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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Son of Manhttp://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm
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. 😆
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
Re: Jesus Resurrection was physical.
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.