--as best we can tell. So dense that no atom could exist, just quarks packed so tight that they could not combine in that energy state. Smaller than an atom? Probably. Was it an atom? No. But its irrelevant because God is not contained within the multiverse or any of its universes.

I lean to the M Theory explanation about the collision of universes producing big bangs. Ceck out Wiki: M Theory, for a simplistic explanation. It came about when a Super Gravitational theorist wondered why String Theory was so fragmented.

Regards,
Scott

No god is needed in an infinite multiverse, as universes die and are reborn continuously. Any god would be superfluous.

 

[lew0049]

No god is needed in an infinite multiverse, as universes die and are reborn continuously. Any god would be superfluous.

What does "needing" a God have anything to do with the multiuniverse theory. Even if the theory is true, this does not deny that there is a God and needing a God is irrelevant. Its interesting that people without faith argue for the Multiuniverse theory but then put down people of faith. Simply meaning that there is absolutely no evidence for the M Theory, it is a mere possiblity - yet many who support this possiblity then say that there is no possiblity of there being a God. (I'm sure people of faith do the same thing).

 

[crystalonyx]

What does "needing" a God have anything to do with the multiuniverse theory. Even if the theory is true, this does not deny that there is a God and needing a God is irrelevant. Its interesting that people without faith argue for the Multiuniverse theory but then put down people of faith. Simply meaning that there is absolutely no evidence for the M Theory, it is a mere possiblity - yet many who support this possiblity then say that there is no possiblity of there being a God. (I'm sure people of faith do the same thing).

YOu can believe in any god you want, I'm just saying that god concepts are superfluous(not necessary) in an infinite mutliverse structure. Or are you insistent we all believe in some god for some unseen universal reason?