Question about Christianity

Ellie2008

I posted this in the A&A forum but it was pointed out I would be better asking Christians, I would really like to understand people's logic to see if I can understand it; thanks:

I'm really struggling to see how people believe the Son of God aspect... So God so loved the world that he sent his ONLY son down to die for our sins. But are we not all God's children, or did he create and love one of us more? If he knew that his son would be killed does that not somehow undermine the free will of those who killed him. If his son knew for sure all along that he would be returned to his father in heaven how much of a sacrifice was dying, I think I'm missing something.....[/Quote]

ISAW

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I'm really struggling to see how people believe the Son of God aspect... So God so loved the world that he sent his ONLY son down to die for our sins.

Only begotten in the sense that a second Christ/God the son didn't exist.

But are we not all God's children,

Yes but we are not all God.

or did he create and love one of us more?

Eh no. The idea is the son is god and is there since the beginning. god the father didn't make the son. they are both aspects of the same single God.

If he knew that his son would be killed does that not somehow undermine the free will of those who killed him.

No. try Leibniz on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Free_will

If his son knew for sure all along that he would be returned to his father in heaven how much of a sacrifice was dying, I think I'm missing something.....

If you knew you were about to be slowly tortured to death rather then dies naturally would you consider that you might prefer the latter?

Ellie2008

Thanks for your reply, I can see you ve given a great deal of consideration to your beliefs.

Questions re your replies: doesn't Jesus speak to his father quite a lot, in the garden when he is about to be captured, on the cross - so if they are one person is it an internal monologue of sorts?

Yes I would of course I would choose not to be tortured but innocent people are often tortured in this world so God asks no more of himself.

It's probably a little too late for me to read and understand the links provided but I shall certainly do so tomorrow.

qrrgprgua

Its because Christ WAS God and DID die a terrible death and most importantly he did RISE from the dead that makes faith such a precious thing.

The women who saw Christ die, where the same who buried him and were the same who saw him risen. When you handle a body with rigor mortis you know the body is dead, so to seem him risen gave power to his teachings and gives power to our faith. God does exist. and he does love man.

No proof was needed for the apostles about Gods existence and love.

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The women who saw Christ die, where the same who buried him and were the same who saw him risen.

Who went to the tomb?
Where was the stone when they arrived?
What did they see?
What were they told?
Who did they tell their story to?
What did the disciples do?
To whom did the resurrected Jesus first appear?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Who went to the tomb?
Where was the stone when they arrived?
What did they see?
What were they told?
Who did they tell their story to?
What did the disciples do?
To whom did the resurrected Jesus first appear?

Try reading the Gospels. It's always good to read the resurrection accounts.

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

Who went to the tomb?
Where was the stone when they arrived?
What did they see?
What were they told?
Who did they tell their story to?
What did the disciples do?
To whom did the resurrected Jesus first appear?

Do you want to take it to the theism/atheism thread? There happens to be a debate running that is directly related to your questions. No sense in muddying the water on this thread.


@Ellie2008

Jesus was not created. He, like the Father and like the Spirit have always existed in one Godhead. The opening verses of the Gospel according to John states as much with respect to Jesus who John refers to as "the Word".

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

The tricky part is understanding that Christianity teaches that Jesus has two natures - one divine and one human. Perhaps a somewhat fitting analogy would be that of wave-particle duality. This postulate states that particles such as photons display both wave and particle properties. Two natures in one entity.

If he knew that his son would be killed does that not somehow undermine the free will of those who killed him

We have had this debate many times before on this forum. Probably none of us want to revisit it any time soon. But by way of an answer, I see no reason why foreknowledge must result in determinism. In other words, God's knowledge of our future actions is predicated upon our choices. If God knows that we will turn left on Tuesday 14th at 10:31 it is because at that point we made the decision to turn left. It is our choices that determine God's knowledge of our choices.

If his son knew for sure all along that he would be returned to his father in heaven how much of a sacrifice was dying, I think I'm missing something

There are a few things to address. Firstly, the nature of crucifixion. It is by any standards a horrible and brutal way to die. Its purpose was to maximise the time it takes to die and therefore extend the period of torture that could last days. It also had the added "bonus" of being regarded as a humiliating death. People would stand at the foot of the cross and mock up as you hung there, naked and broken. But, of course, the Romans (and others besides them) were quite fond of killing people by this method. Jesus was no exception.

So we are not claiming that Jesus died the most horrible death imaginable and therefore you should worship him. I think it very possible that others have suffered far greater bodily tortures. Neither are we going to the other extreme and saying that because he knew he would be raised again that his suffering would be essentially without cost. I take it you don't say that a marathon is not an achievement because a few weeks after you have finished the race your body will have recovered?

What we are saying is that Jesus, the least guilty person in history, was killed by his own creations. And that by his death, and through some process that I don't understand, he took the punishment for our sins upon himself and that this resulted in him being forsaken by God the Father. In short, we believe that Jesus' death entailed more than bodily suffering. Whatever Jesus went though on the cross had a fundamental impact on you life, my life and even on creation itself.

Finally, we are saying that God should be worshipped (and the word worshipped doesn't mean grovelling, it means, amongst other things, taking delight in God and his creations) not just because he went through a rather long and painful process with his creations with a view to saving them (start at Genesis 1 and work your way up form there) but also because God is the the greatest conceivable being, the source of all goodness, truth, justice and beauty.

If you have some spare time then this 2-part talk by Tom Wright is an excellent introduction to what Christianity is about. This much more comprehensive series by Don Carson would be worth your time if your interest has been tweaked

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Try reading the Gospels. It's always good to read the resurrection accounts.

I have. There's quite a few discrepancies. This is clearly important when people are trying to assert that the account is true - which account?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I have. There's quite a few discrepancies. This is clearly important when people are trying to assert that the account is true - which account?

There are no discrepancies (in the sense of contradictions), but different eye witnesses remember different things (as we would expect with real life tesimony rather than neat fiction). So, it's best to read all four accounts to get the fuller picture.

Since that seems to be to much to ask, I will sum up the answers to your questions that we find when we read all four Gospels.

Who went to the tomb?

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna and some other women.

Where was the stone when they arrived?

It was rolled away.

What did they see?

They saw at least two angels. They saw an empty tomb. Understandably there would have been a bit of running to and fro in and out of the tomb. In real life people don’t stand rooted to one spot and engage in neat dialogue as in a scripted stage play. So we can easily envisage a scenario where different women are in and out of the tomb at different times.


What were they told?

We know some of the things that they were told, but possibly not all. Bear in mind that speeches and sermons in the New Testament do not purport to record every single word that was spoken (otherwise the Gospels would each be many times longer than they currently are). This is entirely what we would expect from eye-witness reports. Some people remember some things, and others are impressed by other things. Also each Evangelist selected the words that they felt would be most relevant to their differing audiences.

So, the key things that are recorded include:

1. A comforting word not to be afraid.
2. That Jesus had risen.
3. That this was a fulfilment of what Jesus had prophesied.
4. That they were to tell Peter and the disciples.
5. They would see Him in Galilee at a later time.


Who did they tell their story to?

They went straight to wherever the disciples were, and told Peter, the other 10 apostles, and some other unnamed disciples. Mark records a characteristic eye-witness detail that, on the way to see the disciples, the women were afraid and avoided telling to anyone else that they met what had happened.

What did the disciples do?

Although sceptical, they ran to the tomb. Peter and John ran ahead of the others, with John arriving first.


To whom did the resurrected Jesus first appear?

There was an appearance of Jesus to ‘the women’ (including the two Marys, and possibly others) which seems to have occurred when they were running back to tell the disciples what had happened.

There was also an appearance to Mary (who had followed the apostles back to the tomb). She was obviously in a highly emotional state, scarcely knowing if she was dreaming or awake, so Jesus spoke very tenderly to her.

eviltwin

Isn't it accepted now that the Gospels are exaggerated?

PDN

eviltwin wrote: »

Isn't it accepted now that the Gospels are exaggerated?

It might be accepted by you - but that doesn't mean that such acceptance is universal. I certainly don't accept it.

Gregor Samsa

ISAW wrote: »

[If you knew you were about to be slowly tortured to death rather then dies naturally would you consider that you might prefer the latter?

As a normal mortal, I'd certainly prefer the quicker, natural death. But if I were an omnipotent, omnicent, eternal entity, who was only temporarialy appearing in the guise of a mortal, and was assured of my physical resurrection in a matter of days, I don't think a few hours of torture would bother me too much.

PDN

phutyle wrote: »

As a normal mortal, I'd certainly prefer the quicker, natural death. But if I were an omnipotent, omnicent, eternal entity, who was only temporarialy appearing in the guide of a mortal, and was assured of my physical resurrection in a matter of days, I don't think a few hours of torture would bother me too much.

Thankfully few Christians will lose much sleep worrying about your opinion based on your imagination of what you think an entity that you don't believe in might feel.

Most Christians would believe that the physical suffering of crucifixion was much the lesser part of Christ's suffering on the Cross. But if you want to quibble about that I suggest you take it to the Christian/Atheist debate thread.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

There are no discrepancies (in the sense of contradictions), but different eye witnesses remember different things (as we would expect with real life tesimony rather than neat fiction). So, it's best to read all four accounts to get the fuller picture.

You can't read all four and get a fuller picture (even less so if you take into account stories elsewhere). The details are not always complementary. It appears to me that you have taken all four and formulated an 'average', based on the common narrative (which isn't actually clear in any of the gospels).

We're the gospels divinely-inspired?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

You can't read all four and get a fuller picture (even less so if you take into account stories elsewhere). The details are not always complementary.

Hmm, then why not get down to specifics? Where are the 'discrepancies' you spoke of? What in the resurrection accounts is not complementary.

It appears to me that you have taken all four and formulated an 'average', based on the common narrative (which isn't actually clear in any of the gospels).

Hardly an average, more a cumulative. The four accounts taken together give us a more information than any one account does - which is entirely what we would expect from eye-witness testimony. That's how history works. Fiction on the other hand, tends to be more carefully crafted and neat.

We're the gospels divinely-inspired?

I believe they were. But that's a separate discussion. Usually, in these kind of threads, the unbeliever wants to take us down a rabbit hole of a debate about inspiration because, when pressed for details, they can't seem to produce any clear-cut examples of the contradictions or mistakes that they had previously been so confident in claiming that the Gospels were full of.

ISAW

phutyle wrote: »

As a normal mortal, I'd certainly prefer the quicker, natural death.

Which Jesus was.

But if I were an omnipotent, omnicent, eternal entity,

which Jesus also was but choosing not to use any god powers for his own benefit as long as he lived as a mortal.

who was only temporarialy appearing in the guise of a mortal, and was assured of my physical resurrection in a matter of days, I don't think a few hours of torture would bother me too much.

your argument collapses because Christians believe ALL of them will be resurrected. so if it applies to Jesus it applies just as equally to all human beings.

also you miss the "temporarily" point entirely. It is the whole point - that Jesus was demonstrating that anyone else does not have to be god to do as he does.

ISAW

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, I can see you ve given a great deal of consideration to your beliefs.

thanks but what I believe isnt the issue. Please dont bring my beliefs into this. I rerely do. Im not arguing that you should believe just because others do. what is important here is what you believe and that that belief isnt misinformed.

Questions re your replies: doesn't Jesus speak to his father quite a lot, in the garden when he is about to be captured, on the cross - so if they are one person is it an internal monologue of sorts?

They arent one person. They are three persons in one god.

Pwpane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What we are saying is that Jesus, the least guilty person in history, was killed by his own creations. And that by his death, and through some process that I don't understand, he took the punishment for our sins upon himself and that this resulted in him being forsaken by God the Father. In short, we believe that Jesus' death entailed more than bodily suffering. Whatever Jesus went though on the cross had a fundamental impact on you life, my life and even on creation itself.

Thanks, Fanny Cradock, I like the way you put things. You've clarified a few things for me in a way I've never thought.

Can you explain a bit more on the suffering you believe Jesus went through on the cross, besides bodily suffering - suffering due to feeling forsaken by God? How could he feel forsaken if what was happening was God's will and was part of the whole plan?

What you say next has puzzled me for quite a long time. How exactly has what Jesus went through on the cross changed our lives, apart from the formation of the Church? I don't understand what the changes are and cannot see the presence of any changes unless they're not visible ones.

This may be a dreadful question to a believer, but what exact difference did it make to humanity that Jesus died on a cross?

philologos

We are initially His creation. We are not children of God unless we believe in Jesus Christ. The Biblical text points to this. By nature we are children of wrath deserving of God's right judgement and condemnation due to our rebellion against His standards (Ephesians 2). Paul makes clear that we become heirs in the promise of Abraham through belief in Jesus (Galatians 4:1-7). This is the only reason why we can legitimately refer to God as Abba, Father. Simply put it is because we have become children of God by believing in His name.

At the very beginning of John we have this concept:

But to all who did receive Him [that is Jesus], who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
(John 1:12-13 ESV)

My comments in blue.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Usually, in these kind of threads, the unbeliever wants to take us down a rabbit hole of a debate about inspiration because, when pressed for details, they can't seem to produce any clear-cut examples of the contradictions or mistakes that they had previously been so confident in claiming that the Gospels were full of.

Try http://skepticsannotatedbible.com which annotates hundreds, if not thousands, of internal contradictions.

For example, one of doctoremma's questions above asked "Where was the stone when they arrived?".

From here, we learn that Luke had "women from Galilee" arriving to see the stone rolled back. Mark has "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" showing up to see the same thing (no contradiction yet). John has "Mary Magdalene" alone (contradiction) seeing the stone rolled back upon arrival. Meanwhile, Matthew reports that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" arrived to see "the angel of the lord" flying down out of the sky to roll back the stone in front of them (multiple contradictions).

PDN wrote: »

There are no discrepancies (in the sense of contradictions)

There certainly are. And the derivative account you have kindly provided above is consistent only with Luke, and directly contradicts one or more of the other three accounts.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Try http://skepticsannotatedbible.com which annotates hundreds, if not thousands, of internal contradictions.

It's full of errors, misinterpretations, schoolboy howlers and downright dishonesty too. Links to partisan sites like that won't cut it here.

If there are discrepancies or contradictions then you should be able to point them out rather than pasting such a link.

For example, one of doctoremma's questions above asked "Where was the stone when they arrived?".

From here, we learn that Luke had "women from Galilee" arriving to see the stone rolled back. Mark has "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" showing up to see the same thing (no contradiction yet). John has "Mary Magdalene" alone (contradiction)

Where did John say that Mary Magdalene was alone? Read the text for yourself. It says Mary Magdalene went to the tomb - it does not say that she was alone. You made that bit up.

Meanwhile, Matthew reports that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" arrived to see "the angel of the lord" flying down out of the sky to roll back the stone in front of them (multiple contradictions).

Where does Matthew say that the two Marys saw this? Where does he say that the stone was rolled away in front of them? He doesn't. You made those bits up too.

And the derivative account you have kindly provided above is consistent only with Luke, and directly contradicts one or more of the other three accounts.

No it doesn't. It only contradicts the bits that you have invented and then slyly added to the other three accounts.

The discussion, in case you missed it, was whether there are discrepancies and contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the resurrection. By that we mean the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - not some make believe Gospel of Robin.

bonniebede

Pwpane wrote: »

Thanks, Fanny Cradock, I like the way you put things. You've clarified a few things for me in a way I've never thought.

Can you explain a bit more on the suffering you believe Jesus went through on the cross, besides bodily suffering - suffering due to feeling forsaken by God? How could he feel forsaken if what was happening was God's will and was part of the whole plan?

What you say next has puzzled me for quite a long time. How exactly has what Jesus went through on the cross changed our lives, apart from the formation of the Church? I don't understand what the changes are and cannot see the presence of any changes unless they're not visible ones.

This may be a dreadful question to a believer, but what exact difference did it make to humanity that Jesus died on a cross?

I think it is a bit misleading to say that Jesus was forsaken by god, if you mean he was out of touch, in his divine nature with god the Father. THat would be an impossibility.

What he did experience in his human nature was what we all experience when we sin seriously, and our relationship with God is broken, we lose the sense of his presence, it becomes hard to discern his actions in things and so on. This is a horrible experience for us, one which we usually spend a lot of time and energy in distracting ourselves from, how much more painful it must have been forJesus who had lived in that close intimate relationship in his human nature all his life.

When Jesus says on the cross 'My God My God why have you forsaken me' he is qutoing from Psalm 23, a very interesting and prophetic psalm in the light of the crucifixion. Though it describes the awfulness of the crucifixion it also ends on a more hopeful note of trust that God will bring something God out of even this suffering. That also matches well with one of the new testament sayings that Jesus endured the cross for the sake of the 'joy that was before him'.

Although it is a bit of artistic licence, I think in the film the passion of the Christ, Gibson places the words of Jesus in the book of revelation on his lips while he was carrying the cross, 'Behold I make all things new'.

Nowadays we tend to see all suffering as pointless. But it is not. Consider the labours that parents undertake for there children, don't they do this gladly for the sake of them? Or the willingness of a lover to exert himself to please his beloved...we take those kinds of efforts as worthy of praise.

Now consider Jesus' position. His beloved bride (the people of God) have been seduced away from him into sin, and in that sin now live as slaves to a vicious master (Satan) who's only real interest in destroying them is to displease God.

Jesus didn't come to prance around being nicey nicey, in his own words he said he did not come to bring peace but a sword.

That doesn't mean that he came to cause conflict among humans, rather that he came prepared to do battle for his people. Jesus whole mission is a rescue mission.

You can see that from the word go. In Luke he announces his intention... to bring liberty captives, to set prisoners free. His miracles are demonstrations that his mission is to bring the power of healing to us... physical healing, spiritual healing when he forgives sins, the healing liberation of exorcism when he casts out demons.

Towards the end he describes his passion as one great exorcism (see gospel of John... now is the time for the prince of this world to be thrown down...that emans satan).

So the crucifixion is the final battle. How does it benefit us?

Firstly... we became trapped because we were unfaithful to God, who having created us wanted to join us to himself in a covenant. A covenant is an agreement which creates sacred family bonds. In other words, by the covenant we who by nature are Gods creatures, could become instead Gods sons and daughters. by adoption.

This original covenant, made in creation with adam and eve, was broken by their sin. God renewed it many times, with abraham, moses. david and so on, but each time, though he was faithful we were not. Hence the blessings and joy of it couldn't reach us.

Finally, Jesus came over to our side of the covenant, taking on human nature.

The battle of the passion is satan trying to test jesus and push him to the point where, like the first adam he will back away from suffering at the cost of being disobedient to God.

We see that battle spelled out in the Garden of gethsemane. Jesus really didn't want to suffer, that is the normal human reaction to suffering. However if the cost of comfort was to abandon God, he was willing to suffer.
Don't think of it as God wanted him to suffer, and left him ewith the choice to suffer and obey or not to suffer. Think of it this way.

God wanted him to be obedient, so that he could keep our side of the covenant without being unfaithful. SAtan got into it and made obedience as difficult as possible, right up to the extreme point of it costing Jesus his life. And even up to that point Jesus continued to choose obedience over not suffering, for the sake of the people God wanted to rescue.

So how does it all help you?
WEll God has a plan for you, and so does satan. Gods plan is to take you, a creature, and adopt you as a son, and in this way to open to you the delights which go with sharing in his divine nature.
Satans plan is to get you to reject that plan. He will try to do it first with subtle seduction, and if that doesn't work later with more obvious force.

however, we can choose to live 'in Jesus' in other words, Jesus will make his victory over satan ours, if we have faith. Faith here does not mean believing something irrational, that is a distorted understanding of faith. Faith means having a relationship with a person, and trusting into that relationship, leaning on that relationship for strength.

Finally, to answer about what difference does it make, I would again point to the difference between a being a creature of Gods, which is what we originally were. to being a son or daughter of God, which we can be in Jesus. According to scripture 'all creation waits with eager looking for the sons of God to be revealed' and 'what we are to be has not yet been revealed'. In other words, we are still a work in progress.By coming into relationship with Jesus this incredible transformation has begun, and indeed a substantial part of it is already accomplished, we are now free from our former slavery to sin, and satan....but other parts of it are being accomplished in this life, we are coming to maturity in christ, and the final parts will only be accomplished later, when we get resurrected bodies and enter into Gods glory.

Happy Easter!

Pwpane

bonniebede wrote: »

What he did experience in his human nature was what we all experience when we sin seriously, and our relationship with God is broken, we lose the sense of his presence, it becomes hard to discern his actions in things and so on. This is a horrible experience for us, one which we usually spend a lot of time and energy in distracting ourselves from, how much more painful it must have been forJesus who had lived in that close intimate relationship in his human nature all his life.


So the crucifixion is the final battle. How does it benefit us?

Gods plan is to take you, a creature, and adopt you as a son, and in this way to open to you the delights which go with sharing in his divine nature.

By coming into relationship with Jesus this incredible transformation has begun, and indeed a substantial part of it is already accomplished, we are now free from our former slavery to sin, and satan....but other parts of it are being accomplished in this life, we are coming to maturity in christ, and the final parts will only be accomplished later, when we get resurrected bodies and enter into Gods glory.

Thanks for your detailed answer, though I can't pretend to understand all of it.

I put two parts of your answer in bold above which puzzle me.

You say that when we lose the sense of God's presence, it is a horrible experience for us. I don't understand that as I don't have a sense of God's presence and it's not a horrible experience at all.

But what puzzles me most is the other part. You say that with faith in Jesus we are free from our former slavery to sin but it's a tenet of Catholicism that we are all sinners, that none is perfect and all sin, so how are we freed from sin?

Manach

Multiple written accounts of the same event are rare in classical history. The other one I can think of is the death of Socrates by Plato and Xenophon. The differing accounts are based both on the differing viewpoints and ideologies of the two.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

Try http://skepticsannotatedbible.com which annotates hundreds, if not thousands, of internal contradictions.

For example, one of doctoremma's questions above asked "Where was the stone when they arrived?".

From here, we learn that Luke had "women from Galilee" arriving to see the stone rolled back. Mark has "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" showing up to see the same thing (no contradiction yet). John has "Mary Magdalene" alone (contradiction) seeing the stone rolled back upon arrival. Meanwhile, Matthew reports that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" arrived to see "the angel of the lord" flying down out of the sky to roll back the stone in front of them (multiple contradictions).There certainly are. And the derivative account you have kindly provided above is consistent only with Luke, and directly contradicts one or more of the other three accounts.

Your source is biased so no surprises there
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/resurrection_accounts.htm

http://thetruth-blog.blogspot.com/2011/04/can-alleged-resurrection-contradictions.html
if all four Gospels were the same, scholars would likely have more of an issue with them, since that would clearly indicate corroboration

In the battle with skeptics regarding Jesus' resurrection, Christians are in a 'no-win' situation. If the resurrection accounts harmonize perfectly, skeptics will claim that the writers of the Gospels conspired together. If the resurrection accounts have some differences, skeptics will claim that the Gospels contradict each other and therefore cannot be trusted. It is our contention that the resurrection accounts can be harmonized and do not contradict each other.

After his death, Jesus is buried by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, while several women look on (see Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42). After this, the stone is rolled, the tomb is sealed, and a guard is set at the site of the tomb (see Matthew 27:62-66). On the third, three (possibly more) women, including Mary mother of James, Salome, and Mary Magdalene, prepare some spices and head to the tomb where Jesus was buried. (see Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1)

While the women are on their way to the tomb, an angel descended from heaven, proceeds to roll away the stone, and sits upon it. After this, there was an earthquake, and the guards fainted. (see Matthew 28:2-4). The women then arrived at the tomb only to find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples (see John 20:1-2). Now, the women who were still at the tomb saw two angels who conveyed that Jesus was risen from the dead. The angels also instruct the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-8).

The women then proceeded leave to bring the news to the disciples (Matthew 28:8). The guards, who fainted, awoke and went to report the empty tomb to the authorities, who in turn bribed the guards to say that the body was stolen (Matthew 28:11-15). This is where the propagation of that theory began. After this, Mary (the mother of James) and the other women, who were on their way to find the disciples, saw the risen Christ (see Matthew 28:9-10). Having had this encounter, now all the more eager to speak with the disciples, the women find them and report what they have seen and heard (see Luke 24:9-11).

Peter and John proceeded to run to the tomb, with John arriving first, and find it empty, containing only the grave clothes (see Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10). After Peter and John have left, Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb, and saw the two angels. Following this, she saw the risen Christ (see John 20:11-18). Later during the day, Christ appears to Simon Peter, as reported in Luke 24:34 and 1st Corinthians 15:5. Also during the very same day, Jesus appeared to Cleopas as well as another disciple, who were on the road to Emmaus. Jesus remains with them and shows them that the Scriptures had to be fulfilled concerning himself, though they did not know it was Him at first.

Once Jesus vanishes, the two disciples reported the event to the eleven disciples in Jerusalem (see Luke 24:33-35). Jesus appeared to ten disciples soon after, but Thomas was not with them. When Thomas returned to the home, he did not believe that they had seen Jesus (see Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25). Following this, Jesus appears to all eleven disciples, and this time Thomas was with them. He believed. (John 20:26-31). Not long after this, Jesus appeared to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-25), followed by appearing to more than 500 disciples in Galilee (1st Corinthians 15:6).
Credit: Good News Magazine

Of significant note, Jesus then appeared to His half-brother James, who was a skeptic all of Jesus' life, but once He had seen the risen Christ, radically converted, and became a Christian (see 1st Corinthians 15:7). Jesus then commissioned His disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:16-20).
Jesus proceeded to teach His disciples the Scriptures and promised to send the Holy Spirit (see Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:4-5). This was followed by His ascension. "When he had led them out of the vicinity of Bethany, He lifted up His hands and blessed them. While He was blessing them, He left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped Him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy." Dr. Luke expounds upon this event in the sequel to his first work. As Acts 1:9-11 conveys:

"After He said this, He was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid Him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as He was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 'Men of Galilee,' they said, 'why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven."

Therefore, once we carefully examine the accounts, we find that alleged contradictions are supplementary and complementary, not contradictory. A contradiction would be one Gospel stating that Jesus died on a cross and another stating that He was stoned to death. But we do not find any of that. The historic core of the Gospel remains the same and rings true. Was there one angel or two angels? One angel rolled away the stone, but later that day two appeared. An easily reconcilable "issue."

philologos

Pwpane wrote: »

But what puzzles me most is the other part. You say that with faith in Jesus we are free from our former slavery to sin but it's a tenet of Catholicism that we are all sinners, that none is perfect and all sin, so how are we freed from sin?

By the by, this is the Christianity forum, so not all of us are Roman Catholics.

In so far as Jesus died in our place on the cross I suspect. He took away the burden that we should have rightfully suffered. Jesus died to pay the price for sin so that we wouldn't have to.

As a result, we are free of the penalty and burden of sin if we put our trust in Him. When Christ died, we died to sin, and as He rose again, we found new life in Him. That's why Christians use the term "born again". We live our lives seeking after God's righteousness first and putting the former sin we had in our life to death. This is a central theme throughout the New Testament.

gkell3

philologos wrote: »

By the by, this is the Christianity forum, so not all of us are Roman Catholics.

In so far as Jesus died in our place on the cross I suspect. He took away the burden that we should have rightfully suffered. Jesus died to pay the price for sin so that we wouldn't have to.

As a result, we are free of the penalty and burden of sin if we put our trust in Him. When Christ died, we died to sin, and as He rose again, we found new life in Him. That's why Christians use the term "born again". We live our lives seeking after God's righteousness first and putting the former sin we had in our life to death. This is a central theme throughout the New Testament.

That is a shocking mournful way to go about things,don't you think ?.I go to Lough Derg in some years and many people will tell you that the price for a little discomfort is a great satisfaction you can't get anywhere else,the lives of the great saints and creative people who would hardly be considered Christians are full of the same sense on a larger stage and a different level.

Some Christians seem content to leave Christ nailed to the cross when Christianity ends in the garden and a fountain of inspiration -

Dic nobis Maria,
quid vidisti in via?

philologos

gkell3 wrote: »

That is a shocking mournful way to go about things,don't you think ?.I go to Lough Derg in some years and many people will tell you that the price for a little discomfort is a great satisfaction you can't get anywhere else,the lives of the great saints and creative people who would hardly be considered Christians are full of the same sense on a larger stage and a different level.

Some Christians seem content to leave Christ nailed to the cross when Christianity ends in the garden and a fountain of inspiration -

Dic nobis Maria,
quid vidisti in via?

Not really. Jesus paid the price of sin, so that we can have new life in Him and a new relationship with the Father who created us. That's great news as far as I'm concerned, and I'm thankful for that. That thankfulness leads me to serve God in every way that I can.

PDN

gkell3 wrote: »

That is a shocking mournful way to go about things,don't you think ?.I go to Lough Derg in some years and many people will tell you that the price for a little discomfort is a great satisfaction you can't get anywhere else,the lives of the great saints and creative people who would hardly be considered Christians are full of the same sense on a larger stage and a different level.

Some Christians seem content to leave Christ nailed to the cross when Christianity ends in the garden and a fountain of inspiration -

Dic nobis Maria,
quid vidisti in via?

Yes, shocking mournful. That's why we are derisively referred to as being "happy clappy". :rolleyes:

How on earth can it be 'shocking mournful' to believe that you are a new creation in Christ and that now you can live a joyful life of purpose and meaning through the power of the Holy Spirit?

Pwpane

philologos wrote: »

By the by, this is the Christianity forum, so not all of us are Roman Catholics.

In so far as Jesus died in our place on the cross I suspect. He took away the burden that we should have rightfully suffered. Jesus died to pay the price for sin so that we wouldn't have to.

As a result, we are free of the penalty and burden of sin if we put our trust in Him. When Christ died, we died to sin, and as He rose again, we found new life in Him. That's why Christians use the term "born again". We live our lives seeking after God's righteousness first and putting the former sin we had in our life to death. This is a central theme throughout the New Testament.

I do know this isn't a Catholic only forum, but I'd welcome answers from any faith that doesn't seem full of contradictions.

What is the burden that we should have rightly suffered - separation from God or some other penalty? I assume this penalty is experienced only after death, a little like 'look, this is God, and you cannot partake'.

If Christians put their former sin to death and live new lives, do they not sin any more? To me, that's not possible so I have a problem with the concept. Surely, if a believer is not strong enough and sins again they will still experience this burden so what difference has it made really? Or would the penalty have been much greater if Jesus didn't die on the cross?

If people live a good life but don't believe in Jesus do they still suffer this penalty and burden? And if someone has not heard of Jesus but lives a good life, do they also suffer this penalty? As that seems inherently unjust, and living life as a Christian is difficult, would it not be better if they didn't hear about Christ? I can't accept the answer that 'we leave that to God's judgement' - either faith in Jesus makes a difference or it doesn't.

I know there are some who proclaim, as the Catholic Church once did, that all who do not both know and have faith in Jesus are condemned. Jesus said that the only way to the Father was through him but did not say, I think, that it had to be knowingly.

I just can't get my head around what the sacrifice of his death was about, how it makes sense. Unless, it wasn't a sacrifice at all but just an inevitable result of his teachings, and that the central reason for his coming was his teaching. Maybe the prime purpose of any death was his resurrection, to prove his divinity, and that particular death was public and certain.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The discussion, in case you missed it, was whether there are discrepancies and contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the resurrection. By that we mean the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - not some make believe Gospel of Robin.

The resurrection as described by the Bible.

Very early on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna and "others" decided to take spices to anoint the body of Jesus.

When they arrived they saw the guards appeared like dead men and on the stone sat an angel who said that Jesus was risen and gone ahead to Galilee. [Matt 28]

They entered the tomb and saw a man dressed in white sitting on the right hand side of the tomb. He again told them that Jesus had risen and that they should go tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee.[Mark 16]

Despite having met an angel sitting on the stone to the tomb, and a man dressed in white sitting in the tomb as they entered, the women wondered why they had not found the body of Jesus in the tomb. As they wondered this 2 men dressed in white appeared before them. As the women bowed down before them the men explained yet again that Jesus had risen. [Luke 24]

Finally after all this they ran back, afraid but full of joy [Matt 28:8] to the disciples. On the way to tell the disciples they met the risen Jesus [Matt 28:9] who told them to go tell the disciples to meet him Galilee.

The women arrived at the disciples. For some reason Mary Mag. told them first that "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!" [John 20]. Which is a bit odd considering the 4 people see meet in the tomb and Jesus himself informing her of his resurrection and instructions for the disciples.

Mary Mag and the other women then proceed to recount the miraculous events they experienced in the tomb [Luke 24:10]. The disciples don't believe them [Luke 24:11] and frankly who can blame them given that Mary Mag just said someone stole Jesus and they don't know where they took him and then proceeded to tell them that they had met angels and Jesus has risen.

Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb [John 20:3]. The other disciple stayed outside and Peter entered seeing the linen. The other disciple entered then and believed. They then left.

Mary Mag was standing outside the tomb crying [John 20:11], possibly because she had forgotten all the stuff that had already happened, including already meeting Jesus and being told he has risen and recounting all this to the disciples which was the initial reason Peter ran to the tomb in the first place.

As she cried she saw two angels in the tomb where Jesus had been. [John 20:12]. They asked her why she was crying and she said it was because they have taken Jesus away and they don't know where he is. Again odd considered she already met angels telling her he had risen and had met Jesus himself running back to the disciples.

She then turned around to see Jesus himself. Initially she didn't recognize him (must have forgot what he looked like since meeting him only moments before on her way to Peter). Then she recognized him (ah memory). He told her to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. Jesus obviously feared that Mary Mag had already forgotten the message from the few moments ago when he already told her [Matt 28:9]

Mary Mag. left the tomb and again ran to the disciples to tell them that she had seen their lord, which must have been some what confusing since she had just done that a few moments ago.

Clearly the story is nonsense if you compile all 4 accounts together. It involves people acting very strangely, forgetting what they have already been told, forgetting what they have seen and in general acting nonsensically.

The honest reality is that John describes Mary Mag finding an empty tomb and believing Jesus has been stolen, informing the disciples of this and only coming to believe Jesus has risen after Peter has investigated the tomb. She then meets the angels and Jesus and realizes what has happened. John deals exclusively with Mary Mag.

Mark, Matthew Luke tell a rather different story, the women including Mary Mag find the empty tomb and meet the angels then and there. They then meet Jesus on the way to tell the disciples who do not believe their story when they explain it to them.

They are two different and contradictory accounts of supposably the same event. The most common way of squaring the round hold that is Mary Mag. account with the others is to claim that she must have left the women just before they entered the tomb. But there is zero support for this in the text, it makes no sense in the context of the narrative (eg Matt 28 describes only Mary and Mary and then continues to refer to "the women").

And isn't inventing details that are not present in the story in order to fit a particular interpretation something only us heathen atheists are supposed to do. :P

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

The resurrection as described by the Bible.

Very early on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna and "others" decided to take spices to anoint the body of Jesus.

When they arrived they saw the guards appeared like dead men and on the stone sat an angel who said that Jesus was risen and gone ahead to Galilee. [Matt 28]

They entered the tomb and saw a man dressed in white sitting on the right hand side of the tomb. He again told them that Jesus had risen and that they should go tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee.[Mark 16]

Despite having met an angel sitting on the stone to the tomb, and a man dressed in white sitting in the tomb as they entered, the women wondered why they had not found the body of Jesus in the tomb. As they wondered this 2 men dressed in white appeared before them. As the women bowed down before them the men explained yet again that Jesus had risen. [Luke 24]

Finally after all this they ran back, afraid but full of joy [Matt 28:8] to the disciples. On the way to tell the disciples they met the risen Jesus [Matt 28:9] who told them to go tell the disciples to meet him Galilee.

The women arrived at the disciples. For some reason Mary Mag. told them first that "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!" [John 20]. Which is a bit odd considering the 4 people see meet in the tomb and Jesus himself informing her of his resurrection and instructions for the disciples.

Mary Mag and the other women then proceed to recount the miraculous events they experienced in the tomb [Luke 24:10]. The disciples don't believe them [Luke 24:11] and frankly who can blame them given that Mary Mag just said someone stole Jesus and they don't know where they took him and then proceeded to tell them that they had met angels and Jesus has risen.

Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb [John 20:3]. The other disciple stayed outside and Peter entered seeing the linen. The other disciple entered then and believed. They then left.

Mary Mag was standing outside the tomb crying [John 20:11], possibly because she had forgotten all the stuff that had already happened, including already meeting Jesus and being told he has risen and recounting all this to the disciples which was the initial reason Peter ran to the tomb in the first place.

As she cried she saw two angels in the tomb where Jesus had been. [John 20:12]. They asked her why she was crying and she said it was because they have taken Jesus away and they don't know where he is. Again odd considered she already met angels telling her he had risen and had met Jesus himself running back to the disciples.

She then turned around to see Jesus himself. Initially she didn't recognize him (must have forgot what he looked like since meeting him only moments before on her way to Peter). Then she recognized him (ah memory). He told her to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. Jesus obviously feared that Mary Mag had already forgotten the message from the few moments ago when he already told her [Matt 28:9]

Mary Mag. left the tomb and again ran to the disciples to tell them that she had seen their lord, which must have been some what confusing since she had just done that a few moments ago.

Clearly the story is nonsense if you compile all 4 accounts together. It involves people acting very strangely, forgetting what they have already been told, forgetting what they have seen and in general acting nonsensically.

The honest reality is that John describes Mary Mag finding an empty tomb and believing Jesus has been stolen, informing the disciples of this and only coming to believe Jesus has risen after Peter has investigated the tomb. She then meets the angels and Jesus and realizes what has happened. John deals exclusively with Mary Mag.

Mark, Matthew Luke tell a rather different story, the women including Mary Mag find the empty tomb and meet the angels then and there. They then meet Jesus on the way to tell the disciples who do not believe their story when they explain it to them.

They are two different and contradictory accounts of supposably the same event. The most common way of squaring the round hold that is Mary Mag. account with the others is to claim that she must have left the women just before they entered the tomb. But there is zero support for this in the text, it makes no sense in the context of the narrative (eg Matt 28 describes only Mary and Mary and then continues to refer to "the women").

And isn't inventing details that are not present in the story in order to fit a particular interpretation something only us heathen atheists are supposed to do. :P

The biblical accounts, when put together, are exactly what you would expect from eye-witness accounts of something so epochal. People who don't stick together in neat groups acting in unison but keep running two and fro. People so amazed at what had happened that they doubt the evidence of their own eyes and keep wondering if this really can be true. People so excited and worked up so they don't immediately recognise someone in Middle-Eastern garb and head-dress. People almost hysterical after riding an emotional roller coaster over the last few days, so they need to have instructions repeated to them several times.

The whole thing has exactly the kind of chaos and confusion that gives it the ring of truth.

I find it funny that atheists seem to criticise it because it is not all neat and scripted - in other words because it doesn't have the characteristics of something invented.

But I'm still waiting for anyone to point out a contradiction or a discrepancy. Not something they themselves have made up and added to the text. hoping we won't notice what they're doing - but a contradiction or a discrepancy in the biblical texts themselves.

And, given the quality of debate so far, it's pretty clear that they know they can't point to any single contradiction. So I expect that there will be further abuse and obfuscation - but no-one is going to point to a single contradiction.

Let the wait begin!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The biblical accounts, when put together, are exactly what you would expect from eye-witness accounts of something so epochal.

No they are not, as I explained. There are fundamentally two different stories being told. One involves Mary Mag believing the body is stolen, informing the disciples of this and having them rush to examine the crime and then Mary Mag meeting angels and Jesus after this.

The other story is of the women finding the angels in the tomb, finding Jesus on the way back to the disciples and then having their accounts dismissed by the disciples.

Again they are two fundamentally different stories.

PDN wrote: »

People who don't stick together in neat groups acting in unison but keep running two and fro.

They certainly don't. And if the Bible described people acting this way it would certainly be plausible. But that isn't what the Bible describes. It describes two distinct series of events, placing them in an order which makes the mutually exclusive. Or to put it another way, they could not both have happened, not without some bizarre behavior on the part of the participants (for example it is possible but rather unlikely that Peter was told twice about the tomb, once that the body was stolen and once that Jesus had risen and ran down twice to see the linen, but that makes the story simply nonsense).

PDN wrote: »

I find it funny that atheists seem to criticise it because it is not all neat and scripted

Atheists criticize it because it is telling two contradictory stories, one involving the belief that the body had been stolen and the other involving the appearance of angels informing the women of the resurrection. I think anyone prepared to look at it honestly would do the same.

PDN wrote: »

But I'm still waiting for anyone to point out a contradiction or a discrepancy. Not something they themselves have made up and added to the text. hoping we won't notice what they're doing - but a contradiction or a discrepancy in the biblical texts themselves.

What did Mary Mag tell Peter about the tomb that caused him to run down to the tomb?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:2&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024:10-12&version=NIV

gkell3

PDN wrote: »

Yes, shocking mournful. That's why we are derisively referred to as being "happy clappy". :rolleyes:

How on earth can it be 'shocking mournful' to believe that you are a new creation in Christ and that now you can live a joyful life of purpose and meaning through the power of the Holy Spirit?

Joyful indeed,a few posts ago you were wishing the end of the Catholic Church and were flooding my e-mail with infractions or whatever you call them.

The best preacher in the world is humiliation and that is why the Christian life is so different to many of the other inspirational beliefs that came before and after.The humiliation of the Irish Church is not an end in itself but a shift in emphasis to a more balanced form of Christianity and so it is with all Christians who live the creative and inspirational life -

"'And now hear the conclusion, Brother Leo. Above all the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ gives to His friends is that of conquering oneself and willingly enduring sufferings, insults, humiliations, and hardships for the love of Christ. For we cannot glory in all those other marvelous gifts of God, as they are not ours but God's, as the Apostle says: 'What have you that you have not received?' But we can glory in the cross of tribulations and afflictions, because that is ours, and so the Apostle says: 'I will not glory save in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ.'"

http://feastofsaints.com/perfectjoy.htm

All this stuff about 'sins',who listens to it anyway?,the real sin is not finding your God given talents and using them insofar as inspiration breeds inspiration and this is how I came to Christianity beyond my childhood instruction.The people who were most Christian talked about Christ the least and just seemed to act in a way that was Christian through social acts or new discoveries or great works of art and music,at least those who acted individually outside the community of the Church.

PDN

gkell3 wrote: »

Joyful indeed,a few posts ago you were wishing the end of the Catholic Church

That is a falsehood. I stated that I would like to see a decrease in the RC Church's numerical and cultural influence over Irish society. Something I am quite happy to discuss in a relevant thread if you wish.

However, I fail to see how that is incompatible with living a joyful life.

Fanny Cradock

Pwpane wrote: »

Thanks, Fanny Cradock, I like the way you put things. You've clarified a few things for me in a way I've never thought.

No problem. If you actually want to know more about any of this then I would encourage you to read The Cross of Christ by John Stott and Suprised by Hope by Tom Wright for starters. The former deals mostly with what the cross meant and the latter how it impacts all of creation. Anything I say below is a pale echo of what these men have said. Hopefully I am representing their views accurately.

Pwpane wrote: »

Can you explain a bit more on the suffering you believe Jesus went through on the cross, besides bodily suffering - suffering due to feeling forsaken by God?

The simple answer is, "no, I can't explain". Ultimately I have no idea what actually happened on the cross other than it apparently had consequences for all of creation. Yes, I can dimly imagine the physical horror of crucifixion - what it meant have nails driven into your wrists and to hang there until you die - because I am, like every single being alive, all too familiar with physical suffering. But I can't imagine what the rest entailed. However, much of what you have asked me is covered by John Stott in the book mentioned above. Chapter 3 Looking below the surface (pp 75 in my version) is probably especially pertinent (be it directly or indirectly) to your questions. You can read it on Google books here. I think that this very challenging piece of art currently installed in Southwark Cathedral helps in some way to appreciate the crucifixion in ways that words don't allow.

Just to add, bonniebede makes a very valid argument with regards to Psalm 22 and Jesus being forsaken. It is a point well made and a point taken.

Pwpane wrote: »

What you say next has puzzled me for quite a long time. How exactly has what Jesus went through on the cross changed our lives, apart from the formation of the Church? I don't understand what the changes are and cannot see the presence of any changes unless they're not visible ones.

This is where Tom Wright comes in.

Many Christians today if asked will talk of "life after death" which is shorthand for saying "when we die I believe that we go to heaven (or the other place :eek:)". And this belief might be accompanied by some image of disembodied spirits floating around on clouds watching angels with wings playing harps. This is probably a concept you are familiar with. However, this is not an idea that the earliest Christians would have recognised.

Wright talks about the Jewish and early Christian belief in bodily resurrection (as opposed to a soul or spirit) and how this belief, at lest with respect to Christianity, began to be corrupted over time by conflicting ideas. For example, the platonic idea that the physical body and even the physical world was something terrible and therefore something to be left behind. (The Allegory of the Cave was used by Plato to emphasise this duality between the life we now have and the spiritual life to come.) The early Christians had other ideas. They believed that while creation was corrupted by sin, it would be ultimately be made anew by God because it was essentially good. And while they acknowledged that mankind was much in love with sinning, they also acknowledged that each and every person was made in the image of God and had intrinsic worth. And the most important piece of this rather strange puzzle was that the renewal of creation was accomplished by Jesus on the cross. There he overthrew sin and death, though not yet once and for all.

That might all seem rather confusing. But thankfully Wright says much more about all of this in his book I mentioned above. You can read excerpts of it here. Alternatively you can listen to some of many interviews (example) he gave on this book and it's challenging ideas by looking through this page and looking up "new creation" or "Surprised by Hope".

Pwpane wrote: »

This may be a dreadful question to a believer, but what exact difference did it make to humanity that Jesus died on a cross?

All the difference in the world. It means that God has done something about all the death and sin and suffering and we look forward with hope until the time that all things are made anew. Wright talks more about this in the above links.

gkell3

PDN wrote: »

That is a falsehood. I stated that I would like to see a decrease in the RC Church's numerical and cultural influence over Irish society. Something I am quite happy to discuss in a relevant thread if you wish.

However, I fail to see how that is incompatible with living a joyful life.

Funny,funny,funny !,I am sorry if this sounds disrespectful but who can argue with your happiness,maybe I should jump off a cliff and increase your joy even more by decreasing the Catholic population.

The Catholic Church does have a lot to answer for and especially its abandonment of its astronomical heritage,a lot of damage was done around that period in the early 17th century which has set the stage for this current fuss of what many see as science vs religion of the enlightened mind vs superstition.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

No they are not, as I explained. There are fundamentally two different stories being told. One involves Mary Mag believing the body is stolen, informing the disciples of this and having them rush to examine the crime and then Mary Mag meeting angels and Jesus after this.

They concentrate on two different aspects of what happened - which is perfectly plausible given that the different Gospel writers wrote for different audiences and for different purposes.

Atheists criticize it because it is telling two contradictory stories, one involving the belief that the body had been stolen and the other involving the appearance of angels informing the women of the resurrection. I think anyone prepared to look at it honestly would do the same.

Hmm, I was right about the further abuse, wasn't I?

You can't point to a contradiction, so instead you state that anyone who doesn't share your view is dishonest. A leopard doesn't change it's spots, does it?

What did Mary Mag tell Peter about the tomb that caused him to run down to the tomb?

Along with the other women she told the eleven apostles (and some other unnamed disciples) about the angels and Jesus being raised from the dead.

The apostles didn't believe them, which would presumably have shaken Mary's confidence in what she had just seen and experienced. After all, women had a subservient place in society and these were the apostles - those hand picked by Jesus to lead the Church.

It would be entirely understandable, then, if Mary had gone back to Peter and another prominent disciple and said something along the lines of, "OK, maybe I am imagining things - but in that case someone must have stolen his body, because that tomb is definitely empty. Go and see for yourself if you don't believe us."

Still waiting for that contradiction btw.

tunedout

ISAW wrote: »

Only begotten in the sense that a second Christ/God the son didn't exist.


Yes but we are not all God.


Eh no. The idea is the son is god and is there since the beginning. god the father didn't make the son. they are both aspects of the same single God.



No. try Leibniz on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Free_will


If you knew you were about to be slowly tortured to death rather then dies naturally would you consider that you might prefer the latter?

It embarrasses me to think I once thought like this.

This is some of the most childish stuff I ever heard.

They even have 'logical' Wikipedia articles now to try and back some of this crazy stuff up. There is nothing logical about this. These kind of explanations like above make Scientology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster look much more educated and appealing.

tunedout

tunedout wrote: »

It embarrasses me to think I once thought like this.

This is some of the most childish stuff I ever heard.

They even have 'logical' Wikipedia articles now to try and back some of this crazy stuff up. There is nothing logical about this. These kind of explanations like above make Scientology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster look much more educated and appealing.

I don't mean this as saying that guys post was childish. I know he gets these views from his religion. I'm saying the source is childish, not the post.

philologos

Pwpane wrote: »

I do know this isn't a Catholic only forum, but I'd welcome answers from any faith that doesn't seem full of contradictions.

Let me walk through my post with you. There's no contradiction in what I have posted from what I can tell.

Pwpane wrote: »

What is the burden that we should have rightly suffered - separation from God or some other penalty? I assume this penalty is experienced only after death, a little like 'look, this is God, and you cannot partake'.

Death and condemnation. As for the exact nature of this condemnation we don't have a whole lot of detail. Having said that, I would not want anyone to experience it, or to be separated from God. Rather I long for people to know Him, and live and speak for Him in daily life. Hell, will be horrible, that's why I want nobody to go there.

Pwpane wrote: »

If Christians put their former sin to death and live new lives, do they not sin any more? To me, that's not possible so I have a problem with the concept. Surely, if a believer is not strong enough and sins again they will still experience this burden so what difference has it made really? Or would the penalty have been much greater if Jesus didn't die on the cross?

You're right in saying that it is not immediate. The Bible says that it is through Jesus being living and active in our lives that we grow in sanctification. It starts here, but it won't be complete until Jesus returns:

Philippians 1:6 wrote:

And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2:20-21 wrote:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

It is about no longer living for onesself, but about living for Jesus. This is why Jesus says the following in Mark's Gospel:

Mark 8:34-38 wrote:

And calling the crowd to Him with His disciples, He said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Whoever decides to live and speak for Jesus, will have to make sacrifices now. They will have to live for Jesus rather than living selfishly for themselves in this world. This can be costly, there are Christians who will literally lose their lives, there are others who will experience other persecutions depending on where they are in the world.

I hope you don't mind the quotation, but it is better that you understand this from the Bible rather than from my mouth or keyboard in this case

Pwpane wrote: »

If people live a good life but don't believe in Jesus do they still suffer this penalty and burden? And if someone has not heard of Jesus but lives a good life, do they also suffer this penalty? As that seems inherently unjust, and living life as a Christian is difficult, would it not be better if they didn't hear about Christ? I can't accept the answer that 'we leave that to God's judgement' - either faith in Jesus makes a difference or it doesn't.

What is a good life? - All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). I.E - All are sinners, and all deserve God's condemnation. That's why Jesus died on the cross - to pay the penalty for this sin. If one doesn't accept Jesus mercy, one won't receive it and indeed will be condemned. That's why Christians long for those who reject this truth to come to Him and believe in Him.

Faith in Jesus, does make a difference. It is only through Jesus that we can know God and be saved from an eternity in hell - separation from God for all eternity (John 14:6). I.E - This is a really serious thing to consider.

Pwpane wrote: »

I know there are some who proclaim, as the Catholic Church once did, that all who do not both know and have faith in Jesus are condemned. Jesus said that the only way to the Father was through him but did not say, I think, that it had to be knowingly.

How else would one come through Him. I suggest that you read through John's Gospel, it will really help answer some of your questions. I am here if you want to send me a PM and discuss this further. In John's Gospel and indeed in the other Gospels also it is clear that Jesus says that one comes to Him by believing in His name. John at the end of his Gospel very clearly writes his intention:

John 20:30-31 wrote:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.

Pwpane wrote: »

I just can't get my head around what the sacrifice of his death was about, how it makes sense. Unless, it wasn't a sacrifice at all but just an inevitable result of his teachings, and that the central reason for his coming was his teaching. Maybe the prime purpose of any death was his resurrection, to prove his divinity, and that particular death was public and certain.

If you understand the concept of sin. It isn't all that difficult to understand that Jesus being blameless could take the penalty away from us by standing in our place, and taking the punishment that we deserve.

The primary purpose of His death is made clear in the Bible. Jesus was a ransom for the sin of mankind:

Mark 10:45 wrote:

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

1 Peter 3:18 wrote:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

John 3:16-17 wrote:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him.

That's the very reason why God sent Jesus into the world. I would encourage you to read about Him more in the Bible, and to give God a chance. It is the most important decision any person has to make.

gimmebroadband

gkell3 wrote: »

Funny,funny,funny !,I am sorry if this sounds disrespectful but who can argue with your happiness,maybe I should jump off a cliff and increase your joy even more by decreasing the Catholic population.

The Catholic Church does have a lot to answer for and especially its abandonment of its astronomical heritage, a lot of damage was done around that period in the early 17th century which has set the stage for this current fuss of what many see as science vs religion of the enlightened mind vs superstition.

I absolutely 100% agree with you gkell3!

Fanny Cradock

tunedout wrote: »

I don't mean this as saying that guys post was childish. I know he gets these views from his religion. I'm saying the source is childish, not the post.

You think Leibniz is childish?

Pwpane

philologos wrote: »

Let me walk through my post with you. There's no contradiction in what I have posted from what I can tell.



Death and condemnation. As for the exact nature of this condemnation we don't have a whole lot of detail. Having said that, I would not want anyone to experience it, or to be separated from God. Rather I long for people to know Him, and live and speak for Him in daily life. Hell, will be horrible, that's why I want nobody to go there.



You're right in saying that it is not immediate. The Bible says that it is through Jesus being living and active in our lives that we grow in sanctification. It starts here, but it won't be complete until Jesus returns:



It is about no longer living for onesself, but about living for Jesus. This is why Jesus says the following in Mark's Gospel:


Whoever decides to live and speak for Jesus, will have to make sacrifices now. They will have to live for Jesus rather than living selfishly for themselves in this world. This can be costly, there are Christians who will literally lose their lives, there are others who will experience other persecutions depending on where they are in the world.

I hope you don't mind the quotation, but it is better that you understand this from the Bible rather than from my mouth or keyboard in this case



What is a good life? - All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). I.E - All are sinners, and all deserve God's condemnation. That's why Jesus died on the cross - to pay the penalty for this sin. If one doesn't accept Jesus mercy, one won't receive it and indeed will be condemned. That's why Christians long for those who reject this truth to come to Him and believe in Him.

Faith in Jesus, does make a difference. It is only through Jesus that we can know God and be saved from an eternity in hell - separation from God for all eternity (John 14:6). I.E - This is a really serious thing to consider.



How else would one come through Him. I suggest that you read through John's Gospel, it will really help answer some of your questions. I am here if you want to send me a PM and discuss this further. In John's Gospel and indeed in the other Gospels also it is clear that Jesus says that one comes to Him by believing in His name. John at the end of his Gospel very clearly writes his intention:




If you understand the concept of sin. It isn't all that difficult to understand that Jesus being blameless could take the penalty away from us by standing in our place, and taking the punishment that we deserve.

The primary purpose of His death is made clear in the Bible. Jesus was a ransom for the sin of mankind:




That's the very reason why God sent Jesus into the world. I would encourage you to read about Him more in the Bible, and to give God a chance. It is the most important decision any person has to make.

I didn't mean that there were contradictions in your post, only in my thinking as in trying to reconcile what appear to be contradictions.

Do I understand you correctly then:

One can only be saved by believing and accepting Jesus, living a new life in him.

Those who have never heard of Jesus or who do not accept him will die and be condemned no matter how they live in this life.

Believers will also die but not be condemned as Jesus has paid the price for their sins. They will know God.

The bible quotations seem to mean that non-believers will die but not have eternal life. What then is the condemnation and how can it be experienced if there is no eternal life?

It all seems theoretical, a way of living based on the supposition that ordinary people deserve automatic death and condemnation. And that no advantage or disadvantage will be experienced until after death.

Why do you believe that ordinary people deserve automatic death and condemnation?

If they don't, surely the reasoning that Jesus' death was a sacrifice is incorrect?

Pwpane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Many Christians today if asked will talk of "life after death" which is shorthand for saying "when we die I believe that we go to heaven (or the other place :eek:)". And this belief might be accompanied by some image of disembodied spirits floating around on clouds watching angels with wings playing harps. This is probably a concept you are familiar with. However, this is not an idea that the earliest Christians would have recognised.

Wright talks about the Jewish and early Christian belief in bodily resurrection (as opposed to a soul or spirit).... They believed that while creation was corrupted by sin, it would be ultimately be made anew by God because it was essentially good. And while they acknowledged that mankind was much in love with sinning, they also acknowledged that each and every person was made in the image of God and had intrinsic worth. And the most important piece of this rather strange puzzle was that the renewal of creation was accomplished by Jesus on the cross. There he overthrew sin and death, though not yet once and for all........

All the difference in the world. It means that God has done something about all the death and sin and suffering and we look forward with hope until the time that all things are made anew. Wright talks more about this in the above links.

Thanks for the links. The psalm made sense and helped but Wright's book is too involved for me, I'm afraid - I'd want to be a lot further down the road.

I do find it hard to accept a renewal of creation or any impact on creation as there seems to be no sign of it. Ditto that sin and death are overthrown - no sign either. Is that not where the belief in the after life came from, to reconcile the theory with the perceived reality? As I remember hearing somewhere, belief in the after life wasn't standard in Judaism. Perhaps I'm wrong.

You say with confidence that God has done something about all the death and sin and suffering but it appears to those living that there is no difference. Didn't that cause some confusion for the early Church and cause some revision of what was believed?

I do know that there's a long tradition behind it all but it seems a little that the difference made by Jesus' death on the cross is only in the mind of those thinking that there must be a reason...

philologos

Let me see:

Pwpane wrote: »

One can only be saved by believing and accepting Jesus, living a new life in him.

Yes.

Pwpane wrote: »

Those who have never heard of Jesus or who do not accept him will die and be condemned no matter how they live in this life.

The Bible doesn't say much about those who have never heard Him other than to say that it is the responsibility of Christians to tell them. It does clearly refer to rejection of the Gospel.

Pwpane wrote: »

Believers will also die but not be condemned as Jesus has paid the price for their sins. They will know God.

Yes, we all die, and then there's judgement:

Hebrews 9:27-28 wrote:

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Pwpane wrote: »

The bible quotations seem to mean that non-believers will die but not have eternal life. What then is the condemnation and how can it be experienced if there is no eternal life?

Jesus specifically speaks about hell in a number of passages. One of Jesus' starkest portrayals of it is in Luke 16:19-31. He also mentions it in a number of places throughout the Gospels. If you read through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John it would give you the answers to most of the questions you are asking.

Pwpane wrote: »

It all seems theoretical, a way of living based on the supposition that ordinary people deserve automatic death and condemnation. And that no advantage or disadvantage will be experienced until after death.

God having created the world gave us standards for our own good rather than our detriment. Mankind rebelled against God and broke them. God having authority over the universe has the authority to punish those who sin against Him.

If one breaks God's standards, one deserves to be punished. It's not all that complex. Thankfully, God in His mercy sent Jesus to die in our place on the cross so that we can have new life through Him, and as a result restore our broken relationship with God.

Pwpane wrote: »

Why do you believe that ordinary people deserve automatic death and condemnation?

We've sinned against God, and as a result we rightfully deserve to be punished.

Pwpane wrote: »

If they don't, surely the reasoning that Jesus' death was a sacrifice is incorrect?

If we weren't guilty of sin, there would have been no need for Jesus to die on the cross. Since we have all fallen short of God's glory, we need Jesus to stand in our place and pay the full price for our sin on our behalf. It is only by God's free gift of grace, that we can be forgiven.

tommy2bad

Pwpane wrote: »

I didn't mean that there were contradictions in your post, only in my thinking as in trying to reconcile what appear to be contradictions.

Do I understand you correctly then:

One can only be saved by believing and accepting Jesus, living a new life in him.
We can only be saved by Christ, what part beliefe plays isnt determined by us but by Jesus.
Those who have never heard of Jesus or who do not accept him will die and be condemned no matter how they live in this life.
Duno, Dosn't say anywhare in scripture what will happen them.
Believers will also die but not be condemned as Jesus has paid the price for their sins. They will know God.
He paid the price for all sins, not just the sins of believers.
The bible quotations seem to mean that non-believers will die but not have eternal life. What then is the condemnation and how can it be experienced if there is no eternal life?

It all seems theoretical, a way of living based on the supposition that ordinary people deserve automatic death and condemnation. And that no advantage or disadvantage will be experienced until after death.

Why do you believe that ordinary people deserve automatic death and condemnation?
They don't, God didnt make us for hell
If they don't, surely the reasoning that Jesus' death was a sacrifice is incorrect?
Not incorrect but not the whole truth either.

philologos has given you the hard-line protestant view which isn't the only to understand the atonement. Nor is it a wrong way. It must be seen as one facet of a diamond only.

philologos

tommy2bad: How is quoting what is Biblical a "hard-line Protestant" view? Just curious. I feel we may need to start up a thread about the nature of what actually happened as Jesus went to the cross, and what actually happened as He rose again, and about the consequence that has for mankind as it is the centre of the Gospel.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

tommy2bad: How is quoting what is Biblical a "hard-line Protestant" view? Just curious. I feel we may need to start up a thread about the nature of what actually happened as Jesus went to the cross, and what actually happened as He rose again, and about the consequence that has for mankind as it is the centre of the Gospel.

I hope you see the irony in that bit
An atonement thread? really? I would say start with what the incarnation means and then what Jesus ministry told us. We can try to define the central act of God in the affairs of mankind then.
I wasn't saying that you were wrong, just saying that it's not the only way nor is it a complete picture of how salvation works and for whom.Never mind how it's understood by various sides of the faith. Emphasis more than disagreement tbh but differing nonetheless.

Pwpane

philologos wrote: »

The Bible doesn't say much about those who have never heard Him other than to say that it is the responsibility of Christians to tell them. It does clearly refer to rejection of the Gospel.

If we can only be saved by believing and accepting Jesus then it's clear that those who haven't heard of him due to age, location or intellectual ability will not be saved. I wonder why they were born?

God having created the world gave us standards for our own good rather than our detriment. Mankind rebelled against God and broke them. God having authority over the universe has the authority to punish those who sin against Him.

If one breaks God's standards, one deserves to be punished. It's not all that complex. Thankfully, God in His mercy sent Jesus to die in our place on the cross so that we can have new life through Him, and as a result restore our broken relationship with God.

I find this very difficult. Everyone who lives is a sinner and deserves to be punished. So God's standards have to be unrealistic and he set us up for failure and hell?? From the beginning he set it up so that his Son had to be crucified to redeem us from our inevitable sin??

Since we have all fallen short of God's glory, we need Jesus to stand in our place and pay the full price for our sin on our behalf. It is only by God's free gift of grace, that we can be forgiven.

We can only be forgiven from outside of ourselves for falling short of standards that cannot be followed by living humans?

You present a picture of a joker God. He sounds like a horrible person. How do you find him attractive to you?

This is what I mean by contradictions. If I follow what I know of Christian arguments, then God cannot possibly be loving or good.

What am I missing?

philologos

The thing is, there isn't any contradiction in that position. Not liking something is not the same as a) it being a contradiction, or b) it not being true.

Simply put, God's standards are there, for our benefit. They are there so that we can live in His creation. We've fallen short of them, that isn't God's fault, that is our fault in disobeying Him. God was simply advocating what was good. We selfishly chose to do what was evil. Yet you're saying that just because we chose to do evil as a collective, that God should change what is good?

A horrible God, wouldn't give us another chance (and indeed rejoice as we arrive into His Kingdom - Luke 15), a horrible God wouldn't show His love to us by paying the full price for sin, by taking the punishment we deserved as He was nailed upon that cross. A horrible God wouldn't have allowed Himself to be humiliated - yet by that humiliation He defeated sin and death on our behalf. A horrible God wouldn't say, while we were still disobedient, that Jesus came into the world not only to pay for that sin, but to help and guide us in following Him in our daily lives (Philippians 1:6).

God not only offers forgiveness, but He loves us, and guides us in our daily lives and if we are willing will ensure our place in His Kingdom:

Romans 8:38-39 wrote:

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yet you argue that's horrible. Personally, I find that incredulous.