Resurrection of Christ

[sandy whitelinger]

There is no such thing as nothing...

what is it that exists in the empty spaces in an atom, a myth?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus Christ did not die on the cross. He was unconscious and got up after 3 days. He eventually died after 40 days. There is an ancient Hindu story that says a young husband was rekindled into life by the God of Death after his bride's stout intercession. In both, cases of near-death experience interpreted as miracle to convey higher spiritual truths.

I would tend to agree....Especially after reading that he was hungry and was fed (a piece of honey comb and broiled fish)...I think.....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Jesus Christ did not die on the cross. He was unconscious and got up after 3 days. He eventually died after 40 days. There is an ancient Hindu story that says a young husband was rekindled into life by the God of Death after his bride's stout intercession. In both, cases of near-death experience interpreted as miracle to convey higher spiritual truths.

That's nice.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm confused by that. If God is omnipresent, and Jesus is not omnipresent, how can Jesus be God?

Gone down this road already. You're not going to get anywhere with those who profess Yeshua to be God.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and YESHUA THE MESSIAH, whom YOU HAVE SEN

 

[Darkness]

Gone down this road already. You're not going to get anywhere with those who profess Yeshua to be God.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and YESHUA THE MESSIAH, whom YOU HAVE SEN

How do you explain the beginning of the Gospel of John?

 

[Popeyesays]

How do you explain the beginning of the Gospel of John?

Define "Word" before you argue the opening of John.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lew0049]

Jesus Christ did not die on the cross. He was unconscious and got up after 3 days. He eventually died after 40 days. There is an ancient Hindu story that says a young husband was rekindled into life by the God of Death after his bride's stout intercession. In both, cases of near-death experience interpreted as miracle to convey higher spiritual truths.

Obviously you lack any type of logic regarding crucificition and the type of pain one would endure...

 

[lew0049]

I would tend to agree....Especially after reading that he was hungry and was fed (a piece of honey comb and broiled fish)...I think.....

Dregod, I understood the logic you use in many of your posts, but to believe someone would not die from crucifiction and/or the circumtances surrounding the event, makes me seriously believe you mold scripture to your presupposed conclusion. I'm sure you might say the same about my posts, but it really doesn't even seem as though you read or try to understand the reasoning/logic I use. I'm sorry to be so direct, but what you are agreeing with has so many flaws that I'm not even going to fully explain, unless, that is, I should?

 

[lew0049]

Gone down this road already. You're not going to get anywhere with those who profess Yeshua to be God.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and YESHUA THE MESSIAH, whom YOU HAVE SEN

No, your reasoning disgards so much of what is written in the Bible - you act as though you are so right on with your Biblical analysis and that others (like myself) just believe that jesus is god b/c of the christian doctrines. I can only speak for myself but quoting Biblical verses like this does not discredit one thing I have said.

 

[Popeyesays]

No, your reasoning disgards so much of what is written in the Bible - you act as though you are so right on with your Biblical analysis and that others (like myself) just believe that jesus is god b/c of the christian doctrines. I can only speak for myself but quoting Biblical verses like this does not discredit one thing I have said.

In other words you are boldly begging the question.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Darkness]

Define "Word" before you argue the opening of John.

It does not have to be defined because the word (that is God) is clearly Jesus.

John 1:14 (New International Version)
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Popeyesays]

It does not have to be defined because the word (that is God) is clearly Jesus.

John 1:14 (New International Version)
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

It is widely accepted that "Word" is the Greek "Logos".

Main Entry: Lo·gos Pronunciation: \ˈlō-ˌgäs, -ˌgōs\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural Lo·goi \-ˌgȯi\ Etymology: Greek, speech, word, reason — more at legend Date: 1587 1 : the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of the Trinity 2 : reason that in ancient Greek philosophy is the controlling principle in the universe

I don't believe in the Trinity in the Nicene model.

emphasis added by me.

Please note that OFTEN does not mean ALWAYS.

Flesh is "material" as well. The sun was made "flesh", indeed all of Creation was made flesh by the "Word" or Logos.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Darkness]

Flesh is "material" as well. The sun was made "flesh", indeed all of Creation was made flesh by the "Word" or Logos.

The Sun is made out of Plasma if I am not mistaken (It might be gas and plasma).

 

[Popeyesays]

The Sun is made out of Plasma if I am not mistaken (It might be gas and plasma).

And I have plasma running through my veins in which the various blood cells are suspended.

There is a philosophical reason why flesh is any material and plasma makes up the sun and the suspension fluid for blood.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lew0049]

It is widely accepted that "Word" is the Greek "Logos".

Main Entry: Lo·gos Pronunciation: \ˈlō-ˌgäs, -ˌgōs\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural Lo·goi \-ˌgȯi\ Etymology: Greek, speech, word, reason — more at legend Date: 1587 1 : the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of the Trinity 2 : reason that in ancient Greek philosophy is the controlling principle in the universe

I don't believe in the Trinity in the Nicene model.

emphasis added by me.

Please note that OFTEN does not mean ALWAYS.

Flesh is "material" as well. The sun was made "flesh", indeed all of Creation was made flesh by the "Word" or Logos.

Regards,
Scott

This is also one of the reasons the NT infrequently uses the term "God" for the Lord Jesus, as noted by Evangelical scholar Murray J. Harris explains:

"First, in all strands of the NT, theos generally signifies the Father… When we find the expression theos pater we may legitimately deduce that ho theos estin ho pater. And since pater refers to a particular person (not an attribute), the identity between ho theos and ho pater as proper names referring to persons must be numerical. 'God' must be equated with 'the Father.' If Jesus were everywhere called theos so that in reference to him the term ceased to be a title and became a proper noun like 'Iesous, linguistic ambiguity would be everywhere present.


"Another reason why theos regularly denotes the Father and rarely the Son is that such a usage is suited to protect the personal distinction between the Son and Father… which is preserved everywhere in the NT, but nowhere more dramatically than where the Father is called 'the God of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Eph. 1:17) or 'his God and Father' (Rev. 1:6) and where Jesus speaks of 'My God' (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17; cf. Rev. 3:2, 12), or, in an address to Jesus reference is made to 'your God' (Heb. 1:9). God was the one to whom Jesus prayed, the one he called his Father (e.g., Matt. 11:25). It was ho logos, not ho theos, of whom John said sarx egeneto (John 1:14).


"Clearly related to this second reason is a third. The element of 'subordinationism' that finds expression not only in the four authors who use theos as a christological appellation but also elsewhere in the NT may have checked any impulse to use theos regularly of Jesus. By customarily reserving the term theos for the Father, NT writers were highlighting the fact, whether consciously or unconsciously, that while the Son is 'subordinate' to the Father, the Father is not 'subordinate' to the Son. One finds the expression 'the Son of God' where God is the Father, but never 'the Father of God' where God is the Son.
"A fourth reason that may be suggested for the comparatively rare use of theos as a christological ascription was the danger recognized by the early church that if theos were applied to Jesus as regularly as to the Father, Jews would have tended to regard Christianity as incurably deuterotheological and Gentiles would probably have viewed it as polytheistic. If theos were the personal name of the Father and the Son, Christians would have been hard pressed to defend the faith against charges of ditheism, if not polytheism, however adamant their insistence on their retention of monotheism.


"Fifth, behind the impulse generally to reserve the term theos for the Father lay the need to safeguard the real humanity of Jesus against docetic or monophysitic sentiment in its embryonic form. In the early years of the church there was a greater danger that the integrity of the human 'nature' of Jesus should be denied than that his divinity should be called into question, witness the fact that docetism not Arianism was the first christological deviation.


"Finally, the relative infrequency of the use of theos for Jesus corresponds to the relatively infrequent use of ontological categories in NT Christology which is functional in emphasis…" (Harris, Jesus As God - The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI; July 1998, Paperback], pp. 282-283; bold emphasis ours)
​

This doesn’t mean, however, that Jesus in his earthly ministry never told his disciples that he was God in those precise words. He may have revealed to them that he was God in the flesh, but only after the idea had been ingrained in their mind that he wasn’t claiming to be the Father.
After all, the NT shows that even before his death and resurrection Christ’s own enemies understood that he was making himself out to be God, despite also claiming to be someone other than the Father:

"And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I am working.’ This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:16-18
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.’ The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.’" John 10:27-33
​

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How do you explain the beginning of the Gospel of John?

writer's opinion........(he was this and he was that....etc...etc....)

The rest of it (quotes from Yeshua)...could have been information the writer gathered from people and/or information borrowed from other scriptures (i.e Mark).

The beginning of John opens the door for countless interpretations but John 17:3 which is supposedly a quote of Yeshua, in my opinion, leaves no room to interpret hes is God...rather..he has a god whom he is praying to...

Again....IMO.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Obviously you lack any type of logic regarding crucificition and the type of pain one would endure...

If one truly did learned to control their experience to pain then it is not out of the realm of possibility to endure pain and be affected (very little)....

I've heard of people who can slow their heart rate down....walk on hot coals, lay their bodies on a bed of nails......etc

There are some who are into (S&M) who hang themselves from chains and hooks in the ceiling.......so I imagine that one could be crucified and control their body to make it appear as though they were lifeless.....

IMO.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dregod, I understood the logic you use in many of your posts, but to believe someone would not die from crucifiction and/or the circumtances surrounding the event, makes me seriously believe you mold scripture to your presupposed conclusion. I'm sure you might say the same about my posts, but it really doesn't even seem as though you read or try to understand the reasoning/logic I use. I'm sorry to be so direct, but what you are agreeing with has so many flaws that I'm not even going to fully explain, unless, that is, I should?

Again, do the research...there are people who were declared dead who weren't dead because their heart rates were so low that people thought they were. Like those who fall in icy lakes and are still alive. The heart slowed supplying enough oxygen to keep them and the brain alive. There have been many documented cases. So before you point the finger at me suggesting what I say doesn't make sense you may need to get on the old world wide web and pull up some actual cases of those who were alive but declared legally dead......

I'm not saying Yeshua, if he was actually crucified, didn't feel pain....As I recall he screamed out "My God, My God....Why have you left me.

 

[Popeyesays]

Mr. Harris is an apologist, and there's nothing wrong with that. He's not a very good apologist, unfortunately.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Is it possible that Jesus was taken from the cross alive and died subsequently due to the injuries He suffered during the crucifixion? Sure, it is; but how is that relevant to the spiritual reality of the crucifixion?

Regards,
Scott