Ken bryan wrote: » On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself. Can you understand that? Eucharistic miracles are Miracles of Jesus . Miracle of Buenos Aires is one of many . I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself. Can you understand that? Yes I can that . But for me . It like this . The Spirit is the Father . The Son Is the Mortal human God. ie Jesus Now the Sprit is immortal and has more power . Thus can control the mortal one . This is how Jesus rose himself from the dead . When He died . He received the immortal power of heaven . Thus could rise himself from death . More importantly it signifies his power over Satan . As Satan could no longer inflict mortal suffering upon Christ. Christ suffering on the cross was a sign of love , But his resurrection was sign of Victory . As Satan could not keep him dead .
Ken bryan wrote: » On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself. Can you understand that?
Safehands wrote: » On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself. Can you understand that?
Ken bryan wrote: » I suspect that it is more likely that he was not actually dead when he was taken down off the cross. His followers took him and treated him his wounds and as soon as he was well enough they moved him. Let assume you are Right . Give evidence to should how you point may be plausible. Ps they pierced his side to make sure he was dead . Yet you assume / suspect different
Ken bryan wrote: » As there is no recorded event of anyone ever recovering from such a loss of blood. At the time of the crucification
Safehands wrote: » Are you serious Ken? You are asking me for evidence to show that it is more plausible that he didn't actually die than he died and came back from the dead? yes I am . As his side was pierced by a roman soldier . To make absolutely sure he was dead. So show me the evidence how it,s plausible . That at the time of Crusification that some could of survived .With those injuries.
Safehands wrote: » Are you serious Ken? You are asking me for evidence to show that it is more plausible that he didn't actually die than he died and came back from the dead? And there are actual medical or other records of people coming back from the dead?
Ken bryan wrote: » Safehands wrote: » Are you serious Ken? You are asking me for evidence to show that it is more plausible that he didn't actually die than he died and came back from the dead? yes I am . As his side was pierced by a roman soldier . To make absolutely sure he was dead. So show me the evidence how it,s plausible . That at the time of Crusification that some could of survived .With those injuries. It was his right side. If it did not puncture his lung or his heart of course its plausible, much more so than he died and came back to life, which never happened to anyone, before or since.
Safehands wrote: » Ken bryan wrote: » It was his right side. If it did not puncture his lung or his heart of course its plausible, much more so than he died and came back to life, which never happened to anyone, before or since. Ever hear of Lazarus?
Ken bryan wrote: » It was his right side. If it did not puncture his lung or his heart of course its plausible, much more so than he died and came back to life, which never happened to anyone, before or since.
georgieporgy wrote: » Safehands wrote: » Ever hear of Lazarus? Of course. One of the most important "miracles" in the new testament, and yet it is only mentioned in John's Gospel. Why is that I wonder? Wouldn't you think that the others may have mentioned in passing that this guy was dead for four days and was brought back to life? Where was he after he died? was he in hell or heaven? He is one of the only ones who ever came back, so he knew all the answers we are all searching for and he gave us no indication. Or maybe, its just a story that never really occurred.
Safehands wrote: » Ever hear of Lazarus?
Safehands wrote: » georgieporgy wrote: » Of course. One of the most important "miracles" in the new testament, and yet it is only mentioned in John's Gospel. Why is that I wonder? Wouldn't you think that the others may have mentioned in passing that this guy was dead for four days and was brought back to life? Where was he after he died? was he in hell or heaven? He is one of the only ones who ever came back, so he knew all the answers we are all searching for and he gave us no indication. Or maybe, its just a story that never really occurred. Clearly he did not go to hell for obvious reasons. Likewise he didn't go to heaven because nobody went to heaven until after the death of Christ. So he went to where all the souls of the just went in Old Testament times. In scripture it's referred to as Abraham's bosom. What makes you think he didn't talk about his experience to his family and friends?http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Who-Raise-Dead-Resurrection/dp/0895557983 has lots of info if you're really interested.
georgieporgy wrote: » Of course. One of the most important "miracles" in the new testament, and yet it is only mentioned in John's Gospel. Why is that I wonder? Wouldn't you think that the others may have mentioned in passing that this guy was dead for four days and was brought back to life? Where was he after he died? was he in hell or heaven? He is one of the only ones who ever came back, so he knew all the answers we are all searching for and he gave us no indication. Or maybe, its just a story that never really occurred.
Safehands wrote: » Ken bryan wrote: » It was his right side. If it did not puncture his lung or his heart of course its plausible, much more so than he died and came back to life, which never happened to anyone, before or since. The lance (Greek: λόγχη, lonchē) is mentioned only in the Gospel of John (19:31–37) and not in any of the Synoptic Gospels. The gospel states that the Romans planned to break Jesus' legs, a practice known as crurifragium, which was a method of hastening death during a crucifixion. Just before they did so, they realized that Jesus was already dead and that there was no reason to break his legs. To make sure that he was dead, a Roman soldier (named in extra-Biblical tradition as Longinus) stabbed him in the side. One of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance (λόγχη), and immediately there came out blood and water
georgieporgy wrote: » Safehands wrote: » Clearly he did not go to hell for obvious reasons. Likewise he didn't go to heaven because nobody went to heaven until after the death of Christ. So he went to where all the souls of the just went in Old Testament times. In scripture it's referred to as Abraham's bosom. What makes you think he didn't talk about his experience to his family and friends?http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Who-Raise-Dead-Resurrection/dp/0895557983 has lots of info if you're really interested. When I have finished reading a true story called 'The DaVinci Code' I have a contemporary book by Bram Stoker called Dracula. Its the true story of vampires who feast on blood. Then I'll read this book about the saints who raise people from the dead!
Safehands wrote: » Clearly he did not go to hell for obvious reasons. Likewise he didn't go to heaven because nobody went to heaven until after the death of Christ. So he went to where all the souls of the just went in Old Testament times. In scripture it's referred to as Abraham's bosom. What makes you think he didn't talk about his experience to his family and friends?http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Who-Raise-Dead-Resurrection/dp/0895557983 has lots of info if you're really interested.
Safehands wrote: » georgieporgy wrote: » When I have finished reading a true story called 'The DaVinci Code' I have a contemporary book by Bram Stoker called Dracula. Its the true story of vampires who feast on blood. Then I'll read this book about the saints who raise people from the dead! Well Dracula may be a veiled metaphor for the rich feeding on the poor so might be truer than you give it credit for. The DaVinci Code otoh is a piece of speculative fiction which lacks any truth whatsoever. This is not to say that the gospels are exactly historical records, the're more like testimonials, they do however contain the truth the authors sought to convey. Difference in content and details reflect the concerns of the author. I would be more suspicious if they all had the same point of view. That would be indicative of coaching or plagiarism of some other source. Oh look we're back to the DaVinci code
georgieporgy wrote: » When I have finished reading a true story called 'The DaVinci Code' I have a contemporary book by Bram Stoker called Dracula. Its the true story of vampires who feast on blood. Then I'll read this book about the saints who raise people from the dead!
tommy2bad wrote: » Safehands wrote: » Well Dracula may be a veiled metaphor for the rich feeding on the poor so might be truer than you give it credit for. The DaVinci Code otoh is a piece of speculative fiction which lacks any truth whatsoever. This is not to say that the gospels are exactly historical records, the're more like testimonials, they do however contain the truth the authors sought to convey. Difference in content and details reflect the concerns of the author. I would be more suspicious if they all had the same point of view. That would be indicative of coaching or plagiarism of some other source. Oh look we're back to the DaVinci code Yes but we were talking about the miracles of people rising from the dead. How come that type of thing never happens anymore? Wouldn't it be great if it did and we could see them being interviewed on TV? Miracles today are much more boring than they used to be don't you think? Its great if someone gets cured of cancer or Parkinson disease but its not as good as someone being genuinely dead for three or four days and being brought back by some benevolent saint, like happened in the good old days. Has anyone ever heard of a real miracle happening today, like someone losing an arm or a leg and waking up the next day and finds it has grown back? That would be impressive, miraculous almost!
Safehands wrote: » Well Dracula may be a veiled metaphor for the rich feeding on the poor so might be truer than you give it credit for. The DaVinci Code otoh is a piece of speculative fiction which lacks any truth whatsoever. This is not to say that the gospels are exactly historical records, the're more like testimonials, they do however contain the truth the authors sought to convey. Difference in content and details reflect the concerns of the author. I would be more suspicious if they all had the same point of view. That would be indicative of coaching or plagiarism of some other source. Oh look we're back to the DaVinci code
Safehands wrote: » The story of Jesus on the cross has always intrigued me. Having rough nails driven through the wrists or palms would shatter bones. Having more nails driven through a person's feet would be equally destructive of bones flesh and ligaments. It must have been excruciatingly painful. But Jesus was God. He could raise people from the dead. He could mend blindness, broken limbs and any other ailment he chose to. So is it not possible that he was able to switch off the pain. He would have had the power to do anything with his body, so driving nails into his hands would not necessarily cause him the same pain as it would to a normal human being.
faith777 wrote: » interesting. but im not sure christ aimed to restricted himself from pain. his pain receptors were very much alive and active as a means for us to understand there was going to be pain to pay for our crime.
faith777 wrote: » God wrath poured out on his son for the very reason that he would feel Gods anger on our behalf. his senses could not be turned off, for if it they were, humanity would see no obligation or compulsion to feel a debt of gratitude towards jesus as the very pain he received was truly what we should have received for our reckless lifestyle choices.
tommy2bad wrote: » But, but but, Jesus was God, are you saying that He had some sort of temper tantrum and banged his head against a wall or went all Basil Faulty and tried to beat Himself up? (the bit in bold) So our lifestyle choices deserve Crucifixion? A bit harsh don't you think? I hate this 'we all deserve death and torture for our sins' rubbish. It's a blasphemy against Gods forgiveness. If God can offer forgiveness to Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or Josef Fritzl, then to say that he threatens us who are in the ha'penny place as evil despots, with the same 'one size fits all' punishment is nonsense.
SoulandForm wrote: » We deserve the fires of hell. He or she who doesnt realize their need for Salvation cant really believe in the Saviour.
tommy2bad wrote: » Yes, because God is as offended by a **** as a Holocaust. :rolleyes: No we don't deserve the fires of Hell, if we did then God made an error in forgiving us. He is a God of justice and knew that we didn't deserve any such punishment. That's why He took on the punishment in our place, to save us. Save, as in rescue or prevent a consequence that would have befallen.
SoulandForm wrote: » I didnt say that God is offended by a holocaust as by an act of masturbation; but Im sure more people here have masturbated as opposed to burned masses of people alive or whatever. Therefore for us masturbation is of more concern. Let us focus on ourselves.
SoulandForm wrote: » A Saviour is only of use for those who need saving- if you feel you dont need saving and are basically alright than Christ is of no real use to you. Only those who are sick need a doctor- Christ did not come for (those who consider themselves) righteous but to save sinners.
tommy2bad wrote: » Unfortinuatly when you say we all deserve the fires of hell, you imply an equivalence. I don't think you get it, we are saved, it's done and dusted. All we have to do is accept it or reject it. Yes accepting means change but change because it's what we want, not change because if we don't we get a roasting.
tommy2bad wrote: » I don't think you get it, we are saved, it's done and dusted. All we have to do is accept it or reject it. Yes accepting means change but change because it's what we want, not change because if we don't we get a roasting.
