Who resurrected Jesus?

Steve 41oo wrote:

Conflicting accounts and interpretations of the death of Jesus...whatever next.

You believe it because you have faith, and that faith will overcome all difficulties. But has it never occurred to you that perhaps its your faith which is blinding you to the reality of the story, i.e. that its mythology.

True, misplaced "faith" can blind one... faith in the form of human pride and self worship (worship of science) can be just as blinding and defeating to the truth of God.

The point is finding the truth when error is prevalent.

RexRed wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

Conflicting accounts and interpretations of the death of Jesus...whatever next.

You believe it because you have faith, and that faith will overcome all difficulties. But has it never occurred to you that perhaps its your faith which is blinding you to the reality of the story, i.e. that its mythology.

True, misplaced "faith" can blind one... faith in the form of human pride and self worship (worship of science) can be just as blinding and defeating to the truth of God.

The point is finding the truth when error is prevalent.

There is no such thing as "worship of science". Science is the only (you could say God given) method we have for determining what is truth (or what is truer) or as you say sorting the truth from error. Wheat and caff and all that (to use a biblical metaphor). Science is the very opposite of blinding. It opens our eyes to the reality of the Universe, and in it we find no place for gods demons angels or persons fabled as being the son of God. That is the truth, its your faith that blinds you to that reality.

Comment: There is a place in the mind for science and there is a place in the mind for God and when science occupies the place for God then that is idolatry. (Worshiping the art over the artist.)

Science cannot measure God so how can science reveal God?

RexRed wrote:

Comment: There is a place in the mind for science and there is a place in the mind for God and when science occupies the place for God then that is idolatry. (Worshiping the art over the artist.)

Science cannot measure God so how can science reveal God?

Again, and its all too depressing when discussing with religious people, you talk in conundrums and riddles. For there to be a place in the mind for God, you have to have at least some idea of who or what God is. As it is quite impossible to formulate a satisfactory definition of what that three letter word means, let alone a definition we can agree on, the question of the existence of God is irrelevant at best, and at worst a harmful distraction to the important business of living one's life.

This first paragraph sort of resembles a smoke screen to me. Defining God can be as simple as one word... "Creator". It doesn't on cursory observation need to require any riddles or inexplicable conundrums. Leave them for the mystics to fathom out. It may seem that way because what I propose often is apostolic in nature meaning they have simply been lost to modern consciousness. Science has dumbed down the universe.

You ask rhetorically how science can reveal God. But let me take this question seriously for a moment. Its human nature to be in awe of natural forces around us, its a survival mechanism. It also partly explains why early man invented gods, to make propitiation to them in the hope of having some influence over natural phenomena which could - at a whim, so it seemed- so easily lead to their destruction. (Rainfall is the classic example).

Early enlightened humans saw God in two major ways one as creator and the other way as a personal deity. They did not need to invent something that already existed and had existed long before them.

Any thoughtful person is inspired with a sense of awe and wonder when they look at the night sky. As we delve further into the mysteries of the cosmos and the atom that sense of awe is magnified. In this way some people believe science does indeed reveal an awe and majesty in the structure of the Universe and the fact that there are physical laws which enable us to understand it which approaches divinity. That is still not a definition of God we can agree on, but I seriously suggest it is a better attempt than your approach based as it is on bronze age texts and guesswork.

Who resurrected Jesus?

If you say Jesus resurrected himself, then was he really dead?

If he was not really dead than what was the point of his sacrifice?

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.

neologist wrote:

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

So, what has your research uncovered or clarified so far in regard to your original question?

InfraBlue wrote:

neologist wrote:

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

So, what has your research uncovered or clarified so far in regard to your original question?

You mean other than to yell at real life and say WRONG! WRONG! WRONG? :wink:

Well, as I pointed out in page 4 of this thread, when real life and I disagree, it is not on the validity of the bible, but rather on its interpretation. I have been able to find at least one non-Watchtower source who verifies my assertion that Jesus was not speaking about raising himself independent of the power of his father. (I haven't taken the time to look for others.) Interestingly, the source is from a trinitarian believer, so I don't know how much credit this find will receive from RL.

There are many good arguments for Jesus' being a separate individual, not the least of which is Satan's challenge that he could break the integrity of any of God's creation. Jesus represents the quintessential example of a creature's integrity and love for his God. Were he God, this distinction would not exist.