Resurrection of the dead

[Scuba Pete]

Well JS,

a few of us think he fulfilled his messianic role just fine: he defeated death at his own game.

Energise,

I would seem that you "guess" a lot. The concept of "trinity" is man's way of trying to understand his God. NONE OF US fully understand the scriptures or the words of God. Those who contend that they do are nothing more than arrogant fools who remove all doubt of their foolishness for even the most casual observer. Nothing in the scriptures seem to condemn the view, so let it be!

 

[jewscout]

Well JS,

a few of us think he fulfilled his messianic role just fine: he defeated death at his own game.

well that role is one that was redefined by christianity, defeating death is not part of the jewish concept of messiah. It's just apples and oranges that all, no harm no foul.
He may be your messiah NetDoc

But i still wait for mine:162:

 

[Scuba Pete]

well that role is one that was redefined by christianity, defeating death is not part of the jewish concept of messiah. It's just apples and oranges that all, no harm no foul.
He may be your messiah NetDoc

But i still wait for mine:162:

That's one way to put it... I feel we finally understood what God was telling us from the beginning! May your wait be blessed!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Now, if the dead were raised up while Christ was yet alive, then how can there be another resurrection?

You may want to go to this thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23449

 

[energize]

NetDoc

So you consider me as an arrogant fool?

The concept of "trinity" should be understood by those who promote it, don't you think? Else, the ones promoting it are made to look as if they don't know what they're talking about. Is that your statement, that you don't know what you're talking about?

You said nothing in the scriptures condemn the invention of the trinity. The one God precept of rule would condemn it as stated many times in scripture and so the differences of interpretation should be brought out concerning the trinity; and so "letting it be" as a standing truth is an unfavorable position.

I read the scriptures as men speaking for their god. The "mouth" of God seen in the prophets as they declared "thus saith the Lord". How do you know when they spoke truth or lies?

 

[energize]

Sandy,

There is only one resurrection. However, there is "a second death". "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to comel If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb.6:4-6)

Who were the "dead" raised-up while Christ was yet alive? Separate the 'body of Christ" from the man Jesus and you'll have the answer.

 

[energize]

JS

That's understood; for the Jewish concept of a Messiah was also a false ideology as old testament states no Messsiah beside God. God stands alone. The question is this: Did Jesus declare himself as the Messiah of Jewish expectation, or did Jesus merely declare himself as the Son of God sent to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

I read the story as Jesus the priest debating and discussing "tradition of the fathers" with the Pharisee priests and elders and as concerning the law first established for Israel. Thus, Jesus is seeing reproving and correcting in the law. And in this is seen how he fulfilled the law and also how he "put an end to sin"(transgression). One of his teaching methods was "ye have heard that it hath been said but now I say this to you". In this, Jesus was eliminating heresy in its error, and re-inforcing established law given at Sinai "as it is written" in the law and prophet sayings.

 

[opensoul7]

Two quick ideas here on the resurrection of the dead. Things are not always as they seem , could "the dead are raised up" be a refference to the spiritually dead ? The living dead so to say ? second it is known historically that in the ancient mystery religions (wich were everywhere during Christs life) that one of the steps or stages the initiated went through was a symbolic death and resurrection , much like modern day Christians being "born again". The difference is that in the Mystery religions you actually were laid down(as in a tomb) and went through a actual symbolic death and period of being dead , until you were "raised" from the dead to your new life .Many scholars believe it is this process that Jesus was initiating lazarus in when he resurrected him.In the ancient world there was also a belief that you had two selves a higher and a lower self (this is where the sign Gemini comes from , Castor and Pollux)and that only one of these selves could live at a time.The higher self represents the spiritual self , the self past the material , the self that is focused on living every moment as God would(what today would be reffered to as a "Christ conciousness")the lower self represented the animal nature of humanity , lustfull , selfish , shallow , not concerend with anything other than "getting yours".So the ressurection was symbolic of leaving that lower self behind and being born again into a life devoted to God .The first spiritual crucifixion images come way before the death of Christ to the ancient mystery religons, where they usually show a man with the head of a donkey being crucified (showing the person letting go of there selfish animalistic nature) or images of Dionysus being crucified.All symbolic to the resurrection of the soul, to being and living a life that God would have you live.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So you consider me as an arrogant fool?

NONE OF US fully understand the scriptures or the words of God. Those who contend that they do are nothing more than arrogant fools who remove all doubt of their foolishness for even the most casual observer.

Well Energize, I didn't direct this statement at YOU and this should be clear by what I said. However, do you feel that you DO understand ALL of the scriptures?

The concept of "trinity" should be understood by those who promote it, don't you think? Else, the ones promoting it are made to look as if they don't know what they're talking about. Is that your statement, that you don't know what you're talking about?

They seem to have the concept down fine, it's you who seem to have the problem understanding it.

You said nothing in the scriptures condemn the invention of the trinity. The one God precept of rule would condemn it as stated many times in scripture and so the differences of interpretation should be brought out concerning the trinity; and so "letting it be" as a standing truth is an unfavorable position.

They invariably state that there is only "One God". Why can't you accept this?

I read the scriptures as men speaking for their god. The "mouth" of God seen in the prophets as they declared "thus saith the Lord". How do you know when they spoke truth or lies?

The Bible is written largely in Blog style. David committed murder AND adultery. OBVIOUSLY, this was written for us to learn from his mistakes and not to imitate him in this. So if you are telling me that we should follow everything written about in the Scriptures (Old and New), then we need to lie, cheat, murder, stone, commit adultery, yada, yada, yada! IOW, they present a BALANCED view of people learning about their God and about their own sinfulness. Nuthin' wrong with that!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Two quick ideas here on the resurrection of the dead. Things are not always as they seem , could "the dead are raised up" (1) be a refference to the spiritually dead ? The living dead so to say ? second it is known historically that in the ancient mystery religions (wich were everywhere during Christs life) that one of the steps or stages the initiated went through was a symbolic death and resurrection , much like modern day Christians being "born again". The difference is that in the Mystery religions you actually were laid down(as in a tomb) and went through a actual symbolic death and period of being dead , until you were "raised" from the dead to your new life . (2) Many scholars believe it is this process that Jesus was initiating lazarus in when he resurrected him. (3) In the ancient world there was also a belief that you had two selves a higher and a lower self (this is where the sign Gemini comes from , Castor and Pollux)and that only one of these selves could live at a time.The higher self represents the spiritual self , the self past the material , the self that is focused on living every moment as God would(what today would be reffered to as a "Christ conciousness")the lower self represented the animal nature of humanity , lustfull , selfish , shallow , not concerend with anything other than "getting yours".So the ressurection was symbolic of leaving that lower self behind and being born again into a life devoted to God .The first spiritual crucifixion images come way before the death of Christ to the ancient mystery religons, (4) where they usually show a man with the head of a donkey being crucified (showing the person letting go of there selfish animalistic nature) or images of Dionysus being crucified.All symbolic to the resurrection of the soul, to being and living a life that God would have you live.

Wow great post. I knew about Osiris and Horus dipicting similar features as the Madonna and child, but I didn't know about the crufixion of Dionysus. I know of only one image of the crucifixion of Dionysius. It simply is not enough evidence to conclude that the crufixion of Christ is somehow related.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/christmyth.html

Ok, the pic above is inverted to look like popular portraits of Jesus. from left to right in Greek you can see BAKKI translated Bachus/Baccus = Dionysus.

I have a normal pic here.

Here is the inscription from Rome:

It says "Alexamenos worships God." A google images search for "Alexamenos" will retreive several different colorations and articles. I agree that it depicts a person worshiping Jesus. Perhaps a slave in the household was a Christian and his fellows were poking fun at him.


(1) You will have to adopt a dichotomy or a trichotomy of humans to make this theory work, which you go on to do later in the paragraph. Instead of teaching that humans are body/soul or lower/higher self, or a trichotomy of body/soul/mind, I think that Jesus and his contemporaries had a Hebrew understanding of humans as being a living soul. That is, the body is all that there is. That's why bodily resurrection is so important. The body is very important - there is no such thing as spiritual resurrection because the body is the living spirit.

(2) Huh? Which ones? Do scholars actually believe that Jesus ressurrected Lazarus? If so, they are already in the minority.

(3) How does this relate to the Bible? Is there any proof that Jesus or his followers would adopt this understanding, independently of the resurrection stories?

 

[jewscout]

That's understood; for the Jewish concept of a Messiah was also a false ideology as old testament states no Messsiah beside God.

The Moshiach will be a son of David and will rule in Israel in the Messianic age
from the prophet Jeremiah

Behold, the days come, saith HaShem, that I will raise unto David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, HaShem is our righteousness.

In this, Jesus was eliminating heresy in its error, and re-inforcing established law given at Sinai "as it is written" in the law and prophet sayings.

then are you saying that Jesus was doing away w/ the Oral Torah and writings that would become the Talmud?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy,

There is only one resurrection. However, there is "a second death". "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to comel If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb.6:4-6)

Who were the "dead" raised-up while Christ was yet alive? Separate the 'body of Christ" from the man Jesus and you'll have the answer.

True there is only one ressurection to eternal life. It seems then that there needs to be another name/meaning for what happened to those who were raised from the dead and then died again, ie. Lazarus. Either their coming back to life or their subsequent dying again does not fit the concept of the ressurection unto eternal life or the death that is unto judgement.

 

[energize]

NetDoc

You are maybe spitting out of both sides of your mouth?

There is a rule of judgment as to what one should believe. You missed it I think. Try Isaiah to learn more about it.

As to the trinity, it doesn't fit any way you try to shove it down people's throats. I think most Christians merely accept it by "faith".

 

[energize]

True there is only one ressurection to eternal life. It seems then that there needs to be another name/meaning for what happened to those who were raised from the dead and then died again, ie. Lazarus. Either their coming back to life or their subsequent dying again does not fit the concept of the ressurection unto eternal life or the death that is unto judgement.

----------------------------

But scripture doesn't say that Lazarus died after he was raised up. Maybe the story of Lazarus is a metaphorical meaning, exampled as a parable. Otherwise, we have a 2000 year old zombie out there somewhere.

 

[energize]

JS

The Lord God, not Jesus, was accounted as their righteousness, their "HaShem". Those expectations were fulfilled in Jacob as the "seed" of promise. These were the days of the new covenant God made with Israel and with Judah. He put his laws in their hearts and minds - Jer. 31:31-34 also 32:38-40

The scripture reads of the new covenant being established with Judah and Israel, not any other people. And in OT days, before Jesus was born.

No, I'm not saying that Jesus did away with anything. He maintained covenants and laws and did not change these. His purpose was to divide the people in their obedience and disobedience. As a priest it was his obligation in judging transgressions per law already provided. Jesus was a legalist, a keeper of the laws and covenants. He also did not do away with animal sacrifice as he observed the passover in a slaughtered lamb.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You are maybe spitting out of both sides of your mouth?

Enough with the insults... ANSWER my question: Do you actually believe that you understand all scripture?

There is a rule of judgment as to what one should believe. You missed it I think. Try Isaiah to learn more about it.

That might work for legalists that choose to be under the law. I'll choose Freedom over the Law any day of the week!

II Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. NIV

As to the trinity, it doesn't fit any way you try to shove it down people's throats. I think most Christians merely accept it by "faith".

I don't ascribe to the "trinity", and neither do I teach it. Unlike yourself, I don't feel a need to debunk anything that God didn't see fit to debunk. Thanks for showing your complete ignorance of what I believe. And you claim to understand ALL of the scriptures when you don't even understand me?

 

[opensoul7]

Angellous,
great work with the pictures! I have just moved into my new home and unfortunatley almost all of my books are still packed away or at a relatives house. So if you all will bear with me a little longer I will be able to give more refference material . I have a book called the Jesus Mysteries wich is a researched comparison of the ancient mystery schools and Christianity . It was in this book that I had first seen the pictures you have , and read about the connection of these veins of religion.as far as your response to my post. 1.) just a idea , could Jesus have been refering to those whose spiritual life was stagnant or not in existance (i.e the spiritually dead)those who had fallen out of touch with God ? 2.) once again when I get my books together and unpacked I can give you names of scholars and researchers.There are Christian scholars who believe that Jesus actually ressurected lazarus.There are number that believe lazarus's resurection was the same as the mystery religions (not a real death and resurection but a symbolic one) 3.) also was taken from the Jesus mysteries , as there were rising and dying gods that were resurected whose stories were identical to Jesus's (some parts of the individual stories vary but the closeness of the whole is to much to just discount).also on three I believe that there would have been a understanding or knowledge of some of these religions by Jesus and his followers.Paul in paticular , even though he came later had a great effect on the outcome , interpretation , and spread of what became Christianity .Paul was a follower of Mithrias and a Roman , he was also one of the greatest persecutors of the early church and its followers.I have read that it has been put forth that paul was a roman spy sent to infiltrate the early church and destroy it.There is evidence to support this notion.Just wanted to try and write back before I hit the sack .y'all take care.

 

[energize]

Netdoc

Do I believe I understand ALL scripture? Yes, of course. YOU are the one proclaiming your ignorance of it.

As to the rule for judgment, you say it works for legalists that choose to be under the law, and you yourself have chosen not to be under the law and claim freedom from it. You thus declare yourself exempt from the law and exclude yourself from the kingdom of God. Jesus was a legalist and taught his disciples to be likewise as he was. Jesus changed nothing concerning covenants and laws established for his people Israel. And Jesus made testimony to those things.

God "debunked" the trinity in his commandment for the Jews to worship only him. Not a three part harmony sung to the tune of "trinity".

"To the law and to the testimony, if any bring other than these they have no light in them". This is the rule of judgment that you say you are free from.

I'm not sure you know what you believe. Want to tell me?

 

[jewscout]

JS

The Lord God, not Jesus, was accounted as their righteousness, their "HaShem". Those expectations were fulfilled in Jacob as the "seed" of promise. These were the days of the new covenant God made with Israel and with Judah. He put his laws in their hearts and minds - Jer. 31:31-34 also 32:38-40

The scripture reads of the new covenant being established with Judah and Israel, not any other people. And in OT days, before Jesus was born.

No, I'm not saying that Jesus did away with anything. He maintained covenants and laws and did not change these. His purpose was to divide the people in their obedience and disobedience. As a priest it was his obligation in judging transgressions per law already provided. Jesus was a legalist, a keeper of the laws and covenants. He also did not do away with animal sacrifice as he observed the passover in a slaughtered lamb.

New covenant? In the Jewish tradition there is 1 covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.

as far as Jesus as a priest judging...he was not a levite or a kohen therefore he was not a priest....secondly he was not a member of the Sanhedrin which meant in the context of Judaism he had no right to judge.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous,
great work with the pictures! I have just moved into my new home and unfortunatley almost all of my books are still packed away or at a relatives house. So if you all will bear with me a little longer I will be able to give more refference material . I have a book called the Jesus Mysteries wich is a researched comparison of the ancient mystery schools and Christianity . It was in this book that I had first seen the pictures you have , and read about the connection of these veins of religion.as far as your response to my post. 1.) just a idea , could Jesus have been refering to those whose spiritual life was stagnant or not in existance (i.e the spiritually dead)those who had fallen out of touch with God ? 2.) once again when I get my books together and unpacked I can give you names of scholars and researchers.There are Christian scholars who believe that Jesus actually ressurected lazarus.There are number that believe lazarus's resurection was the same as the mystery religions (not a real death and resurection but a symbolic one) 3.) also was taken from the Jesus mysteries , as there were rising and dying gods that were resurected whose stories were identical to Jesus's (some parts of the individual stories vary but the closeness of the whole is to much to just discount).also on three I believe that there would have been a understanding or knowledge of some of these religions by Jesus and his followers.Paul in paticular , even though he came later had a great effect on the outcome , interpretation , and spread of what became Christianity .Paul was a follower of Mithrias and a Roman , he was also one of the greatest persecutors of the early church and its followers.I have read that it has been put forth that paul was a roman spy sent to infiltrate the early church and destroy it.There is evidence to support this notion.Just wanted to try and write back before I hit the sack .y'all take care.

Sweet. Let's keep in touch.

Helmut Koester classified Christianity as a mystery religion. I agree.

Sure, the resurrection stories have coincidental congruencies with other resurrection stories, but a direct connection requires direct evidence.

What the heck are you talking about Paul being a Roman spy?! That does not match evidence in the NT like Phil 3.17, whose Pauline authorship is undisputed. You are reading some strange stuff.