Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[Subduction Zone]

I'd tell them it is "Someone who".

And intent is central to what is or is not fraud.

Honestly, people in America!!!!

You may not have understood me. The intent to deceive is obvious. What I meant was intent as far as personal gain goes.

 

[Katzpur]

What I was saying was that God supposedly created angels in a spiritual form where they didn't have physical, imperfect bodies like us and they don't have to go through the same test or choice that we have to go through where we have to choose between following a spiritual life or a life that serves the desires of the physical body.

Okay, thanks for clarifying what you were getting at. Not that I'm interested in arguing the point, but here's a brief explanation of the LDS understanding of who angels are:

These are messengers of the Lord and are spoken of in the epistle to the Hebrews as “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14). We learn from latter-day revelation that there are two classes of heavenly beings who minister for the Lord: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Spirits are those beings who either have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone (unembodied) or who have once had a mortal body and have died and are awaiting the Resurrection (disembodied). Ordinarily the word angel means those ministering persons who have a body of flesh and bone, being either resurrected from the dead (reembodied), or else translated, as were Enoch, Elijah, etc. (Source: LDS.org)

It would probably be more information than you're looking for if I were to explain this in much greater depth, but since we (LDS) believe that each of us lived with God as spirit beings before we were born and obtained a physical body. During our pre-mortal existence, we were among those referred to as the angels led by the archangel, Michael in the war waged in Heaven against Satan and his angels. "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven." (Revelation 12:7-8) In other words, we do not believe that angels are of a different species than humans. They are simply in a different state of existence.

 

[whirlingmerc]

It is kind of amusing, vaguely, the way people dress
up their beliefs in all sorts of more or less King James
style obscurantism.

I figure if a person cannot talk straight, they cannot
think straight.

You don't like 'Good News for Ancient Man?"

Ironically the King James was written in the language of the common people
as was the New Testament which was written in street Greek.

I use a variety of translations but prefer ESV and the other 'essentially literal translations and in modern English... but if KJV helps someone fine it has many strengths as well

 

[Thief]

Why not create humans as spiritual beings in the first place

it is said of angels they have no freewill

I don't believe that
God's Favored rebelled
and that position was lost

but if God made you and was then at your shoulder
would you ever do something?.....anything?....
contrary to His will

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's incorrect. There's no claim Jesus was buried. And the earliest mention of the resurrection goes back to only a handful of years after the actual event - way too early for "tall tales" to grow. Here's the information on that:

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Nitpicking. He was probably not put in a tomb. And since most Christians say that he was buried quite often your claim appears to be refuted for even your nitpick.

The Apostles' Creed - Prayers - Catholic Online

Jesus probably was left in the cross and thrown in a common grave. And your claim was not about what most Christians believed, it was about what most scholars believe. Not only were you wrong, you were fractally wrong.

 

[Jos]

Okay, thanks for clarifying what you were getting at. Not that I'm interested in arguing the point, but here's a brief explanation of the LDS understanding of who angels are:

These are messengers of the Lord and are spoken of in the epistle to the Hebrews as “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14). We learn from latter-day revelation that there are two classes of heavenly beings who minister for the Lord: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Spirits are those beings who either have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone (unembodied) or who have once had a mortal body and have died and are awaiting the Resurrection (disembodied). Ordinarily the word angel means those ministering persons who have a body of flesh and bone, being either resurrected from the dead (reembodied), or else translated, as were Enoch, Elijah, etc. (Source: LDS.org)

It would probably be more information than you're looking for if I were to explain this in much greater depth, but since we (LDS) believe that each of us lived with God as spirit beings before we were born and obtained a physical body. During our pre-mortal existence, we were among those referred to as the angels led by the archangel, Michael in the war waged in Heaven against Satan and his angels. "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven." (Revelation 12:7-8) In other words, we do not believe that angels are of a different species than humans. They are simply in a different state of existence.

I get that but now we've run into the problem of varying theologies where Christians and members of other faiths will have different and even contrary views to yours on what angels are and are not, so I guess I'll never be able to know which one of the faiths is right or has the correct view.

 

[Jos]

it is said of angels they have no freewill

I don't believe that
God's Favored rebelled
and that position was lost

but if God made you and was then at your shoulder
would you ever do something?.....anything?....
contrary to His will

Well other people do believe that angels have free will but what do you mean by "God was at my shoulder?" and "would you ever do something?.... anything?" I don't understand... can you please rephrase the question.

 

[shmogie]

It's Moroni, not Maroni; (I assumed the error was not a typo the first time, but I guess not.) But more to the point, nobody has disputed the fact that Joseph Smith borrowed some of the symbolism he observed in Freemasonry to use in the temple endowment ceremony, so what's the point of your even mentioning it? Besides, since you're neither a Mormon nor a Freemason, you are hardly in much of a position to be drawing any conclusions regarding the similarities.

That's nonsense. If you believe in the Trinity (which I'm guessing you do), you cannot also accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Besides, God never said He was done talking. If you want to try to put a gag order on Him, that's your prerogative.

Everything humanity needs for salvation is in the NT, nothing more is needed.

All the alleged prophets that hold sway in established denominations popped up in the 19th century, as effluvia of the s great awakening in America, and to a lesser extent, Britain.

Giants existed during this time, Charles Spurgeon, Billy Sunday and others. The wakening touched most Protestant denominations.

Also, the alleged prophets arose, with their own bizarre tellings of what God said to them. There are always people, or sheeple, who follow these kinds of people.

Of course I can accept the Godhead as taught in the Bible, the trinity if you want. The plurality of God is established in the OT, and greatly enhanced in the NT.

You asked the question about freemasons and your religion, and I answered it. Remember, at the time of Smith, Masons were, rightly or wrongly, viewed with deep suspicion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, luke, they're all liars and charlatans. But how would you know either way, unless you did your own due-diligence?

Are you trying to claim that anyone that disagrees with your mythical beliefs is a liar? That is a huge burden of proof that you are putting in yourself.

 

[Thief]

Well other people do believe that angels have free will but what do you mean by "God was at my shoulder?" and "would you ever do something?.... anything?" I don't understand... can you please rephrase the question.

think of it as...the Borg
of Star Trek fame

you will be assimilated
resistance is futile

have you not considered?
the forbidden fruit trick in the garden.....was a test

we passed

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why focus on the Ark when you can't accurately discuss the historical evidences for Jesus Christ over a thousand years later in history?

Show me one fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels and identify the pertinent scripture #'s and provide your evidence.

If you can't do that you need not bother with other Biblical events.

Luke's nativity fails on several levels.

And apologetics I will be considered a fail on your part. Weak excuses are not a refutation. More to follow.

 

[Riders]

You don't like 'Good News for Ancient Man?"

Ironically the King James was written in the language of the common people
as was the New Testament which was written in street Greek.

I use a variety of translations but prefer ESV and the other 'essentially literal translations and in modern English... but if KJV helps someone fine it has many strengths as well

Actually there is proof to the exact opposite of what you said. My video I have up under Pagan Christ says the people who wrote the first Greek versions were written in a form of greek that only royalty knew and this is why they know Greek leaders, royalty wrote the bible not Paul or anyone else.

 

[Riders]

I have an email with a post that is not showing up on my rf page it does that sometimes. So I will put the post here and react.

I know of no so called contradictions that are not resolvable in the New Testament

I think what you are describing as a bit of 'tough love' with the moneychangers.
View This Thread Unread Watched Threads

There are lots of them like when Jesus said when we pray we pray to the Father, and for some reason Christians pray to Jesus, the bible also says when someone called Jesus good master he asked why do you call me good, there is but one who is good that is God. Then you guys worship Jesus because there are God
mentions of Jesus as God when he said he wasn't God earlier. How about when he was asked how do you become saved he named the 10 commandments, when the guy said Ive done all that what else, Jesus said give all you goods away give to the poor follow me,hes saying your actions save you.

While later on salvation becomes getting baptized and belief in jesus as God...............

How about this contradiction at one point Jesus says not on dot or iota of the old testament law will be changed ..............then he chagnged it to he was the one who fullfilled the law, thus Christians can not even figure out what the true sabbath is...........

 

[Spartan]

Nitpicking. He was probably not put in a tomb. And since most Christians say that he was buried quite often your claim appears to be refuted for even your nitpick.

The Apostles' Creed - Prayers - Catholic Online

This historical accounts say Jesus was entombed, not buried in the ground.

"probably not put in a tomb"? What you have there is a theory, with no historical evidence to back it up.

Jesus probably was left in the cross and thrown in a common grave.

Another unfounded theory / claim with zero evidence to back it up.

And your claim was not about what most Christians believed, it was about what most scholars believe. Not only were you wrong, you were fractally wrong.

Prove it. So far you throw a lot of things against the wall to see what might stick, but none of it has any evidence behind it. Do you ever back up your claims with credible evidence? It helps so people will view your posts with an air of credibility.

 

[InChrist]

Using the biblle as proof of the bible does not work for me.

Fine, but when arguing against the Bible at least you could get the story straight and take the time address what it actually says.

 

[InChrist]

That might be so, but it was the custom to have
a display.

British did it with pirates, hung till they rotted away as a
suggestion to others.

Yes, the British did that, but the Jews are not British. They had strict laws concerning dead bodies and their holy days.

 

[InChrist]

I actually do agree there was a good spiritual purpose in crucifixion on the cross. However I don't believe Jesus is God and did not do it to save the world. But rather he saved the world on a human level in the sense by providing the right spiritual example, laying his life down for his community instead of doing the wrong thing.

Turning the other cheek taking up the cross and laying your life down for others as a spiritual truth is something I can buy into. Iiteraly does not mean even having to die literally for someone else but giving up your own needs and your own time for others is in a sense laying your life down for others.

So the Messiah message is good if you buy into the idea that he was crucified. Other Messiahs were crucified the same way too.But its a good message but theres no proof he is God.

The proof is that there was no dead body remaining in the tomb. If there were the Jewish religious leaders who were against Jesus would have displayed the body for all to see and stopped the disciples from saying He had risen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This historical accounts say Jesus was entombed, not buried in the ground.

"probably not put in a tomb"? What you have there is a theory, with no historical evidence to back it up.






Another unfounded theory / claim with zero evidence to back it up.



Prove it. So far you throw a lot of things against the wall to see what might stick, but none of it has any evidence behind it. Do you ever back up your claims with credible evidence? It helps so people will view your posts with an air of credibility.

No, there are no "historical accounts" that say that. The Gospels are not history. And it is easy to back up the standard for Roman crucifixion are well documented:

Crucifixion - Wikipedia

"Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals."

You on the other hand only have a book of myths that support your beliefs.

As to the common grave that was also the norm. Do you even know what evidence is? You keep claiming that others do not have it when that appears to be your flaw.

https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/

"Everyone wanted a decent burial in the ancient world. It was far more important to people then than it is to people today. A decent burial, for many, was required for a decent afterlife. It honored the body of the one departed. Not to receive a decent burial was disgusting, scandalous, gut-wrenching, debasing, humiliating. And so Romans did not allow crucified victims – especially enemies of the state – to be buried. They left them on the crosses as their bodies rot and the scavengers went on the attack. To allow a decent burial was to cave into the desires precisely of the people who were being mocked and taught a lesson. No decency allowed. The body has to rot, and then we’ll toss it into a grave."

You are making extraordinary claims in regard to the crucifixion. You need extraordinary evidence. All you have is a failed book.

Now that I have shown you to be fractally wrong do you have any excuses for your lack of evidence for your claims? Religious books written more than a generation after the event are not very strong evidence at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The proof is that there was no dead body remaining in the tomb. If there were the Jewish religious leaders who were against Jesus would have displayed the body for all to see and stopped the disciples from saying He had risen.

That is hardly "proof" since that is only a story from the Gospels. There is no outside collaboration of it. It is more likely a myth that grew with the telling.

 

[Riders]

No, there are no "historical accounts" that say that. The Gospels are not history. And it is easy to back up the standard for Roman crucifixion are well documented:

Crucifixion - Wikipedia

"Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals."

You on the other hand only have a book of myths that support your beliefs.

As to the common grave that was also the norm. Do you even know what evidence is? You keep claiming that others do not have it when that appears to be your flaw.

https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/

"Everyone wanted a decent burial in the ancient world. It was far more important to people then than it is to people today. A decent burial, for many, was required for a decent afterlife. It honored the body of the one departed. Not to receive a decent burial was disgusting, scandalous, gut-wrenching, debasing, humiliating. And so Romans did not allow crucified victims – especially enemies of the state – to be buried. They left them on the crosses as their bodies rot and the scavengers went on the attack. To allow a decent burial was to cave into the desires precisely of the people who were being mocked and taught a lesson. No decency allowed. The body has to rot, and then we’ll toss it into a grave."

You are making extraordinary claims in regard to the crucifixion. You need extraordinary evidence. All you have is a failed book.

Now that I have shown you to be fractally wrong do you have any excuses for your lack of evidence for your claims? Religious books written more than a generation after the event are not very strong evidence at all.

Thank you for the smart intelligent reply. I was trying to express something to the same degree, I know tombs were mostly for important people who had money. But I don't express myself as well and didn't have the info you do on it so thanks for putting this up well said!