Posted by: Cal ®
05/27/2002, 11:29:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
The closest you'll get to the time-span of Jesus' life in any text is the letters of Paul, the authentic ones, that is. The earliest may have been written circa 50 ce. But still they are written by someone who had probably been converted just a few years after Jesus died. The irony is that he displayed little interest in his letters about the details of Jesus' life on earth, though he didn't leave them utterly unmentioned.
The gospels come later, the earliest (Mark), perhaps around the time of the wars leading up to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. But it's another thing to determine how early the oral traditions and written texts arose that the writers of the gospels relied on. Some of the anecdotes about Jesus that you find in the gospels, including some of his putative sayings, were preserved in oral traditions and perhaps (now unavailable) written texts that may well reflect sometimes what Jesus actually said and did.
My question to you is whether you have a serious question to raise here. Are you hoping to engage in real dialogue instead of shoot-from-the-hip slanders of believers and their beliefs?
Modified by Cal at Mon, May 27, 2002, 11:44:57
|
Posted by: Martin ®
05/27/2002, 11:57:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear Cal, You write: "The irony is that he [Paul] displayed little interest in his letters about the details of Jesus' life on earth, though he didn't leave them utterly unmentioned." On the final clause and on other elements of your post, I find it rather difficult to concur. Might you please direct me to preciely where in the genuine Pauline corpus that he mentions the details of Jesus' Earthly life you are referring to? I am in the middle of preparing a major thread on this very subject in response to an earlier inquiry from Glen, and if what you say about direct Pauline references to Jesus' Earthly life is indeed accurate and unambiguous, then I have my work cut out for me! I would thus be quite grateful if you could reply with your citations soon...
Thank you!
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Mon, May 27, 2002, 11:58:31
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/27/2002, 12:43:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Paul's references to Jesus' earthly life aren't very informative. But they are evidently references to his earthly life, i.e., references to his life prior to his supposed resurrection. I'll just cite the decidedly impious (from a traditional standpoint) but influential, mainstream scholar Bart Ehrman, who remarks on how little help Paul provides in providing information on the historical Jesus:
"Paul tells us that Jesus was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4; this is not a particularly useful datum--one wonders what the alternative would have been), and that he was born a Jew (Gal. 4:4), reputedly from the line of King David (Rom. 1:3). He had brothers (1 Cor. 9:5), one of whom was named James (Gal 1:19). He had twelve disciples (1 Cor. 15:15; at least, I assume this is what he means when he refers to the twelve here) and conducted his ministry among Jews (Romans 15:8). He had a last meal with his disciples on the night he was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23). Paul 'knows' what Jesus said at this last meal (1 Cor. 11:23-25). Finally, he knows that Jesus died by being crucified (1 Cor. 2:2)." [from Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, 79].
At any rate, when one offers a mythicist position--and I suppose some variant of that is what you'll offer to Glen--one recurring problem is what one means in holding such a position: (1) That there was no historical person that gave rise to the subsequent Christian tradition (i.e., that he was simply a product of visions and mythological elaborations)? (2) That this person existed, but there's such a thorough overlay of mythological elaboration that one may as well say the historical person has been fully mythicized as far as our access to him through subsequent traditions (i.e., that we're left with something analogous to Homer, Abraham or Moses)? Of course, there are nuances here that are possible too.
As for the rest I was just offering a kind of average summary of the usual fare from largely secularized scholars on the dating of the material about Jesus in preserved texts. There may be excellent reasons for thinking there was no historical Jesus (in some sense), but the heavyweights in the field seem to think there was a historical Jesus and that there is something of his life and teaching preserved through a glass darkly in the extant texts.
They could, of course, be wrong. I myself am ill-prepared to weigh in on these issues because I really don't have the scholarly tools to enter the debate with any real skill. But I do, for the moment, tend to believe that there was a historical Jesus who, for example, was in fact baptized by John the Baptist and who preached the imminent end of the world. Paul's expectations of apocalyptic destruction perhaps, given their early provenance, support the idea that Jesus was an end-time prophet, and so do the writings of the synoptic gospels.
Cal
Modified by Cal at Mon, May 27, 2002, 12:45:35
|
Posted by: Martin ®
05/27/2002, 16:14:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear Cal, I am very humbly grateful for your extremely rapid response! I wish I could work that fast! Fortunately for me, Ehrman didn't come up with any surprises for me. My own favored Christology (not that it is "my" work, of course!) is indeed an offshoot of the position you mentioned, although I prefer to refer to it as a mystical Christology rather than just a mythical one. But I don't want to tip my hand and start a debate prematurely. My time-consuming asides into other debates here in the last few days has demolished my schedule for completing my opening posts for the new thread that I promised to Glen, and as I will be extensively involved in the holiday festivities, it will be difficult to make up the time. I'm a slower thinker and writer than you may suspect, so I still have my work cut out for me...
- Martin
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/27/2002, 11:38:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
Shooter,
I think you already know very well that everything written about Jesus was written long after his death. If you want to find out about exact dates, good luck. That is a source of debate between Christian apologists and scholars, with apologists trying to push the dates up (which would make them seem more reliable) while other honest scholars argue for later dates. You should check out this link which was pointed out earlier on this board:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Here is another inconsistency to ponder: If it took so many years for the 4 gospels to be recorded, why did Jesus insist that the Nephites record his teachings immediately? See 3 Nephi 23:11-13. Why wasn't the same command issued to the Israelites? As a skeptic, my answer would be because the Book of Mormon is not historical, but let's see if any valiant iron-rodders out there can come up with a more faith-preserving explanation...
-phishhead
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/27/2002, 12:06:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Though I'm sure there's a way out of it. Perhaps God found it "meet" to offer one command in the Americas and another in Holy Land. Perhaps also God found it meet to have the Nephites offer direct prophecies of Jesus' role in the plan of salvation while keeping this privilege from the Holy Land prophets, who were consigned to prophesying Jesus' role in the most indirect (virtually undetectable) of ways. Perhaps the pre-Christian era Nephites quoted later figures like Paul because God saw fit to inspire these Nephites with the same words he used in inspiring Paul and his compatriots. Perhaps . . .
For me, at least, it wasn't any one ad hoc way around these problems that pushed me away from thinking the Book of Mormon was an ancient document. It was reflection on why so many of these kinds of ad hoc explanations were required to defend its authenticity.
BTW, I hope you got my invitation elsewhere here for you to stick around. Please do. Sometimes it's a circus, but you get a chance to write and, often, to learn through the feedback.
Modified by Cal at Mon, May 27, 2002, 13:16:00
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/27/2002, 14:34:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yep, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever... just don't expect him to be the same in this continent, that continent, or the other one...
I did get your invitation elsewhere to stick around - thanks. I have been lurking for several months and finally decided to jump in. I would also like to verify that I am not Duckboy. I will try to participate from time to time, but it seems like what this board needs more of is the "defenders of the faith," not skeptical agnostics.
-phishhead
|
Posted by: duckboy ®
05/27/2002, 17:12:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
phishhead,
It seems that we have both been lurking for some time and just happened to decide to start posting at the same time. I agree that what this board needs is more believers, and instead got two more skeptical agnostics in the two of us. That being said, I feel that we (or at least I) can still learn a tremendous amount from just the pool of current posters on this board, even if many of them have similar belief systems. I know that I have nowhere near the experience or knowledge in fields like philosophy, epistomology, theology, etc that most of the people here display.
Hoping to continue to broaden my knowledge and 2think,
duckboy
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/28/2002, 11:13:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
One way to clarify unbelief is to raise theological questions to unbelievers. It isn't as if most of us here, at least, haven't been believers before. The path out of a particular faith towards disbelief often requires intense scrutiny of the faith you're leaving, more intense scrutiny than there ever was while one believed. Nor is it that we're simple anti-religious ideologues here, however strong our convictions about belief.
Also: the varieties of unbelief can themselves make for interesting discussion. For one thing, the question of what the implications may be of embracing skeptical agnosticism for "the meaning of life" and other such things aren't resolved on becoming a skeptical agnostic.
Unless, of course, the point is to engage in debate or dialogue with believers of one stripe or another. That, however, can be done on believers' bulletin boards. In the case of Mormon believers, the ZLMB board is the best I've seen. I'm at a loss as to what BB's offer up the best Catholic responses to skeptical queries.
Still, I wish there were some way a wider array of believers could be attracted to the board. In that I'm with you.
Modified by Cal at Tue, May 28, 2002, 11:14:10
|
Posted by: shooter ®
05/28/2002, 00:40:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
"My question to you is whether you have a serious question to raise here. Are you hoping to engage in real dialogue instead of shoot-from-the-hip slanders of believers and their beliefs? "
With this as a response to a question I have to wonder if you are a Utah mormon? This is the typical response I get since moving to this state of denial... paranoia whenever anyone asks a question.
It would be nice to know just when some of these books were written just for the sake of knowledge. Apparently nothing about Jesus was written while he was alive? Is this so? If it is one has to wonder at what was written and why it was all done so much later. Why didn't these guys record what happened while it was happening? Notes, records or something at the time would have made sense rather than waiting until years later to put down what was said, done & thought.
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/28/2002, 03:14:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
shooter,
Though your post is threaded so that it looks like a response to phishhead, the "shoot-from-the-hip slander of believers and their beliefs" quote comes from me elsewhere on this thread. So I'll respond. No, I'm not a Utah Mormon. I'm an ex-Mormon, a thoroughgoing non-believer who has serious bones to pick with the Mormon church in particular.
Notice that I did provide a sort of average summary of the mainstream scholarly consensus as a response to your question, so I did respond to your question as it was posed on the assumption that it may arise from genuine curiosity.
But why did I ask my question at the end about whether your post was a prelude to some "shoot-from-the-hip slander of believers and their beliefs"? Perhaps it was unfair to do that here. Still, the fact is that your previous posts generally engage in that kind of slander--for instance, your ridiculous post on an earlier thread in which you claimed, on the basis of your experiences in Utah, that Mormons don't care about their children and look away from abuse. (BTW, Craig C., Gunnar and I, all ex-Mormon non-believers, responded strongly to your post, but you never as far as I know either retracted or defended your claims.)
Now why would I be so harsh? It's that, as a non-believer, I'm especially hard on fellow non-believers when they engage in bigoted or silly and uncareful criticisms of religionists. Believers often get from the pulpit and their scriptures distorted enough views of non-believers. It's especially important that non-believers not conform to the non-believers' stereotypes. Plus, I dislike those sort of things no matter whether the the person doing them is religious or not. Notice also that phishhead is himself an agnostic, and he expressed his doubts about your motives too.
So, no, neither denial nor paranoia have anything to do with it. Perhaps I jumped too quickly here, but your previous posts have made me suspicious of where you're going to take things.
Cal
Modified by Cal at Tue, May 28, 2002, 03:15:38
|
Posted by: Douglas A... ®
05/29/2002, 23:00:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
Not everything that Our Lord (Yahoshua) did was recorded in the Gospels (See John's comment about that). Why assume that someone was not taking notes and publishing them in the local media all along? That would be the normal procedure; as it is in the case of people who are in the public eye today.
I am,
KYMAK agent
|
Posted by: shooter ®
06/08/2002, 12:10:10
Author Profile Mail author
|
You bring up what I would have thought was the situation here, that someone would be taking notes, publishing information about what Jesus did and whatnot while he was alive. If they did, where is it? It seems all we have in the Bible is second hand information or accounts written years later. For someone who has had such an effect on the world one would think there would be current accounts of his life, exploits, teachings and history.
Where is it?
The person who brought up the facts of Jesus commanding those on this continent to record what he said & did at the time he was here has a good point. Maybe with nothing current in the Old World but tons of archaelogical evidence of Biblical cities & locations the idea of no archaelogical evidence & locations in the New World but a current account of Jesus somehow plays into the grand scheme of things?
I don't know and asked the question since so many quote the Bible as "gospel" while it was not even a record of current events at the time the main hero was alive.
|
Posted by: douglas a... ®
05/28/2002, 03:17:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
He's still alive.
I suppose someone of the disciples could have been taking notes as He spoke and that these could have been circulated in the local newspapers.
I am,, KYMAK agent
Modified by douglas a... at Tue, May 28, 2002, 03:18:40
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
05/28/2002, 04:23:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hooray! We actually have a defender of the faith participating in this thread! However, I was a little disappointed in the length. Could you please elaborate? Why do you believe that Jesus is still alive? What reasons can you offer to convince someone that the historical Jesus is divine? If you are LDS, could you respond to my earlier question about why Jesus commanded the Nephites to record his teachings immediately, but issued no such command in his native land?
-phishhead
|
Posted by: douglas a... ®
05/28/2002, 23:20:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
To understand Religion one must accept the premise (i.e. on faith) just as one accepts a scientific hypothesis and proceed on (or as they say, "step out on faith").
I have to yield the computer to another library patron, now More later.
I am, KYMAK agent
|
Posted by: Douglas A... ®
05/29/2002, 22:49:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
I had the Mormon edition of the Nephite Record (AKA THE BOOK OF MORMON) left by the LDS Missionaries in 1972 for five years sitting on my shelf until I decided one day, exactly five years later, to accept it on faith and read it as I read the BIBLE. Then it opened up and I found my destiny in its' pages. You can prove nothing unless you first accept the hypothesis or premise that it is or may be true. Prejudices and biases will keep us from that until doomsday if we do not maintain scientific objectivity in our quest for wisdom in every feild of knowledge.
I am, KYMAK agent
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/28/2002, 12:01:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
The question, as I recall, was...were any of the NT scriptures written while Jesus was alive?
My answer is yes, they were all written while he was alive. Whatsamatta someone? Can't translate "Christian"? ;)
|
Posted by: someone ®
05/28/2002, 12:16:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Your position is that the entire NT was written while Jesus was still alive? Including all the parts in the gospels that discuss his death and resurrestion?
And all of Pauls epistles?
And the Revelation?
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/28/2002, 12:28:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
Here, let me drive you to the brink of insanity someone! I believe that the entire Bible was written while Jesus was alive.
|
Posted by: someone ®
05/29/2002, 00:36:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
just giving you the opportunity to clarify your position (as rdl might have have done for you, if thats what you meant). You certainly don't have to.
|
Posted by: rpcman ®
05/29/2002, 01:45:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
Alive as a person or as a spirit? If the latter then don't you consider everyone to always be alive even when they are dead?
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/29/2002, 07:30:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi rpcman!
I believe that Jesus was alive before he entered a human body, alive when he inhabited a human body, alive when he was presumed dead, alive after the resurrection and alive right now. Yes, I believe that everyone survives in spirit how ever I'm not certain (how could I be?) if we are translated to a spirit realm upon death or if we will be translated when Christ returns. I suppose I'd have to say that Jesus was alive as a spirit except for when he, according to the scriptures, walked on the earth. I cannot know these things nor can I prove them, these are my beliefs. Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Wed, May 29, 2002, 07:31:50
|
Posted by: someone ®
05/29/2002, 09:08:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well Rpc, there you have it. Never mind that the Bible itself casually notes the death of Jesus (not to mention numorous other individuals) in many places. The problem is we all just need to familiarize ourselves with reborn speak.
Then we could say the entire NT was written while Genghis Kahn was still alive. The second world war began during the life of Thomas Jefferson and ended during the living days of Socrates. We could also definitively say that Vicki believes the Book of 1st Nephi was written during the lifetime of King Zedekiah, just as it claims in 1 Nephi 1:3-4.
Modified by someone at Wed, May 29, 2002, 09:09:46
|
Posted by: JAK1 ®
05/29/2002, 09:35:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well put, someone. We can just say “we,” make anything up as we go along, and punctuate it with I believe. Just begin with I believe and say anything. “We” have instant validation! Documentation, evidence, and historic chronology are irrelevancies. JAK
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/29/2002, 10:08:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
Why do you address rpcman? My post was to YOU! Do you need assistance? LOL! You could also definitively say that Vicki is not LDS, that's if you knew what you were talking about.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Wed, May 29, 2002, 10:14:13
|
Posted by: someone ®
05/29/2002, 11:43:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
Why should I talk directly to you? Your responses to me have been completely evasive. You could easily have clarified your position in your first response..I don't know if you were midstream in changing your position, or if from the outset you thought you'd be 'tricky' by equivicating the sense with which you personally would use the word alive with the sense in which shooter was clearly using it (which by the way, he would be justifed even as a reborn Christian in phrasing the question exactly the way he did to carry the sense of what he meant). When you finally clarified your position, it was to RPCman, not me.
"You could also definitively say that Vicki is not LDS.."
exactly my point. You are definetly not LDS. But if we use your very proprietary use of the word 'alive' without qualification, then we could make statements about you that would appear to be true when they really arn't.
Given the obvious sense of shooter's post, here are some options:
1. You really meant the NT was completely written during Jesus' mortal life and just didn't stop to think about what you were saying. Upon realizing your mistake, you took rdl's cue and changed your position--without of course realizing that this new position is hardly any better.
2. You knew what shooter meant by alive, but purposely used the word in another sense in order to make some type of clever point about the divinity of Jesus. You did not consider how many silly points could be made by the exact same reasoning. Further, there is evidence that you thought you might catch someone (no pun intended) off guard ( narrow-mindedly focusing on their belief that Jesus is dead ) so that you could reveal an option that they may not have considered due to their lack of open-mindedness or ability to reason about what you might possibly have meant.
3. You honestly didn't know what shooter meant. You imagined that its common for anyone to speak about absolutely everyone who has ever been born as alive. You were simply answering shooter in a very clear and honest way. Of course, in that case you would have not have understood shooters post at all, nor would you seem to understand how misleading, and therefore how completely uncommon or perhaps non-existent your use of the word 'alive' is.
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/29/2002, 12:46:22
Author Profile Mail author
|
What I really meant someone, was that the scriptures were written (ALL of them) while Jesus was living. Nice twist you put on things. You are of course, wrong. Alive, is alive.
Vicki
|
Posted by: someone ®
05/29/2002, 13:20:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
uh huh...
I do think you do see how meaningless it is to say that the NT (along with every other book) was written while Jesus 'was' alive.
oh well, I'll let you have last words on this one if you want.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
05/29/2002, 18:19:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
My friend, By so adamantly refusing to qualify the words "alive" and "living", I'm afraid I must insist that you are being evasionary and a bit intellectually dishonest. You are engaging in one of my most disliked pet peeves, using the same word(s) in multiple senses while trying simultaneously to deny you're doing so, which I refer to by the justifiably derisive term "syllogistic smuggling". It is intellectually unfair and quite unworthy of you. Someone and others were quite correct, Vicki. In English (rather than the "reborn-speak" that someone mentioned [and I wish he'd use a different handle for clarity's sake!]), when you wrote: "Alive is alive" you were clearly and foolishly asserting that an earthly human body which is metabolically, biochemically, neurologically alive is EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY POSSIBLE RESPECT as an earthly human body which has been dead for centuries! C'mon, Vicki. The game's over, okay? "Metaphysically or spiritually alive" is simply not the same thing as "physically, materialistically alive". Please don't continue to pretend otherwise.
Respectfully, - Martin
Modified by Martin at Wed, May 29, 2002, 18:20:49
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/29/2002, 23:45:02
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear Martin,
I should think that if you are genuinely interested in clarity of communication you would have begun with shooter. In posing his question shooter left himself open for a variety of interpretations (which rdl noted below) and considering the fact that this is, at least in part, a theology forum it is unrealistic to expect that the believing community (as dismal we are in population) would not respond from a believer's perspective which is exactly what I did. I did not "admantly refuse" to qualify anything! When asked for an explanation I gave it! I wholly RESENT the implication that I was playing any games in my response! I answered from a believing standpoint. Which is what I am. I find it interesting that you would choose to take me to task for not qualifying my terms when the onus was clearly on shooter to do so in posing the question! This is analogous to blaming the victim of gunshot wound for not forecasting the trajectory of the bullet and failure to step out of the way! I really should have my reflexes tested. Shooter placed NO condition on the word "death". For a believer Martin, where Jesus is concerned there WAS NO DEATH! Death of the mortal body yes, but death? No! You know this, shooter knows this, someone(who appears to know little else) knows it, even JAK (who oftimes appears to think that HE is my savior) knows this. It should be assumed in the same way you saw hormone shower as a given in the last discussion. Who is playing games with who here? Do you think it was clear to someone and JAK what shooter meant through his use of the word "death" in his OP? Of course it was! It should ( and IS ) likewise as clear to them what *I* mean when I use the word "alive" in reference to Jesus yet they choose to run it into the ground for no good reason! And you choose to take ME to task and accuse ME of intellectual dishonesty! INDEED! And for you yourself to attempt to place such stringent regulations on my responses, while seeming to place no regulation whatsoever on shooter who posed the open ended question and in light of the fact that you know the theology of Christianity, it is picking unnecessary nits to take me to task for voicing a position you could have easily predicted and understood the reasoning it was based on (and I was not the only believer on this thread who voiced the same) and at least a little biased to not allow for such a predictable response from a believer. Vicki p.s. take a good look at the front page Martin and see how many believers are LEFT on this forum. From what I can see there are THREE Martin, THREE! Is this current line of dialogue really worth it? If I get tired of spinning my wheels on useless exchanges like these you all are (so far as I can tell) left with Lynn who is a newcomer...and DOUGLAS....need I say more? Let's give it a try and see for, in light of recent and significant events, I am disgusted by this current exchange.
Modified by Jersey Girl at Thu, May 30, 2002, 00:55:30
|
Posted by: Martin ®
05/30/2002, 08:16:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
So what you're saying, Vicki, is that I have no right to challenge your extensive and knowingly evasive dialoge with "someone" and a few others, which centers on a deliberate word game, unless I criticized shooter first, for whom I have very little respect in the first place -- quite unlike yourself. You say you responded from a believer's perspective and act as if it is THAT which I am criticizing, which is clearly not the case and I find it difficult to believe you think it was. It was certainly NOT your beliefs nor your wish to issue a believer's response that troubled (and still troubles) me, it is instead the fact that you refused to qualify your language for the purposes of communication clarity even though you were repeatedly asked and/or chided to do so! Vicki, what could possibly be so objectionable for a believer to have written a clear and unambigous response with no word play such as: "I believe Jesus has lived and will live forever in a spiritual, heavenly sense and it was in that same spiritual state that I believe Jesus lived during the time the New Testament was being written." Would it really have betrayed your beliefs to have spoken so clearly? You simply CANNOT honestly claim that the ONLY way to state your beliefs was to essentially say 'Jesus is alive and alive means alive'. By putting your statements in such a deliberately ambiguous and evasive manner -- especially after being asked not to and rebuffed for doing so -- I have to say you earned some fair criticism. I'm sorry if such fair and rather mild criticism offended you, but I believe it was warranted.
Respectfully, - Martin
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/30/2002, 09:47:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
That is EXACTLY WHAT I DID!!!!! Did you stop to READ my posts????
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/30/2002, 09:50:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi rpcman!
I believe that Jesus was alive before he entered a human body, alive when he inhabited a human body, alive when he was presumed dead, alive after the resurrection and alive right now. Yes, I believe that everyone survives in spirit how ever I'm not certain (how could I be?) if we are translated to a spirit realm upon death or if we will be translated when Christ returns. I suppose I'd have to say that Jesus was alive as a spirit except for when he, according to the scriptures, walked on the earth. I cannot know these things nor can I prove them, these are my beliefs.
Vicki
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I DID!!!!
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/30/2002, 11:46:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I believe that Jesus was . . . alive when he was presumed dead. . . ." The presumption that he died was shared by a number of New Testament authors: we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Rom. 5:10) Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (1 Cor. 15:3) I am he that liveth, and was dead; (Rev. 1:18) I personally got your point from the beginning, which I perceived to be couched in a degree of playfulness. I think you'd do best not to defend a whimsical gesture too tenaciously. I'm sure you agree with the scriptures that there is an undeniable sense in which he died, even if the purpose of surrendering to death was to conquer it.
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/30/2002, 12:23:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
I myself saw it as possibly a whimsical gesture until the "Did I stutter?" post. Then I saw it as a gesture that became the stage for a little melodrama. Someone's questions were reasonable enough under the circumstances. They certainly weren't obtuse given the thread. The "did I stutter" challenge and all this silly aftermath could have been avoided with a straightforward answer of about a sentence or two.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
05/30/2002, 12:46:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki, please don't think that we're criticizing or attacking your beliefs or your faith. It was only your unnecessarily ambiguous and confusing means of expression in this thread that prompted me and others to reply as we did. Please don't take it personally, okay?
With great respect, - Martin
|
Posted by: Martin ®
05/30/2002, 12:50:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
... but for some reason the board won't let me edit that post to correct my error (of a type I've been comitting too often lately for some reason...)
- Martin
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
05/30/2002, 13:02:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
I had the same problem when I tried to go back and give my "Re: HERE MARTIN!!!" post a more topical title.
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/30/2002, 14:30:05
Author Profile Mail author
|
Martin,
As a matter of fact, I would much prefer that you criticize or attack my beliefs rather than engage in this endless nit picking of my intent, the way I set up a post or speculating on my "needs" as Alf is attempting to do below! I don't take this personally Martin, I take it with a certain amount of disillusionment at what has become of this thread. Is THIS all we have to debate? I made a lousy hit and run for pete sake! I answered someone's questions fully and completely. And now I am subject to speculation on my "needs" For crying outloud guys! If I want to expose myself to this kind of useless banter and stupid rem | |
