Posts by hmike

32

What Happened to the Body?

by hmike in

i'm fairly new here, so please excuse me if this has been discussed before.

it seemed like an appropriate time to bring this up.. suppose we accept that there really was a man jesus, rabbi, teacher, etc., but just a mortal man.

so if he didn't resurrect, what happened to the body, and how was the "myth" of the resurrection perpetuated, especially in light of the numerous "witnesses" (some of whom were still alive when the accounts were written, if we can believe that part of the accounts) and the effect this had on their lives?

hmike

Robert K. Stock:

Looks like you would reject the historical existence of Jesus altogether, at least as a single individual who went around teaching among the Jews about the way to God. That is an extreme position, because most critics of the NT, even rabbis, would accept that a mortal man called Jesus did live in Israel about that time. This brings up the question of what is considered reliable historical documentation. Can we believe that Alexander the Great was a real person? Or Socretes? Or the Pharoahs or ancient Chinese rulers?

Midget-Sasquatch:

The lime graves theory is new to me. I'll have to check further into Roman burial customs. Still, it presumes that nobody would have taken possession of the body immediately after the crucifixion. Are you saying that maybe later, when someone went to take possession of the body, it couldn't be found because it had decayed beyond recognition, and so the disciples claimed, "He must have raised from the dead?"

Narkissos:

I've read most of the reference by Mr. Price, including the part where he discusses Paul's reference to the 500 witnesses. It looks to me that he is saying that part was added later, after the Gospels were written because surely, it would have been mentioned. OK, on the surface, I can see the sense in that. But, actually, to me, more than anything, this argues FOR single authorship of each of the Gospel accounts (i.e., four different authors, who may have used outside sources or scribes to write it down) and AGAINST editing and modification later in the church. Otherwise, wouldn't someone have altered the Gospel accounts to include Paul's account? It's entirely possible to me that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John simply did not know of this appearance to the 500 others when they (or the "real" authors) wrote down their accounts. Paul could have found out about this from someone else, or it could have been revealed to him directly by the glorified Jesus or an angel.

This is a bit off-topic now, but I'd like to give my observation of higher criticism. Since there are differences in the accounts, critics say, "These can't be true or inspired because there are contradictions." But if all the accounts matched, people would say, "These aren't reliable; they must have been altered to make them the same." It reminds me of what Jesus said about those who rejected both John the Baptist and him. There's just no pleasing some people.

What kind of documentary evidence would be acceptable?

32

What Happened to the Body?

by hmike in

i'm fairly new here, so please excuse me if this has been discussed before.

it seemed like an appropriate time to bring this up.. suppose we accept that there really was a man jesus, rabbi, teacher, etc., but just a mortal man.

so if he didn't resurrect, what happened to the body, and how was the "myth" of the resurrection perpetuated, especially in light of the numerous "witnesses" (some of whom were still alive when the accounts were written, if we can believe that part of the accounts) and the effect this had on their lives?

hmike

OK, so accepting that?

I Corinthians is generally dated around 50-55 AD by all the scholarship I?ve seen. Also, as far as I?ve found, critical scholars do credit this letter intact to Paul (maybe someone can cite disagreements with this). In Chapter 15, it states:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;

7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

(NASB)

If it wasn't true, wouldn't it be a risk to make this claim when there are so many people living with whom this story could be checked?

32

What Happened to the Body?

by hmike in

i'm fairly new here, so please excuse me if this has been discussed before.

it seemed like an appropriate time to bring this up.. suppose we accept that there really was a man jesus, rabbi, teacher, etc., but just a mortal man.

so if he didn't resurrect, what happened to the body, and how was the "myth" of the resurrection perpetuated, especially in light of the numerous "witnesses" (some of whom were still alive when the accounts were written, if we can believe that part of the accounts) and the effect this had on their lives?

hmike

I'm fairly new here, so please excuse me if this has been discussed before. It seemed like an appropriate time to bring this up.

Suppose we accept that there really was a man Jesus, rabbi, teacher, etc., but just a mortal man. So if he didn't resurrect, what happened to the body, and how was the "myth" of the resurrection perpetuated, especially in light of the numerous "witnesses" (some of whom were still alive when the accounts were written, if we can believe that part of the accounts) and the effect this had on their lives?

31

LET GOD BE TRUE........WORSHIP THE FATHER IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH......

by gdt in

a challenge for any who wish to use their youngs or strongs analytical concordances, and just listen to the bible as to the creator's personage.. names @ titles of: the father the son the holy spirit.

descriptive name given yhwh jesus no name, pneuma/ruahh/ wind.

king of kings yes yes no.

hmike

I would only add that we have God's word by the Holy Spirit, and the work of the Holy Spirit is to bring glory to the Father and the Son. He does not "toot his own horn." So, don't expect to see the Spirit worshipped or glorified.

21

Resurrection to Spirit Form, Your Opinion would be Appreciated,

by jeanniebeanz in

2 corinthians 5:6-8 seems to indicate that, according to traditional christian thinking, once a christian dies they are immediately present with the christ.. .

2 corinthians 5:6-8 (kjv).

6. therefore [we are] always confident, and know that while present in the body we are absent from the lord, 7 (for we walk by faith, not by sight;) 8 we are confident, i say, and pleased rather to be absent from the body and present with the lord.. .

hmike

What about what Jesus said about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16)? Or when Jesus told the criminal crucified with him, "today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43)? Or when Jesus said God was not the God of the dead, but God of the living, referring to the Patriarchs (Matt. 22:31-32)? Or the souls of those who had been killed because of the word of God and their testimony in Rev. 6:9-11? What does the WT say about these?

26

Modalism vs. Trinitarianism (which one stands better against JW doctrine?)

by Ianone in

modalistic monarchianism, also known as modalism, is the view that god variously manifested himself as the father (primarily in the old testament), other times as the son (primarily from jesus?

conception to his ascension), and other times as the holy spirit (primarily after jesus?

ascension into heaven).

hmike

There is a major religion today that holds to this modalism concept?I can't remember who, offhand?Moon's Unification Church?

I don't see how the Bible can be used to support modalism, but it can be used to support Trinitarianism.

I think there is a problem if we demand that the Father and the Logos (John 1:1) are exactly the same in every way. I don't think the Bible text requires that. What the writers did want us to see was that Jesus was in complete harmony and unity with the Father, and had the same authority over all creation that the Father did in the OT. In that regard, it would be perfectly acceptable to refer to Jesus as God. Although John is the most overt about this assertion, the other Gospels make it a point to note events where the actions of Jesus are consistent with those of God in the OT. It also seems consistent with the rest of John's Gospel that he would assert that "God was the Word (logos)" and not "a god... ," so that the Logos shared in God's nature.

Now I may be deviating a bit from traditional orthodox teaching here, but as I read it, Jesus can be called "God" because of his dual nature: body and spirit. The Bible teaches that each of us has a dual nature: the physical body and the spirit. (It may even be considered a trinitarian nature, if you want to include the soul as separate. For the sake of simplicity, I would only differentiate between natural/physical/material and supernatural/non-physical.) Each one of us is a body and a spirit?together, they constitute the individual, and yet, either one of those constituents could be referred to as that individual (When we refer to a person today, say Billy, for example, we would normally be talking about him in his physical form. Yet, scripturally, it would also be appropriate to refer to Billy's non-physical essence by his name.) I see the spiritual component of Jesus as the Logos (God), so it would be completely proper to refer to him as man (Jesus of Nazareth, born of Mary), or God (Logos in him?but please don't call Mary the "mother of God.") While on earth, though, he functioned as a man. During his ministry on earth, he operated pretty much as an OT prophet?relying on the Holy Spirit for insight and power. One area he operated as God was in his authority?in his teaching, and over the natural and supernatural realm, but the power came by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, he was subject to many limitations. Although he was always aware of his relationship to the Father, he operated under these restrictions or limitations to meet the requirements as the "second Adam." Therefore, it is appropriate for him to pray to the Father and to call Him his God. Even now, in his glorified state, he is still retains a bodily form (and I mean a resurrected, physical body, although it is no longer subject to the limitations of our physical laws) and is subject to the Father in some manner. He is a glorified man and yet more.

To be comfortable with the concept of the Trinity (I think tri-unity may be a better term), we have to get out of our limited way of thinking about the universe?limited by our own restrictions of what we are able to perceive, how we process that information, and the models we construct to process further information. The more we learn about the universe, though, the more we realize there is so much we don't know. We become better able to "think outside the box," or at least accept there are things we can't know with the current technology we have. Consequently, we have passed from simply accepting things on pure faith, to rejecting them because they can't be explained or tested scientifically, to recognizing that they may exist, but we just can't verify them at this time. We are now advancing beyond the limitations that confine things to the context of a four-dimensional universe. Science fiction has always been on the cutting edge of this frontier, and what is sci-fi today can be reality tomorrow. The idea of a single entity being manifested in multiple forms is a hard concept for us to accept because it just doesn't happen in our limited experience. One person is one person, manifested in one form. Multiple manifestations have always been hard to explain or depict. I notice the WT has used illustrations from artwork to refute the Trinity by appealing to the apparent absurdity of the artwork?three-headed men, etc. But that is attacking a straw man. Ridiculing the work of medieval artists does not refute the Trinity. So what happens if we set aside our medieval thinking and open our minds to accepting the possibility of a parallel dimension?the spiritual world, including heaven?where God is not confined to a single manifestation, i.e. the Father, but can simultaneously exist with the Logos (indwelling Jesus Christ since the incarnation), and the Spirit? These three can have some differences between them, but share a common nature and are called God. Three "persons" are all entitled to be called "God"; all three collectively constituting God, yet each individually deserving of the title of God. Is this really so incredible, then?

26

Jesus Christ! Is this a contradiction?

by observador in

the other day while rereading the scriptures about the last supper, i spotted something that is very interesting.. mathew 26:23 reads:"in reply he said: "he that dips his hand with me in the bowl is the one that will betray me.".

the above doesn't make much sense to me because it implies that one would have to give himself away by doing exacly what jesus said the betrayor would do.

now, look at how john words the same event in john 13:26:"therefore jesus answered: "it is that one to whom i shall give the morsel that i dip".

hmike

I think Narkissos and Paduan have the right idea. Both Matthew and Mark mention that Jesus identifies the betrayer as "the one who dips his hand into the bowl with me." This was to emphasize that the betrayer was one of their select group and present for this meal. This statement does not require that Jesus and Judas dipped their hands into the bowl simultaneously, that Jesus waited for Judas to dip and then joined him, or that Judas was compelled against his will to dip at the same time as Jesus. It just means they both shared that same bowl during the meal. (In Matthew's account, Jesus tells Judas he is aware of the planned betrayal.)

The statements in Matthew/Mark and John need not be contradictory. They are not mutually exclusive. They could just be two separate statements, one finding its way into the Matthew/Mark account, the other into John's account. Interesting to note that in spite of what happened here, the other disciples didn't have a clue as to what Judas was up to.

40

Links between Jesus and other ancient Man-Gods

by doogie in

recently, at the prompting of another poster, i began to look into the similarities between jesus and other man-gods of ancient cultures.

i was shocked!

not so much by the minute details shared between the gospels and the stories of krishna, osiris, zoroaster, mithras, dionysus and others, but mainly because i had never heard of this before.. things like: being born of a virgin, espousing the redeeming power of baptism, turning water into wine at a wedding, having an entourage of 12 close followers, those 12 sharing a final meal with the god, instructing his followers to eat of his body and blood to benefit from his sacrifice (the blood usually symbolized by juice or wine), sacrificing his life by crucifixion on behalf of mankind, being dead for 3 days and then resurrected, he will return at some point to cleanse the world, and much more.. now, i know this is probably nothing new to most of you, but i was amazed.

hmike

I'd like to research this topic further, but I think there will be a lot of information to wade through. Primarily, I would be interested to know the reliability of these other source materials, paticularly with regard to their dating and transmission.

One assumption that could be made is that these events and circumstances didn't really happen, and that NT writers or editors copied these ideas into the Gospels to make Jesus someone he really wasn't. For a "faith-based" explanation, I'd like to propose that these concepts that had applied to the other "gods" were a foreshadowing, or precursor to Jesus, meaning that God took these concepts that had been previously applied to man-gods that people were aware of, and had Jesus's life conform to these kinds of circumstances, as if to say "OK, this is what you expect of man-gods. Well, Jesus conforms to this." In other words, these ideas weren't simply appropriated by the NT writers for their accounts of the life of Jesus, the events actually did happen as they are recorded in the Gospels?that God simply arranged events of Jesus's life to fit the concepts about other god-men to prove a point to people of pagan cultures. (It might even be possible to say these could be distorted prophecies, where people caught a brief glimpse of the future messiah of the world, but couldn't see it accurately and ascribed it to someone else.) You can speculate how many of these concepts the NT writers were aware of when they wrote their manuscripts, but that is why God moved the writers to include them.

I realize that some people may have a problem with the idea of God using pagan teachings in His favor. Paul didn't seem to have a problem with it. When he was in Athens (Acts 17), instead of rebuking the Athenians for worshipping false gods, he tells them he has noted how religious they are, and that they believe there is an unknown god. He then proceeds to use this belief to introduce his God, stating a spiritual truth in the process that actually came from a pagan philosopher-poet.

16

Why did Israelite soldiers die following Jehovahs direction?

by truthseeker in

joining the armed forces presents an inherent risk that one will die in combat.

there is a historical account in the bible detailing huge losses for the israelite army, when they followed jehovah's direction.

to set the scene - a group of homosexual men surround the house of an old man, asking him to bring out a lodger for sexual gratification.

hmike

I think the high casualty count suffered by the Israelites was part of a punishement, if you want to call it that.

No question that the Benjamites were wrong to tolerate what happened in Gibeah. Ideally, they should have handled the matter themselves according to the law. Whether they resisted because they condoned this action, or because they just didn't like interference by the other tribes, we don't know. In any case, that's why they were ultimately defeated. But, it looks to me like the other tribes weren't much better themselves. They weren't fit to be God's cleansing agent, especially against fellow Israelites. They mistakenly presumed to have God's approval and leadership in the first two attacks. I think God just let them go ahead and do what they were determined to do, but he didn't side with them.

It looks like they finally learned their lesson, somewhat, before the final battle, but as I read on into Chapter 21, it looks like it didn't last.

By this time, the Israelites were doing what was right in their own eyes. They appear to have left their God out of everyday life, and just went to him when they felt there was a crisis.

32

Crisis of Conscience

by Thinking in

my copy came in and i picked it up today.

i have a friend that i met online.....about 5 years ago.

at the time he was an elder and i was a struggling sister.

hmike

Hmmm...I've had a copy in my bookcase for years (3rd printing, 1987) and never went past Chapter 2. I guess I'd better take another look at it.