Resurrection? Why?

[simplynoone]

Simplynoone, you must have the same rabbi as Ben Masada’s, unless you chose him as your personal guide!

***Why do you say this? Because you don’t think I am capable of rationalizing my own experiences? Sorry Lapell. I have learned this one from experience. I, myself, was amazed to read last night his reply to your post where you claim that love is deciding to, for instance, stay with a spouse inspite of feeling aversion toward them as a person. I was going to inject wisdom that I have learned from personal experience in this matter, but decided to let it alone since you were addressing him. What he said IS exactly what I wanted to say to you. ***

---

***What you think of love really is nothing more than expectation. That people stay in something against the obvious displeasure of another is not love… it is selfish. ***

---

Of course, this is the basis of Christianity… expectation of reward is all that keeps most people in the religion. It is not because it is a desire of the knowledge of God, but rather it is a desire of vain glory that they are hoping for. That is not love.

---

Love only comes after one has SOME kind of REAL knowledge of a person… you love them for who they are as you are and not who you hope they will be or who they will make you. Love is an affection (an emotion) and Divine love is based in knowledge of the Truth. Respect is a choice to allow others and/or yourself the freedom for learning and growth; a changing of the mind; and a differing of views. The latter is a way of living that is a choice; the former, being an affection of some sort, is involuntary… it IS the Truth… no one can teach another this truth in the way that experience can. All you have to do is consider from an honest mindset rather than one based on hypocrisy.

About God, do you know Him so completely as to tell us who He is from A to Z?

*You continue to ask me this question (in various different ways) and I continue to tell you that “no, I do not.” *

And be careful not to judge us yourself, let God do that, will you? Did I judge (in the sense of “condemn”) you?

*There is a difference between judging falsely and judging in Truth. The foundation for which you all claim your belief is judging you… I am just pointing it out trying to help you see that Catholicism IS (not just appears to be) contradictive to the Tanakh. It is a different religion altogether and that it is attached to the foundation that I accept and in fact, Christianity claims to be the more enlightened of the two religions, I have a right to point out where you are mistaken. *
**
And Lapell, you have the right to show me how you are not. I am paying attention to what it is you are saying. That I don’t agree with much as of yet doesn’t mean I have not or that I am not considering your words. I have and I do.

 

[Lapell]

***Yes, there is the Noahide Law for the Gentiles. 7 commands… common sense, in fact. The Jewish Law is one for a People sanctified for spiritual purposes. ***

---

***Ezekiel 18:20-28 … to consider and turn again to the path of God, this is how one reconciles their own self before God. That God required sacrificial atonement via blood of animals (and this was ONLY allowed for sins of ignorance, whereas sins against one another called for reconciliation and/or actual penalties incurred) was written for a slavish people … in other words, it was for the people (their guilt) and not for God. ***

You seem to forget that until the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, animal sacrifices were still the norm. There is no more animal sacrifices today… only because the Temple has not been rebuilt since then!

 

[Lapell]

*I came to find out that in Egypt, they would make images of their main god and on the sides of the pedestal on which their god was placed were the carvings of the lesser gods. Most often it was trinitarian. It is exactly how you have said above… their god in three persons. No difference. You are just admitting to worshiping in the same way as the children of Israel did in that day. *

First time I ever heard of such a thing. Sounds like a very, very recent discovery… Still not good enough. They made those gods. Our Holy Trinity–One God is NOT a made-up doctrine. It was revealed. That the non-Christians, including the Jewish people, don’t believe it is understandable, it’s a quite impossible statement. It is TRUE nevertheless.

 

[Detales]

There is really not a lot of good reason to believe in a physical resurrection, even though other such cases have been reported. See

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

On the other hand, the Ressurection story fits perfectly with an age old philosophy that has an entirely different and exceptionally practical take on the significance of the Incarnation and Redemption story. In my opinion, despite having been a staunch Catholic, that philosophy defeats the singular need of attributing the Resurrection to one person at one moment in history, and expands the possibility into a much more far reaching dynamic than the ordinary christianist interpretation allows.

 

[Lapell]

***Lapell, there is a jewish story of a father who set his son on the first step of the staircase and told him to jump into his arms. The son did so. The father set him on the 2nd step and told him to jump, and again, the son complied. Step after step this occured until the son reached the highest step. He was anxious, but his father had caught him everytime before… and so, he jumped. The father stepped back and the little boy fell hard to the floor. As the son picked himself up slowly with that sting of hurt evident in his eyes, the father told him, “that will teach you.” What he had given the son was life. ***

---

I have learned that trust is key in understanding. After being disappointed too often by failed expectations, I came to realize that my trust was misplaced. It is the experiences that are along this path I am on that I trust now and in that, I am trusting God. To trust in an experience unknown to me is placing my trust in the words of another man.

---

True Lapell, that this is how we learn and grow. You say there is still more for mankind to learn, and this I agree and in a big way… but I am not going to put my hope in expectations of tomorrow, or another place, or something beyond what it is I am in now. If we TRULY trust God, then rewards and punishments or an expected end goal is not an issue… rather it is the experience, the consideration, and the lessons learned through living.

To trust God is one thing… but to tell us that we don’t worship the real God… don’t tell me that God told you to do that! Why would He ask you to do something that is not of Him? If He would, He would then intervene again so as He would not let you do that, like in the episode of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac.

 

[Lapell]

There is really not a lot of good reason to believe in a physical resurrection, even though other such cases have been reported. See

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

On the other hand, the Ressurection story fits perfectly with an age old philosophy that has an entirely different and exceptionally practical take on the significance of the Incarnation and Redemption story. In my opinion, despite having been a staunch Catholic, that philosophy defeats the singular need of attributing the Resurrection to one person at one moment in history, and expands the possibility into a much more far reaching dynamic than the ordinary christianist interpretation allows.

Huh? Could you rephrase this in a way that not so sophisticated minds like mine can comprehend and understand?

 

[Lapell]

*If it is being accepted as literal, I will have to admit that I want to witness it personally… since it is, after all, against the natural laws established by God. *

Says who? An authority in these matters? Or one who claims to be one? Beware of the latter…

 

[Lapell]

*If God works however He so chooses, then there is NO WAY that you can say that others are wrong in their views and your views are the right ones. How would you REALLY know for sure? You could just be trying to convince yourself and to succeed in convincing yourself does not necessarily mean that is Truth. *

Dear simplynoone, do you remember having written this earlier in this very thread? You did that very thing yourself just a few posts ago. Why?

 

[Detales]

Hi Lapell,

A) There ae other resurrection stories. Though most of them are mythical and bear psychological relevance, some are in literature as actual events.

B) The link goes to a site discussing matters relevant to the Resurrection fof Jesus. Read it.

C) There are other interpretations of the Resurrection of Jesus that do not require a physical resurrection and yet are more significant, in my opinion, than the usual christianist interpretation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First, you show your ignorance of what Moses taught. Sure, Moses speaks of Joshua WHO WAS THERE with him and we can read in the account of Joshua what happens. Even if this is metaphorically speaking of salvation, in no way does Moses speak of the demigod worshiped by the Church. Not once does he condone the worshiping of a man and is adament not to worship ANY image in either the heavens or the earth as though they could be God. and the prophets confirm this more than a few times; even specifically saying that God is not a man.

Gabriel of 12;
You have moved away from the discussion here, from your disbelief in the resurrection which you confused from Jesus parable, when Jesus was speaking of those who claim the Law and the prophets will save them, and reject the eyewitness account of one being raised from the dead, will still keep hardened hearts. Jesus spoke well of those who rejected him. “you will hear, but not hear, you will see, but not see” the prophets spoke well of these also “they remained in their blindness, believing they can see”.

I do not disagree with Moses and the Law as you accuse me of ignorance. The difference between you and the Law, and me living in Grace, is that you hold to the Law of which I admit I cannot keep, that is why I rely on God’s saving grace through Jesus Christ who fulfilled the Law and the prophets. You ask where does it say this? I point you to the Law and the prophets. But because you remain in the Law, you become blind to the Saving Grace that fulfilled the Law. The Law brings fear and convicts, so I admire your brave stance on this matter, but it is truly fear that keeps you in bondage to the Law. I too am stout and unmoved in my faith of rock. But by admitting my weakness to God, God saves me with his Grace and Mercy from the Law, by Jesus blood sacrifice which paid the price of the Law that convicts me to death.

Understanding the only way for a Divine covenant to be fulfilled is for the testator to die. That is why you have many in the old covenant dieing which breaks them from the Law. God sent his son, to pay for the covenant that frees us from eternal death into life everlasting. The old covenant does not give grace and mercy but only convicts and death.

 

[swplan76]

This is an excerpt from Rob Bell and Don Golden’s ‘Jesus Wants to Save Christians,’

"…A meal unlike any other.

And central to this Passover meal is the command never to forget it. They are told to set aside the date and make it the beginning of their calendar, because time will now be marked by this event.

“When your children ask you,… then tell them, ‘It is Passover sacrifice to the LORD who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.’”

A lamb sacrificed for the people becomes the flash point for God’s revolution. Blood on the doorposts of the house of Israel.

This even took on significance later, as the exiles in Babylon made connections between their situation and their ancestors’ slavery in Egypt. As the prophets painted bigger and wider pictures of what the new exodus would look like, they realized that all of creation was in a sort of exile and for all of creation to leave exile and come home it would take more than the blood of an innocent lamb.

Sin would have to be dealt with in an entirely new way.

The prophets described a suffering servant, a firstborn child among God’s firstborn nation who would take upon himself the burden not only of Israel’s exile, but of the exile of all of humanity.

Isaiah said that a first born son of Israel would emerge and he would be despised and rejected, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. The suffering he would endure would be such that people would hide their faces from him; he would take the pain and suffering of others upon himself. he would not look like the powerful rulers of empire, but would be considered punished by God, stricken and afflicted.

The prophet Isaiah promised that someday, suffering and exiled Israel would produce a suffering servant who would not be spared. This sacrificial lamb would be a man, a firstborn son, and he would take the path not of violence and coercion, but of sacrifice.

Just before the birth of Jesus, Joseph returned to Bethlehem, “the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David,” where Mary “gave birth to her firstborn, a son.”

Jesus the lamb,

but a different kind of lamb.

A son of David,

but a different kind.

God’s firstborn.

(cont…)

Why the resurrection - Jesus conquered death.

 

[simplynoone]

You seem to forget that until the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, animal sacrifices were still the norm. There is no more animal sacrifices today… only because the Temple has not been rebuilt since then!

Whose fault is this? Why so many Christians say this has anything to do with a demigod is purposely denying reality… It was the ROMANS, under Titus to be exact, who tore down the Temple.

Though, I will be honest… I trust God so fully, and time is the one thing He is not bound to that we are in which He can work and NO ONE can credit to a man… thus, why I say resurrection physically is impossible…That we are bound to die and limited in our lifespan is to our benefit should we choose to be aware of God’s ways.

I am sure the Temple was ALLOWED to be taken down for good purpose… my suspicions is that Herod, being a converted Jew, not in his heart, but that he was out for his own purpose and had no problem to sell out the Jews to the Romans and corrupted the Temple with his vain purposes and sacrifices, well, things had to be set straight in hearts… the Temple is only to the benefit of us and not a necessity to actually worship God in spirit and in Truth. Besides, I know I don’t nor do I think any Jewish people worship the Temple. (try not judge falsely here and make sure to understand mindsets before speaking your opinion here… that I came from the Christian religion and based on the admissions of Christians their own selves, Christians DO credit the man. Jewish do not worship the Temple… as is evidenced that they are not bound to it.).

Not to mention, read Jeremiah carefully. I know it appears to be against the house of Israel and Judah, but pay CLOSE attention… Jeremiah makes it clear that it is for a purpose. The outcome comes toward the end, but the intent is littered throughout. So many judge Israel and yet, does anyone pay attention to the verse, Jeremiah 31:27? Who, exactly ARE we judging here? God is brilliant and given that He is the ONLY eternal Life, well, time is to His advantage and to our own downfall as mankind. So be it. I trust Him wholly and will not play the hypocrite, neither give my credit to a man, but only to the brilliance of God’s ways.

 

[Detales]

Actually, animal sacrifices do continue today. There was in this country wholsale slaughter of buffalow ans birds. Until recently rabbits and monkeys, etc, were used for all sorts of testing, and under some circumstances still are. It is rumored that in China animals are skinned alive for their pelts. And don’t forget–we eat, and most of us are carnivors. Also, people still hunt for sport, often not for food. Just because it is not done in a temple only means that it is done ot the god of stupidiy or of the common stomach. The next time you have chicken or veal or even fish, go see where and how it was raised.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[simplynoone]

First time I ever heard of such a thing. Sounds like a very, very recent discovery… Still not good enough. They made those gods. Our Holy Trinity–One God is NOT a made-up doctrine. It was revealed. That the non-Christians, including the Jewish people, don’t believe it is understandable, it’s a quite impossible statement. It is TRUE nevertheless.

What then, Lapell, do you do with Mark 13:32, which directly conflicts what is you and others claim… that they are 3 in one god. Obviously they are NOT 3 in 1 godstatus… the son is, from the NT point of view, below the Father God. If they were of the same status (three in one), then the son would not have information withheld from him. Thus, the Father god in the trinitarian christian view is the higher status god and the son god along with the spirit god is lower status. (also conflicts what Jesus said in John 4:24, by the way). Wow… you have some explaining to do for me. (this is typically when I would get thrown out of Bible class in highschool by the teachers who could not answer this question and neither cared for actual Truth over what they wanted to perceive as truth to make their own selves feel better. Same goes in these forums discussions… I will be written off by others for posing this legitimate question. I wonder, will YOU be the one who finally answers this with authority according to the Truth of the matter, that there is two gods of lower status not privy to the information of the father god, the higher god… or will you too say I am speaking blasphemy and that it is a mystery unable to be explained when all it is I am trying to do is get us to the heart of the Truth. Be careful because I have a verse of condemnation from the words attributed to Jesus if you do the latter).

 

[simplynoone]

There is really not a lot of good reason to believe in a physical resurrection, even though other such cases have been reported. See

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

On the other hand, the Ressurection story fits perfectly with an age old philosophy that has an entirely different and exceptionally practical take on the significance of the Incarnation and Redemption story. In my opinion, despite having been a staunch Catholic, that philosophy defeats the singular need of attributing the Resurrection to one person at one moment in history, and expands the possibility into a much more far reaching dynamic than the ordinary christianist interpretation allows.

Here is the parallel for the resurrection in so much that it is mentioned in the NT as well in much the same way… thus, I can see it being a conceptual metaphor… nothing mystical and certainly not physical: Hosea 2:6, “After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.” This is it… the ONLY parallel and given the literalist Christian view, you will run into problems given the “after two days he will revive us…” Clearly this is not speaking of one man and is speaking Israel, the People as a whole.

This is it… the only place it is spoken of in a similar manner, but not as a person… rather a people. Thus, I take it neither mystically (such as incarnation… though we know when we die, our bodies return to the ground and the spirit given by God (the breath of Life of Him) will return again to Him as is said in Ecclesiastes) or literally of any one person… I take it as a conceptual metaphor of Israel, raised in awareness as a People to her God.

While I appreciate the link and skimmed over it, it seems easiest to go based on what is in the Law and the testimonies as even Jesus himself confirmed (Matthew 5:17) and as is said in Isaiah 8:20 coupled with logical thinking.

I am however interested in YOUR specific view based on your own words if you would like share it with me.

 

[simplynoone]

To trust God is one thing… but to tell us that we don’t worship the real God… don’t tell me that God told you to do that! Why would He ask you to do something that is not of Him? If He would, He would then intervene again so as He would not let you do that, like in the episode of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac.

*God will only work with in the Laws of Nature that have been established. If you are not open to the way it is He works, how else then can reach you but through others who are open? Maybe if you find yourself in the same conversation with different of persons (as you have several times compared me to others on this forum), God is trying to reach you. Thus far, all you have given is what sounds like a repeat of what you have been taught with little next to nothing based on the foundation from which your chosen religion claims. shrugs

We were made with free will which does allow for stubbornness and preferred feel good choices… it is up to you to be able to face the Truth regardless of your own self motivations. If you can not do such, you will not receive the Truth but only what you have chosen to perceive as the Truth… I would not condemn you for choosing the latter and neither should anyone else…

By the way, about Abraham… he said to Isaac, his son, that God would send a lamb. This meant that he was getting ideas in his head… hearing a “voice”… but not literally… just thoughts as to Truth; whether through visions or dreams. I know this because the same thing has happened to me. He was sent a ram to replace the death of his son. It was a revelation and it only confirmed that God would not ever allow for the death of a human for the sacrifice of sins… the blood atonement in the literal sense was for the slavish mentality… that a human is not included in the sacrificial laws was done on purpose… so that the people would not do what it is that the heathen were doing in their own worship practices to their gods.*

 

[Detales]

Thanks, but having read your posts and respecting the firmness of your stand, I sense that such an explication would “Simply” not be producitve. Blessings and Best,

Bindar.

 

[survive]

I’d love to review the source for the Egypt claim, since I’ve immersed myself in Egyptology in years long gone (the late 80’s and early '90s) and kept loosely up on it since when I have extra time on my hands, and there is no trinitarian concept in any Egyptian scholarship whatever. Instead, they had nine major gods, the Ennead, all considered quite separate from one another, never identified as the same god (though late in the development of the mythology there was a heated controversy between followers of Aten and Amon, wherein some said Amon was another name for Ra, and for a little while some identified Horus with Ra, the majority of writing from pagan Egypt counted all the gods as totally separate and even in competiton). There were never three to my knowledge who were set above the rest of the Ennead. Though modern Neo-pagans and romantics sometimes have claimed to worship the Egyptian gods in all kinds of ways, their new religions have little in common with actual ancient ones.

 

[simplynoone]

Says who? An authority in these matters? Or one who claims to be one? Beware of the latter…

*Have you ever read the whole of Isaiah in a way as to not LOOK for what only confirms (better stated: conforms to) what you were taught; rather in a way to see the Truth no matter what that means to you? It is in there stated why it matters to me that I see it so that I may know. I challenge you to do such… to read Isaiah several times not searching for your perceived truth, but just reading it in a state of mind to receive Truth as it is. Can you do that, at least? Then I am sure you will see why I demand proof… it is, after all, written clearly out why I should do thus; but I know to just say where will rob you of what it will mean to you if you do this on your own. Isaiah is a phenomenal book when read with a mind open to understanding and a heart desperately searching for wisdom that can only come from God. You are such a person, no? I believe you to be. *

 

[simplynoone]

Dear simplynoone, do you remember having written this earlier in this very thread? You did that very thing yourself just a few posts ago. Why?

No Lapell, I do not remember… however, I do not doubt you either since I have most likely stated it over and over. The reason is because I, of all people, know that I will never convince you of anything I say… and if I do, then shame on you. I am only urging you and everyone else reading to consider what I say and compare it with honesty of heart (MEANING WITHOUT THOUGHT TO REWARD OR PUNISHMENT) to what is said in the foundaton. You may find yourself as surprised as I have found my ownself. That is all. In the end, we all will go back to the dust… so I only hope to inspire purpose of life in others rather than to just watch the waiting room atmosphere that has been going on for far too long. There is Truth and then there is the words that we might perceive as truth because of our own deceptive motivations… I want to discover the former, don’t you?