0
   

Who resurrected Jesus?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 11:57 pm
Elegantly stated, strike
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2007 12:07 pm
neologist wrote:
'Course, I still can't figure out how you confuse unity of purpose with unity of identity.


Jesus' clear statement is still unanswered by you, Neo.

If you don't think Jesus was referring to Himself when He said "I will raise it (His body) again", then who DO you think He was referring to?

Again the passage for those who've joined us midstream, so they don't have to go back and look it up:

the apostle John wrote:
Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"

But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2007 02:11 pm
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
'Course, I still can't figure out how you confuse unity of purpose with unity of identity.


Jesus' clear statement is still unanswered by you, Neo.

If you don't think Jesus was referring to Himself when He said "I will raise it (His body) again", then who DO you think He was referring to?

Again the passage for those who've joined us midstream, so they don't have to go back and look it up:

the apostle John wrote:
Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"

But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
Word Pictures in the New Testament
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2007 04:45 pm
neologist wrote:
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
'Course, I still can't figure out how you confuse unity of purpose with unity of identity.


Jesus' clear statement is still unanswered by you, Neo.

If you don't think Jesus was referring to Himself when He said "I will raise it (His body) again", then who DO you think He was referring to?

Again the passage for those who've joined us midstream, so they don't have to go back and look it up:

the apostle John wrote:
Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"

But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
Word Pictures in the New Testament


As we've discussed, since my view includes the point that Jesus is God, then the scriptures which talk about God raising Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11 and others) are not in opposition to the passage in John, not even close. In fact, they nicely substantiate my position.

However, your position which posits Jesus and God as two separate beings has a huge contradiction to deal with when Jesus says that HE (Jesus) will raise His body and the NT writers say that GOD raised Him up.

(Unless you're taking the trinitarian position that you cited as your model. The classic trinitarians, including Robertson, would agree with me that Jesus is God.)

Stating that God was the 'active agent' and then quoting Jesus in the active tense (not passive) stating that HE (Jesus) will raise His body, does not do well to defend your view. It undermines it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2007 06:38 pm
Having an apparent contradiction which can be explained by Jesus faith in his relationship with his father is quite different than the cataclysmic gulf between the one who sends and the one who is sent forth, the one who prays and the one who is prayed to, the one obedient and the one obeyed, the image and the exact reflection. . . .

The one called father and the one called son
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 11:02 am
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
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.


The source you cite offers little problem for me, Neo. (I am considered too trinitarian for some, not nearly enough for others. So I guess it depends on who you talk to. I have no problem with either using or foregoing the label, myself.)

You stated , I think if I rightly recall, that Robertson identifies God as the 'active agent' in raising Jesus from the dead.

The NT repeatedly says that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Since Jesus is God, I have no problem with that.

Jesus' clear statement was that He would 'raise up' the temple that the Jews would destroy.

The writer, John, pointedly states that Jesus was referring to His body when He said this.

I don't know how much clearer you want it.

But you are correct that we have no disagreement on the validity of the Bible, only it's interpretation.

If you ever interpret it correctly, that disagreement will also be over. :wink:

Hope you are doing well, my friend. Have a cupa for me.


Jesus and God both raise the temple because it took the obedience of Jesus to God to bring about salvation. Thus God is also our savior because it was God who devised the plan of redemption which involved his son Jesus Christ.

But after the resurrection of Jesus Christ he is then referred to as Christ Jesus where the name Christ precedes the name Jesus.

This name change is due to God the father raising Jesus from the grave.

It is unclear (to me) as to whether the battle Christ Jesus triumphed over and made a shew of and led captivity captive was while he was dead in the grave or whether if the battle was sometime directly after sunset the night before Easter morning.

Ultimately it says that Jesus was DEAD. For to raise someone from the dead requires that they be dead. But it is known in the Epistle logic that the spirit seed of God cannot be corrupted or killed. But it was removed from Adam and Even when they sinned for the Bible says ON THAT DAY thou shalt SURELY die if you eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. But they obviously did not physically die so they died a spiritual death. But this spirit did not die it simply moved into another catalyst until it moved into the from of seed and sonship. (Cain or Christ) Because the spirit (other than in the garden where the spirit was upon Adam and Eve upon a "condition") is "seed" and cannot be removed just as physical seed codes for DNA character of the father and mother.

So one first before they consider who raised Jesus would have to decide that dead does not mean dead. Define dead...

For how can a dead man get up on his own?

This is the conundrum. For there would have to be a mystery about the death of Jesus that he only appeared dead in the flesh but in the spirit he lived. There is this kind of logic but it all abruptly halts when one realizes the spirit is created by God and not God himself. It is an "image" of God. (some people simply cannot grasp this idea) This is where the two diverge. It is the creative nature of creation. Just as we stand in the image of God so did Christ. Just as our spirits are currently seated in heavenly places and nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus we are also mortal and have a heel touching upon this earth.

So was it Jesus' spirit that raised his body from the dead? Or was it more like this spirit ascending into heaven? That the spirit was so righteous that hell could not hold Jesus' life down within it's gates and walls. Thus it was the nature of the image of God in Christ Jesus that raised him from the grave. We have the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, How? Through the image of God not our own (physical/flesh) image.

Was this spirit in Jesus in heaven all along and it simply was operating from a heavenly place impacting events on earth.

We know the spirit came at the time of baptism so it did NOT predate his birth but did it die when he died? God raised Jesus with a new body but was his spirit new?

His soul life went back into the earth (he gave up the ghost) his physical body was gone from the tomb. So it must have been his physical body and molecules reanimated with a quickened spiritual life force.

It would appear that his spirit left his body and journeyed into a place where it faced corruption and prevailed over evil. This is where he regained the heavenly status as the bright and morning star and took control of one third of the stars in heaven. These stars are us now. And his new body was the phenomenon of the event where the ascension was the miracle of the envent.

Yet ultimately we are still as stars part of the creation of God.

It is time to get clear on this truth..

The line is drawn between the creation and the creator...

Jesus was most certainly as "the son" of God part of the creation (Not even once in the Bible is Jesus referred to as "God the son") even as he also as the sprit of God is still part of the creation.

God created man/woman in his own image. This image is spirit not the mortal part.

God is THE Holy Spirit (big H big S) and God creates holy spirit (small h small s) in us through Christ Jesus.

body soul and spirit

Creator/creation

Giver/gift
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 11:14 am
You touch on as point there, Rex. Solomon defines death 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"
So, when Jesus died he was incapable of conscious activity. His father brought him back to life, a resurrection earned by Jesus' righteous course as representative of his father.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 01:01 pm
neologist wrote:
You touch on as point there, Rex. Solomon defines death 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"
So, when Jesus died he was incapable of conscious activity. His father brought him back to life, a resurrection earned by Jesus' righteous course as representative of his father.


Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man. After their death, both were conscious and spoke of their situation (one in paradise, one in torment). His idea of death apparently doesn't mesh with yours, Neo.

Jesus also corrected the Saducees , who didn't believe in a resurrection, by stating that God IS the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (not He WAS the God.....) . He emphasizes this by stating 'He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.'

Why would He say this if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were unconscious and unaware?

Paul explains that to be 'absent from the body' is to be 'present with the Lord', which he (Paul) desires to be. Apparently , Paul didn't consider the dead to be unconscious or unaware, either.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 01:03 pm
neologist wrote:
Having an apparent contradiction which can be explained by Jesus faith in his relationship with his father is quite different than the cataclysmic gulf between the one who sends and the one who is sent forth, the one who prays and the one who is prayed to, the one obedient and the one obeyed, the image and the exact reflection. . . .

The one called father and the one called son


To whom does this refer, Neo?

Is 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 01:42 pm
ew i know that one RL........It was Jesus.....the same Almighty God described all throughout the bible...THe bible is clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. Although arianism has been around for almost 2000 yrs, thankfully few believe it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 03:24 pm
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
You touch on as point there, Rex. Solomon defines death 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"
So, when Jesus died he was incapable of conscious activity. His father brought him back to life, a resurrection earned by Jesus' righteous course as representative of his father.


Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man. After their death, both were conscious and spoke of their situation (one in paradise, one in torment). His idea of death apparently doesn't mesh with yours, Neo. Unless he was referring to spiritual death. Jesus also corrected the Saducees , who didn't believe in a resurrection, by stating that God IS the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (not He WAS the God.....) . He emphasizes this by stating 'He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.'
Why would He say this if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were unconscious and unaware? . Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are considered alive as their resurrection is sure. I'm surprised you did not claim they were in heaven.

Paul explains that to be 'absent from the body' is to be 'present with the Lord', which he (Paul) desires to be. Apparently , Paul didn't consider the dead to be unconscious or unaware, either.
Sorry to answer within your post, but it seemed to make more sense that way
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 03:28 pm
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
Having an apparent contradiction which can be explained by Jesus faith in his relationship with his father is quite different than the cataclysmic gulf between the one who sends and the one who is sent forth, the one who prays and the one who is prayed to, the one obedient and the one obeyed, the image and the exact reflection. . . .

The one called father and the one called son


To whom does this refer, Neo?

Is 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
But is he ever called Almighty?

Jesus occupies the highest position in all creation.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 03:34 pm
kate4christ03 wrote:
ew i know that one RL........It was Jesus.....the same Almighty God described all throughout the bible...THe bible is clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. Although arianism has been around for almost 2000 yrs, thankfully few believe it.
Man invented God and also decided by a show of hands at the council of Nicea i believe in 325 AD, that Jesus was divine and the son of God. So the bible now is clear that Jesus is God incarnate, but for the first few hundred years of the new faith, there was quite a bit of doubt. Thats a wonderful example of man inventing gods. Why intelligent people still cling on to these obvious absurdities is beyond me. What I would like to know was how close was the vote? Was Jesus given divine status by a narrow margin? And has anyone organised a similar vote since?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 03:36 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
kate4christ03 wrote:
ew i know that one RL........It was Jesus.....the same Almighty God described all throughout the bible...THe bible is clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. Although arianism has been around for almost 2000 yrs, thankfully few believe it.
Man invented God and also decided by a show of hands at the council of Nicea i believe in 325 AD, that Jesus was divine and the son of God. So the bible now is clear that Jesus is God incarnate, but for the first few hundred years of the new faith, there was quite a bit of doubt. Thats a wonderful example of man inventing gods. Why intelligent people still cling on to these obvious absurdities is beyond me. What I would like to know was how close was the vote? Was Jesus given divine status by a narrow margin? And has anyone organised a similar vote since?
What is true is that man has re defined god
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 03:38 pm
neologist wrote:
What is true is that man has re defined god
As what?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 03:45 pm
neologist wrote:
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
Having an apparent contradiction which can be explained by Jesus faith in his relationship with his father is quite different than the cataclysmic gulf between the one who sends and the one who is sent forth, the one who prays and the one who is prayed to, the one obedient and the one obeyed, the image and the exact reflection. . . .

The one called father and the one called son


To whom does this refer, Neo?

Is 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
But is he ever called Almighty?

Jesus occupies the highest position in all creation.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 03:47 pm
ok well let me answer.

"man has re defined gods" surely thats like inventing new ones and dropping old ones, or maybe picking up again on even older ones. What happened to Ra and Osiris? Or Jupiter and Mars? Or Mithras? They are all figments of human imagination, invented to explain the inexplicable to ancient man.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 03:47 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
ok well let me answer.

"man has re defined gods" surely thats like inventing new ones and dropping old ones, or maybe picking up again on even older ones. What happened to Ra and Osiris? Or Jupiter and Mars? Or Mithras? They are all figments of human imagination, invented to explain the inexplicable to ancient man.
You are talking of a different sort of god.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 03:50 pm
neologist wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
ok well let me answer.

"man has re defined gods" surely thats like inventing new ones and dropping old ones, or maybe picking up again on even older ones. What happened to Ra and Osiris? Or Jupiter and Mars? Or Mithras? They are all figments of human imagination, invented to explain the inexplicable to ancient man.
You are talking of a different sort of god.
You mean not the real God? Or are you saying there are actually different types of gods doing whatever gods do, around today?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 04:15 pm
btw neo I promised to read Job

quite interesting so far, on chapter 19, although somewhat repetitive

liked this

the bible wrote:
How long will ye vex my soul, and break me in pieces with words?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 03:45:36