If Jesus is God, how is he called God's only begotten son?

El-Diablo wrote:

Thomas Jefferson did believe in a God. He was a deist, like many during the Enlightenment, and NOT A CHRISTIAN. Deism entails that a god/creator created the universe and will make judgement at the end. However it denies that this god mettles in the affairs of men or the universe in between the creation and judgement.

My statement was that he believed in God, I did not state that he was necessarily a Christian.

However, the quote references his belief in prayer also , i.e. God intervening in the affairs of men, so it would seem to contradict the popular notion that he was somehow a Deist.

0 Replies

Real Life,

real life wrote:

agrote wrote:
Firstly, religion gives people false hope. Billions of people have beliefs that give them a feeling of purpose, that make them feel like they matter and that life does have meaning - but that just aren't true. Whether or not there is/was a God who created the universe, I can't see any reason whatsoever to believe that it loves us. But many many people believe that 'he' does love them, and this gets them high - so religious people stagger around doped up on Godlove their whole lives and don't really achieve much.

Tell men like George Washington, most of the Framers of the American Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr (all strong believers in God) and many others that they accomplished nothing in life. They probably wouldn't agree and neither do most who know of their accomplishments.

Okay, you're right. Religious people are not necessarily useless people. I think, though, that while religion does not always mislead people morally (I can't complain about what Martin Luther King did, for example - what he did was brilliant), it does mislead people intellectually. Religious people cling to their beliefs, which are either false or unjustified. If there is no loving God, their beliefs are false. If there is a loving God, their beliefs are true but unjustified - there's no sound evidence for a loving God as far as I'm aware, so if religious people's beliefs are true they are true only by coincidence. So religious people cling to these beliefs, and close themselves off to the alternative possibilities. Many religious people haven't even properly considered the possibility that there is no God.

So let me add to the last part of what I said the average religious person will close his/her mind to possibilities that some things other than what they believe are true, and never discover, for example, that what they call the ?'soul' is really just the brain (if that happens to be true). So although they may very well achieve lots (I take back what I originally suggested), they will achieve little intellectually, I reckon. Does that make sense?

Quote:

agrote wrote:
Secondly, it is vain to believe that God loves you. It is simply vain to believe that we are somehow 'special,' when there are millions of different species of life on earth, and when the universe is so increadibly huge. Religious people forget that they are just earthlings, and they are just animals. Obviously we are more intelligent than other animals - we have consciousness, and that does make us unique, as far as we know. But consciousness is not a gift from God, it's just a property of brains that are higher up the evolutionary ladder. You are not special, you are just a brain. God is your imaginary friend, and claiming that he loves you is like kissing your own reflection - it's vanity.

You admit (sort of ) that Man is far removed from animals in intelligence , accomplishment , etc but somehow you cannot see the contradiction between this and your evolutionary indoctrination that "man is just an animal". Seems like a really glaring problem for your thesis.

I don't see why. Man is just an animal, with a more advanced brain. Human consciousness is just a slightly more complicated version of ape brain-behaviour, which is probably more complicated than worm brain-behaviour. Man is just an animal. Man is not just a monkey - I'll agree with that. We're smarter than apes. But similarly, apes are not just worms - they have thumbs and everything. Many different species of animal are far removed from each other in terms of intelligence and accomplishment - it's not just us and them. Just because we have a more advanced brain capacity than other animals, that does not make us special - if a more advanced species evolves from humans, what will be so special about us?

Quote:

Scientists cannot begin to explain how a slightly more developed human grey matter produces speech, music, philosophy, love, sacrificial behavior, etc. They cannot because it does not. Man's consciousness and soul are not a function of nervous tissue.

Actually they can begin to explain these things. That is what Cognitive Neuroscience is all about, explaining how the brain produces speech, creativity, emotion, etc. And we've made a lot of progress. We know about the speech-centres of the brain, for example, and the role of brain chemistry in emotion, and so on. And we can compare human and animal brains to see what it is about our brains that lets us do these extra things.

The problem with the soul hypothesis is that it cannot be tested, because souls are by their very nature untestable. They're not constituted by matter and they don't occupy space - so it would be impossible to scientifically prove that they exist. As I said before, beliefs such as the belief that we each have a soul may be right - but only by chance. Even if souls do exist, you don't know that they exist - you've never seen/felt/heard/smelt/tasted one, and there is no empirical evidence for their existence - so your belief is a guess. Why do people choose to believe things that they have no reason to believe? Because it makes them feel special. Believing that you have a soul and you can communicate with a God who loves you makes you feel better about yourself - and better than other people who don't believe these things, or aren't as ?'special.' It's vain.

Quote:

agrote wrote:
Thirdly, belief in God is supersticious. I'm not a fan of superstition - it tends to involve believing in magical forces that do not involve the interaction of particles of matter (which is all that constitutes the universe), but involve spirits and such. There are no spirits. (I am of course just asserting what I believe - I expect people to disagree strongly with this, but I'll deal with that when it coems. I'm just explaining why I hate religion - and it's partly because of these beliefs that I have). We don't need spirituality to explain any phenomena. For example, we do not need souls when we have brains - brains can think, dream, imagine, love, etc., so if we have souls, what the hell do they do? What would we need them for? Superstitious thinking is useful when we want to fill in the gaps in our knowledge as quickly as possible - but it is just guesswork. Thousands of years ago people would have guessed that schizophrenics were peopel possessed by demons. But now that we know that schizophrenia is a biological illness, we should reject that demon hypothesis in favour of what science has discovered. Now that we know about evolution, we should reject creationism, and now that we know more about the brain we can begin to reject the idea of a 'soul.' But religion isn't always that flexible, and it does slow our progress in the search for knowledge.

I'll leave it there for now. It's difficult to come up with reasons to hate religion without someone provoking that hatred - so if anyone wants to object strongly to what I've said so far, please do.

Your third objection is really only a restatement of the second , with a perjorative "It's superstitious." If you cannot accept that there are some things that are real even though you cannot see them or understand them, then your world is going to be very limited. Where would our knowledge of atomic particles, or electricity, or living cells and their constituent parts be if scientists in the past had said, "Nope can't see 'em. Must not be real."

The difference between souls and atomic particles is that nobody expects to be able to prove that souls exist, whereas scientists will have realised, when speculating about atomic particles, that, "If they're there, we'll find them." Theoretical science does of course involve speculating about things which we can't see and don't know to exist. But the difference with religion is that scientists intend to prove or disprove their theories - and thus gain knowledge about the world. Religious people just accept theories without putting them to the test. The theory of the soul seems to make sense, so you accept it without actually searching for evidence for it. I have nothing against theories as long as they are not blindly accepted, as religious theories are.

Quote:

Most likely your professed distaste for religion has much to do with your encounters with folks who were religious and your dislike for them. You saw their hypocrisy, their failings, etc.

My dislike for their beliefs only. My parents are both Christians, and I love them - I don't dislike them at all. They're not hypocrites either, they're just misguided. My distaste for religion has much to do with my realisation that my parents beliefs' don't make enough logical sense and aren't supported by enough justification to be accepted so confidently as my parents accept them.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

If there is a loving God, their beliefs are true but unjustified

Does this make any sense? Is it because you think that millions of people over thousands of years will have only guessed correctly by sheer chance? Not a likely scenario, perhaps a more logical explanation is in order, don't you think?

Oh and BTW, the size 18 bold letters calling my name were im-press-ive! Was that supposed to resonate like "the voice of God" in the Hollywood movies? Cool.

But in the Bible, don't forget, it's more often a "still, small voice."

0 Replies

real life wrote:

agrote wrote:
If there is a loving God, their beliefs are true but unjustified
Does this make any sense? Is it because you think that millions of people over thousands of years will have only guessed correctly by sheer chance? Not a likely scenario, perhaps a more logical explanation is in order, don't you think?

No, you misunderstand me. If, for example, the belief that there is a God who loves us is a true belief, then of course I don't think that the millions of people who hold that belief have guessed correctly by chance. I assume you have come to believe that God exists and loves us based on what others have told you, what you have read in the bible, etc. I assume that you didn't come up with the idea all on your own having never come into contact with another religious person. You haven't made a chance guess - you've made a guess based on other people's guesses. I agree with you that the millions of people with that belief have not coem to accept that belief by chance.

What I meant was that since there is no solid basis for that belief (apart from scriptures written by people who had no solid basis for their beliefs), it is an unjustified belief. Obviously the millions of people who hold that belief have not come to believe it completely independently - the belief has spread by word of mouth, through the bible, etc. So there's no chance involved in the fact that millions of people believe in a loving God. But if the belief is true, the 'guess' that there is a loving God is correct only by coincidence. It's just a guess.

Let me make an analogy. Suppose I eat my first chocolate ice cream cone at the beach in tenerife at age 3, but when I grow older I forget all about it. Then, for soem reason, a hypnotist, having no knowledge about the ice cream eatign ecent, convinces me that I ate my first chocolate ice cream cone at the beach in tenerife at age 3. I then have this belief about ice cream - and it's true that I did eat the ice cream. But my belief is true only by coincidence - it has no real justification, so I can't know that I ate the ice cream. In fact, it is a mistake to believe that I ate the ice cream, since as far as I'm concerned nothign justified the belief - it is essentially a false belief implanted by the hypnotist, despite the fact that it describes a true event.

The same goes for many religious beliefs - they have no real justification, so even if, for example, God exists and loves us all, anyone who believes that is sort of still holding a false belief. Obviously the belief would be true in the sense that it would describe a true fact - but there would be no link between the belief and the truth. I'm rambling a lot, am I making sense?

Quote:

Oh and BTW, the size 18 bold letters calling my name were im-press-ive! Was that supposed to resonate like "the voice of God" in the Hollywood movies? Cool.

But in the Bible, don't forget, it's more often a "still, small voice."

I didn't realise large was quite that large... Embarrassed

I just realised I'd waited too long to reply to your previous post, so I wanted to grab your attention again.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:
Now we are getting to an area where translators disagree. If Jesus truly deserved the designation Alpha and Omega, it would correspond with the remainder of the bible.

Rev 22:12 "?'Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. 13 I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end

Christ clearly is referred to as the Alpha and the Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End in this passage. He is the One coming quickly and is also referred to in other passages as the First and Last, He who was dead and is alive forever.

So when Rev 1 identifies Jehovah God as Alpha and Omega you can see the clear identification.

There cannot be two "First and Lasts" or two "Alpha and Omegas".

Once again, sorry it took so long. How many people are quoted in Revelation 22? You are certain the Alpha and Omega title applies to Jesus, but in reality it refers to God. You use your trinity belief to justify your conclusion. That would make sense only if the trinity were a scriptural doctrine.

How about going to the remaining sentences in that portion of my reply? I also said

neologist wrote:

If Jesus truly deserved the designation Alpha and Omega, it would correspond with the remainder of the bible. The whole meaning of Jesus' sacrifice is cheapened by equating him with God. If they are of singular will, we would still have to answer Satan's challenge that he could turn any of God's creations against him.

BTW, there is no way an omnipotent God could experience death, unless it were not really death.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
Now we are getting to an area where translators disagree. If Jesus truly deserved the designation Alpha and Omega, it would correspond with the remainder of the bible.

Rev 22:12 "?'Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. 13 I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end

Christ clearly is referred to as the Alpha and the Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End in this passage. He is the One coming quickly and is also referred to in other passages as the First and Last, He who was dead and is alive forever.

So when Rev 1 identifies Jehovah God as Alpha and Omega you can see the clear identification.

There cannot be two "First and Lasts" or two "Alpha and Omegas".
Once again, sorry it took so long. How many people are quoted in Revelation 22? You are certain the Alpha and Omega title applies to Jesus, but in reality it refers to God. You use your trinity belief to justify your conclusion. That would make sense only if the trinity were a scriptural doctrine.

How about going to the remaining sentences in that portion of my reply? I also said
neologist wrote:
If Jesus truly deserved the designation Alpha and Omega, it would correspond with the remainder of the bible. The whole meaning of Jesus' sacrifice is cheapened by equating him with God. If they are of singular will, we would still have to answer Satan's challenge that he could turn any of God's creations against him.

BTW, there is no way an omnipotent God could experience death, unless it were not really death.

Hi Neologist,

Notice that the same one who said He was Alpha and Omega in Rev 22 said He was also First and Last. It is in the same sentence. It obviously refers to the same person.

Elsewhere (twice) in Revelation , Christ refers to Himself as "the First and the Last, who became dead and came to life again"

There cannot be two "First and Lasts"

The title First and Last is used repeatedly in the Old Testament to refer to Jehovah God alone. He uses it to emphasize that He is God alone and that He has formed no other.

The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that the death of Christ was the death of the body of Jesus. The death of Christ is not equated with cessation of His existence. Jesus emphasized on the cross that even after His body died, He would continue "This day you will be with Me in Paradise." is what He told the thief.

This is true of death for men also. The body dies however Paul stated to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

What I meant was that since there is no solid basis for that belief (apart from scriptures written by people who had no solid basis for their beliefs), it is an unjustified belief.

How can you claim that those in the Bible had no solid basis for their belief? If you had seen the Red Sea parted, for instance, you are a first hand witness to God's intervention . Why do you have no basis for belief?

Or if you had seen your brother raised from the dead by Christ, would you say that you still had no basis for belief?

Or if you had seen Christ alive after His death by crucifixition, why would you have no basis still for belief?

Now you will need to argue that those things truly didn't happen and that's why they had no basis for belief.

But the question remains, let us use the apostles as a case study; if they truly did not see Christ alive after His death by crucifixition, why were they all willing to spend the rest of their lives being hunted down and killed for something they knew to be false?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

But the question remains, let us use the apostles as a case study; if they truly did not see Christ alive after His death by crucifixition, why were they all willing to spend the rest of their lives being hunted down and killed for something they knew to be false?

Good question. Perhaps they didn't know it to be false. That's maybe a bit implausible, since it would require a collective hallucination, or somebody pretending to be Jesus, or a faked crucifiction - all quite unlikely. Probably more likely than the ressurection of christ, but still not good enough.

Alternatively, perhaps they didn't spend the rest of their lives being hunted down - perhaps the story is a myth. I don't know what kind of evidence there is for those events occuring (apart from the bible), but I'm fairly certain that at least some of the events described in the bible didn't happen. There's no way that red sea could have parted - seas don't just momentarily disobey the law of gravity like that - gravity wouldn't be a law if seas parted. And Jesus was not ressurected. Once you die, you're dead - whether or not you think you're the son of God.

Obviously I don't know that those things didn't happen. But it seems a lot safer to assume that the Bible is largely mythological than to reason that Jesus must have died for our sins because the apostles believed he did and died spreading his word. Some cults perform mass suicides - that doesn't mean their beliefs aren't completely ridiculous.

0 Replies

There is absolutely no historical basis for contending that the "apostles" were hunted down and killed for their espoused beliefs. Martyrdom and the prospect of martyrdom are concepts dear to the heart of the religious fanatics. Too bad for them that it rarely occurs.

0 Replies

(I've edited my last post. The edited bit is underlined.)

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

real life wrote:
But the question remains, let us use the apostles as a case study; if they truly did not see Christ alive after His death by crucifixition, why were they all willing to spend the rest of their lives being hunted down and killed for something they knew to be false?

Good question. Perhaps they didn't know it to be false. That's maybe a bit implausible, since it would require a collective hallucination, or somebody pretending to be Jesus, or a faked crucifiction - all quite unlikely. Probably more likely than the ressurection of christ, but still not good enough.

Alternatively, perhaps they didn't spend the rest of their lives being hunted down - perhaps the story is a myth. I don't know what kind of evidence there is for those events occuring (apart from the bible), but I'm fairly certain that at least some of the events described in the bible didn't happen. There's no way that red sea could have parted - seas don't just momentarily disobey the law of gravity like that - gravity wouldn't be a law if seas parted. And Jesus was not ressurected. Once you die, you're dead - whether or not you think you're the son of God.

Obviously I don't know that those things didn't happen. But it seems a lot safer to assume that the Bible is largely mythological than to reason that Jesus must have died for our sins because the apostles believed he did and died spreading his word. Some cults perform mass suicides - that doesn't mean their beliefs aren't completely ridiculous.

Hi Agrote,

Good to hear from you.

You seem to be relying on a circular type reasoning.

The circular riff seems to go:

"Jesus was not resurrected because that would be a miracle.

Miracles don't happen because there is no God to perform them.

It is evident that there is no God since Jesus was not resurrected."

----------------------------

The Bible was written very close to the time Jesus was crucified and resurrected. So most of the apostles were still alive and had not yet been martyred. (If the Bible was written a lot later, as some contend, then surely the stories of their martyrdom would be included.)

The numerous writings of the early Church Fathers (100 AD and following) give accounts of the martyrdom of the apostles. Persecution and martyrdom in the early church was common and grew at an increasing rate throughout the early years. Nero and other Roman emperors , as well as other Roman civil officials and Jewish officials attempted to pound the early church out of existence.

A collective hallucination, a faked crucifixtion, a Jesus impersonator?

Those are straws at which many grasp, but let's be real. Would you die for an impersonator or a crucifixition that had been faked? (The Roman soldiers who performed the crucifixition were well acquainted with death, and they knew when a man was dead or not.)

I recommend you read Simon Greenleaf's dissection of the New Testament accounts, published under the title The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administrated in Courts of Justice. As one of the founders of Harvard School of Law, Greenleaf looked at the evidence the way a judge and jury would and his conclusions may surprise you.

0 Replies

I doubt that i would be surprised. "Administrated?" how odd a term to use. Those unfamiliar with the work of Eusebius might certainly delude themselves into thinking that the "gospels" as they are now written were the product of witnesses to the events described therein. Of course, it is necessary to suspend disbelief in the face of silly contradictions in the text--but hey, that's what organized religion is all about, n'est-ce pas?

0 Replies

It is evident the NT writers believed what they were writing. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:19: "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied."

That pretty much applies to us now. I like to think my turnip truck days are well in the past. I was completely happy with my ignorance of God and the moral license it afforded me. I did not give it up without a fight.

I surely followed Paul's admonition at 1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine"

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You seem to be relying on a circular type reasoning.

The circular riff seems to go:

"Jesus was not resurrected because that would be a miracle.

Miracles don't happen because there is no God to perform them.

It is evident that there is no God since Jesus was not resurrected."

That's not quite right. I do not believe that Jesus was resurrected, because that would be a miracle. Okay. I don't believe that miracles happen, because I don't believe that there is a God to perform them. Accurate so far.

But the reason I don't believe in God is not that I don't beleive in the resurrection - why would I need to believe in the resurrection to believe in God? You've suggested that I've been arguing that, "If Jesus was not ressurected (P), then there is no God (Q)." So if P, then Q. This is logically equivalent to 'if not Q, then not P,' or, "If there is a God, then Jesus was resurrected." Why would I believe that? Do you believe that?

I do not stand by this at all: "It is evident that there is no God since Jesus was not resurrected." You've misunderstood my reasoning.

Quote:

A collective hallucination, a faked crucifixtion, a Jesus impersonator?

Why are you bothering to argue with those possibilities? I said myself that they were unlikely - you need to read my posts mroe carefully. You've objected to an idea I myself discounted as "quite unlikely", and ignored my other theory - which took up most of the post. Here it is again, in full:

Quote:

Alternatively, perhaps they didn't spend the rest of their lives being hunted down - perhaps the story is a myth. I don't know what kind of evidence there is for those events occuring (apart from the bible), but I'm fairly certain that at least some of the events described in the bible didn't happen. There's no way that red sea could have parted - seas don't just momentarily disobey the law of gravity like that - gravity wouldn't be a law if seas parted. And Jesus was not ressurected. Once you die, you're dead - whether or not you think you're the son of God.

Obviously I don't know that those things didn't happen. But it seems a lot safer to assume that the Bible is largely mythological than to reason that Jesus must have died for our sins because the apostles believed he did and died spreading his word. Some cults perform mass suicides - that doesn't mean their beliefs aren't completely ridiculous.

Okay? I don't believe there was a collective hallucination or a Jesus impersonator. I do believe that it is quite possible that the story of the apostles is at least inaccurate, and perhaps compeltely made-up

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi Neologist,

Notice that the same one who said He was Alpha and Omega in Rev 22 said He was also First and Last. It is in the same sentence. It obviously refers to the same person.

Elsewhere (twice) in Revelation , Christ refers to Himself as "the First and the Last, who became dead and came to life again"

There cannot be two "First and Lasts"

The title First and Last is used repeatedly in the Old Testament to refer to Jehovah God alone. He uses it to emphasize that He is God alone and that He has formed no other.

The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that the death of Christ was the death of the body of Jesus. The death of Christ is not equated with cessation of His existence. Jesus emphasized on the cross that even after His body died, He would continue "This day you will be with Me in Paradise." is what He told the thief.

This is true of death for men also. The body dies however Paul stated to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord.

I'm going to take a temporary mulligan on the 'first and last' topic, rather than loudly proclaiming what I know in some able2shout fashion as I have witnessed so often in these fora (present company excepted). And I will refrain from any comments about the condition of the dead, as that topic is being well covered in at least 2 other threads.

But I can't let you use Luke 23:43 without calling attention to the lack of punctuation in the original text. The scripture would as likely have quoted Jesus as saying "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." More likely, I would say, since Jesus was not in paradise on that day.

0 Replies

Maybe I can help you out of the weeds.

Jehovah God refers to Himself as the First and Last Is 44:6 , just as Christ (the One was is living and was dead) is referred to as First and Last Rev 1:17-18, Rev 2:8

Since the First and the Last in Rev 22:13 also refers to Himself as Alpha and Omega, it is clear that Christ is Alpha and Omega as well.

Alpha and Omega in Rev 1:8 is also clearly Jehovah God, the Almighty.

Another reference to Alpha and Omega is Rev 21:6

Rev 21:6 The Alpha and Omega is also the Beginning and the End, another tie in with Rev 22:13 which we saw earlier. These terms obviously refer to the same person , having been used in the same sentence to refer to Himself in both passages (21:6 and 22:13)

Obviously, there cannot be two Alpha and Omegas , or two First and Lasts.

So, the usage of Alpha and Omega, as well as First and Last, and Beginning and End is completely consistent throughout scripture as referring to Christ, identifying Him as Jehovah God.

neologist wrote:

But I can't let you use Luke 23:43 without calling attention to the lack of punctuation in the original text. The scripture would as likely have quoted Jesus as saying "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." More likely, I would say, since Jesus was not in paradise on that day.

We could debate the punctuation either direction. However, the point is that Christ did not cease to exist when His body died on the cross. Scripture emphasizes that it was His body He sacrificed by often referring to it. Heb 10:10, Rom 7:4, Col 1:22, Eph 2:15 and so on.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

We could debate the punctuation either direction. However, the point is that Christ did not cease to exist when His body died on the cross. Scripture emphasizes that it was His body He sacrificed by often referring to it. Heb 10:10, Rom 7:4, Col 1:22, Eph 2:15 and so on.

Mulligan still in effect. I didn't say you might be right.

We are very far apart on the issue of death. What was Solomon talking about in Ecclesiastes 9: 5,6? "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun."

The whole idea of we don't really die when we die, that some part of our being continues, is simply an extension of the lie Satan told Eve.

The definition of soul and the concept of life after death is being vigorously discussed in other threads. Suffice it to say that when Jesus died, he was dead. It was up to Jehovah to resurrect him. Therein lies the difference in our premises.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

What was Solomon talking about in Ecclesiastes 9: 5,6? "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun."

He was talking about "under the sun". When we die , we have no more wages under the sun, no love or jealousy under the sun, no consciousness of anything at all under the sun.

We are completely separated from this world and into the presence of God, if a believer. Else what does Paul mean that absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?

------------------------

When Christ returns, those who sleep in Jesus (have died) are brought by God (Jesus) with Him at His return. Apparently they have been with Him all this time. However, their bodies are still in the ground, buried.

Hmmm there Paul goes again, calling Jesus "God". Yes, God brings (not sends) the saints who have died with Him when He returns to Earth. It is Christ who is described as returning.

see -- I Thes 4:13-18 13 Moreover, brothers, we do not want YOU to be ignorant concerning those who are sleeping [in death]; that YOU may not sorrow just as the rest also do who have no hope. 14 For if our faith is that Jesus died and rose again, so, too, those who have fallen asleep [in death] through Jesus God will bring with him. 15 For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah's word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord. 18 Consequently keep comforting one another with these words.

0 Replies

You discount miracles such as the Red Sea due to gravity. How then do planes fly? The Law of Gravity is not abolished or suspended for a plane to fly, but it is superseded by a force (Lift) greater than gravity.

Certainly God who established gravity can also overcome it, if a jet engine can. It is not impossible at all to overcome gravity, you simply have to wield enough force (Lift). Even a bird can fly.

agrote wrote:

Why are you bothering to argue with those possibilities? I said myself that they were unlikely

The reason I addressed this is because you considered these as more likely than the resurrection.

agrote wrote:

Alternatively, perhaps they didn't spend the rest of their lives being hunted down - perhaps the story is a myth. I don't know what kind of evidence there is for those events occuring (apart from the bible),....

Obviously I don't know that those things didn't happen. But it seems a lot safer to assume that the Bible is largely mythological.....

I don't believe there was a collective hallucination or a Jesus impersonator. I do believe that it is quite possible that the story of the apostles is at least inaccurate, and perhaps compeltely made-up

Actually the stories of most of the martyrs , including most of the apostles does not come from the Bible, (although Paul confessed that he had persecuted some Christians to the death.) but from history.

Jewish historians such as Josephus and others, Roman historians such as Pliny and others, and Christian historians all attest to the persecution, torture and martyrdom of Christians which began very early in Church history.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You discount miracles such as the Red Sea due to gravity. How then do planes fly? The Law of Gravity is not abolished or suspended for a plane to fly, but it is superseded by a force (Lift) greater than gravity.

Certainly God who established gravity can also overcome it, if a jet engine can. It is not impossible at all to overcome gravity, you simply have to wield enough force (Lift). Even a bird can fly.

The fact that birds and planes can fly is not evidence that seas can part.

Birds and Planes have wings and engines/muscles, etc. Their ability to fly can be explained scientifically, no God required. The parting of the red sea can be explained as follows: God did it. The flight of birds and planes is all about air resitance, wingspan, etc. - it can be explained and understood in terms of the theory of gravity. The parting of the red sea cannot. Are you trying to tell me that the Red Sea had 'lift'?

Here is a website explaining how Aeroplanes fly.

If you can produce a similar website explaining how exactly the Red Sea was able to part, then fair enough. But I presume you're quite happy with the explanation, "God did it."

Quote:

agrote wrote:
Why are you bothering to argue with those possibilities? I said myself that they were unlikely
The reason I addressed this is because you considered these as more likely than the resurrection.

Okay, fair enough. That was just a sidenote though really - I won't bother arguing that they are more likely than the resurrection.

Quote:

Actually the stories of most of the martyrs , including most of the apostles does not come from the Bible, (although Paul confessed that he had persecuted some Christians to the death.) but from history.

Jewish historians such as Josephus and others, Roman historians such as Pliny and others, and Christian historians all attest to the persecution, torture and martyrdom of Christians which began very early in Church history.

Got any sources for this information?

0 Replies

If Jesus is God, how is he called God's only begotten son?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know