Who resurrected Jesus?

. . . So, you're saying that your god is bound by your logic?

InfraBlue wrote:

. . . So, you're saying that your god is bound by your logic?

If you are saying that after dying, a non existent being can will himself back into existence, then the conundrum lies within your neurons.

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

. . . So, you're saying that your god is bound by your logic?

If you are saying that after dying, a non existent being can will himself back into existence, then the conundrum lies within your neurons.

I'm merely illustrating the conundrum created by your belief that your god can do "whatever he durn well pleases," but yet doing "whatever he durn well pleases" creates absurdities that you'd rather wave off and avoid. It is your neurons that are rather selective in the absurdities they are willing to accept, thereby creating "limitations and determinants" for your god for your sake.

When RL and I disagree, it is not on what the bible says, it is on RL's inaccurate understanding of it. :wink:

neologist wrote:

When RL and I disagree, it is not on what the bible says, it is on RL's inaccurate understanding of it. :wink:

Out of curiosity , what your stances be on all the books rejected by the council of nicea, ie gospel of thomas, gospel of judas, gospel of philip, etc etc

The question I would ask when was Jesus resurrected

au1929 wrote:

The question I would ask when was Jesus resurrected

It would have been before the two Marys visited the tomb on the morning after the sabbath.

I believe them to be of varying historical value. As for the modern canon, it was pretty much established by the end of the second century.

The bible makes the claim about itself that it is the inspired word of God (2Timothy 3:16). If that is true, and I believe it is, then the entire bible must be harmonious within itself and all apparent inconsistencies should melt under close inspection. Apocryphal books will then be evaluated according to the scriptural standard.

But, in the end, the believer has to be convinced that God has directed the collation of what we accept as the bible today.

If God had the ability to direct the creation of the Bible then he must also have the ability to direct the actions of his church, so why didn't he ?

and back to the main point, why didn't jesus just write it ?

HIS Church? What (or who) is his Church

real life wrote:

real life wrote:

I didn't say Jesus would resurrect Himself.

Jesus said it.

Quote:

John 2:18Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21But he spake of the temple of his body.

Do you believe it when Jesus says it, Neo?

neologist wrote:

Did Jesus appear in the same body after the resurrection?

Different question.

Let's stick with the first.

Your question was 'who resurrected Jesus?' and Jesus is quoted as saying He will raise Himself.

Do you believe it when Jesus says it?

neologist wrote:

So what, exactly are you saying?

I didn't write the gospel of John, and it's not me being quoted in it.

If you don't believe what is written in it, say so without putting it off on me.

The words of Jesus on this subject are clear. Do you believe Him?

RL, I think you missed my point. The reason I asked the question was because Jesus died in the flesh and was resurrected in the spirit, right? He took on a human body in order to instruct his disciples before he ascended to heaven; but not the same body, right?

I'm not offering an answer here, simply pointing out that the symbolic language demands further explanation.

I'll do some more research before I speculate further.

The question I would ask when was Jesus resurrected

au1929 wrote:

The question I would ask when was Jesus resurrected

Jesus arose after being in the tomb three days and three nights .

mesquite wrote:

Carry on Neo. The fact that otherwise intelligent adults still today speak of human sacrifice as if it were a completely normal and acceptable thing just gets my bristles up.

Jesus' death is in a light years' different category.

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:

Carry on Neo. The fact that otherwise intelligent adults still today speak of human sacrifice as if it were a completely normal and acceptable thing just gets my bristles up.

Jesus' death is in a light years' different category.

Just one light-year? I have not heard of the part of the Christian faith that measures death in terms of light-years. How long for the average dude, a light-second perhaps?

The nearest known star (other than the Sun), Proxima Centauri is about 4.22 light-years away.

Sacrificing a human to appease a God is sacrificing a human to appease a god.

The only major differences in this story are that an execution for a criminal act was not turned into a legendary sacrifice until decades later and as part of that legend building the sacrificee was god him self or god's son (choose one).

It is the fact that people still get gooey eyed over such a revolting idea that I find troublesome.

InfraBlue wrote:

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

. . . So, you're saying that your god is bound by your logic?

If you are saying that after dying, a non existent being can will himself back into existence, then the conundrum lies within your neurons.

I'm merely illustrating the conundrum created by your belief that your god can do "whatever he durn well pleases," but yet doing "whatever he durn well pleases" creates absurdities that you'd rather wave off and avoid. It is your neurons that are rather selective in the absurdities they are willing to accept, thereby creating "limitations and determinants" for your god for your sake.

It's only an absurdity to those who aver Jesus to be God.