Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

To those who belive Jesus rose from the dead, do you belive his ressurection was physical? I do.

No, I would say spiritual.

Hmm, interesting. I'd liked to think he was visible, especially if Thomas tried to touch his wrists. But afterwards, I suppose he was more like an apparition-visible, but ghostly (transparent) in make-up.

I beg to differ.

When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, "Peace be with you." 20And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord," (John 20:19-20).
"And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).

The Resurrection of Christ had to be Metaphysical. Flesh is sin according to the NT. Thus he was free from sin. And your quote in Luke says: "A spirit does not have flesh and bones" Self explanitory.

The problem with this objection WrathfulDwarf
is that it fails to recognize the fact that after the resurrection, Jesus said, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," (Luke 24:39), not "flesh and blood." This is not simply a play on words. Every word in the Bible is inspired and this phrase was used by Jesus on purpose.
The term "flesh and blood" is a phrase used in scripture in different contexts, but denotes the natural order.
"And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven," (Matt. 16:17).
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places," (Eph. 6:12).
"Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil," (Heb. 2:14).
Jesus had shed His blood on the cross. It quite literally had drained out of His body. We see that when Jesus rose from the dead, He still had the holes in His hands and feet (Luke 24:39). Since He retained the characteristics of His bodily ordeal, it is logical to state that His blood, which was literally drained from His body, was likewise still shed. Therefore, His body could be raised and the blood remained shed as the thing that "makes atonement": "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement," (Lev. 17:11).
That is why after the resurrection, to prove that He had risen in the same body He died in, Jesus told people to touch His hands and feet because it was the hands and feet that had the holes in them. What more proof do you need to but see and touch the very same hands and feet that had the holes in them from the nails on the cross! Furthermore, in the same statement Jesus said that He possessed flesh and bones, not flesh and blood. He had risen!

It's all speculation anyway. We won't know for sure unless we are among the lucky few who are able to attend his party.

Or you can know if you read the Bible.

What you're saying is fine. However, given the fact that I'm not a bible quoter (something I avoid in these discussions) and cannot go agaisn't the word of God. I find it that Jesus Resurrection had to be a spiritiual and not a physical event.

According to faith you do not need to touch nor see the spirituality of Jesus. You feel it...you experience...you cannot grasp it with your hands. Is an experience like no other. It is a state of pure divinity. And you mention "he has risen" Again, the flesh is sin. A corporal body cannot enter or elevate itself into the heavens. For it is not pure or cleanse. It needs to be free of all sin before entering heaven.

WrathfulDwarr, (read second post) I kind of see were you are comin from, but Jesus had flesh and bones. Also, Jesus had a glorfied body. So, all in all Jesus ressurection was a physical event.

Also, heres some food for thought,

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21).

The phrase "I will raise" is translated from the single Greek word "egeiro." "Egeiro" is the future, active, indicative, 1st person singular. The active voice in Greek designates who is performing the action. In this case, since it is first person, singular ("I", Jesus is saying that He Himself would perform the action of the resurrection. This is precisely what the Greek says.
However, some still deny that Jesus rose from the dead physically even when examining John 2:19-21. We can clearly see that Jesus prophesied that He would raise up the temple of His body as is clarified in verse 21 by John the apostle who states that Jesus was speaking of "the temple of his body." Therefore, this should be conclusive proof that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in. Clearly, John 2:19-21 shows us that Jesus predicted He would raise His very body and He did so.

No, Jesus was human just like you and I. Jesus was talking about reincarnation.

Jesus was a monothestic Jew. He would diffently not be speaking about that. (Read the passage, John informs us what he meant. He was much closer to the time of Jesus Christ than you and I, so it's best to listen to him.)

His birth and death was a physical event. His Ressurection was a spiritual and metaphysical event. I can't say otherwise. His body wasn't glorify. It was meant to be torture and crucify. His body was also for testing when the Devil tormented him. His words and teachings are far more stronger destruction than any temple. And as I mention before the purity of his sould had to be freed from all sin. He had to be free from all flesh.

Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. For his body was buried and never found after his resurrection. So yes...the physical body is the key to his resurrection.

did jesus even exist?

Deano that question would be Gnosticism or scepticism if you'd like.

Yeah. Physical. All my life, my religion has had their belief that his resurrection was physical. Never have I been taught anything different.

ITs not a question of whether or not you were taught it.

Its if you actually believe it. IF you think that it was a physical ressurection.

Personally I dont think so. As the son of god, he would have no need for that body and his spirit left it. And a spirit can be just as strong as a body, well in my opinion.

Originally posted by Son of Man
Jesus was a monothestic Jew. He would diffently not be speaking about that. (Read the passage, John informs us what he meant. He was much closer to the time of Jesus Christ than you and I, so it's best to listen to him.)

So, Jesus didn't know anything about reincarnation? So, the son of god was not all knowing?

Shaky, please dont twist my words.WrathfulDwarf, yes his body was beaten. But the Bible says he rose bodily from the dead. (remember he ate food and had bones)

People please understand the Bible says he had flesh and bones. Dont try to interpret it your own way. It's not a matter of what you think it clearly says in the Bible that it was physical. I t in not a matter of interpatin, but a matter of wgat the Bible clearly says.

And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).

Originally posted by Son of Man
Shaky, please dont twist my words....

Now you are taking away all of my fun.

Shaky, you are a funny guy. Jesus knows all things.

Originally posted by Son of Man
Or you can know if you read the Bible.

You read the original I suppose. I figure no one can claim a translation made thousand years after the original has the same significance. Are you sure it actually says "bones" in the bible...or did maybe some translator decide that this would be a sufficent word?

Originally posted by Son of Man
Shaky, you are a funny guy. Jesus knows all things.

You are talking about belief as if it was fact, that to me, is funny.

Bardock, the translations come from the origanal greek text. Yeah, the noun "bones" does appear in the greek text. I f you are that concerned learn greek. Shaky, there is good evidence for Jesus ressucrection. Start a topic about Jesus ressurection (if its factual or not) and I will present some evidence. That is why I belive it is a fact. You know whats funny? Judge Judy.

Originally posted by Son of Man
Bardock, the translations come from the origanal greek text. Yeah, the noun "bones" does appear in the greek text. I f you are that concerned learn greek. Shaky, there is good evidence for Jesus ressucrection. Start a topic about Jesus ressurection (if its factual or not) and I will present some evidence. That is why I belive it is a fact. You know whats funny? Judge Judy.

I am not concerned. You should be concerned. Do you know Greek? Did you read the NT in Greek? No? I guess you are not actually the one to interpret the bible then.

You dont know if I know ancient greek or not. I do have a father who is a Christian scholar, and knows greek.

Originally posted by Son of Man
You dont know if I know ancient greek or not. I do have a father who is a Christian scholar, and knows greek.
No, and I didn't claim to know. Just if you don't, you shouldn't judge. If you do, which I find highly improbable, you may very well proceed. Again, it's all jsut Translation, you don't know if that'S what was supposed to be said. You don#t even know if those were all parts of the Original bible....way to many uncertainties for my taste.

I do know that it was part of The origanal Bible. (which was composed in about 200 A.D) Anyway, lets get back on the form topic.

I' d say it was a spiritual and metaphorical resurrection rather than a literal rising from the dead.

Originally posted by Son of Man
Bardock, the translations come from the origanal greek text. Yeah, the noun "bones" does appear in the greek text. I f you are that concerned learn greek. Shaky, there is good evidence for Jesus ressucrection. Start a topic about Jesus ressurection (if its factual or not) and I will present some evidence. That is why I belive it is a fact. You know whats funny? Judge Judy. http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm

There is no original greek text. They are fragments and were translated from other hear say texts of others.

I learned at some young life camp that when you die you have a heavenly body waiting for you, and that your spirit goes into your heavenly body (if your going to heaven lol). So it was most likely jesus's heavenly body because I believe he explained it to them in a way by stating he could eat. but didn't have to and stuff

So are these heavenly bodies waiting in storage for us...In the storage body room.?

Originally posted by debbiejo
So are these heavenly bodies waiting in storage for us...In the storage body room.?

C o o l...

Debbie, when I mean "greek" text, I am talking about the earliest paprus fragments. Any way back to topic, I bodies will be I guesss in a way "re-designed" yet still the same body. Hard to explain, it's kinda super natural. So, anyway lets get back to Jesus.Later.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No, I would say spiritual.

Considering the definition of ressurection is the reuniting the soul and body, or coming back to life. That statement almost seems null void....

Resurrection can just be spiritual enlightenment also.

but we are talking about Jesus ressurection.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Resurrection can just be spiritual enlightenment also.

Originally posted by Son of Man
but we are talking about Jesus ressurection.

owned

but seriously, Christ was already enlightened...

Originally posted by Son of Man
To those who belive Jesus rose from the dead, do you belive his ressurection was physical? I do.

This is the 2nd time I've caught you attempting to purposely misrepresent an aspect of Christianity. By implying the resurrection as being a "physical" act..you are trying to equate it to being a "natural" one. If it were indeed a "natural" act..then guess what..God would have nothing to do with the resurrection right? That's essentially what you are trying to imply. Obviously the resurrection was a "Supernatural" not "Natural" act. Stop trying to mislead and play these foolish games Son..it's easy for me to see right through your nonsense.

By physical, I mean bodily. I belive Jesus ressurection was indeed supernatural.But, He had a body.
"When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, "Peace be with you." 20And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord," (John 20:19-20).
"And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).

whobdamandog, you seem to be

Scriptures tetsify on by be-half.

whobdamandog, you seem to be attcking me on every thread. Did I offend you? Later.

It was supernatural because He died, and then rose from the dead. He still had the same body though, (i.e he still had marks on His side, hands, and feet.) Later.

Let me repost this for some who dont understand.
""Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21).

The phrase "I will raise" is translated from the single Greek word "egeiro." "Egeiro" is the future, active, indicative, 1st person singular. The active voice in Greek designates who is performing the action. In this case, since it is first person, singular ("I", Jesus is saying that He Himself would perform the action of the resurrection. This is precisely what the Greek says".

I do!!! I do!!!



















How bout the others?

I do.

That is what the Bible told us so. This Son then comes back from the dead, defying all known laws of biology and physics and then physically ascends into heaven, thus defying astrophysics as well. I think that it is very likely that there is a sublime spiritual truth that is being conveyed by the New Testament, but as a rational human being I can not make any sense of the story if it must be understood in a crude and literal fashion.

The Four Gospels' accounts of this most crucial event & such a confused and contradictor mess that convincing any unbiased person to doubt it would be easy. At this point the reader is advised to have a Bible ready and to check the references. We will see that the four accounts of the supposed Resurrection differ in nearly every detail.

When did the Resurrection happen? All four Gospels agree that the events described took place early on Sunday,' morning (Matt 28:1, Mk 16:1, Lk 24:1, Jn 20:1).

Next, we asked who went to the tomb? Now the problems begin. Matthew says that the two Marys went to the tomb (Matt 28:1); Mark says that the two Marys and Salome went (Mk 16:1); Luke says that the two Marys, Joanna and some other women went (Lk 24:10); and John says that Mary went alone (Jn 20: 1).Christians claim that the Bible contains no mistakes but surely there are a few mistakes here. They claim that those who wrote the Gospels were inspired by God as they wrote, but apparently not inspired enough to be able to count properly.

Another question, was there an earthquake? Matthew tells us that at that time there was a "great earthquake" (Matt 28:2), but why do the other three Gospels fail to mention it? Surely a great earthquake, especially occurring at such a significant moment, would be hard to forget. It is far more likely that Matthew just made up the story to add drama to his account, in other words he lied.

Lastly about angels, Matthew claims that an angel appeared before the two women, rolled back the stone door and sat upon it (Matt 28:2). He also says that the guards were so frightened that they fainted (Matt 28:4). Mark's story is quite different. He claims that the door had already been removed before the women arrived, so they went into the tomb and saw the angel inside (Mk 16:4-5). And he doesn't mention any guards. Luke's story is even more inventive. He claims that the women went into the tomb and saw not one but two angels (Lk 24:4). Obviously someone is not telling the truth. John claims that Mary went to the tomb alone, saw the tomb open, ran to get the other disciples and when they went into the tomb she waited outside. After everyone went home Mary waited, and as she did two angels appeared to her, and then Jesus appeared although she could not recognize him (Jn 20:12-14). And it is on this garbled 'evidence' that Christianity rests.

I do also.

suckers

I can't say I do - not saying that it didn't happen, but I lack reason to have faith that it happened.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I can't say I do - not saying that it didn't happen, but I lack reason to have faith that it happened.

I do feel the same way...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Many Infallible (or Unmistakable) Proofs

http://www.uberg33k.com/albums/Funny/jesus.jpg
There we go. Far more convincing than some words written by men, collated and amalgamated with modified pagan traditions and used to invent a religion.

Hhahahahahah. That is even better then the comic where he beats up the Greek Pantheon (damn Jobber aura.)

JesusIsAlive? Have you ever read Pet Semetary? It is a whole book about things coming back from the dead .... but just because it happens in a book doesn't make it fact.

Jesus died. He was executed. End of story.

Originally posted by Alliance
Jesus died. He was executed. End of story.

There is a possibility that he did not die on the cross, but took a drug that made his seem to be dead. He then returned to the east and lived out a long quiet life. In any case, he is dead by now.

Indeed. THough I must give the Romans credit for thier humor in his exectuion. The whole "king of Jews thing" and the crown of thorns is absolutly hilarious.

Its alos hilarious that all Chiristiand walk around with a metond of execution on thier neck. I wear a guillotine necklace.

Originally posted by Alliance

Its alos hilarious that all Chiristiand walk around with a metond of execution on thier neck. I wear a guillotine necklace.

not all of us... i'll say most of them are catholics, not born again Christians... I think,....

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, what is written in the bible is not proof. Nice try though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, what is written in the bible is not proof. Nice try though.

God says that what is written in His Word IS PROOF. Who are you to dispute with God. This is not a try by the way either.

But God only said that, according to you, in the Bible.

Basic logic dictates that you cannot use what the Bible says in order to prove that the Bible is proof so that we can use what the Bible says.

Hence, he is not necessarily disputing with God unless you can use an independant, non-bibilical source to probe that the Bible is God's word.

You'll need an argument to do that, so I hope you are interested in arguing this time. And if you are not, accusations like the one you just made against Bardock are a waste of time for all. And also rather judgmental.

^ wow... that was long.. and loopppyyy...

but i got your point...

oh well.. it's your point of view..

all i know is i believe in the bible.. ^_^

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
^ wow... that was long.. and loopppyyy...

but i got your point...

oh well.. it's your point of view..

all i know is i believe in the bible.. ^_^

Me too bruddah

you spend most of your time here JIA??

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
you spend most of your time here JIA??

I try to allocate some of my time here.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Dear JesusIsAlive

While finding the definition of forum is all well and good, there has, for a long time, been a general consensus that this forum is primarily geared towards debate of a religious nature. Previously this forum was part of the General discussion forum before becoming a stand alone sub forum. Upon it's creation a moderator made this thread, which I believe use to be a sticky.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=320215&highlight=forum+rules+forumid%3A80

In it he specified the following:



This means that a thread started with no purpose other then conversion as it's goal would be considered not in the spirit of the forum - there by rights should be the option for debate is, where you put forth an argument, and somebody replies. You can try to convince them, and you can certainly post your view, but it is not in the spirit of the forum to simply claim you can post your view and there is no reason for you to justify it or engage in debate on the subject. Other forums members have a right to question your claims, and the claims of the Bible, and they are not wrong in expecting, in the spirit of the forum, a reply or counter argument.

Yours Sincerely, Imperial_Samura

In the words of Ace Ventura: well, alrighty then! No, I just don't like the way the word argument sounds; it sounds so divisive and combative. I am not here to get it on with anyone.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In the words of Ace Ventura: well, alrighty then! No, I just don't like the way the word argument sounds; it sounds so divisive and combative. I am not here to get it on with anyone.

Well we don't have to use words with negative connotations like argument. Far better to be civilised and debate. Instead of counter arguments one rebuts the others sides claims.

Ultimately, despite you assertions you wouldn't do it, you have been debating. You usually do respond to a persons question with a counter/rebuttal. And it is, Ultimately, better for all concerned to enter into civil discussion, you will find you attract more bees with honey then vinegar.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well we don't have to use words with negative connotations like argument. Far better to be civilised and debate. Instead of counter arguments one rebuts the others sides claims.

Ultimately, despite you assertions you wouldn't do it, you have been debating. You usually do respond to a persons question with a counter/rebuttal. And it is, Ultimately, better for all concerned to enter into civil discussion, you will find you attract more bees with honey then vinegar.

I agree.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I try to allocate some of my time here.


ohh...

I don't really see you anywhere else in kmc but here..

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
ohh...

I don't really see you anywhere else in kmc but here..

I MAY surf the rest of the forums of this site, but my assignment is here.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I MAY surf the rest of the forums of this site, but my assignment is here.

Did someone give you that assignment?

I believe He was resurrected, I further believe that He still lives.

I have to agree with the skeptics in here on one point though. The Bible alone isn't enough proof to be conclusive. It does contain evidence and if you're using proof as a synonym of evidence I suppose that works. The evidence is mainly in the form of second-hand testimony (Luke, Mark), eye-witness testimony (Mathew and John), and witness lists (provided by Paul). It's up to the reader to weigh the evidence. I being LDS also use the Book of Mormon as evidence. According to it Christ visited the people in the Americas after his resurrection (probably after his ascension - it isn't really very specific on the timeline). In addition Joseph Smith claimed to have seen Him. I know that many reject JS as a reliable witness, but I find no fault in his historical honesty.

In the end everyone has to weigh the evidence and decide what they believe by themselves, with perhaps some help from God if they ask.

Originally posted by docb77
I believe He was resurrected, I further believe that He still lives.

I have to agree with the skeptics in here on one point though. The Bible alone isn't enough proof to be conclusive. It does contain evidence and if you're using proof as a synonym of evidence I suppose that works. The evidence is mainly in the form of second-hand testimony (Luke, Mark), eye-witness testimony (Mathew and John), and witness lists (provided by Paul). It's up to the reader to weigh the evidence. I being LDS also use the Book of Mormon as evidence. According to it Christ visited the people in the Americas after his resurrection (probably after his ascension - it isn't really very specific on the timeline). In addition Joseph Smith claimed to have seen Him. I know that many reject JS as a reliable witness, but I find no fault in his historical honesty.

In the end everyone has to weigh the evidence and decide what they believe by themselves, with perhaps some help from God if they ask.

Right, i think that the evidence is not at all in favor of christianity, but then again, it cannot be proven that Jesus did not resurrect despite the laws of science saying its impossible. If you look at it from a non-logical standpoint it could quite possibly ahve happened, on the other hand, from a scientific standpoint its a ludicrous idea. It just comes down to do you accept it or not.

I don't believe. Used to, though, but then I grew up.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Right, i think that the evidence is not at all in favor of christianity, but then again, it cannot be proven that Jesus did not resurrect despite the laws of science saying its impossible. If you look at it from a non-logical standpoint it could quite possibly ahve happened, on the other hand, from a scientific standpoint its a ludicrous idea. It just comes down to do you accept it or not.


Even scientifically you have to admit the possibility. It seems impossible to our current understanding and technology. Yet at the same time, some of the things modern medicine and modern technology do today would have seemed impossible a century or 2 ago. If God is in charge I really have no doubt that he'd know more about physics, biology, etc than us. I'd even go so far as to say that it could be his knowledge that makes him God.

Originally posted by docb77
I'd even go so far as to say that it could be his knowledge that makes him God.

thumbup I'll stand with you on that one.

I'd say Jesus rose from the dead and is still alive until now. Basically, i don't think nobody would fake the bible. if anyone tries, he's in big trouble with above. and who would fake a whole book to make everyone believe? it even has some historical evidence in it....

but then , there's dan brown.... >got nothing against him, just don't believe his crap<

but neverthelessm i still believe Jesus rose from the dead...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God says that what is written in His Word IS PROOF. Who are you to dispute with God. This is not a try by the way either. God didn't write the Bible ignoramus, Man did.

Originally posted by $noopbert
God didn't write the Bible ignoramus, Man did.

but God made man to write it down...

but then, that's what i believe in..

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
but God made man to write it down...

but then, that's what i believe in.. So? Most common bibles have suffered revisions and rewriting. God also gave Man choice, and the choice there to lie, embellish, is great. Not to mention, mistranlations can also skew the meanings of a single verse to an entire thingymahbobber.

you have a point. but, if you look at them closely.. they're pretty close to each others meaning...

you don't believe He rose from the dead don't you?

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
you have a point. but, if you look at them closely.. they're pretty close to each others meaning...

you don't believe He rose from the dead don't you? King James heavily rewrote the bible, and the catholic church most likely has too (The church seperate of England), to suit their own eneds. Trusting Humans isn't that great of an act

I don't trust Humans at all except a select few personal friends. I don't turst the bible as fact and actions as fact, for the most part, but I treat it as a collection of morals (Which I try to follow).

>Catholics did alter it... i have compared it to some bibles here at home...>

hey, some things in the bible are already happening and already have happened...

but hey, that is the way i see it..

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
>Catholics did alter it... i have compared it to some bibles here at home...>

hey, some things in the bible are already happening and already have happened...

but hey, that is the way i see it.. It's always the end times.

*shrugs*

your point of view.. ^_^

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
*shrugs*

your point of view.. ^_^ You don't notice the trend that something is the herald of the end of the world until it passes and the end of the world didn't come?

end of the world isn't dated...

*Sigh* Nevermind.

>.>

Originally posted by $noopbert
You don't notice the trend that something is the herald of the end of the world until it passes and the end of the world didn't come?

A disturbing trend, this is!

^agreed

DO you believe Jesus rose from the dead?
I don't.

He was just a man. Who died for what he believe in.

And don't go off on me for typing that. Like this one female did.

me - I bet Jesus loved sex.
female - No Jesus did not have sex!!!
female - Jesus was perfect!!
me - de vinci code!! (I didn't say that.. I wanted to.)

Huh, Huh..... Read a Book!!!

You do realize that The Da Vinci Code was fiction don't you? If you want a non-fiction book that talks about the same thing try Holy blood, Holy Grail. I don't remember the authors, but it's where brown got a lot of his ideas from.

Either way, Both are speculation and don't prove anything one way or the other. Personally I don't have a problem with Jesus being married. I don't think that would prevent him from being divine in the least.

Dan Brown's work is as fictional (in many ways) as the Biblical account of the story. YES the book is fiction.

Non-fiction is generally interpreted (if speculation) to be scholarly speculation. This has weight and is not totally dismissable (I have not read Holy Blood, Holy Grail myself, and know noting about it.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I can't say I do - not saying that it didn't happen, but I lack reason to have faith that it happened. Yeah me too.....anthings possible I suppose.

so let just say we can never know ANYTHING!!!!!....


oh wait.

Originally posted by Alliance
Dan Brown's work is as fictional (in many ways) as the Biblical account of the story. YES the book is fiction.

Non-fiction is generally interpreted (if speculation) to be scholarly speculation. This has weight and is not totally dismissable (I have not read Holy Blood, Holy Grail myself, and know noting about it.

he said in his dumb book that it's real...

>stupid crazy liar..<

hehe, i KNOW it's non-fiction...

but some people believes in it... >dumb guys<(sorry if you do)

I' d say it was a spiritual and metaphorical resurrection rather than a literal rising from the dead.

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
he said in his dumb book that it's real...

>stupid crazy liar..<

hehe, i KNOW it's non-fiction...

but some people believes in it... >dumb guys<(sorry if you do)



Honsetly, thier claim is no more logical than yours. You both agree with books that have some basis in historically accuracy. But one is much more born of logic, research (stolen), and proven accuracy.

Originally posted by Storm
I' d say it was a spiritual and metaphorical resurrection rather than a literal rising from the dead.
Will you please stop being calm and rational, some poor kitten is going to die.

Originally posted by Alliance
so let just say we can never know ANYTHING!!!!!....


oh wait. Sure, but you can't discount anything........

but we live in a real world.

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
>Catholics did alter it... i have compared it to some bibles here at home...>

hey, some things in the bible are already happening and already have happened...

but hey, that is the way i see it..

Maybe your version is the altered one...

NO!

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
>Catholics did alter it... i have compared it to some bibles here at home...>

hey, some things in the bible are already happening and already have happened...

but hey, that is the way i see it..

Even if the catholics altered it, the kjv originates from the latin translation of the bible held by the catholics. So the kjv is just as wrong as the catholic version, and in fact a little more fallible with some thigns such as the wrong use of lucifer and other stuff that I can't think of off the top fo my head

I'm not 100% sure, but i believe the original new testament writigns dont exist anymore. The best way to test any validity of the bible is with the torah. If the torah is consistent with the bible translation of the old testament, that may increase the chance that the new testament translation is accurate

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe your version is the altered one...


It's still what i believe in.

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
It's still what i believe in.
That doesn't make it any more correct.

i know. It's still my point of view is it?

Originally posted by Alliance
That doesn't make it any more correct.

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
It's still what i believe in.

Watch this clip buddy JaeSkywalker.

http://www.tbn.org/index.php/8/1.html (The Resurrection On Trial by Hal Lyndsey 60 min.)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Watch this clip buddy JaeSkywalker.

http://www.tbn.org/index.php/8/1.html (The Resurrection On Trial by Hal Lyndsey 60 min.)

I think this will inspire your faith pal.

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
I'd say Jesus rose from the dead and is still alive until now. Basically, i don't think nobody would fake the bible. if anyone tries, he's in big trouble with above. and who would fake a whole book to make everyone believe? it even has some historical evidence in it....

but then , there's dan brown.... >got nothing against him, just don't believe his crap<

but neverthelessm i still believe Jesus rose from the dead...

He sure did!

dev

*groan*

You're going to ruin her...

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Originally posted by Arcana
*groan*

You're going to ruin her...

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

We could have an intervention... but sadly this is the internet, so that isn't possible.

Jesus's resurrection had to be physical according to Old Testament prophecy and to prove that he was our Savior.
"You will not let your Holy One see decay" Psalm 16:10
This strongly implies that Jesus's physical body must be risen.
A thought I had was this: The tomb was empty, Jesus's body was gone before anyone got there. The body must have been resurrected. Also, if only the Spirit returned it would not be a resurrection because all Spirits are eternal.

Jesus came to break the bonds of sin on our life. For the "wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) and "the cords of his sin hold him fast" (Proverbs 5:22), but Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 42:1) and by the glory of God he was resurrected to show us that throught the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit sin and the flesh could be overcome and therefore lead us into eternal life. This is the good news of Jesus. The resurrection is the single most important event in the Bible. The blood of Jesus cleansed our sins, but the resurrection set us free and broke sins hold on our life. "Your God will come...he will come to save you" (Isaiah 34:4)

"cords of sin" reminds me of William Jennings Bryan's "rope of sand" speech.

Go Jesus it's Your birthday...uh...wait...no it isn't, but I am just so excited by the Truth!

.......

I guess what you are saying is this is a Hydra situation. Insults, like cutting of its heads, own make one stronger. Or Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Originally posted by Son of Man
Jesus was a monothestic Jew. He would diffently not be speaking about that. (Read the passage, John informs us what he meant. He was much closer to the time of Jesus Christ than you and I, so it's best to listen to him.)

Gilgul is Hebrew for "transmigration of souls." The concept of reincarnation would not have been alien to Jesus. However, Judaism is a religion which emphasizes ethics--living according to God's Laws, so gilgul would not have been a focus for him.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Watch this clip buddy JaeSkywalker.

http://www.tbn.org/index.php/8/1.html (The Resurrection On Trial by Hal Lyndsey 60 min.)

Jesus rose PHYSICALLY from the dead. This is what the Bible reveals.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus rose PHYSICALLY from the dead. This is what the Bible reveals.

The bible is just a book. According to the bible the sun goes around the Earth.

adn the earth rests on pillars, and has corners.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Too many PROOFS that Jesus rose from the dead.

What? There is no proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? There is no proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

But JIA said there is proof!

Originally posted by Roland
But JIA said there is proof!

Ohhhhh OK

Originally posted by Roland
But JIA said there is proof!

Thanks for clearing that up. Now I see the light. Oh weight. I'm hallucinating.

* according to the Bible, the body of Christ died, and it was the body of Christ that was resurrected from the dead, yes it was physical... but Christ did NOT came to heaven with flesh and blood, for it (flesh and blood) CANNOT be accepted in heaven...

then....assuming the bible is absolutely dogmatically correct, where is Jesus? Where is his body?

* the body was put on from mortal to immortality, I Corinthians 15:50-54...

I believe!

I just want to let everyone know! proud of it... totally..

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Too many PROOFS that Jesus rose from the dead.
This says nothing to someone who doesn' t lean on the Bible for/as proof.

right. gotta point.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Too many PROOFS that Jesus rose from the dead.

It is the same concept I have commented on before: we have to take the Bibles word it is true. What about all the other Holy Texts out there that claim the same thing? How can a person say "This book here that claims it alone is the truth is correct, while or those other books that claim they are only truth are not"?

Seems to me the Bible needs either a. verifying proof for what it says or b. just some proof in general.

Jesus didnt die on the cross according to the Koran and IIRC, the Talmud (not sure). You cant be resurrected if youre ALIVE!

Originally posted by Templares
Jesus didnt die on the cross according to the Koran and IIRC, the Talmud (not sure). You cant be resurrected if youre ALIVE!

So, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE Jesus DID die on the cross. What is your point?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE Jesus DID die on the cross. What is your point?

Assuming that all 3 books are "divinely-inspired", its the Bible's word against 2 other Holy Books. The numbers favor the account of Jesus NOT DYING on the cross .

Did they say he didn't die, or did they fail to mention it?

Also, Jesus was beaten and then killed on the cross to fulfill the Messianic prophecies.
"His appearance was disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness." Isaiah 52:14
"But he was PIERCED for our transgressions.." Isaiah 53:5
"They will look on me, the one they have PIERCED..." Zechariah 12:10

And he did die because he had to to be the Christ. Anyone who claims that he did not die on the cross is saying that is not the Christ. For the prophecies say:
"because he poured out his life unto DEATH..." Isaiah 53:12

Christ DIED for our sins on the cross because he was the Messiah- the fulfillment of the OT prophecies.
"He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" Isaiah 53:12.
"And though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering" Isaiah 53:10.

Then Jesus rose from the dead.
"Nor will you let your Holy One see decay" Psalm 16:10.
"He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing justice and righteousness from that time on and FOREVER" Isaiah 9:7. Jesus must will last forever because he did not die.

And God makes a new convenant of eternal life through Jesus.
"I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people.." Isaiah 49:8
What is this covenant? John 3:16.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Did they say he didn't die, or did they fail to mention it?

Also, Jesus was beaten and then killed on the cross to fulfill the Messianic prophecies.
"His appearance was disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness." Isaiah 52:14
"But he was PIERCED for our transgressions.." Isaiah 53:5
"They will look on me, the one they have PIERCED..." Zechariah 12:10

And he did die because he had to to be the Christ. Anyone who claims that he did not die on the cross is saying that is not the Christ. For the prophecies say:
"because he poured out his life unto DEATH..." Isaiah 53:12

Christ DIED for our sins on the cross because he was the Messiah- the fulfillment of the OT prophecies.
"He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" Isaiah 53:12.
"And though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering" Isaiah 53:10.

Then Jesus rose from the dead.
"Nor will you let your Holy One see decay" Psalm 16:10.
"He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing justice and righteousness from that time on and FOREVER" Isaiah 9:7. Jesus must will last forever because he did not die.

And God makes a new convenant of eternal life through Jesus.
"I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people.." Isaiah 49:8
What is this covenant? John 3:16.

This is your belief, or in other words, your mythology. I am happy if this works for you and you are wise enough to only do good, but it is not the only way.

Originally posted by Templares
Assuming that all 3 books are "divinely-inspired", its the Bible's word against 2 other Holy Books. The numbers favor the account of Jesus NOT DYING on the cross .

There isn't anything "holy" or "divine" about the Koran or IIRC. The holy Bible IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD--according to my basis (i.e., the Bible).

Originally posted by Templares
Assuming that all 3 books are "divinely-inspired", its the Bible's word against 2 other Holy Books. The numbers favor the account of Jesus NOT DYING on the cross .

There isn't anything "holy" or "divine" about the Koran or IIRC. The holy Bible IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD--according to my basis (i.e., the Bible).

Inadvertent duplicate post above.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is your belief, or in other words, your mythology. I am happy if this works for you and you are wise enough to only do good, but it is not the only way.

There is NOTHING mythological about the contents of the holy Bible. Let's read what Peter (one of Jesus' chief apostles) had to say about Jesus:

2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is NOTHING mythological about the contents of the holy Bible. Let's read what Peter (one of Jesus' chief apostles) had to say about Jesus:

2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were .

So, you use mythology to show that it's not mythology.

The bible is mythology.