use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.(and 'dog' reddit:'aww' site:'imgur.com')
(and 'dog' reddit:'aww' site:'imgur.com')
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!
Just wondering: How many of you actually believe Jesus literally rose from the dead. (self.Christianity)
submitted 1 year ago by [deleted]
Not trolling or trying to stir up controversy. It's Easter and I was just curious.
[–]heathersak 12 points13 points14 points 1 year ago
I believe. It wasn't easy to believe, but then again, I don't think it's supposed to be easy.
[–]TheRedTeam 62 points63 points64 points 1 year ago
lol... isn't that kind of the foundation of Christianity?
[–]Mazrin 12 points13 points14 points 1 year ago
Well, before I stopped believing in it all and still identified as Christian, I had kinda placed the resurrection in the same category as Noah's Ark. I just considered it an interesting story/fable (since it's impossible). I imagine that that's not uncommon.
[–]deuteros 24 points25 points26 points 1 year ago
since it's impossible
If you believe God created the cosmos then I don't think the Resurrection would be so hard for him.
[–]Frankfusion 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
This, a virgin birth, parting of the seas, healings, the list could go on. 1 Cor 15 says Jesus was raised according to the Scriptures.
[–]Mazrin -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
If you believe God created the cosmos then I don't think the Resurrection would be so hard for him
Being easy and being likely are two very different things.
[–]deuteros 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
If God exists then would be it so unlikely?
[–]Mazrin 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Gods existence would only make miracles possible and would have no impact outside of that on the possibility of any particular miracle being true.
The fact that many religions (who believe in many different gods) all believe in a number of varying miracles (and don't believe in each other's miracles) illustrates that point, I think.
Even someone that believes in the same god that you do, a Jewish person, rejects the claim of Jesus as divine.
Another way to say this is that a deist isn't, by virtue of being a deist, any more likely to believe the claim that the bible is true than they would the claim that the quran is true (or any number of religious texts).
So, short answer, is that yes, even a god existing is no reason to believe the bible is anything special (and therefor its claims, such as the resurrection).
[–]deuteros 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I wouldn't say that.
I'm not claiming that. All I'm saying is that if God exists then something like a resurrection wouldn't be so unlikely.
All I'm saying is that if God exists then something like a resurrection wouldn't be so unlikely.
But one doesn't follow the other, which is what I was trying to demonstrate above. God's existence does not make a resurrection likely.
[–]TheRedTeam 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
Oh I see where you're coming from now, you mean how many people disbelieve it but still consider themselves Christian for one reason or another. Okay, carry on. :)
[–]ForrestFire765 42 points43 points44 points 1 year ago
Yes I do, I believe it is a rather fundamental part of the gospel. If there was no physical resurrection of Chirst, there is no hope for our resurrection.
[–]Basilides 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
An omnipotent God can resurrect anyone anytime he wants. Why do you doubt this without the reality of a 1st century resurrection in Judea?
[–]ForrestFire765 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
The resurrection of Christ was the first resurrection, then at the end times everyone else will follow. Without the resurrection of Jesus, as you say, God is omnipotent and what He would do would be a complete mystery. God showed specifically that our destiny is for a great resurrection by resurrecting Christ.
Of course, that isn't the only meaning of the resurrection of Christ, ie. the resurrection validates what Christ had been saying the whole time, and the resurrection allowed the ascension into heaven, where Christ is now with God.
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
God showed specifically that our destiny is for a great resurrection by resurrecting Christ.
Wasn't his word good enough?
[–]ForrestFire765 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, God gave His word on it through Jesus' resurrection.
[–]Basilides -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, God gave His word on it before Jesus' resurrection.
[–]ForrestFire765 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I didn't know that, can you provide a passage reference?
Daniel 12:2 - Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
[–]rtz13 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
It was good enough, the sole purpose of the resurrection wasn't only to show us, hey we can be resurrected too! It was to show that Jesus was no mere human, that he conquered and defeated death. The grave could not keep him, He was indeed God. He fulfilled his own prophecies.
Such as the that stunt-rider prophecy about riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and a foal simultaneously. Or the mass resurrection in Jerusalem that coincided with Christ's death. Many of these prophecies were taken out of context to create the Jesus character. The author of Matthew never met a prophecy he didn't like.
[–]Mazrin 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
If there was no physical resurrection of Chirst, there is no hope for our resurrection.
Why not? (sincere question)
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 1 year ago
"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."
1 Corinthians 15:12-18
[–]TheGesus -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
How do you know that isn't one of the Bible verses to be discarded in modern society, like the endorsements of slavery and genocide? (sincere question - I never did get how the Bible isn't "all or nothing")
[–]ransom00 16 points17 points18 points 1 year ago
You should check out a good book about biblical hermeneutics. That's one problem a lot of people have with difficulties in the Bible. It is, after all, many books in one corpus. In fact, within books themsleves, there are different sections containing different genres of literature. These genres should be interpreted in light of the ways those genres are interpreted in other literature. For example, Genesis 1 is most llkely a poem that has a theological point. It is actually saying that God created the world, so it isn't just to be "discarded." In fact, it's very much true. But it's true in the way poems are true. They can speak accurately and beautifully about truth, but that does not mean their metaphors and similes are literally true in a scientific kind of way.
Genesis 1, then, read as a theological poem, states that this one God is the truth and only God that existed before anything else and by this God everything was created. All of this creation is good. This God has complete control over this creation (in contrast to the other Ancient Near Eastern gods who had no power over chaos as illustrated in their creation epics and with whom the poem is likely trying to address).
Anyhow, that's just one example of how parts of the Bible are still true in what they are teaching theologically but may not happen just like that. To the contrary, other parts of the Bible claim to be historical and should be taken as such. For example, the Exodus, the exile of the Jewish peoples, Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, etc.
As for the endorsements of slavery and genocide, I'd say that is a tough question. One principle for Christians in reading the Bible is that we read everything through Christ, who redeems creation, so that these statements are never to be used to defend these practices. On the other hand, it is clear that God did command the Hebrew people to drive out others living in an area and even kill them in order that they could live there. I confess I don't have a complete answer for how that meshes with the kind of God both Jews and Chrsitians believe is revealed in Scripture, but I wouldn't quit looking for the answer. I'm sure it's there, in fact I'm sure many books have been written about this, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.
As for slavery and other laws, God certainly works through the cultures that exist at the time. Each culture has metaphors (e.g., up and white being considered good in this culture) and ways of living that are unique per time and place. Slavery was a common practice at the time. Thus, the Jewish Law incorporates laws governing the use and treatment of slaves. While the concept of slavery is abhorrent to us, at the time seeing persons all as equals would've likely made no sense to those people. However, the Law does prescribe merciful and humane treatment of slaves in a way that likely improves upon other conditions at the time. For example, all slaves and debts being freed and forgiven every seventh year, etc.
Per the resurrection, it is the central tenet of the Christian faith as 1 Cor. 15 claims. Christianity teaches that God in Christ redeemed both human beings and all of creation from the effects of sin and death. The resurrection was the in breaking and beginning of this redemption. It's hard for us, because we live in the time between the times, but God promises that just as he came once, he will come again to fully redeem huanity and the rest of creation. It hasn't happened yet in part out of God's merciful hope that people will turn and choose to love him rather than have that choice be more or less "forced" upon them when it is obvious and plain at the second coming.
[–]Basilides 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
For example, Genesis 1 is most likely a poem that has a theological point.
Paul disagrees. Comparing him to Jesus, he referred to Adam as a real, historical person.
The resurrection was the in breaking and beginning of this redemption.
Really? I thought the sacrificial death was the redemptive act. The resurrection just seems to be a parlor trick (from Yahweh's perspective) designed to demonstrate to the humans that they too shall someday rise from the dead.
[–]ransom00 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Whether Adam was or was not a person doesn't mean that Genesis 1 isn't a poem. I could write a poem about you and add literary flourishes, and you would still be real. Or I could write one about you that was entirely accurate.
Jesus' death can't be separated from his life and his resurrection. The death is redemptive in that it fulfilled Jesus' role as sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world, but the last enemy to be destroyed was death. Through his resurrection he actually defeated death and paved the way for the resurrection of the dead that is yet to come. It's not just an object lesson, it's the sine qua non of life after human death.
[–]LiptonCB -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
"Literary flourishes"? Really? Real palm-to-face-contact was made.
[–]ransom00 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
What's your problem with that?
[–]Basilides -5 points-4 points-3 points 1 year ago
in your previous post you wrote...
it's true in the way poems are true. They can speak accurately and beautifully about truth, but that does not mean their metaphors and similes are literally true in a scientific kind of way.
Apparently, in the matter of Adam, the metaphors and similes are literally true in a scientific kind of way.
Jesus' death can't be separated from his life and his resurrection.
Sure it can. I am separating these concepts in my mind right now. You should try it.
but the last enemy to be destroyed was death.
So God had to have himself killed by his creations and then resurrect himself in order to undo the curse of death he had placed on mankind.
[–]ransom00 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
What are you trying to say here?
Don't be a smartass. Obviously, you can separate the concepts mentally. I'm saying that while each part of Jesus' has its own significance, the complete story cannot be understood without connecting them all.
I see it like this. God created human beings with power of will, so that they would be able to love God. Love requires both sides be freely able to choose, otherwise it's rape. Literally. Human beings were tempted and fell into that temptation, which naturally caused sin and death to enter the world, because they began to live in such a way that abused creation and themselves, leading to the destruction of the earth and human life through greed, jealousy, murder and the like. These actions naturally lead to death.
God tried various ways to woo them back, primarily using the Jewish people as a people to teach to live so they could be an example to the rest of the world, but time and time again they failed. So God sent Jesus to be the promised Messiah who would finally show them how to live and save them from this path of destruction through what he did. Jesus allowed himself to suffer death and took on all the sin that lives in human hearts and destroys creation. (For a take on how that all works read the book of Hebrews.) He then went to the place of the dead to free those who were in prison before his time, and was resurrected, yes, to remove the curse of death, but the curse of death was put on humanity by humanity not by God. Then God gave the Holy Spirit to those who are baptized into Christ in order to empower them to resist temptation and live an abundant life of joy, peace, holiness, and love.
You seem to be agreeing with Paul that Adam was a real, historical person.You seem to be saying that Genesis, in the matter of Adam, is literally true in a scientific kind of way.
the complete story cannot be understood without connecting them all.
That depends upon how one understands the story.
Love requires both sides be freely able to choose, otherwise it's rape.
If we are as freely able choose as God, how is God punished if he fails to love us? In fact, how is God punished for failing to love Esau?
Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9:13)
Human beings were tempted and fell into that temptation
And who was the ultimate author of that temptation. Who allowed the serpent into the garden just as he allowed Satan to torture Job?
which naturally caused sin and death to enter the world,
"Naturally"? Jesus established this law of nature. Jesus the first cause of sin and death entering the world.
These actions naturally lead to death.
There you go again with that word "naturally", as though Jesus had nothing to do with it. Jesus personally cursed Adam and Eve for eating of the fruit (Genesis 3).
God tried various ways to woo them back,
Drowning every infant and child on earth. That didn't work. Confusing our unified language because someone built a tower. That didn't work.
using the Jewish people as a people to teach to live so they could be an example to the rest of the world
The Jesus commanded genocide campaign in Canaan being one example.
but time and time again they failed.
...to kill every man woman and child in Canaan.
So God sent Jesus to be the promised Messiah who would finally show them how to live and save them from this path of destruction through what he did.
Matthew 7:13-14 says that only a few humans will ever be saved. What kind of a dip shit god can only manage a .125 batting average?
but the curse of death was put on humanity by humanity not by God.
The curse of death was put on all of humanity by one man 8,000 years ago, Adam. You and I and every person born after Adam had nothing to do with it. Jesus decided we would be born under the curse through no action or decision of our own.
[–]ransom00 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
If you want a good classic interpration of this by St. Anselm, check out why God became man
[–]pridefulpropensity 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
Adam isn't mentioned in Genesis 1.
Good, and actually very important, point.
So Genesis becomes literal history in chapter 2 at verse 15.
[–]pridefulpropensity 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I'm not trying to put forth any sort of hermeneutic. This is a subject I'm only beginning to study and wouldn't call myself an expert at all.
What I said was all I meant.
[–]TheGesus 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
These genres should be interpreted in light of the ways those genres are interpreted in other literature. For example, Genesis 1 is most llkely a poem that has a theological point. It is actually saying that God created the world, so it isn't just to be "discarded." In fact, it's very much true. But it's true in the way poems are true. They can speak accurately and beautifully about truth, but that does not mean their metaphors and similes are literally true in a scientific kind of way.
...Seems like a cop out. Also, it seems like something that would not be universally agreed upon by Christians.
To the contrary, other parts of the Bible claim to be historical and should be taken as such. For example, the Exodus, the exile of the Jewish peoples, Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, etc.
Wait, OK, so you believe the Exodus is not one of those metaphors? Why haven't archeologists found evidence for a massive, decades-long trek through a small peninsula? Also: How does this jibe with the idea of dinosaur bones being planted as "tricks?" I don't see why, if some of the Bible is taken as not literal truth, others should be given blanket credence. Smells like "God of the gaps" to me.
it is clear that God did command the Hebrew people to drive out others living in an area and even kill them in order that they could live there. I confess I don't have a complete answer for how that meshes with the kind of God both Jews and Chrsitians believe is revealed in Scripture, but I wouldn't quit looking for the answer. I'm sure it's there, in fact I'm sure many books have been written about this, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.
Might the answer not be extra-Biblical?
The temporal/cultural argument you give is something that I thought was a PRATT at this point. Why are Christians who are not as well versed as orthodox Jews using that explanation, when the people who carefully study only the older revelations believe the laws to be immutable and timeless? I have the feeling the answer provided might be "Jesus," but that rings sort of hollow to me. I feel it needs a meaty counterpoint.
It's hard for us, because we live in the time between the times, but God promises that just as he came once, he will come again to fully redeem huanity and the rest of creation.
Well, unless you're a YEC, the time before the "first time" was so much larger that this interval is barely a blink. Though it is weird how the Gospels and epistles worked with a short-term time horizon implicit in the text - the text that relies upon "revelation" for its authority - when God didn't intend for the world to end at that time, but that's a circular argument that leads right into a verse that can refute it ("...know not the day or the hour," etc.).
Thank you for the sober and considered response. I hope you take a moment when you have time to look into some of those other points.
The temporal/cultural argument you give is something that I thought was a PRATT at this point.
I forgot to address this paragraph. I don't know how they are considered timeless? The Jews consider them to be God's law for them, but very few of them follow them all exactly literally. They have thousands of thousands of pages of interpretation that is partially affected by cultural sentiment and partially through inability to understand how certain laws should/could be applied as is.
What are you suggesting as an extra-biblical answer?
Why does Jesus ring hollow as an answer? I'm not sure I see exactly the problem with him as an answer for Christians. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount was doing midrash on the Law; he gave, in Christians' opinion, the definitive interpretation of the Law that he came to fulfill in his person.
How is reading the Bible according to its genres a cop out? First, it seems like common sense to read a piece of literature according to the conventions by which it was written. Secondly, Christians have always read the Bible with different senses. (E.g., the fourfold method of the Middle Ages, which has a long tradition both in the East and the West.)
That type of reading isn't agreed upon by those who come out of the fundamentalist tradition who think the "plain, literal" reading is the true one, that is, biblical literalism. However, their way of reading comes out of being heavily influenced by post-Enlightenment literary theory and misunderstanding of how to read in general, especially with statements like "the Bible is a storehouse of facts." Personally, I think those who read the Bible in that vein are completely ignorant of how Christians have read the Bible throughout history. However, in contemporary American culture their progeny are very common (read: Southern Baptists) as well as the most vocal.
I don't know enough about archaeology to say what has or hasn't been found, but I thought I'd read some theories about that. It's pretty well known, though, that there were nomadic peoples traveling through that region in that time period. At least that's what I remember from school.
I think "God of the gaps" is a foolish claim that comes from incorrect readings of the Bible by people who aren't willing to concede non-literal interpretations, because for them that destroys the authority of Scripture. (It needn't, but it does according to their definition of what makes the Bible authoritative.) I, personally, think that God is present fully and acts fully through the typical processes that we observe with our senses.
Per my earlier point, I'm saying there are general truths that are obvious from history and the Bible itself: there was and is a Jewish people. They obviously lived in Palestine. They had a kingdom that divided into two. They were exiled in Babylon. They dispersed through the Mediterranean. The Romans occupied Palestine. Jesus was born and lived and executed in that time under the reign of Pontius Pilate. His earliest followers spread news and letters about him and his teaching throughout the region and eventually split from the Jewish synagogues.
I'm not really sure, though, why you're connecting this with the God of the gaps theory of creation? I personally believe the universe came into existence through a "big bang" as is observed in the physical universe and that life came into existence through evolutionary processes of one kind or another. I don't think this is the Bible's concern. The Bible is concerned that God created everything that is and that humans have a special place in that creation. It isn't concerned with the "how" God did that. That is, the Bible as a whole is a work of theology (also by necessity a work of ethics and partially historical in that it's about a particular people who lived over a particular time in a particular place), it's not meant to be history in the same way we do history in the modern sense nor is its way of describing the world even attempting to be "scientific" by our standards.
As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say? Can you clarify that? If you're saying they seem to think Jesus would return quickly, even in their lifetime, I think that's true.
Sorry if I didn't answer sufficiently or wasn't that clear. It's hard to have these kinds of conversations online I think.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
Pick up a study Bible and understand the context of each book. You don't just discard verses
[–]TheGesus 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
ransom00 just gave me a detailed explanation about how some of the verses (including the first chapter) are metaphorical poems. So you can see why the inconsistency is confusing.
This isn't inconsistent. You are missing the point. Have you ever heard of literary genres? Each has its own conventions and rules for interpretations. For example, a science fiction book still has points and a moral to the story (or not) and all that, but obviously the science is, well, fiction.
The same with a science book: it relates information about empirical things studied over time from which we make general and specific claims about nature. If a science book started talking about God, you'd know it wasn't a science book.
The same way with poems in the Bible, they are poems. Yes, they say things about God that we believe are accurate, but they are about God's nature, rather than attempts to explain the natural world or an historical event. This is just like Homer. Homer said things that had a relationship to reality and how he thought people should live and gave an origin of the Greeks, but that doesn't mean there were literally x amount of soldiers at a certain battle. It means he said there x amount in order to make it seem like an insurmountable victory when they won, etc.
[–]simonphoenix 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Have you ever heard of literary genres? Each has its own conventions and rules for interpretations.
While I understand your point, why would a book intended to be accessible to anyone be so obtuse? This is something I never understood about the Bible even when I was a Christian. If a deity were to write a book about how to live one's life, wouldn't it make more sense to make it as straightforward as possible?
I don't think that is obtuse, exactly. I do think it can be difficult to interpret without proper tools. It isn't as simple to pick it up and fully understand it at the deepest levels as it is a work of contemporary fiction or biography. We have to remember that the Bible is composed of books the most recent of which were written nearly two millenia ago. This means that to get very deep into things we have to understand a little about the culture of the time, the political climate, how that passage or book uses earlier scriptures, its genre, etc. In that sense, it is inaccessible by someone who doesn't take the time to learn the basics about reading like that.
I think a big part of the problem when it comes to the Bible is American Protestant Christians have been encouraged to read the Bible on their own. "You don't need a pastor or priest to tell you about God's word, the Spirit will help you understand it yourself." I think that's a grave error that has cost Christianity more than it ever helped, despite the good intentions.
The Bible is a book for a community, and so it should be interpreted in community. It's similar to the experience of reading a book with a good book group: you glean insights and perspectives you would never have otherwise thought of had you read it yourself. This grows even more when you have educated people in your group, or people who've read it before, etc. The same for the Bible. It requires some education to really get down to what is meant in certain places. (I'm not saying someone can't pick it up and understand the words on the page, as if it's some secret cipher.)
A good example are Jesus' parables. How about the parable of the tenets for example. You could read that knowing nothing about Christianity or Judaism and "get something out of it." It could be about dishonest workers in that case, or the necessity of doing the job yourself.
Of course, this isn't what it's about at all. It's describing part of the reason God sent Jesus, because the tenants, the Jewish people, didn't bear the fruit they were supposed to. They didn't listen to Moses or the prophets, so God thought they'd listen to someone directly from the source. That didn't work, so God opens the door to the Gentiles entering the covenant community. It even quotes the Psalm to support the claim.
That may seem obvious to you or anyone who's been a Christian and read the Bible and heard the stories before, but you have to have some level of understanding to really get it. I don't think that means God is being misleading, only just like everything else in life, the more you study something the more you understand it.
If a deity were to write a book about how to live one's life, wouldn't it make more sense to make it as straightforward as possible?
First, I think many people over many centuries wrote, compiled, and edited the Bible. Yes, I think God guided them, but it still contains their personal idioms, idiosyncracies, and concerns.
Secondly, I don't think the Bible is primarily about "how to live." The Bible is intended to be a story. It's the story about God and creation, and just like any good story it has intrigue, history, love, hate, revenge, sacrifice, suffering, hope, faith, despair, and a lot of mystery.
Of course, there are parts that are law codes, there are letters that do contain some manual-like information about how to live, but most of the "how to live" is learned through reading and re-reading the stories and embracing the God in the texts, learning from the mistakes of the people before, etc.
Learning how to live from the Bible happens the same way you learn to live in real life, only its through the lives and stories of others, rather than your own. You slowly change and grow, for better and worse, by the people you associate with, the media you create and consume, the shared history of your family, people, city, country, and unique place in history. This teaches you how to live, although it doesn't do so propositionally. It happens as your habits of living are shaped by these events and histories.
The Bible is the same way. As you learn about God through his interactions with his people, the exciting stories and the boring laws and everything else, it slowly shapes you into a different person, if you let it. And it can do a much better job if you read it with other people who are different than you, but who share a belief in the love and power of this God.
We all know that even if God wrote a "one hundred tenets to living the successful life" that no one would follow it anyhow. I'm pretty sure the stories of the Bible itself plus simply a cursory look at human history would tell us that.
I know this is long, but I don't really see how to answer a deep question like that very simply.
[–]simonphoenix 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I understand the need for length in your reply and I appreciate the response. I vaguely remember someone describing it this way to me a while ago.
Christians don't discard verses. They explain them as metaphors.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I guess that depends on whether you take the bible as literal truth, word for word, or (as in my case), the NT forms the basis of your belief and the OT needs to live up to that standard. If it doesn't, it's probably not divinely inspired and therefore I do not regard it as binding.
[–]TheGesus 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
Wait, if NT > OT, then why does NT get validation as "fulfillment of OT prophesies?" Isn't that retroactively defining what a prophesy is or which ones you recognize?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Uh, this isn't about prophesies but about some of the cruelties that were committed by the Jews in the name of God...
[–]TheGesus 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
I didn't know which parts of OT you had ruled out. But now that we're on it, why are the prophesies more relevant than the cruelties? Because they're nicer to a modern reader, or is there a doctrine I don't know about?
No, the cruelties contradict what Jesus said about God, hence they are not what God commanded or from another god.
I'm sorry if it's wrong of me to ask questions. I am trying to be polite every time I phrase them, but I really am just getting confused by your answers.
If God didn't speak to Moses to order the slaughter of the Mideonites, or to Joshua to order the slaughter of...well, everyone else...then why is the same God speaking to Elijah or other prophets? Would God as described select chosen people, give them his 613 laws, but allow "other gods" to interfere by inciting those people to violence?
Also, I know early Israelites were poly-theists from some of the language used ("Elohim" is plural, for instance), but you don't believe other gods exist, right?
Forgive me, but this confusion is making me think the simplest answer may just lie with Occam's razor.
[–]Basilides 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
For example.
[–]Basilides -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
That's just Paul selling the kool-aid. Faulty logic. Resurrection of Jesus or not, an omnipotent god can do anything.
[–]no1name 14 points15 points16 points 1 year ago*
If you're a Christian then you believe that Jesus rose from the Dead. Its that simple. Its the whole point of Christianity.
Otherwise, as Paul says, your faith is a waste of time.
[–]amykuca 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Maybe op is trying out some of the theories of the resurrection? However, most of those have been put down by any credible scholars.
I must agree with Paul on this one. He died and rose or I am wasting my time on something useless.
[–][deleted] 1 year ago
[deleted]
[–]no1name 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
Read further down the thread, there are heaps of citations.
edit: I note that you have already posted in those thread.
You're nuts.
[–]MiddleAgedWhiteGuy 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
I am not able to KNOW he rose from the dead, but I BELIEVE he did.
[–]smacfarl 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
This is the definition of the Good News.
[–]wonkothesane1986 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Me!
[–]justonemorecontract 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago*
Yes. I believe Jesus physically rose from the dead.
[–]CharleyBrown 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
One of the great consolations of this Easter season is that because Jesus walked such a long, lonely path utterly alone, we do not have to do so. We will never be left alone nor unaided, even if sometimes we may feel that we are.
He was betrayed. (Matt.26:14-16)
Denied (Luke 22:54-62)
Accused (Mark 16:2)
Rejected (Luke 9:22)
Bound (Mark 15:1)
Scourged (John 19:1)
Mocked (Matthew 27:29)
Reviled (Matthew 27:39)
Spit on (Mark 15:19)
Crucified (John 19:17-19)
Forsaken (Matthew 27:46)
He did His Father's will (Mark 14:36)
He atoned (Luke 22:41-44)
HEALED (lUKE 22:50-51)
Held His peace (Mark 14:61)
Forgave (Luke 23:34)
He gave His life (John 19:30)
He is RISEN (Matthew 28:6)
In our hour of deepest sorrow, we can receive profound peace from the words of the angel that first Easter morning: ‘He is not here: for he is risen.’
[–]Bluffkin -4 points-3 points-2 points 1 year ago
Let's assume thats all true and according to God's plan, why would i want to worship a god with such a heinous plan? (Assuming god is all powerful, then how can this course of event be viewed as anything but heinous?). Even if i knew this God to be real, discounting fear of retribution, i see no reason to worship him!
[–]pridefulpropensity 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
“All men seek happiness, This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.” – Blaise Pascal
Would you agree with this quote?
Okay, do you believe that happiness is a good thing? Do you think we should seek happiness, as long it doesn't harm others?
No, I don't believe in the pursuit of happiness. Happiness, bye definition requires an anti-theses of Unhappiness
How so?
How do I know I am Happy, unless I have experienced unhappy?
Okay, I can understand that, how does this follow?
So in that logic, If I continue my own pursuit of happiness, I will in fact cause distress for some one else.
[–]whiteguycash 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
That is assuming that he forced you to sin. He didn't force you to sin, he gave you free will, and you chose to sin. Your nature is permeated with sin. It is through God's mercy that he sent his son to take our place, so that we may have an abundant life, as well as enjoy an eternity with out creator.
[–]AndrewBuchanan 30 points31 points32 points 1 year ago
This is like going to a science fair and asking all the scientists: how many of you believe in science?
The fundamental point of Christianity is a literal resurrection. Personally, this is what I am basing my faith on. If this didn't happen then I don't care for all the other supposed miracles he did in the bible. The ressurrection is what makes me a christian and not an athiest.
[–]osmun 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
And why are you so sure the resurrection happened?
[–]AndrewBuchanan 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
well put it this way. it is the best explanation of the origin of christianity. the first christians were Jews in Judea. plenty of people came claimed to be the Messiah. but when they were killed, their movement broke up and died almost immediately. this is because the jews were seeking a political king. someone to destroy the yoke of roman oppression.
curiously, the Jesus movement did not die, but gathered a lot of momentum after his death, with nearly all of his disciples (who were devout Jews) going to their deaths claiming that they saw him alive. I can't see these Jews going to their deaths for a lie, deceiving their own people. Furthermore, the Jewish anti-Jesus authorities were unable to produce the dead body in order to crush the Jesus movement. Jesus had claimed that he was rise again in three days. The authorities knew about this and carefully guarded the tomb. If the disciples had lied about the ressurrection, then the authorities could have killed the whole movement by producing the dead body. they didn't do this, because they didn't have the body.
i have heard theories about the disciples stealing the body? what about this possibility? then the disciples would have known that JEsus was a false messiah, they would have felt betrayed, and they would have disbanded from the entire movement. I can't see people promoting things which they KNOW to be a lie.
Whenever people do things, they are either trolling, or they believe it to be true.
Neither do i think it is an elaborate hoax.
In short, the ressurrection is the best explanation I can come up with. everything else can easily be dismissed as some sort of fairytale, but it's trickier to do the same with the ressurrection.
[–]osmun -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
Theres a good chance Jesus has never even existed.
Also, straight up scary people actually believe this.
Assuming an omnipotent God, even if the resurrection never happened I don't doubt that it could have. So what was the point? Yahweh can save a zillion souls with or without a 1st century resurrection.
[–]ransom00 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
God could, but the point is love. Without the freedom to choose to love and serve God, God would be making all of us robots.
[–]Basilides -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago
He did make all of us robots. He programmed every one of us to sin and die.
I don't know why I keep responding to you, since you are only trolling. But if you're going to troll, at least be educated about what you are trolling.
Actually, no. God "programmed" us, perhaps, if you mean we have DNA. :P
Really, though, we sin because we chose to sin. Of course, we didn't really know the consequences, but if people knew the consequences of their sinful acts they probably wouldn't do them. For example, someone who murders someone in the heat of passion would probably give anything to go back and not do that once he/she sees how that single act changed his/her life, the life of the victim's family, the community for the worse.
People sinned because they didn't trust God's way of doing things. Hence, pride being the root of all sin.
As for death, it entered the world as a bi-product of sin, since sin separates us from God, who is the source of all life. Just like sin, death exists because we allowed it to enter the picture.
So you have it backwards. We choose to sin and as a consequence die. God allowed us to do so, because he wanted us to be in a true loving relationship with him, which requires us to choose him. In that sense, the reality of sin and death shows how God most vehemently refuses to make us robots.
we sin because we chose to sin.
Neither one of us chose to have a sinful nature. We were born with a sinful nature.
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin. (Romans 7)
Of course, we didn't really know the consequences,
Earth to ransom00: You are not Adam. Only Adam did not know the full consequences of sin. Unlike Adam, you were born with a sinful nature. You did not choose sin. Jesus chose it for you.
but if people knew the consequences of their sinful acts they probably wouldn't do them.
If you knew what Romans 7 actually says you probably wouldn't say stupid shit like that. You were born to sin. Programmed to sin. Sin was and is going to happen whether or not you know the consequences of your sins.
People sinned because they didn't trust God's way of doing things.
What people. With the exception of Adam, people sinned because God created them with a sinful nature. Re-read Romans 7.
Hence, pride being the root of all sin.
Jesus is the root of all sin.
As for death, it entered the world as a bi-product of sin,
It entered the world as a curse enacted by Jesus (Genesis 3).
sin separates us from God, who is the source of all life.
...and death and sin.
I am the LORD, and there is no other. 7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45)
death exists because we allowed it to enter the picture.
Jesus allowed it to enter the picture. Jesus is in control of everything.
So you have it backwards. We choose to sin
No. You have simply failed to either read, comprehend or accept Romans 7.
In that sense, the reality of sin and death shows how God most vehemently refuses to make us robots.
You were programmed by God to sin. Either read, comprehend or accept Romans 7.
[–]ransom00 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Yes. I didn't say we weren't born with a sinful nature. I said humanity, i.e., Adam and Eve, chose to sin and sin entered into humanity.
Actually, just because you are born with a "sinful nature" does not mean that you can completely comprehend the actual consequences of specific sins. Well, maybe you could comprehend them if you thought them out fully, but I highly doubt a guy sits down and thinks about what will happen if he starts cheating on his wife. If so, then everyone but the man with antisocial personality disorder would not go through with it.
Jesus chose it for you.
Are you some sort of Jesus-determinist or something? I've already tried to explain to you about three times that we brought sin into the world and caused our progeny to be born with that nature. If you choose not to think that, so be it, I suppose.
I hope you realize by resorting to calling me silly names that you actually make yourself look even stupider. I'm well aware of what Romans 7 says. I understand on a personal level, just like every other person, how hard it is to break the habits of sin that are so deeply ingrained in us.
But I also have read the end of the chapter and chapter 8:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. [...] Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. [...] but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
God's role is not to make us sinners, but to deliver us from the power of the sinful nature through the power of the Holy Spirit.
God is in control of everything, but that does not mean God causes everything. So, yes, God did allow it to enter the picture.
I'm pretty sure I comprehend Romans 7 quite well, but I fear that you do not. I also fear that you are just trying to piss me off for fun, which isn't going to work. If you are actually interested in what this means, then I wish you well. But if you are just trolling for the sake thereof, then you have failed.
Adam and Eve, chose to sin and sin entered into humanity.
How did Adam and Eve choose to sin when sin was not yet in them?
we brought sin into the world and caused our progeny to be born with that nature.
What mean we, kemosabe? I did not bring sin into the world.
I hope you realize by resorting to calling me silly names
I did not use the phrase, "stupid shit" as a name. I used it to describe a comment.
God's role is not to make us sinners,
You said God did allow sin to enter the picture. IOW, it is one of God's roles to make us sinners.
But if you are just trolling for the sake thereof, then you have failed.
I don't troll. I speak the truth as I know it.
[–]JoeCoder 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I saw a different post earlier today where you also claimed this. Could you clarify?
Romans 7
can't answer this one sorry.
[–]notredamelawl -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
The ressurrection is what makes me a christian and not an athiest.
So, if you found out everything in the bible were true, except the resurrection, you would conclude that there is no God?
You might want to think about this a bit more.
[–]ransom00 12 points13 points14 points 1 year ago
That's an interesting theoretical question, but the rest of the Bible couldn't be true without the resurrection. The entire history of the world, the choosing of the jewish people, the promises, the covenant, the law, the prophets all were precursors to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus, the Son of God. His life, death, and resurrection was the culmination, the entire point of everything else. If that didn't really happen, then why should we trust in a God who planned and led an entire people for this one purpose? It just doesn't make sense that God would accomplish all these other things only to fail at the climax of it all.
[–]Mazrin 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
There are a lot of Jews and Muslims that would disagree, no? What makes you correct?
[–]ransom00 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago
Of course they would. Jews obviously don't think Jesus was Messiah, because he didn't fulfill their conceptions that he would be a literal political king who restored the Davidic kingdom of Israel. I think Jesus explained that kind of understanding of his rule and kingdom was incorrect.
As for Muslims, I don't know enough about their understanding of the Jewish Scriptures or Jesus to even say anything about that in relationship to them.
Of course, I can't know if by know you mean "empirically tested and confirmed with sensual certainty" or something similar. I would say I know both through personal faith that I base on a reliable witness both in the New Testament, the earliest witnesses' testimony in the first churches, in the tradition of the church, all of which came through the Holy Spirit's influence.
Obviously, other groups who claim relationship with God disagree. I'm sure they have many good reasons, but I haven't found any of them convincing.
If that didn't really happen, then why should we trust in a God
But that question can be turned back around the other way. Why do you need a resurrection to trust God? The Jews don't need one. Neither do the Muslims or Hindus, etc.
[–]ransom00 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
You don't need one to trust God, per se, but you do need one in order of to understand God's action in creation in Christian terms.
[–]smacfarl 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
You would be reading a Robert Ludlum book, then.
Or neither one of them is true. Or both of them are just as true.
[–]effilctar 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
No, just Judaism. The resurrection is the be all and end all of Christianity. Without the resurrection, Jesus would have just been a wise man.
[–]wedgeomatic -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
I'd go further, without the Resurrection, the people who executed Jesus were right.
So the body God inhabited as a human had to come back to life in order to prove that body had been inhabited by God?
[–]notredamelawl 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
This is mostly what I was asking about. I don't see how this has any logical connection whatsoever.
Why would resurrection prove the resurectee was God? Could not an omnipotent God make just any old body come back to life? Resurrection would only prove a resurrection had occurred!
[–]notredamelawl 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Yes, this is exactly the line of logic I was pursuing. What's to stop God from enacting salvation, but stating that the resurrection was a metaphor, like most Christians believe re: noah's ark?
How would that be any less impressive? From most in here, they say they would stop being Christian! Really? That's all it takes to abandon a God that finally reveals himself to all, that it turned out he didn't reanimate a son? Even atheists would convert the moment that happened....
Wait... are you a Jehovah's Witness or something?
There is a difference between resurrection and resuscitation. Lazarus was raised from the dead, but he still had a mortal body and later died. Jesus was raised with an incorruptible, "pneumatikos" body.
Theoretically, you are correct that God could do that, but you can't see what happened without Jesus outside of the entire context of the Old Testament that he sits in. This resurrection was a very specific one. It was the resurrection.
Right meaning that Jesus wasn't a messiah or that Jesus's teachings were flawed?
[–]wedgeomatic 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Right meaning Jesus was a blasphemer.
[–]HawkieEyes 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
1 Cor 15:32 And what value was there in fighting wild beasts—those people of Ephesus—if there will be no resurrection from the dead? And if there is no resurrection, “Let’s feast and drink, for tomorrow we die!
.
1 Cor 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless.
i don't really find anything else in the bible that believable. but the ressurrection tips the scales.
[–]bluegerm 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
But isn't it Jesus' message of love and compassion the point? The resurrection, ok it's spectacular, but it's the message that made me and still makes want to follow Christ.
[–]taev 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Love and compassion is important, but without atonement for sin, there is no hope. After all, what greater love than to lay down your life for your friends? And yet, while we were still enemies, Jesus laid down his life for us. Praise God.
[–]JimmyGroove 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
It's a problem of definition. While I'd agree with you that someone who doesn't believe in the resurrection isn't a Christian, a lot of people who don't believe it to be literally true (or who, at the very least, are uncertain about it) continue to call themselves Christian, even though they probably fit better as deist. Most likely, the single most important factor for people continuing to do so is that it makes their life much, much easier than trying to explain deism and deal with possible negative social reprocussions.
[–]Dilettante 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
I do. As others here have said, it's one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
[–]unreal5811 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
I do and all the Christians I know personally* do too :-)
*nb not an unbiased sample :)
[–]BraveSaintStuart 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago
I do
[–]BraveSaintStuart 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
I'm not entirely sure. Just because I believe it doesn't mean I don't have doubts. That would probably be reflected in the test results. Generally speaking, I'm not sure that's an appropriate type of question for a polygraph test. I'd be willing to give it a shot, and I certainly stand by my answer, although I'll admit that it's not truly as simple as saying, "I'm fully convinced!!!!!!"
[–]captainhaddock 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
There are definitely days I'd fail it too. What we as individuals actually believe is largely an involuntary mental process based on the facts as we know them and our ability to derive conclusions from premises. I can't make myself believe something any more than I can make myself like a particular movie.
[–]BraveSaintStuart 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
Why would you fail the test though? Because of doubt about it or because you couldn't honestly believe, even with your doubt? I mean, there's nothing wrong with doubt.
Please don't read, "I'm trying to convert you." I'm just curious as well.
[–]BraveSaintStuart 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Yeah... it's definitely difficult to get your head around. No one did it on their own before or since then. I honestly wouldn't expect praying or reading the bible to override that. For me, if it's prayer at all, it's something like what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13. Something along the lines of, "Now we see dimly, but then we'll see fully." And, as I paraphrase, he goes on to say something like, "It all comes down to faith, hope, and love." The end result, for me, is that even if I can't wrap my head around the resurrection, I still have the faith that it happened, the hope in the resurrection to come, and love for my fellow man to work towards reconciling the rest of the world to God (which doesn't mean, "Hey you! Turn your heart to Jesus RIGHT NOW or he'll kill you FOREVER!!!").
Unlike some, I don't know that I base my whole belief around the resurrection, but I believe it happened. I think Jesus is still worth following regardless, but I believe he rose. I think that God is still God, regardless, but I believe he's also Jesus, and doing things the way God wants still makes a hell of a lot of sense (and it's not quite as legalistic and crazy as some people want to make it seem).
[–]Trunkbutt 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Darn good answer, sir/madame!
[–]notayankee 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
I do. Sure, you can argue the evidence for or against this belief, but in the end, it's about faith. Faith is a choice.
[–]Bluffkin 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Yes it is a choice but it is a choice that 99% of choosers are unfairly conditioned to choose by there parents.
[–]notayankee 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
I'm over 40 years old. I think I'm past that by now. I was taught about Christ as a child, yes... "conditioned" to believe if you choose those words, but since then I've lived a life full of evidence of God's fingerprints on my path, and choose to believe. It's real to me, is that OK with you?
Funny, I got downvoted for expressing my faith. Somehow that makes me smile.
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Well, I believe that the Son has the full essence of the Father. Since Jesus died, and He ha the full being of the Father, then He was fully able to rise from the dead. If God couldn't rise from the dead, He wouldn't be sovereign over everything. So yea, I do believe that He rose from the dead, otherwise God wouldn't be ultimately powerful.
[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
If God can't forgive sins without bloodshed, he's not sovereign over everything.
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
God is a just God. So therefore we must be punished. The punishment is eternal separation from Him. When I say separation from His presence, I'm not saying He not present in hell. That would deny His omnipresence. Instead of him being present to bless, He is present to punish. Someone has to take on our punishment, and Jesus is an infinite being. Only an infinite being can take on every humans punishment. We are then given His perfect record and forgiven of our sin. Because He is infinite, He has an infinite perfect record, so He can take bits out of it and give it to everyone. It's imputation. Basically, God demands Justification, which is only achievable through someone else taking on our sin and suffering it for us. Only an innate being could do that.
[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
How do you know all this detailed information about God?
[–]pridefulpropensity 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
If you want a very good, easy to read book to learn about theology, might I recommend Wayne Grudem's systematic theology. It is a very large book, but don't be overwhelmed, it is made for the beginner. He also has abridged versions that you can find as well.
I take Theology courses. All this information is pretty much pulled from scripture. Logic has a lot to do with it too.
[–]Basilides 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Sorry. But there is nothing logical about God killing himself.
The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed--because it is shameful. The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly. He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible.
- Tertullian
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
He demonstrated his mercy and forgiveness by sacrificing His Son. Would you feel very loved or forgiven if someone just forgave you on the spot as opposed to Him forgiving you by sacrificing His own Son for you?
[–]Basilides 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
So you would not feel that God loved you if His Son had not died for you? In any case, He died for the weekend.
[–]bennihana123 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
That is one point I have never understood. How is it showing God's forgiveness of humanity's sins or his mercy if he kills his son/himself then brings him back to life a few days later.
[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Ah. You got all that from an ancient book written by genocidal primitives in the Iron Age, canonized by slave-owning Catholics in the 12th century. And logic. Yeah. You sound like an expert in Derpology, doc.
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure nobody was doing anything better at the time, and my name is just a username, no need to bring that into the argument.
You are really bad at arguing, with all the red herrings and ad hominems.
I could say about you: You got all that from a rich, never-had-to-work-a-day in his life American who gets his philosophy of living from an internet site where everyone is an expert on every subject because they checked the wikipedia article before making their points.
Am I completely right? Probably not. But that's exactly what you're doing.
How do you know they are "primitives"? That's only the case if you hold to a progressive view of history wherein humanity gets successively more and more "enlightened" and "better." Considering the twentieth century was about the bloodiest of any in human history, I don't really know that we have the moral authority to be calling any ancient people "genocidal primitives."
Also, there was a biblical canon well before the 12th c. Also also, what does slave-owning have to do with being good at theology or not?
what does slave-owning have to do with being good at theology or not?
If your theology endorses slave-ownership, nothing I suppose. Does it?
Absolutely not.
But people can still make good arguments, about theology or anything else, and still do horrible things in their personal lives, whether they attempt to morally justify them or not.
Only an infinite being can take on every humans punishment.
He doesn't take on every human's punishment. He takes on the punishment of a few.
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7)
God demands Justification, which is only achievable through someone else taking on our sin and suffering it for us.
An omnipotent being can achieve Justification by any means.
There are differing opinions on this topic in Christianity.
What he is essentially saying is that justifying all people without punishing sin goes against God's nature and thus would create a contradiction. This is accounted for in the definition of omnipotent.
The Bible says that only a few are saved. Therefore, he takes on the punishment of a few not the punishment of every human.
justifying all people without punishing sin goes against God's nature and thus would create a contradiction.
You mean like getting yourself killed instead of punishing sin?
Some Christians believe he took that punishment, but you have to accept that fact in order for you to acquire it.
Christ became sin and was punished on the cross.
but you have to accept that fact in order for you to acquire it.
And the Bible says that only a few people accept and acquire it. Therefore, he takes on the punishment of a few not the punishment of every human.
Earlier you wrote...
God punishing sin by becoming sin goes against God's nature. It creates a contradiction.
You are right. Some would say he takes on the sins of all, but I guess none would say the punishment.
Because of Christ's human nature he can take on the sins of the world. The world's sin being imputed to Christ is not a contradiction, Christ sinning would be.
If Christ is fully God then for him to take on the sins of the world contradicts God's nature (which is, as you said, to punish sins, not take them on).
[–]Mazrin 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Well, I believe that the Son has the full essence of the Father.
Can you elaborate on the meaning of that?
[–]NukeThePope 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
In modern English: Jesus shares God's superpowers.
However, this doesn't quite cover kenosis. Where Jesus, being fully God and fully man, emptied himself of those superpowers. He made himself nothing, humbled himself to death on a cross.
[–]NukeThePope 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Does nobody ever consider these explanations a bit far-fetched?
I think using the term "superpowers" weakens the credibility a tad. But it isn't anymore strange than many of the natural laws visited upon us day after day.
Being a student of philosophy, the hardest reconciliation comes when applying Occam's razor to the Lord. But that's man applying his own concept to a higher power.
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
It's a Trinitarian belief. There is one God. God is 3 persons. Each person is fully God. Each are equivalent in every attribute, but they differ in relationship. So the Son is equivalent to the Father, but they are distinguished by relationship. Humans can't really grasp that concept.
[–]Mazrin 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Humans can't really grasp that concept.
Didn't you just describe it?
I gave a surface deep explanation the best I could.
He may have described it. Does it make sense though?
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
Yeah God is a Schizo.
Don't forget the Holy Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Mysterium fidei.
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
Read 1 Corinthians 15. Without the resurrection, Christianity is just another religion.
[–]wedgeomatic 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
Paul is making an even stronger statement, without the Resurrection, Christianity it just nonsense.
Covered that in church today. Thanks for the correction.
It's still just another religion.
[–]shr3dthegnarbrah 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
TIL: There are some xians in r/christianity who have been way more progressively sanctified in the patience category than I have.
[–]wedgeomatic 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
1 Cor 15:14-9
[–]mavriksfan11 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I'm not Christian but I sure as hell do.
Mind elaborating a bit on your convictions?
[–]mavriksfan11 -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago
Nah
[–]fintanhughes 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
"God is love, anyone who lives in love, lives in God, and God lives in them". The rest is window dressing. Christianity does not have to be based in the litteral truth of the stories. They are not historic accounts, they are metaphoric parables. Who cares if the guys heart stopped and then started again. The point is that by living a life of pure love, Jesus was God (love) living as a man. Not that he was the offspring of sky-daddy and had magic powers.
Interesting question. I'd like to see a conclusive answer to the actual possibility of this resurrection business being plausible without referring to the bible texts
A lot of blaspheming being done by Bas. You are doing a lot to stir up contention, while not even bothering to listen to another's point. While they may or may not be right is beside the point. Nothing anyone here is going to change what you think about the God of the Bible. You like to twist scripture and theology and blaspheme God in the same post. I don't know why any of you even bother, he is a troll in the truest sense of the word.
I'm kind of confused, are you Basilides?
Thought you were referring to me.
If not, what are you talking about / who are you talking to?
[–]nopaniers 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I do.
[–]Frankocean2 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Present.
[–]osmun -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
This thread fucking terrifies me.
[–]DrTom 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Why?
[–]CheeseEatingBulldog 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Because so many people believe absolute bullshit as truth? I mean rising from the dead? Really?
[–]tttt0tttt -10 points-9 points-8 points 1 year ago
It's kind of absurd, when you get right down to it, isn't it? Of course a human being didn't actually rise up from the dead. It's amazing that such a question could seriously be asked in this age in the Western world.
[–]darth_aardvark -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
I don't. But I'm jewish
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]heathersak 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]TheRedTeam 62 points63 points64 points ago
[–]Mazrin 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]deuteros 24 points25 points26 points ago
[–]Frankfusion 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]Mazrin -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]deuteros 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Mazrin 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]deuteros 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Mazrin 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TheRedTeam 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]ForrestFire765 42 points43 points44 points ago
[–]Basilides 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]ForrestFire765 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ForrestFire765 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Basilides -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]ForrestFire765 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Basilides -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]rtz13 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Basilides -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Mazrin 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points ago
[–]TheGesus -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]ransom00 16 points17 points18 points ago
[–]Basilides 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]ransom00 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]LiptonCB -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]ransom00 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Basilides -5 points-4 points-3 points ago
[–]ransom00 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Basilides -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]ransom00 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]ransom00 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TheGesus 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ransom00 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ransom00 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]TheGesus 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ransom00 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]simonphoenix 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ransom00 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]simonphoenix 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Basilides -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TheGesus 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TheGesus 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TheGesus 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Basilides 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Basilides -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]no1name 14 points15 points16 points ago*
[–]amykuca 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]no1name 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]MiddleAgedWhiteGuy 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]smacfarl 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]wonkothesane1986 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]justonemorecontract 6 points7 points8 points ago*
[–]CharleyBrown 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Bluffkin -4 points-3 points-2 points ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]whiteguycash 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]AndrewBuchanan 30 points31 points32 points ago
[–]osmun 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]AndrewBuchanan 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]osmun -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ransom00 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Basilides -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]ransom00 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ransom00 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Basilides 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JoeCoder 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]AndrewBuchanan 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]notredamelawl -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]ransom00 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]Mazrin 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]ransom00 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ransom00 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]smacfarl 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]Basilides -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]effilctar 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]wedgeomatic -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Basilides 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]notredamelawl 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Basilides 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]notredamelawl 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ransom00 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ransom00 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wedgeomatic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]HawkieEyes 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]AndrewBuchanan 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bluegerm 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]taev 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]JimmyGroove 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Dilettante 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]unreal5811 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]BraveSaintStuart 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]BraveSaintStuart 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]captainhaddock 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]BraveSaintStuart 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]BraveSaintStuart 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Trunkbutt 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]notayankee 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Bluffkin 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]notayankee 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Basilides 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Basilides 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Basilides 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]bennihana123 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ransom00 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ransom00 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Basilides 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Basilides 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]pridefulpropensity 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Basilides 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Mazrin 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]NukeThePope 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]amykuca 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]NukeThePope 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]amykuca 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Mazrin 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]ransom00 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]wedgeomatic 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]Dr_Herp_Derp 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Basilides 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]shr3dthegnarbrah 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]wedgeomatic 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]mavriksfan11 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mavriksfan11 -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]fintanhughes 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]rtz13 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]rtz13 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Mazrin 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]nopaniers 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Frankocean2 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]osmun -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]DrTom 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]CheeseEatingBulldog 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]darth_aardvark -1 points0 points1 point ago